The discontinuation of Indonesia’s national examination and its replacement by a sampled, low-stakes National Assessment represents the most significant assessment reform in decades, yet schools continue to prepare students for an instrument that produces
Keywords:
assessment policy, classroom assessment, educational accountability, National Assessment, purpose validityAbstract
The discontinuation of Indonesia’s national examination and its replacement by a sampled, low-stakes National Assessment represents the most significant assessment reform in decades, yet schools continue to prepare students for an instrument that produces no individual results while the classroom capability the reform presupposes remains undeveloped. This study aims to examine the purposes the reconstructed framework assigns to its components, to identify the conditions under which system-level diagnostic information changes school practice, and to formulate the reconstruction required for the reform to achieve its aims. The research applies qualitative document analysis with a normative orientation, examining the National Education System Law, national education standards, and ministerial regulations on the National Assessment, assessment standards, process standards, and prior examination arrangements, analysed through the purpose-validity framework alongside scholarship on high-stakes testing, assessment for learning, and system evaluation design. The findings show that purposes are separated more coherently than under the previous arrangement but that the selection function is left largely ungoverned, producing a proliferation of ad hoc instruments; that informal accountability stakes have migrated to the diagnostic instrument, reproducing the distortion the reform was meant to remove; and that the vacated classroom space requires diagnostic assessment capability never developed under the examination regime. The article recommends collaborative moderation as the primary implementation investment, explicit governance of selection, deliberate protection of the diagnostic instrument, and redefinition of supervision toward interpretive support.
References
Black, Paul, and Dylan Wiliam. “Assessment and Classroom Learning.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 5, no. 1 (1998): 7–74.
Bowen, Glenn A. “Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method.” Qualitative Research Journal 9, no. 2 (2009): 27–40.
Campbell, Donald T. “Assessing the Impact of Planned Social Change.” Evaluation and Program Planning 2, no. 1 (1979): 67–90.
Darling-Hammond, Linda, Maria E. Hyler, and Madelyn Gardner. Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute, 2017.
Fullan, Michael. The New Meaning of Educational Change. 5th ed. New York: Teachers College Press, 2016.
Hattie, John. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. London: Routledge, 2009.
Koretz, Daniel. Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.
Koretz, Daniel. The Testing Charade: Pretending to Make Schools Better. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017.
Newton, Paul E. “Clarifying the Purposes of Educational Assessment.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 14, no. 2 (2007): 149–170.
Nichols, Sharon L., and David C. Berliner. Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing Corrupts America’s Schools. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press, 2007.
OECD. PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023.
OECD. Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2013.
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 43 Tahun 2019 tentang Penyelenggaraan Ujian yang Diselenggarakan Satuan Pendidikan dan Ujian Nasional.
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Nomor 17 Tahun 2021 tentang Asesmen Nasional.
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Nomor 16 Tahun 2022 tentang Standar Proses.
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Nomor 21 Tahun 2022 tentang Standar Penilaian Pendidikan.
Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 57 Tahun 2021 tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan sebagaimana diubah dengan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 4 Tahun 2022.
Sadler, D. Royce. “Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems.” Instructional Science 18, no. 2 (1989): 119–144.
Stiggins, Richard J. “Assessment Crisis: The Absence of Assessment FOR Learning.” Phi Delta Kappan 83, no. 10 (2002): 758–765.
Tyack, David, and Larry Cuban. Tinkering toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.
Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2003 tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional.
Wiliam, Dylan. Embedded Formative Assessment. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press, 2011.
World Bank. The State of Global Learning Poverty: 2022 Update. Washington: World Bank, 2022.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 David Nwanna Dumbiri, Ingah Maulana
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
