*(Once Again) Regarding Non-ASN Teachers:*
_Waiting for 2027, Forced to Survive Without a Livelihood Today?_
By:
*Masduki Duryat*
_(Deputy Chairman of the Indramayu Regency Education Council)_
There is an almost undeniable irony in our current education governance: the state promised to eliminate the term non-ASN teacher by 2027, but at the same time “cut off” their income in 2026.
On the one hand, Law No. 20 of 2023 concerning ASN brings great hope of ending the uncertain status of non-ASN teachers through the PPPK scheme or other mechanisms. However, on the other hand, the implementation of its derivative policies, including Circular Letter of the Ministry of Elementary and Secondary Education No. 7 of 2026, actually reveals a serious policy gap regarding the livelihood of these teachers.
The fundamental question is simple yet poignant: how can teachers be expected to continue teaching with high professionalism if the state has not yet guaranteed their continued income?
*Schools Need, the State Delays*
The reality on the ground shows that the need for non-civil servant teachers is not merely supplementary, but rather the backbone of public school operations. The increasing number of study groups (rombel), the increasing number of students, and the strong public preference for public schools (state-minded) have led to a growing need for teachers.
However, the number of available civil servant teachers is never sufficient to meet this need. Therefore, schools—despite their limitations—recruit non-civil servant teachers as a pragmatic solution. Ironically, when this solution is effective, the state instead introduces regulations that limit their freedom of movement, without providing adequate alternatives.
From an educational management perspective, this demonstrates a lack of synchronization between demand (the real needs of schools) and supply policy (the state’s teacher provision policy) (Tilaar, 2012).
*BOS: From Solution to Problem*
To date, many public schools have relied on BOS funds to provide honorariums to non-ASN teachers. Practically, this has been a solution to maintain the continuity of learning. However, state financial oversight policies—including inspectorate findings—have transformed this practice into a legal-administrative issue.
The use of BOS funds for honorariums for non-ASN teachers is now often considered a violation, even resulting in the obligation to return the funds to the regional treasury. This means that school principals are faced with a classic dilemma:
First, pay non-ASN teachers for the sake of learning continuity, but risk violating regulations;
Second, comply with the regulations, but sacrifice the quality of educational services.
This is where the state seems to be absent in providing transitional solutions. Policies exist, but are not operational. Regulations are firm, but not adaptive to reality.
*SE No. 7/2026: Good Intentions Unfulfilled*
SE Kemendikbud No. Law No. 7/2026 actually has a spirit that deserves appreciation, particularly in preventing corruption and controlling gratuities in the new student admissions system. However, in the context of non-ASN teachers, there are clauses that do not fully address fundamental issues.
First, not all non-ASN teachers receive incentives from the central government, especially those who are not yet certified. Second, regional governments are given the freedom to allocate income according to their fiscal capacity, but in reality, many regions have not done so.
As a result, policy imbalances arise: First, non-ASN teachers are still required to work full-time; Second, schools still need them; and Third, the state has not yet ensured a decent and reliable source of income.
In public policy theory, this condition is referred to as an implementation deficit—when a policy is normatively sound, but fails in implementation due to a lack of adequate instruments (Grindle, 1980).
*Non-ASN Teachers: Between Devotion and Exploitation*
If examined more deeply, this issue is not merely administrative, but also ethical. Non-ASN teachers are in a vulnerable position: they serve, but are unprotected; they are needed, but not properly appreciated.
In many cases, they continue to teach despite unclear honorariums, even months late. This is no longer simply dedication, but potentially a form of structural exploitation legalized by the system.
In fact, from an educational perspective, the quality of learning is largely determined by teacher welfare (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Teachers who are not prosperous can hardly be expected to consistently produce high-quality learning.
*An Urgent Middle Way*
Facing this situation, the state cannot wait until 2027 to act. Concrete and implementable transitional policies are needed. Several strategic steps that can be considered include:
First, Limited Legalization of the Use of BOS (School Operational Assistance). Providing temporary policy space so that BOS funds can be used in a limited and controlled manner a national non-ASN teacher honorarium, with a clear accountability mechanism;
Second, the National Non-Certification Incentive Scheme. The central government needs to expand the scope of incentives for non-ASN teachers, not only those who are certified, but also those who are actively teaching and needed by schools;
Third, Mandatory Regional Fiscal Intervention. Regional governments should not simply be “given the option,” but should be encouraged through stricter regulations to allocate budgets for non-ASN teachers;
Fourth, the National Database of Teacher Needs. Synchronize data on actual teacher needs in schools with ASN/PPPK recruitment policies to avoid structural gaps.
*Closing the Policy Gap*
Ultimately, the issue of non-ASN teachers today reflects the state’s failure to manage the policy transition period. We are too focused on designing the future (the 2027 appointment scenario), but neglect to ensure sustainability today.
If this situation continues, it’s possible that the quality of education will decline before the civil service reforms are truly implemented.
The state must immediately close this “policy gap.” Education cannot wait, and teachers—in whatever capacity—cannot live on promises.**
Indramayu, May 30, 2026
——
