In many Indonesian schools, the warning signs are not subtle. A student who suddenly withdraws, a once steady learner whose performance drops sharply, a pattern of absences that looks like indiscipline until it becomes persistent avoidance. Teachers are often the first adults outside a family to notice these shifts, yet schools are rarely equipped with a clear, workable system for what to do next.
The urgency is already visible in national and international data. Indonesia’s 2023 health survey factsheet reports that depression prevalence is highest among young people aged 15-24, and only a small fraction of those experiencing depression seek treatment. Meanwhile, a UNICEF story citing the 2022 National Adolescent Mental Health Survey reports that more than one in five adolescents has anxiety issues. Globally, the World Health Organization estimates that one in seven people aged 10-19 experiences a mental disorder, and suicide is the third leading cause of death among those aged 15-29.
In this context, the Indonesian government, via Ministry of Elementary and Secondary Education (Kemendikdasmen), has been moving toward a more school-based response, partly because specialist capacity is limited. Public discussion has long highlighted a severe shortage of guidance and counseling teachers (Guru Bimbingan dan Konseling [Guru BK]). For example, reports on a 2023 parliamentary hearing cite PB ABKIN’s estimate that Indonesia needs roughly 300.000 counselors under a 1:150 benchmark, while the current figure is around 58.000, implying a gap of about 242.000. When caseloads are that stretched, a school system that relies only on BK teachers for every form of student support becomes unrealistic.
Two recent policy directions try to address this constraint from different angles. The first is the Guru Wali (GW) role, a mentoring assignment attached to subject teachers at secondary level. Permendikdasmen No. 11/2025 describes GW as subject teachers tasked to provide ongoing academic mentoring and support for competence, skills, and character development, while collaborating with Guru BK and homeroom teachers (Wali Kelas). A Center for Standard and Education Policy (Pusat Standar dan Kebijakan Pendidikan, PSKP) policy study further frames GW as a longitudinal companion who follows students across their school journey, including attention to social-emotional dynamics and family context, with workload equivalence intended to recognize that mentoring work formally. This design matters because it aims to reduce the only see BK when there is a crisis pattern and shift schools toward preventive and continuous accompaniment.
The second direction is the 7 Jurus BK Hebat (7 JBH) program, which is meant to strengthen basic counseling capacity in a more engaging way, and not only among Guru BK. PSKP’s executive summary explicitly notes that 7 JBH is designed to reorganize how teachers, not only Guru BK, provide counseling in a way that is brief, focused, and interactive. Kemendikdasmen’s own communication has echoed the broader ambition. A May 2025 press statement quoted the minister saying that all teachers, beyond BK teachers, have a role as mentors and counselors for students, and that non-BK teachers would be trained to have counseling capabilities.
Substantively, 7 JBH is framed around seven core themes that are easy to remember and translate into school practice, they are; Kenali Potensi, Kelola Emosi, Tumbuhkan Resiliensi, Jaga Konsistensi, Jalin Koneksi, Bangun Kolaborasi, and Menata Situasi. In plain terms, the themes move from self-understanding and emotional regulation toward resilience, habits, relationships, collaboration, and shaping a healthier environment. This matters because it keeps the content close to the heart of counseling, yet packaged in a way that can fit real school time constraints.
Early evidence from PSKP’s October 2025 evaluation offers a useful reality check. On the positive side, the program is addressing a long-standing weakness in school counseling, namely sessions that feel one-way, monotonous, and detached from students’ actual lives. The PSKP study reports that many schools used the ARKA approach (Aktivitas, Refleksi, Konseptual, Aplikasi) to structure sessions and increase student participation, replacing lecture-heavy formats with more dialogic and practical engagement. In its policy recommendations chapter, the study notes that ARKA received positive responses because it was seen as more concise, participatory, meaningful, and relevant, and it encouraged innovation in how counseling was delivered in schools.
GW has its own early strengths. The same PSKP study finds that many schools responded quickly by issuing appointment letters, which is a necessary first step to make mentoring legally recognized and administratively possible. Some schools went further by setting a student ratio per mentor, developing SOPs, and scheduling regular meetings, which is closer to what a longitudinal support model requires. Conceptually, this arrangement can expand the front line of support so that students are not dependent on a small number of Guru BK, while Guru BK remains the specialist backbone for assessment, deeper counseling, and referrals.
Still, these strengths come with predictable challenges, and ignoring them risks turning a promising direction into another compliance exercise.
The first challenge is role clarity, including boundaries. When policies expand counseling responsibilities beyond BK teachers, the system must be explicit about what basic counseling means for non-specialists. Teachers can listen, notice patterns, conduct structured check-ins, and support help-seeking. They cannot be expected to replace clinical services, handle complex trauma alone, or act as therapists. The PSKP study shows how ambiguity emerges in practice. In many schools, GW was initially understood as an administrative label rather than a defined mentoring practice with schedules, documentation, and collaboration routines. Where boundaries are unclear, students get inconsistent support, and teachers face anxiety about making mistakes.
The second challenge is time, workload recognition, and institutional support. A mentoring model fails when it is added on top of existing teaching loads without protected time. Permendikdasmen’s workload equivalence is a start, yet PSKP’s early findings show that schools often issued appointment letters without aligning schedules, workload calculations, and SOPs, which made implementation uneven and hard to monitor. The same pattern appears on the 7 JBH side. PSKP notes that 7 JBH early implementation learning was not always supported and institutionalized within schools, leaving facilitators struggling to socialize practices and translate training into routine.
The third challenge is monitoring and local governance. A school-based mental health response needs feedback loops that improve quality, not just activity counts. PSKP highlights coordination problems, unclear division of roles across institutions, and limited supporting budgets as reasons monitoring was not optimal in early implementation. This is a practical, not theoretical, obstacle. Without workable monitoring, good schools become isolated success stories and struggling schools repeat the same errors.
The fourth challenge is the referral pathway, which is often the missing bridge. Expanding basic counseling capacity increases detection of student distress, but detection without referral can backfire. When teachers and mentors identify serious risk, there must be a clear route to professional services and child protection mechanisms. Kemendikdasmen’s own framing places guru wali in synergy with anti-violence mechanisms and BK services, but this must be translated into local agreements and concrete procedures. Otherwise, schools are left holding cases they cannot responsibly manage.
Taken together, GW and 7 JBH point to a coherent policy logic. The system is trying to widen the circle of adult support in schools and modernize counseling practice so it is more engaging, preventive, and embedded in daily school life, rather than reactive and crisis-driven. That direction deserves recognition, especially in a setting where counselor shortages are severe and adolescent mental health needs are rising.
At the same time, early evidence suggests that the next phase will be determined by implementation design, not slogans. Clear boundaries for non-specialists, protected time and workload recognition, simple and meaningful monitoring, and functioning referral pathways are the difference between a school-based safety net and an additional layer of paperwork. A realistic roadmap for strengthening the BK workforce remains essential too, because expanded basic counseling should complement, not substitute, specialist capacity.
Indonesia’s schools are being asked to respond to adolescent mental health in a more serious way. The policy direction is increasingly visible. The harder work now is to make the system dependable, so that when a student reaches for help, the response is consistent, humane, and anchored in clear roles that schools can actually deliver.
Editor: Ikrima
