Journal of Teaching and Education,

CD-ROM. ISSN: 2165-6266 :: 1(3):85–90 (2012)

Copyright c 2012 by UniversityPublications.net

THE CONTEXTS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING AT PRIMARY

LEVEL IN INDONESIA

Mochamad Subhan Zein

The Australian National University, Australia

In Indonesia the considerable investment on primary English instruction is confronted with acute
shortage of qualified teaching professionals, necessitating the training of a large pool of primary school
English teachers (Chodidjah, 2008b; Zein, 2009). This paper examines the educational and socio-
political contexts in which English education at primary level is situated. It launches by briefly
discussing the conflict for space in linguistic ecosystem between English on the one hand and
Indonesian and local languages on the other hand. It further continues with the place of English in the
curriculum and a discussion on the on-going debate on its status in primary schooling timetable. The
paper argues that the extent to which teachers perform their occupational roles is affected in one way or
the other by the interplay of these factors. Understanding of the contexts is essential to adequately frame
a policy proposal on teacher education for English teachers in primary schools In Indonesia. As
Ferguson (1977, p. 9) states “all language planning activities take place in particular sociolinguistic
settings, and the nature and scope of the planning can only be fully understood in relation to the
settings”.

Keywords: English teachers, Language planning and policy, Primary level education, Teacher
education.

Introduction

In Indonesia English has been a local content subject to primary school students in Year 4, 5, and 6 for
almost two decades, as stipulated by The Decree of Ministry of Education and Culture No. 60/1993. The
status as a local content subject basically means: 1) the society in which the school is located requires it;
2) the school meets certain qualifications such as the availability of the teachers and the facilities to
accommodate teaching-learning activities. Despite the status, a resurgence of the role of English in
Indonesian contemporary society results in the decision to drift down the age to which English instruction
is offered, allowing primary school children from Year 1 to benefit from early instruction. While the
demand for qualified Primary School English Teachers (PSET) has continuously increased over the past
few years, the considerable investment on primary English instruction is confronted with acute shortage
of qualified, proficient, and competent teaching professionals.
In light of this view, Chodidjah (2008b) and Zein (2009) have called for the training of a large pool
of teachers to meet the acute shortage. However, “all language planning activities take place in particular
sociolinguistic settings, and the nature and scope of the planning can only be fully understood in relation
to the settings” (Ferguson, 1977, p. 9). The continuously increasing advocacy for a policy on educating
Primary School English Teachers (PSET) cannot be perfectly understood without an adequate framework


85
86 Mochamad Subhan Zein

of the various contexts in which the policy is situated. Three aspects pertinent to the discussion of the
paper are the constant conflict for linguistic space between English on the one hand and Indonesian and
local languages on the other hand; the place of English in primary schools; and its status in the
curriculum.

English Vis a Vis Indonesian and Local Languages

English is in constant competition for space in the linguistic ecosystem with Indonesian language and 735
local languages spread throughout 17, 767 islands across the archipelago. Strong censorship to English
once took place in the 1990s when a political propaganda for maximizing the use of Indonesian as the
national language gained its peak of popularity. The search for a national identity was perceived a
plausible argument for promoting Indonesian, resulting in the banning of English in public domains and
the negligence of the economical use of local languages.
An increasing interest in English is however currently most prevalent in various spectrums and
societal domains. Popular view in Indonesia associates the language with economical values. Billboard
advertisements as well as TV and radio ads frequently use English phrases and words, while selection
criteria of well-paid jobs as listed in newspaper classifieds show that English proficiency is essential.
Scholars such as Alwi (2001) and Rosidi (2004) point out that the prevalence of English in Indonesia
might have detrimental effects on the decline use of Indonesian and the way it is spoken.
It is argued that the decline of the use of local languages in Indonesia has been subject to the
predominant use of Indonesian as the national language (Alwi, 2001; Rosidi, 2001, 2004), yet it is worth
noting that the resurgence of English may also play a role. It would remain imprudent if concern of how
English may adversely affect the role of local languages in a localized context economic development is
neglected. The concern finds its ground especially in primary schools located in remote areas where
English is introduced as a local content subject, thus leaving their own local language untaught. In such
schools the importance of English takes place in its introduction in the timetable but the potential roles of
local languages for localized development are often denied.

English in the Primary Schools

Perceived as a significant determinant for future success in global competition, a growing awareness of
the importance of English materializes in schools’ decision to drift down the age to which English
instruction is offered, from Year 4 to Year 1. According to The Decree of Ministry of National Education
No. 22/2006 about The Structure of National Curriculum, English as a local content subject in primary
schools is delivered once a week, consisting of 2x35 minutes per lesson. The length of English
instruction, however, is subject to the status of the school. More prestigious schools such as the model
schools and SBIs have usually stronger focus on English instruction than public primary schools. In SBIs,
in particular, English instruction takes place in two streams: 1) English as a medium of instruction; and 2)
English as a subject. The former means that English is used to teach Math and Science, while the latter
prescribes English as a subject with the total amount of instruction of up to 4x35 minutes/week. No
specific figures are available to depict the number of schools that have decided to offer English
instruction, but it seems that almost all primary schools in cities and suburban areas and some in rural
areas have managed to start English instruction (Chodidjah 2008a).
The graduate attributes of English instruction at primary level are formulized in the form of
Graduates Competency Standards (Standar Kompetensi Lulusan-henceforth SKL) prescribed by the
government in the Decree of Ministry of National Education No. 23/2006 about SKL. It places a great
emphasis on what students are expected to know, to behave, and to do through a continuous process in
order to become competent in particular skills (Departemen, 2006).
 The Contexts of English Language Teaching at Primary Level in Indonesia 87

The outcomes are formulized as following:

1. Listening
To understand instructions, information, and simple stories through conversations within the
context of classroom, schools, and the neighborhood.
2. Speaking
To verbally express the meaning of simple interpersonal and transactional discourses in the form
of instructions and information within the context of classroom, schools, and the neighborhood.
3. Reading
To be able to read aloud and understand the meaning of the instructions and information as
presented in short and simple functional, descriptive, and pictorial texts within the context of
classroom, schools, and the neighborhood.
4. Writing
To be able to write words, phrases, and short functional texts with correct spelling and proper
punctuation.
The execution of SKL is however largely dependent on the efficacy of the teachers in implementing
the Curriculum Developed at the School Level (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan-henceforth
KTSP). As stipulated by the Act No. 20/2003 about National Education System and The Government
Law No. 19/2005 about National Education Standard, schools in primary and secondary levels are
required to implement a curriculum that is locally designed and enacted called KTSP. The curriculum is a
revolutionary policy directive which marks a significant departure from previous practice. The previous
practice is that both the curriculum and syllabus were centrally developed by The Center of Curriculum of
the Ministry of National Education (Pusat Kurikulum-henceforth PusKur). Currently classroom
practitioners are expected to collaborate to develop a set of instructional guidelines and objectives which
have to conform to SKL.
The implementation of KTSP as a decentralization measure has nonetheless been a subject of wider
debate. Since the authority over the actual design and implementation of the new curriculum is presently
concentrated at the school level, teachers become those whose job descriptions were most directly
affected (Bjork, 2003). As a result, PSETs are now encouraged to experiment with innovative pedagogies
designed to enliven instruction and are given the responsibility to act as educational leaders and decision
makers in the selection and shaping of the new KTSP curriculum.

The Status of English in Primary Schools

As mentioned earlier, the interest in English teaching in primary schools is vastly growing. Various
research have reported that parents would only send their children to study in a school that offers English
instruction, while the local offices of the Ministry of National Education authorized primary school
principals of schools that do not teach English to offer English instruction for prestige reason. Yet the
strong demand from parents and the community for the inclusion of English into primary education
timetable cannot be kept up with the availability of qualified English teachers. Studies conducted by
Ernidawati (2002), Susanto (1998), Suyanto & Chodidjah (2002), Suyanto (2010), Nizar (2004),
Agustina, et. al (1997) have suggested that current PSETs are unreliable language model and are
methodologically incompetent.
Such situation is unfortunately jeopardized by the unavailability of specific teacher training provided
for this pool of teachers. Classroom teachers are appointed civil servants by the government because the
subjects they teach such as Indonesian Language and Math are compulsory in the curriculum. This pool
of teachers enjoys full salary and is eligible for training conducted by the government. English teachers,
on the contrary, are adversely affected by the current policy. They cannot be a civil servant because their
subject is optional. As a result, not only they are not entitled to full remuneration, but also they cannot
receive on-going professional development programs.
88 Mochamad Subhan Zein

A proposal to establish compulsory English in primary schools in lieu of local content subject has
been raised by Huda (2001), Lestari (2003), and Zein (2008, 2009). The inclusion of compulsory English
into primary schooling curriculum is expected to provide an answer to both the weak status of English
and the teachers. Moreover, the alteration of their status will impact on the improvement of their welfare
and professionalism. Teachers are given full salary they deserve and are entitled to provision of in-service
teacher training programs provided by the government.

Where to From Here?

The discussion above has pointed out that the contexts of primary school English teaching is enmeshed by
a number of various issues including status, socio-linguistics, and curricular. First and foremost, political
will of the government to establish compulsory English in primary education is of great necessity.
Without a compulsory status, it is unlikely that English teachers are appointed civil servants. They would
remain non-civil servants unless the status of the subject is changed. If this persists, PSETs would
probably receive less benefits and entitlements to that of their civil servant counterparts.
When decision has been made on the inclusion of English as a compulsory subject in primary
schooling education, teachers could benefit from policy initiative on teacher education. Policymakers and
researchers working on the policy should however remain aware of the sociolinguistics situation in
Indonesia. Sociolinguistically speaking, the rise of English in the contemporary Indonesian society is
positive as mastery of the language is gearing to higher opportunity for future success and global
competition. However, it would be imprudent if the promotion of English causes a denial to the potential
role of indigenous languages for localized development needs. As Zein (2010, p. 93) argues, the
projection of language planning and policy in Indonesia is “to maintain the vernaculars, while by the
same token develop the spread of the national language of Indonesia”. Without denying the increasing
promotion of English currently occurring in society, policy initiatives should enable the alignment of
these languages with English to contribute to economic development.
While promoting English to the children remains teachers’ main duty, the effort needs not neglect
the roles of the local languages and Indonesian language. The teaching of a foreign language may in fact
benefit from the inclusion of children’s mother tongue. PSETs should be educated in a way that enables
them to utilize the first language of the students, be it a local language or Indonesian.
When it comes to curriculum enactment, the roles exerted by teachers should first be clarified.
A study by Bharati & Suwandi (2006) suggests that although teachers had been given more
autonomy in curriculum design and decision making, they had not changed their mindset and had not
been able to keep up with the rate of change in the newly introduced policy initiative. While the
immediate environments in which teachers worked offered little evidence that being autonomous
deserved serious consideration, often peer pressure is high and is detrimental to professional duties.
In order to prevent teachers from resisting opportunities to increase their autonomy bestowed upon
them conducive situations should be established and cultural professions should be altered. This is
necessary for teachers to intensify their autonomy and authority in the schools in implementing KTSP.
Such issue is best tackled by a teaching preparatory course that equips them with skills and attitudes
required to accomplish this professional transformation.

Conclusion

The resurgence of English has created significant impacts such as schools’ decision to drift down the age
to which English is offered. The political will from the government to raise the status of English is a
necessity for developing a policy initiative for educating English teachers in primary schools. The policy
initiative should further best consider contexts in which the policy is situated, thus taking into account the
sociolinguistic aspect of Indonesia as well as the enactment of the KTSP curriculum. Of the primary
 The Contexts of English Language Teaching at Primary Level in Indonesia 89

objectives of the policy initiative is a teacher education which enables teachers to fully develop their skills
to accomplish their professional transformation as a curriculum designer at the local level while
exercising the utilization of both local languages and Indonesian for teaching English. The extent to
which teachers perform their occupational roles is affected in one way or the other by the interplay of
factors embedded in the context of primary school English education. This creates the inevitable urgency
for preparing teachers becoming aware of these factors. A strong contingent of teaching cadre who are
professionally trained as English teachers in primary schools are essential but this may only be a political
rhetoric without such advocacy.

References

1. Agustina, R. T., Rahayu, S., & Murti, T. (1997). Pelaksanaan pengajaran Bahasa Inggris di Sekolah Dasar.
Ilmu Pendidikan, 24(2), 187–196.
2. Alwi, H. (2001). Kebijakan bahasa daerah. In Sugono, D. & Zaidan, A. R. (Eds.). Bahasa daerah dan otonomi
daerah (pp. 38–47). Jakarta: Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa Departemen Pendidikan Nasional.
3. Bharati, D. A. L. & Suwandi. (2006). UAN and its relevance to the New Curriculum, KTSP. Paper presented at
the 54th TEFLIN International Conference, Salatiga, 1-3 December 2006.
4. Bjork, C. (2003). Local responses to decentralization policy in Indonesia. Comparative Education Review,
47(2), 184–216.
5. Chodidjah, I. (2008a). Scrutinizing the teaching of English in primary schools in East Asian Asian countries.
Paper presented at the ASIA TEFL International Conference 2008, Bali, 1-3 August 2008.
6. Chodidjah, I. (2008b). English in primary school: Gem in the mud in Indonesia. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Teaching English to Your Learners, 4-7 January 2008, Bangalore, India.
7. Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. (2006). Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional No. 23 Tahun 2006
Tentang Standar Kompetensi Lulusan Satuan Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah.
8. Ernidawati, T. (2002). The teaching and learning English at the elementary schools at SDNP Malang and
SDNP Sei Petani Medan. Unpublised MA thesis. Graduate program in English Department at State University
of Malang.
9. Ferguson, C. A. (1977). Sociolinguistic settings of language planning. In. Rubin, J. Jernudd, B. H. Das Gupta,
J. Fishman, J. A. (Eds.) (1973). Language planning processes, (pp. 9–29) The Hague: Mouton Publishers.
10. Huda, N. (1994). The teaching of English in primary schools: Issues and problems. TEFLIN Journal, 6, 82–90.
11. Huda, N. (2001). A lecture on Teaching English to Young Learners at Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas
Negeri Malang, 10 April 2001.
12. Lestari, L. A. (2003). Should English be a compulsory subject in the primary schools?, Jurnal Bahasa dan
Seni, 31(2), 197–213.
13. Nizar, H. (2004). EFL teachers’ performance at the elementary schools: A case study of three elementary
schools in the city of Bandung. Unpublished MA thesis. English Education Department Graduate School
Indonesian University of Education Bandung.
14. Rosidi, A. (2001). Bahasa Indonesia bahasa kita: Sekumpulan karangan. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor.
15. Rosidi, A. (2004). Masa depan budaya daerah: Kasus bahasa dan sejarah Sunda. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.
16. Susanto. (1998). Pelaksanaan Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris sebagai Muatan Lokal di Sekolah Dasar. Media
Pendidikan dan Ilmu Pengetahuan, 21(2), 139–155.
17. Suyanto, K. K. E. (2010). Teaching English as Foreign Language to Young Learners. Jakarta: State University
of Malang.
 90 Mochamad Subhan Zein

18. Suyanto, K. E., & Chodidjah, I. (2002). The teaching of English in primary schools: The policy,
implementation, and future direction. Paper presented at the 50th TEFLIN International Conference, Surabaya,
29–31 October 2002.
19. Zein, M. S. (2008). Making English compulsory in Indonesian primary schools: Challenges and advantages.
Paper presented at the 5th ASIA TEFL International Conference, Bali, 1-3 August 2008.
20. Zein, M. S. (2009). Introducing English as a compulsory subject in primary schools in Indonesia: Teachers’
and educational practitioners’ beliefs about the benefits and challenges. Unpublished masters’ degree thesis.
MA TESOL and FLT, University of Canberra.
21. Zein, M. S. (2010). Is Indonesia a battlefield of linguistic survival? Language spread vs. language maintenance.
In Zein, M. S. (Ed.), Contribution matters: Insights of Indonesian students in Australia (pp. 62–104). Ciputat:
Aura Publisher.

View publication stats