According to historical records, following the independence of the Republic of Indonesia, the Dutch language was replaced by English as the first foreign language, and has been recognized as such in Indonesia since 1955. Globalization brings about an increase in international competition. The mastery of science and technology becomes the key to winning the competition. For that reason, English should function as an instrument of applying and advancing science and technology to accelerate the developmental process. Furthermore, in the era of globalization, English plays a key role in many areas including economics, politics, culture, communication and education. Though the status of English in Indonesia is a foreign language, English is one of the most favorite foreign languages used and taught at schools. It has been taught from primary school to university level. Recently, the introduction of International Designated Rating Schools (Rintisan Sekolah Bertaraf Internasional) and International Rating Schools (Sekolah Bertaraf International) across provinces of Indonesia has led to the significant growing interest of school students to learn English. The impact of language and education policy to those International Rating schools in Indonesia has also changed the mindset of parents and children towards the importance of English language mastery in this modern era. Furthermore, it can be argued that the presence of International Rating Schools have gradually changed the image of Indonesian people against the discrimination and domination of English language teaching and use which used to be centralized in only particular big cities in Indonesia. This paper, therefore, will discuss the impact of language education policy towards the use of English as instructional language in International Designated Rating Schools (RSBI) in Central Sulawesi Province.
Key Words: Language Policy, International Language, Globalization, International Rating Schools, language learning, Instructional Language.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the teaching and use of a global language, English, in Indonesia has dominated language education. In addition, the presence of English as a compulsory subject in many Asian countries has brought great advantages to education because it provides the students with access to global information and knowledge of Science and Technology. As a result, providing an opportunity to learn and use English has become very popular in many schools. In Indonesia itself, English is currently being taught from primary school level to university level. Moreover, English is being used as an instructional language in many formal and non-formal educational institutions.
Most parents want their children to have a Good command of English, in addition to the learning of other foreign languages. This desire on the part of parents has dominated language education in Indonesian schools in addition to the prominence of English as the major foreign language in language education study programs. English is introduced as a mandatory subject in Indonesian schools.
The emergences of International Rating Schools and Designated International Rating Schools from Lower Secondary Schools (SMP) to Upper Secondary Schools (SLA) across Provinces of Indonesia have brought significant influence to the Status and Function of English in Schools. English has become one of the most important foreign languages in Indonesia formal educational settings.
Like in many other provinces of Indonesia, the presence of Designated International rating Schools (RASBI) in Central Sulawesi have been enthusiastically responded by educational stakeholders particularly parents, students and teachers. English has been introduced as instructional language in both Designated International rating Schools and International Rating Schools as well. This paper, therefore, will discuss the following issues such as the Historical Background, the prospect of National Language Policy, Language in Education Implementation, English as a Global Language and its Impact, the Status and Function of English in Indonesia in a Globalization Era, the Emergence of International Rating Schools in Indonesia, and the Promotion of English in International Rating Schools.
The Historical Background
Language policy and education in Indonesia cannot be separated from the nation’s historical background dating back to the 1940s and 1950s. The following sections present relevant issues based on Indonesia’s historical background and include the development of language policy in the early years of independence of the Republic of Indonesia.
Language Policy, 1945-1950
On August 17, 1945 Soekarno and Hatta proclaimed the independence of the Republic of Indonesia and announced that Bahasa Indonesia would be the national language of the Republic (Anwarr, 1980, p.50). On November 6, 1945 Lieutenant Governor-General Van Mook of the Dutch administration announced that the Indonesian language would be further developed so that it could be used in all segments of social, cultural and economic life. “There would be full recognition of the Indonesian language alongside the Dutch” (Officiële bescheiden, 1971: p.590).
On September 28, 1945 a few moderate Indonesians, including Hoesein Djajadiningrat, a former member of the council of the Dutch East Indies and Director of Department of Education, presented to C.O. van der Plas, arguments for the recognition of Bahasa Indonesia as a language of equal status with Dutch. Bahasa Indonesia was subsequently declared the second official language alongside Dutch and strong efforts would be made to promote the knowledge of Dutch as the important international language (Officiële bescheiden 1, 1971, 257,326,475,590).
In July-August 1947 a new school curriculum was introduced. The new curriculum was accepted without amendments by E. Katopo, Minister of Education of the State of East Indonesia. Expectations were that within a short time the plan would be accepted and introduced in other federal states as well (Post 1948, p.492-505).
The new language policy aimed to promote the learning of Dutch as well as Indonesian at all levels of society and it is hardly surprising that no agreement could be reached in the negotiations on the Republic held after the Renville Treaty of January 1948, under the supervision of the united state of Indonesia. The Republicans proposed the following language policy on March 23, 1948:
Stipulating that Bahasa Indonesia as the official language of the united states of Indonesia and the member states shall be in the opportunity of cultivating their own local languages (Javanese, Sundanese, Makassare etc.) side by side with Bahasa Indonesia, whilst adequate interest shall be paid to the Dutch language as the language of the Indonesian citizens that are of Dutch origin, and the language of a Partner in the Union. (Officiële bescheiden 13, 1986, p.278).
After 1950, primary and secondary education with Dutch as the language of instruction was conducted only by private schools managed by the Foundation for Dutch Education in Indonesia. In the middle of 1951 the 66 primary schools managed by this Foundation had an enrolment of almost 10,000 students, more than three quarters of whom were children of Dutch people.
By the 1970s, although Dutch was no longer a living language in Indonesia in the true sense of the term, many indigenous elites who grew up with Dutch and were educated in Dutch, still enjoyed speaking Dutch informally among themselves (Tanner 1972, p. 137), or a sort of hybrid language of Bahasa Indonesia and Dutch sprinkled with English words and expressions (Suprapto 1989, p. 311-12). Even today, Dutch still functions as a prestigious language in some parts of Indonesia, as evidence that a person had a good education and belonged to the social elite. Dutch remains an important so-called source language in Indonesia and Dutch retains its role as a key to the Indonesian past. Dutch in other words, as a detour, was and still is a “Gateway to the West,” where the road makes a wide loop, ending “the Gate way to the east” (Groenboer, 1998).
The Prospect of National Language Policy
According to Halim (1998) the National Language Policy refers to the national policy including planning, standardizing, educating, developing the Indonesian language and the local languages. Alwi et al. (2000) argued that the national language policy was associated with the outlines which were used as a standard in the whole language management in Indonesia. Furthermore, the language policy in Indonesia was associated with (a) national language, (b) local language, and (c) the teaching and use of English and other foreign languages.
Halim (1998, p.133) suggested that the aspect that should be considered in relation to the national language policy was sustainability in the sense of a systematic and strategic national language policy. Abas (1987), however, suggested that sustainability in the national language policy should be considered because this problem might become the weakness of the national language policy in the education and development of local languages, and the teaching of foreign languages including English in Indonesia.
The Purpose of Teaching English
In order to develop modern science and technology for the advancement of Indonesia, the need for learning English has been increasingly recognised during recent years. On December 12, 1967, the Minister of Education issued Decree No 096/1967, stipulating English as the first foreign language to be taught in Indonesian schools (Pusat Pembinaan & Pengembangan Bahasa, 1984: p.126). Alwasilah (1997, p.89) reported that:
Since the Independence of Indonesia in 1945, English has been formally taught only from the secondary level to the university level. However, in anticipation of political, economic, educational and cultural globalisation, the Government of Indonesia introduced the 1989 National Education Law which required that English should be taught in primary schools beginning at Grade 4.
As a result, most parents have enthusiastically encouraged their children to learn English. Today, English is not only taught in formal education but also in non-formal educational institutions, such as private English schools which have mushroomed, especially in the major cities of Indonesia. Many students learn English both in formal education and in non-formal education.
When English was taught only at the higher levels of education, the teachers used traditional methods of English Language Teaching (ELT) through the teaching of translating, reading, listening and speaking. The teachers often focused on the teaching of grammar, imparting knowledge to the students. Thus, teachers largely dominated the classroom during the learning and teaching process. Then in 1984, the Indonesian Ministry of Education introduced a new English curriculum with a communicative approach that encouraged the active participation of students in their learning process. Students are now given greater opportunities to practise English conversation. In this way, the focus of teaching English has changed from grammar to use in practice, and also the teaching style has changed from a teacher-centred approach to a more learner-centred approach.
Language in Education Implementation
A number of issues need to be examined as part of any language in an education implementation program. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) argued that once education policy had been determined, each area of policy development for the implementation of language policy might develop differently in a particular nation and depended on how that nation’s education system operated.
Curriculum Policy
The education sector has to turn its attention to a whole range of curricular issues once it has determined which languages are to be taught and also which are not to be taught (Corson, 1990; Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997).
The space in the curriculum and the amount of time in the school day allocated to language instruction become primary issues (Ashworth, 1988; Harris, 1990). Since the school calendar is limited, the curriculum cannot be endlessly extended. In general it is at the expense of something that already exists when something is increased or added to the curriculum. Nagai (1997) indicated that a highly political question was frequently raised in order to make space for changes in language instruction, subject areas that needed to be reduced or eliminated if something were to be added or increased. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) argued that some societies demanded that the national and local language should be represented significantly in the curriculum. Practical language subjects that enabled teacher education graduates to find jobs must also be incorporated into teacher education programs (Keeves & Magjoribanks, 1999, p. 114-139).
The other major issues in relation to the inclusion of language instruction in curriculum, is concerned with when to start language instruction, as well as the length of instruction and the intensity with which it is administered (Rodgers, 1989; Harris, 1990), However, the earlier the introduction of language education into the curriculum, the greater is the probability that the instruction is successful (Nagai, 1997). At the same time, the earlier the introduction of language instruction, the larger the space it needs in the curriculum over a greater length of time (Corson, 1988).
Harris (1990) argued that one aspect of the problem of the curriculum was to find more places in the curriculum in order to provide more effective teaching and to set a more realistic time frame for the point of onset and total duration of instruction, if the communicative activity was important for language learning. It would be necessary to design a communicative class with a greater time allocation (Nunan, 1988). Learners should be provided with greater opportunity for real communication in addition to the reduction of class size (Keeves, 1987; Nunan, 1988; Allwright & Bailey,1991).
With smaller classes, there is the possibility of creating greater communicative situations through group and pair work and through the use of the target language for most communication in the classroom (Nunan, 1988; Feez, 1998). Furthermore, the use of immersion programs, where one or more subjects other than the target language are taught in that language. Although this demands specialised teachers and teaching materials, it can expose the students to communicative language which they need to use in order to pass the subject.
Personnel Policy
In terms of planning issues, the teacher who provides the instruction needs to be considered. It is necessary for a group of teachers to be trained in language pedagogy as well as to make them reasonably fluent in a particular language or languages (Keeves and Magjoribanks, 1999). Furthermore, the personnel policy deals with three important problems: teacher source, teacher training and teacher reward (Power, 2000).
Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) argued that it was true that the introduction of a new language into the curriculum might face the problem of a limited number of qualified teachers and there could be pressure to employ unskilled and teachers of very limited competence as a stop gap measure. In order to augment the pool of qualified teachers, short term and long term strategies needed to be developed.
Some teacher organisations do not wish to have unqualified teachers teaching in the schools. Even when foreign teachers are qualified, some local organisations are not pleased to see large numbers of teachers from overseas occupying teacher appointments, when there are many local teachers who are unemployed, even though the unemployed local teachers are not qualified to teach the target language (Ager, 1996; Marhum:2006; Marhum, 2009).
Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) maintained that a possible strategy was to train local teachers to replace the imported teachers. Teacher training should be concerned with two issues: One dealing with achieving and maintaining competence in the target language (Ingram, 1993). The other referring to the incentives required to get teachers to place themselves in the pool of teachers available for appointment to teach the target language.
It is true that language teachers deserve status and they need to pursue career paths that do not lead only to teaching literature and language. Such teachers deserve to get greater rewards than they normally would, particularly when the teachers deal with a language that has considerable commercial value in the society (Lo Bianco, 1987a; AACLAME, 1990). They deserve a reward well beyond the normal limits of their colleagues because proficiency in a second or foreign language must be recognised as a valued ability.
It is necessary for an education system to provide and to subsidise pre-service training and adequate rewards, as well as high quality in the service training to encourage teachers to maintain their levels of proficiency (Power, 2000; Marhum, 2009). The in-service educational opportunities for language teachers must cover visits to the spoken target language areas to maintain the teachers’ skills. Governments must provide a subsidy for their in-service training (Ingram, 1993). A major objective in language planning in education is identifying, training, and maintaining a cadre of skilled language teachers.
Material Policy
There must be some suitable content in language teaching; the language itself may be the objective of the instruction but instruction must be given around some content. According to Kaplan and Baldauf (1997), there are two related issues to be considered. The first issue is associated with the content used for language teaching. The second issue is concerned with the method used for the delivery of language instruction. Language learners need to be provided with as wide a base of registers as possible. Partial immersion models can be employed for second language teaching. With respect to the method of instruction for content delivery in an immersion setting, an interactive method needs to be applied for effective instruction. Cummins (1984, p .25) points out:
The experience of traditional second language teaching programs in countries such as Canada, Ireland and Wales demonstrates the disappointing results typically obtained when principles of interactive pedagogy are ignored. Most traditional second language teaching programs tend to be teacher centred and allow for little real interaction or active use of the target language by students in the classroom. They conform to a ‘transmission’ model of pedagogy rather than to an interactive model.
Reality of content has been debated widely in the field. Some teachers have argued that the language had to be accessible to learners through simplification. Other teachers had argued that authentic materials should be incorporated into language teaching (Nunan, 1998; Richards, 2001). Authenticity has to become the objective if it were to give the learner greatest access to the largest number of different registers. Simplified content might be less interesting although the simplified language might be more accessible.
From the tradition of language instruction, the method employed must be successful in relation to the stated objectives. A communicative approach may be an appropriate approach to produce competent speakers and listeners (Nunan, 1998). However, this approach does not apply equally well for success in learning both reading and writing. It is necessary to choose an approach from what is known about language learning and with respect to the objectives of the curriculum.
Community Policy
Language education does not take place in a vacuum. Students and teachers are also members of a community beyond the schools (Nagai, 1997; Coady & Laoire, 2002). Parents are exposed to their children’s education. The wider community provides financial support for the education system. There are two important issues here. On the one hand, there are the attitudes of the community towards general language teaching, towards teachers of language as a group, towards the specific target language and towards the trade off that provides room for language instruction in the curriculum at the expense of some other disciplines. On the other hand, those attitudes have an effect on those people who manage the curriculum through the purse strings and through the potential supply of students and teachers. There is clear evidence that there are likely to be few language education candidates if the candidates themselves have their own negative attitudes. The development of a variety of approaches to influence the attitudes of the community should become an important aspect of language in education planning (Holmes, 1992; Baker & Jones, 1998). It may be necessary to modify attitudes in order to assure parents that language education is valuable to convince the students that language learning is not associated with effeminacy, to convince other academics that language teaching is an important activity, and to convince the whole population that bilingualism is not a threat to national unity.
Evaluation Policy
In order to justify the necessary expenditure, the proposed plan and its implementation should be evaluated. The question has been raised as to whether an educational plan directed at the whole population would show a greater chance of success. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) suggested that it was not necessary that the whole population should have access to a particular language education program. Determination of the needs of society must be shown.
There were certain unstated interrelated assumptions which were associated with the notion of educated bilingualism, namely: based on status (a) the two languages were equal in a bilingual environment and in addition they were equal in power and in attraction, and (b) bilingualism suggested near native proficiency in both languages in all registers (Kaplan, 1991). Both assumptions could be vacuous in the school environment. First, if the learners were beginners who came with their first language fully developed, the two languages could not be of equal status, power and attraction. Since the students could do everything linguistically in their first language and they could not do all those things in the second language, the first language would always have greater status, power and attraction (Harris, 1990). Second, near native competency could be met since the duration of instruction was limited in order to achieve such proficiency and since the syllabus of the school did not include all possible registers. Proficiency in any actual register would be unlikely since schooling normally ignored the pragmatic features of the second language.
It would require many years of exposure to achieve balanced bilingualism. An average level of bilingualism would be determined among bilinguals, and not among the whole student population (Cummins & Swain, 1986; Harris, 1990). Minimal bilingualism would be all that the school could hope for with a level of bilingualism that certainly did not incorporate an enormous register of the second language (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). As a matter of fact, however, minimal bilingualism involves only a certain awareness of the second language with little, if any, ability to use it in any register: Figure 2.2 shows mirror images on the assumption that the learner may enter the learning environment from either direction. What is labelled L2 is actually L1.
Figure 2.2 Degrees of bilingual competence
Source: Kaplan and Baldauf (1997,p. 137)
Furthermore, there is no evidence for the theory that any sort of bilingualism is a designed objective. School bilingualism may be the desired objective, and school bilingualism can be expected to lead to only a very limited proficiency within a small number of registers. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) indicated that a diglossic situation is always created by the outcome, with the first language always dominant, always offering the greatest range, and always marked by the greatest attraction. In other words, a student who had attained minimal bilingualism was always susceptible to retrogression in the direction of the first language.
The degree of attainable bilingual proficiency in the school environment must be identified. Many educational policy attempts had the serious problem that the expectations set were totally unrealistic (Thomas, 1981; Geneese, 1994). As a result, sometimes evaluations would show that the objectives had not been attained and the activity was not viewed as worthy of continuing support.
The ideal may be for a society to have as many bilinguals available as possible, simply on the basis that bilingualism is likely to provide children with many ways of looking at the world (Harris, 1990). A society that has a significant level of individual bilingualism is likely to have difficulty in continuing language education. Furthermore, proficiency is found to vary with the individual needs and the use to which the language is put from an examination of examples of bilingualism or multilingualism in naturally occurring situations.
In short, the number of bilinguals produced with respect to any particular language must be projected in terms of social needs, paying due regard to the level of bilingualism required (Cummins & Swain, 1986; Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). Thus implies that the whole system needs constant evaluation, and it is necessary for the evaluation to have feedback through the system to adjust the language program in the right places so that it is more effective.
Evaluation of students implies that the objectives set by the system should have measurable outcomes (Feez, 1998). Existing instruments can be redeveloped to measure achievements that are compatible with the objectives of the system of instruction, and that the use of the evaluation instruments is itself feasible (Keeves, 1997; Mohandas, 1999).
Cooper (1989, p.157) redefined aspects of corpus and status planning. He suggested that language in educational planning was defined as the organised efforts to promote language learning and hence increase the number of speakers of a particular language. Thus, language planning was very relevant and applicable for the promotion of English and other national languages in addition to the maintenance of local languages (Baldauf & Luke, 1990; Coady & O’Laoire, 2002; Smolicz & Secombe, 2003).
English as a Global Language and Its Impact
Crystal (1997) argued that a language can be defined as a global language when it is recognized in many countries around the globe. In addition, it gains a genuinely global status and plays a key role. Crystal (1997, p.2) obviously agrees that:
English is a global language because it is spoken as a first language, a second language or third language by people around the world. He further explains that in order to gain a global status, two things should be considered. First, the language must be recognized as an official language and it is widely used. Second, although the language does not have any official status, it is widely and popularly taught as a foreign subject.
English meets these criteria as it currently is widely spoken around the world and popularly taught in the largest number of schools, including the schools of the non-English speaking countries (Pennycook, 1994; Crystal, 1997).
What makes a global language? According to the history of English, there is a close link between the dominance of language and power. No language can be recognised as a global means of communication without a strong political, military or economic power base (Pennycook 1994; Crystal 1997).
However, becoming a global language has nothing to do with the number of language speakers. It is associated more with who speaks the language (Cook, 1994; Crystal, 1997). For example, Latin used to be an international language. This had nothing to do with the number of Latin speakers. It had a link with the power of the Roman Empire. Furthermore, Chinese has the biggest number of speakers in the world but it is not considered to be a global language like English.
An international language can result from a militarily powerful nation. Moreover, a militarily powerful nation can contribute to the maintenance and expansion of an international language. The development of international business and information technology, for instance, requires the use of a global language (Lo Bianco, 1987b; Ingram, 1993; Crystal 1997). English is currently playing a key role in this area which is supported by the wide use of English as the first and foreign language in many developed countries such as United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore and Hongkong.
The use of English around the globe is appreciated by millions of people. To communicate over the Internet with people in Australia, Germany and Singapore, for instance, needs a single lingua franca or a common language (Grabe, 1988; Crystal 1997; Graddol 1997; Bruthiaux, 2002). Furthermore, it is more complicated to use a three-way electronic translation in international business meetings involving three nations than the use of a single global language.
Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) suggests that language policy, including the promotion of English, must be inspired by an equitable vision of how all languages can be permitted to flourish. If English is to be a force for democracy and human rights, much needs to change, in Northern countries as much as in the South, and in Northern-South relations. Language policy needs to and can play an important role in such a transition.
Linguistic power The existence of a global language may result in a linguistic power. Currently people who have English as their first language, second language or those who have a good common grounding of English are assumed to have power and access to develop their career in the international arena (Pennycook1997; Bruthiaux, 2002). On the other hand, those who do not have English might have some problems, for example, scientists who do not have a good command of English do not get access to international publications in journals. Business people cannot run international trade if they are not able to communicate in English.
Linguistic Death According to history, thousands of languages have died since humans were first able to speak. A dominant language may contribute to the language loss if a particular ethnic group adopts a dominant language and ignores its own language (Day, 1980; 1985; Pennycook, 1994; Nagai, 1997). Crystal (1997, p.17) states that A lot of indigenous languages in North America, Brazil, Indonesia and parts of Africa have been lost. Other estimates are that within the next century around 80 % of the world’s 6,000 or so living languages will disappear.
When languages disappear, there will be an intellectual and social tragedy. Many languages have not yet been written down, or have only recently been written down (Crystal, 2000; Skutnab-Kangas 2000). Language is a medium of serving the history of people. A language can never be recaptured when it is lost. It is similar to the loss of an endangered species and environment degradation.
Crystal (2000) reported that the early history of English contact with minority language speakers in North America, Australia and in the Celtic parts of the British Isles was indeed one of conquest and assimilation. But currently, the existence of English as a global language has a positive effect which supports the local languages.
The Status and Function of English in Indonesia in a Globalization Era
English is the first foreign language now being taught in Indonesia. It is based on the Regulation of Ministry of Education and Culture No. 096/1967 (Kartono, 1976: Alwasilah, 1997) regulating the status and function of English. It has been used as the first foreign language in Indonesia since 1955. Halim (1976, p.146) argued that English has some official functions in Indonesia:
(1) Means of communication among Nations, (2) means of development supporter of Indonesian language to become modern language, and (3) means of science and technology transfer for national development.
English has several functions in the globalization era. First, many nations all over the world have a growing rate of interdependence (Crystal 1994; Pennycook, 1994; Alwasilah, 1997). International relations are not limited to the economic and political area, but also operate in many other aspects of life. Their functions include the establishment of close relations with other nations and the implementation of foreign policy based on the Regulation of the Ministry of Education, NO 096/1967. Thus, in general, foreign languages function as a means of global communication in all aspects of life.
Second, globalization brings about an increase in international competition. The mastery of science and technology becomes the key to winning the competition. For that reason, English should function as an instrument of applying and advancing science and technology to accelerate the developmental process (Crystal, 1997; Ingram 1993). This function includes that of acquisition, use and development in a general sense. This function also covers the use of English as an instrument of development that supports the use of Indonesian as a modern language (Alwasilah, 1997; Huda, 2000).
According to historical records, following the independence of the Republic of Indonesia, the Dutch language was replaced by English as the first foreign language, and has been recognized as such in Indonesia since 1955 (Alisjabana, 1976; de Han, 2003). Since the 1980s,English has been considered to be the most important foreign language in Indonesia. The government’s and community’s interest in English has been growing since the early 1990s (Alwasilah, 1997; Supriadi, 1999). This position of English can be traced from government documents on the results of Parliament’s meetings. In the GBHN (The Guidelines of the State Policy) 1983 and 1988, foreign language policy was not incorporated. However, in the GBHN 1993, the policy on foreign languages, particularly English, was clearly stipulated. The policy related to the use and mastery of English. In 1988, Government Regulation No. 55, 56 and 57/1988 changing Government Regulation No. 28, 29/990 was introduced. It confirmed the use of English in schools. Moreover, Government Regulation of No 57/1957/1988 confirmed the use of English as a foreign language and as a means of communication in the university. Subsequently, it was incorporated into Government Regulation No 60/1999 on the use of English in all higher education. Alwasilah (1997, p.89) suggested that the need for mastery of English in the globalization era was absolutely necessary. In addition, it would be ideal if the mastery of English became the mastery of second language. Yet, there were several obstacles that would necessarily be encountered. Abas (1987), argued that it had to conform to the national interest which gave high priority to the development of the Indonesian language as a national language of unity and unification.
The Emergence of International Rating Schools in Indonesia
Educational Law 2003 introduced new types of schools in Indonesia They are RSBI stands for Rintisan Sekolah Bertaraf Internasional (Designated International Rating School), SBI stands for Sekolah Bertaraf Internasiona (International Rating School), SSN stands for Sekolah Bertaraf Nasional Sekolah (National Rating School), and SM stands for Sekolah Mandiri (Self-Managed School). In 2000, Trial or Pilot Project of RSBI was introduced through Contextual Teaching and Learning. Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) were implemented and followed by the implementation of Bilingual Education Assistance Program. In Central Sulawesi, RSBI was first introduced in two Secondary Schools (SMPs). They were SMP N. 2 Palu and SMP. N. 3 Luwuk in 2006. In 2008/2009, the number of International rating Schools has been added from 100 Schools to 124 both public schools and private schools established in each province of Indonesia.
The establishment of International Rating Schools (SBI) and Designated International Rating Schools (RSBI) were based on the following reasons: (1). Globalization Era requires competitiveness in the area of science and technology and human resources development. (2). As stated in the Educational Law No 20/2000, Article 50, verse 3 in which it is recommended that there should be at least one Designated International Rating School or International rating School of each school level in every Province of Indonesia. (3). It is expected that the emergence of International Rating Schools can develop students’ talent and their intellectual potential through an innovative education, respected education and pro-change education. RSBI and SBI must be able to provide outputs that can compete internationally. (4). Four pillars of education as recommended by UNESCO should become the basis of RSBI./SBI Schools. The Four pillars are: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together, and learning to be. Those four pillars become the basis of the curriculum, teaching and learning process, teachers’ recruitment and assessment.
RSBI is recommended to implement Curriculum and Syllabus adapted from OECD stands for Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Countries. They are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States and other developed countries such as Chile, Estonia, Israel, Russia, Slovenia, Singapore and Hongkong. RSBI/SBI was also recommended to collaborate with International educational institutions particularly in dealing with the Curriculum and test item standard. Those International Institutions are Cambridge, IB, TOEFL/TOEIC, ISO, Study Centers, and other related Multilateral Organizations such as UNESCO, UNICEF, and SEAMEO. To meet the criteria of Designated International Rating School, the school must have been certified A Grade and should fulfill Eight National Education Standards.
The Sharing of financial supports between Central Government and Local Governments has been taking place since the RSBI programs were officially introduced. The Provincial Government and District Government (Pemerintah Kabupaten) and in addition to Municipal Government (Pemerintah Kota) have been participating in providing financial support to the local RSBI in Central Sulawesi. Furthermore, students’ parents of RSBI have been providing their contribution in the form of parental financial support of quality education.
Early July, Koran Republika reported news on the recruitment of RSBI students in which one of the important requirement was the candidate of RSBI must have required English language proficiency. Further, Koran Republika reported, “Bagi siswa baru yang diterima masuk SMA Rintisan Sekolah Berstandard Internasional (RSBI) harus atau wajib menguasai Bahasa Inggris, utamanya penguasaan istilah-istilah sains berbahasa Inggris” (Republika, 07 Juli 2009). All students accepted as International Rating Schools must have good command of English particularly understand English terminology on sciences.
It can be argued that English plays a key role as instructional language in the teaching of sciences such as Mathematics, Physics, Biology and Information and Communication Technology. Teachers of RSBI Schools in Central Sulawesi were sent to English Schools to brush up their English. Some teachers were sent to Java and others were sent to the Local English Schools in Palu Central Sulawesi. SMA N. 2 Palu has signed up a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with one of the Biggest English School in Central Sulawesi that is Palu English Language Centre (ELC). Following the collaborative program establishment, students and teachers have got access to improve their English in the English School. Furthermore, some teachers of RSBI in Central Sulawesi have been sent overseas such as Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and Australia on the Bench Marking and Comparative Study Program.
The Promotion of English in International Rating Schools
English is one of the first foreign languages taught in Indonesian schools since the beginning of political independence Era. Now English is the most popular foreign language taught in both private and public schools (Groeneboer,1998; Alwasilah, 1997; Ali, 2000;Jazadi,2003),. Many people of Indonesia have positive perception on the promotion of English in Indonesia. The teaching of English has been promoted throughout levels of education. Following the Introduction of Educational Law, the teaching of English has been started from primary school levels to university levels.
In Central Sulawesi, the emergence of Globalization Era has been simultaneously responded by the significant growing number of private English Schools. Furthermore, many people have realized the importance of English in the Globalization Era since it is considered as an important global language (Crystal, 1997;Ali, 2000; Marhum, 2003;Marhum, 2005; Marhum, 2008). Thus, a lot of parents sent their children to the private English schools. Parents thought that the learning and teaching English received by their children through the formal education at schools was not enough. For those reasons many parents have encouraged their children to learn English at private schools because they also thought that the private English schools are the right institutions for their children to learn English language.
There are two types of private English schools in Central Sulawesi. They are big private English schools and small private English Schools. The big ones have links with foreign education agency such as English Language centre with IDP Australia network. The small English courses were mostly sponsored and managed by fresh graduates from English Education Department.
However, of the all private English schools found in Central Sulawesi, none of them employ native speakers. All English schools are looking forward to having native speakers as part-time or full-time English teachers. Since some English speaking countries introduce travel warning, many English schools have no access to recruit native speakers of English. It can be argued that the recruitment of native speakers as teachers of English can upgrade the popularity of their English schools.
Majority of English schools in Central Sulawesi only offer general English to the students, public servants and private employees insist that they need to learn English for Specific purposes (ESP) which are applicable and relevant to their carrier.
In the formal education context, the use of English as an instructional language at International Rating Schools (Sekolah Bertaraf Internasional) is a must. The International Rating Schools (SBI) has become much more popular since English is a compulsory instructional language used at those schools. Many parents revealed that they are very proud to send their children to International Rating schools. Yet, many parents sometimes have to be patient to wait for the available seat of the RSBI schools. Thus, some parents also had to put their children on the waiting list when there is no more available seat.
At the beginning, there are only two International Rating Schools in Central Sulawesi. One is found it the city of Palu and the other one is found District of Luwuk and in addition to five prospective International Rating Schools. Though International Rating Schools have become most popular education institution in Central Sulawesi, many people are still worried about the insufficient human resources and insufficient of supporting facilities of teaching and learning. Yet, a lot of parents in Central Sulawesi are very proud with the presence of International rating Schools where their children have enough access to learn and practice their English continuously at schools.
As stated in School Based Curriculum or known as KTSP (Kurikulum Satuan Tingkat Pendidikan), the teaching and use of English at schools particularly at Senior High School is designed to make students able to use the language fluently and accurately in communication. A teacher of SMA N.2 Palu stated that the important part of using English in the classroom is to make students able to speak English fluently and accurately in order to meet the criteria of certified Designated International Rating Schools. Furthermore, the teacher reported that several typical problems encounter by learners in the use of English at SMA N.2 Palu are for example, some students still had a problem with self-confidence particularly when it comes to the issues of practicing oral skills in front the class. Some students lack self confidence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the presence of Designated International Rating Schools and International Rating Schools in Indonesian has been in line with the national education policy of the republic Indonesia. The introduction or International rating schools is in response to international competitiveness particularly in the area of science and technology and the development of human resources in the Era of Globalization.
In Central Sulawesi, the emergence of Designated International rating Schools have been enthusiastically responded by stakeholders of education particularly students and their parents. However, it is inevitable that many local schools selected RSBI have to face hard challenges and great efforts for the sake of quality education. In adequate qualified of Human resources and limited supporting infrastructure become great challenges of RSBI and RSBI schools in Central Sulawesi.
However, the establishment of Designated International Rating Schools in Central Sulawesi has been considered as great milestone for the promotion of English language teaching and the use of English as instructional Language in those Schools.
References
AACLAME (1990), The National Policy on Languages: Report to the Minister for Employment, Education and Training by the Australian Advisory Council on Languages and Multicultural Education, Canberra.
Abas, H. (1987) Indonesian as A Unifying Language of Wider Communication: A Historical and Sociolinguistic Prospective; Pacific Linguistics, the Australian National University.
Ager D. (1996), Language Policy in Britain and France: The Process of Policy. Cassell, p.1-29.
Ali, L. (2000), Lengser Ke Prabon: Kumpulan Kolom tentang Pemakaian Bahasa Indonesia. Pustaka Firdaus, Jakarta.
Allwright, D.& Bailey, K.M. (1991) Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Alwasilah, A.C.(1997) Politik Bahasa dan Pendidikan (Language Politics and Education). PT Remaja Rosda Karya, Bandung, p. 31, 61-89.
Alwi, H. (2000), fungsi politik bahasa. Dalam Alwi, H. dan Sugono, D. (eds) Politik Bahasa: Risalah Seminar Politik Bahasa. Pusat Bahasa. Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. Jakarta, p. 7-15.
Anwar, K. (1980), Indonesian: The Development and Use of a National Language. Gajah Mada University Press.
Ashworth, E. (1988), Language Policy in the Primary School: Content and Mangaement. Croom Helm, NSW, p.1-9.
Bruthiaux, P. (2002) Predicting challenges to English as a global language in the 21st century. In Dasgupta & Tonkin (eds), Language Problems & Language Planning Journal. Vol 26, p. 129-157.
Coady, M. & O’Laorie, M., (2002) Mismatches in language policy and practice in education: the case of Gaelscoileanna in the Republic of Ireland. In Sheldon, M. (ed), Electronic Journal of Language Policy. Kluwer Academic Publisher. Netherlands, p. 143-156.
Cook, P. A. (1994) Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Longman
Corson, D.(1998) Changing Education for Diversity, Open University Press London.
Crystal D. (1997), English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D.(2000) Language Death. Cambridge University Press.p.2-6.
Cummins, J. (1984), Empowering Minority Students: A Framework for Intervention, Harvard Educational Review 56 (1).
Cummins, J. and Swain, M. (1986), Bilingualism in Education: Aspects of Theory, Research and Practice. Longman, London.
Day, R. (1980), ‘ESL: a factor in linguistic genocide?’ in Fisher, JC, Clarke, MA Schacter, J (eds), On TESOL ’80, Building Bridges: research and Practice in Teaching English as a second language, Washington, DC:TESOL.
Feez, S. (1998), Text Syllabus Design. National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. NSW.
Geneese, F. (1994), Integrating Language and Content: Lessons from Immersions. University of California at Santa Curz: National Centre for Research in Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. (Educational Practice Report: 11), p. 1-15).
Graddol, D. (1997), The Future of English?: A Guide to Forecasting the Popularity of the English Language in the 21st Century. British Council, London.
Groeneboer, K. (1998), Gateway to the West: the Dutch Language in Colonial Indonesia, 1600 – 1950: A History of Language Policy. Amsterdam University Press. Amsterdam, p. 249-290.
Huda, N. (2000), Kedudukan dan Fungsi Bahasa Asing (the Status and Function of Foreign Language), in Alwih and Sugono, D (Eds) Politik Bahasa: Risalah Seminar Politik Bahasa, Pusat Bahasa, Jakarta, p. 60-62.
Jazadi, I. (2003a), Mandated English Materials and their Implications to Teaching and Learning: the Case of Indonesia in W.A. Renandya (Ed), Methodology and Materials Design in Language Teaching. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, Singapore, p. 2-7.
Lo Bianco, J. (1987a) National Policy on Languages. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Mohandas, R. (1999), Mathematics and Science Achievement of Junior Secondary School Students in Indonesia. PhD Thesis unpublished. Flinders University.
Groeneboer, K. (1998), Gateway to the West: the Dutch Language in Colonial Indonesia, 1600 – 1950: A History of Language Policy. Amsterdam University Press. Amsterdam, p. 249-290.
Halim, A. (1998) Bahasa Indonesia Menjelang Tahun 2000: Risalah Kongres Bahasa Indonesia V1. Indonesian Language by 2000: A paper presented in Indonesian Language Conference V1. Centre for Language Development, Department of Education and Culture, Jakarta. p 133-140.
Harris, S. (1990), Two Way Aboriginal Schooling: Education and Cultural Survival. Aboriginal Studies Press. Canberra.
Holmes, J. (1992), An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Longman Publishing, New York
Ingram, D.E, (1993) Language Policy in Australia 1990s. Paper to the Pre-conference International Workshop on Foreign Language Planning, National Foreign Language Center, the John Hopkins University, Washington DC, p. 11-12.
Jazadi, I. (2003a), Mandated English Materials and their Implications to Teaching and Learning: the Case of Indonesia in W.A. Renandya (Ed), Methodology and Materials Design in Language Teaching. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, Singapore, p. 2-7.
Kaplan, R.B. & Baldauf Jr, R.B. (1997), Language Planning: from Practice to Theory. Multilingual Matters Ltd, UK.
Keeves, J.P (1987) Australian Education: Review of Recent Research. Allen & Unwin, NSW, Australia
Keeves, J.P & Maqjoribanks, K. (1999), Australian Education: Review of Research 1965 – 1998. ACER Press, Australia, p. 114-139.
Lo Bianco, J. (1987a) National Policy on Languages. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Marhum, M. (2000), Perencanaan Program Bahasa Inggris. UPT Bahasa Universitas Tadulako, Palu.
Marhum, M (2005) Language Policy and Educational Decentralization in Indonesia. Unpublished Ph.D Disertation.
Flinders Universty, South Australia.
Marhum, M. 2006, Language Maintenance in the Era of Decentralization in Kabupaten Tolitoli.
A paper presented in the International Conference on Language Gender and Sustainability
in Collaboration with Frankfurt University of Germany. Universitas Tadulako, Palu.
Marhum, M. 2007, Studi Tentang Bahasa Lokal dan Potensi Konflik Etnis di Kabupaten Tolitoli dalam Era Otonomi. Presentasi Penelitian Fundamental DP2M Dikti. Depdiknas Jakarta.
Marhum, M. 2008, Linguistic Awakening in Eastern Part of Indonesia in the Era of Decentralization and Globalization. A paper presented in the International Symposium on Language, Culture and Globalization in Southeast Asian Countries. Fakultas Ilmu Budaya, Universitas Airlangga Surabaya.
Marhum M., 2009, Issues in Language Culture and Education in Eastern Indonesia. Lambert Academic Publishing, Germany.
Muammad D.L., 2009, Application of Oral Report Technique in Developing Speaking Skill for the RSBI Eleventh Grade Students of SMA N.2 Palu. Unpublished M.Pd. Thesis. Sekolah Pascasarjana Universitas Tadulako. Palu Sulawesi Tengah.
Officiële bescheiden (1971, 1986) Officiële Bescheiden Betrefende de Nederlands – Indonesia Betrekingen (1945-1950) Vol. 1 and 13 ś Graven hage:Nijhoff.
Pennycook, A. (1994), the Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Pearson Education Ltd, England.
Post, P. (1948) ‘De opbouw Van Het Onderwijs in Indonesië, Indonesië 1, p 493-506.
Pusat Pembinaan & Pengembangan Bahasa (1984), Politik Bahasa Nasional (The National language politics). PN Balai Pustaka, Jakarta, 23-51.
Koran Harian Republika, 2009, Pelajar RSBI Wajib Kuasai Bahasa Inggris. Selasa, 07 Juli 2009.
Rodgers, T. (1989), Syllabus design, curriculum development and polity determination. In R.K. Johnson (ed), The Second Language Curriculum. New York. Cambridge University Press. P. 24 – 34.
Saibah, 2009, Implementing Classroom Management for the Teaching of English to the Grade Eight Students of Designated International Rating School, SMP N. 2. Palu. Unpublished M.Pd Thesis. Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Tadulako. Palu Sulawesi Tengah.
SBI SMP, 2009, Sekolah Bertaraf Internasional. http://pelangi.dit-plp.go.id. Online (Diakses tgl 17 Juni 2009.
Smalicz, J. & Secombe, M. 2003, Assimilation or pluralism? Changing policies for minority languages education in Australia. In Language Policy Electronic Journal: Volume 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, P. 3-25.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1984), Bilingualism or Not: the Education of Minorities, Multilingual Matters, Philadelphia.
Suprapto, R.A. (1989), ‘Het gebruik van heet Netherlands in Indonesië als sociolinguïstisch onderzoekksobject, in :K. Groenoboer (ed) , Studi Balanda di Indonesia – Nedelandse studiën in Indonesië, Jambatan, Jakarta, p. 309-18.
Tanner, N. (1972), ‘Speech and society among the Indonesian elites: A case study of multilingual community. In Pride, J.B. & Homes, J (eds) Sociolinguistics; Selected readings ,Penguin, Harmondsworth, p. 125-41.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar