Minggu, 05 Juni 2011

Issues in Language, Culture and Education in Eastern Indonesia


Preface
        The Era of Globalization and Decentralization have clear implication for the development of education and culture in Indonesia. Global education including the teaching of global language, English has become trend in schools across provinces of Indonesia. Indonesian people should able to respond to this trend wisely. Furthermore, Decentralization of Education in Indonesia becomes a significant education policy as well as a milestone in the process of democracy. Educational decentralization policy seems to respond to the local school’s need and the local people’s aspirations.
       This book is designed to give a wide perspective on the importance of development and implementation of effective language, culture and education policy at primary schools in Indonesia. It also provides recommendations to both local governments and central government of Indonesia to consider the importance of bottom up policy in the development of democratization in the educational settings. Furthermore, the balance of language education in schools should be taken into consideration including the local language maintenance program through formal education that in line with the local people’s aspirations.
        Thus, this book is dedicated to educators, curriculum planners, policy makers, linguists and all members of community who are concerned with the development and implementation of language, culture and education policy in schools.
        However, it is undeniable that this book could be far from perfect. Therefore, any suggestion and comments from the readers are welcome.

Blurb 
Before the era of political reform, educational and cultural policies in Indonesia were centralized. Nearly all public policies and decision making in the area of education and culture did not fully consider the real needs of the local people across the archipelago. In 1999, the new government policies were introduced and consider the importance of local people participation in decision making of language education policies in their own areas. Emerging as one of the biggest democracy countries in the world, Indonesia should maintain the balance and harmony of language education in schools. Inclusive educational and cultural policies are required in order to respect the reality of multicultural society particularly in this era of Decentralization and Globalization. District of Tolitoli in Eastern Indonesia experienced new challenges on the implementation of language education policy.  This book, therefore, is provided for lecturers, researchers, curriculum planners and policy makers who are concerned with the issues in cultural and educational policies.

Notes:
My book was published by LAP Publisher in Germany in 2009 and it can be purchased through Amazon Website.



Sabtu, 04 Juni 2011

LANGUAGE POLICY AND EDUCATIONAL DECENTRALISATION: AN INDONESIAN CONTEXT


The problems of language policies and education development in Indonesia have become interesting topics discussed and strongly debated by academics, researchers, educators, politicians and bureaucrats. Historical perspectives and the prospect of language policies for education need to be taken into consideration.
The era of globalization has brought significant changes in many aspects of development around the world. The political reforms that took place in Indonesia recently have highly significant implications for Indonesian development, particularly in the areas of education and culture. The educational decentralization policy introduced by the government has given greater opportunities for the local schools to plan and develop their own curriculum.
This chapter discusses relevant and supporting information that includes the historical background, the prospect of national language policy, multilingualism and language policy, educational decentralization policy, capacity building and school based management, the assessment of educational input, and the local curriculum content.
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.
Sustainability Based on Historical Record
According to history, the national language policy was developed with clear sustainability. The Youth Pledge (Sumpa Pemuda) on 28 October 1928 could be considered as a starting point of a national language policy (Alisjabana, 1976; Abas, 1987; Halim, 1998). The third point of the youth pledge stipulated, “We, sons and daughters of Indonesia respect the language of unity, or national language, Indonesian Language”. Sumampouw (2003) suggested that the third point of the youth pledge was also associated with the Indonesian people’s positive attitude towards the Indonesian language which was declared through the statement, “respecting the language of unity. Thus, it can be concluded that the present national language policy could be traced back to the 1928 Indonesian Youth Pledge.

According to Halim (1988) the statement of the 1928 Indonesian Youth Pledge was followed up by the maintenance and development of the Indonesian language and literature in the form of the publication of a local magazine, Pujangga Baru in the 1930s. The publication was led by Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana, Amir Hamzah, and Armin Pane. During the Japanese Occupation (1942 – 1945), the national language policy was advanced through the formation of a Terminology Commission that developed the rule of terminology to meet the need for text books as a result of the ban of Dutch text books in all educational institutions.
Following the proclamation of Indonesian Independence in 1945, the third point of 1928 Indonesian Youth Pledge was emphasized in the 1945 Constitution, Article 36 which stated that, “the national language is Bahasa Indonesia”. Furthermore, according to Pusat Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Bahasa (1984), the formal statement on the national language policy was formulated in Article 36 of the 1945 Constitution which stipulated:
The local languages are maintained by the speakers, e.g. Javanese, Sundanese, Madurese, Makasarese, Balinese, Buginese etc. The local languages are respected and maintained by the state. The local language is a part of Indonesian living culture. (Pusat Pembinaan & Pengembangan Bahasa, 1984)

Article 36 with its explanation is a statement of the function and status of the Indonesian language and local languages.
The development of Bahasa Indonesia improved again in 1950s, through the publication of a new grammar of Indonesian language by Alisjahbana. The influence has continued up to the present time, with, in addition, the publication of the large dictionary of the Indonesian language by Poerwadarminta (Abas, 1987; Alip, 1993).
In the 1970s, a new era of language planning emerged. Newly standardized Indonesian language spelling was introduced by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia in 1972 (Abas, 1987; Basri, 1996). Furthermore, the general guidance of standardized Indonesian language spelling and the general guidance for the formulation of terminology were introduced by the Ministry of Education and Culture in 1975.
The issues of national language policy became the main topic of a seminar on national language policy in Jakarta in 1975. The seminar and pre-seminar resulted in the agreement of the status and function of a national language, the function and status of local language and the function and status of foreign languages in Indonesia (Alisjabana, 1976; Abas, 1987; Halim 1998). The national language policy underlined the ideas that the local, national language and foreign language had interrelations that could not be denied. From the development of national language policy up to the present time, it must be concluded that the sustainability of a national language policy has developed in accordance with the envisaged demands and dynamics of Indonesian community life in the future (Alisjabana, 1976, Halim 1998).
Sustainability Based on Particular Areas
The national language policy dealt with the areas that had close interrelations so that it needed sustainable language planning. Halim (1998) argued that the national language policy was associated with education and development of both local and national languages in addition to the use of a foreign language. Through language education, it was expected that the society and the language speakers would have positive attitudes towards the language spoken (Somare, 1974; Lucas, at al., 1990; Nagai 1997). Thus, the society would use a standardized language based on the language rules and sociolinguistics. On the other hand, language development referred to the improvement of grammar, spelling rules, terminology rules, vocabulary and syntaxes, as a result the language could be used as a public means of communication, supporting the media in science and technology development and as a means of cultural maintenance. Therefore, Halim (1998) suggested that both language education and language development should be planned and balanced in order to achieve sustainability either in the process or in the output. 
The national language policy must also be associated with language variety such as the written language and the spoken language, a professional language and a social language (Abas, 1987; AACLAME, 1990). The problem of language variety is complicated. Therefore, in 1970s and 1980s the national language policy was focused on the priority scale of language education and language development in relation to language variety. Halim (1998) argued that, based on the urgent needs and capacity, human resources in the form of available linguists, technical considerations, particularly the sociolinguistics aspect, written language was given greater priority than spoken language. Consequently, the written language has been developed more than the spoken language. For this reasons, it is important to focus not only on written aspects but also other aspects of language usage.
The national language policy currently refers to both the development of Indonesian language in education and the local languages and, in addition to the relationship between Indonesian language and local languages. On the other hand, many local people have realized that their local languages have been threatened by the national language, Bahasa Indonesia (Grimes, 1992; Crystal, 2000, Sneddon, 2003). Moreover, the local languages become endangered and do not have prospects for the future.
Halim (1998) suggested that the Indonesian people should have a positive attitude towards Bahasa Indonesia and at the same time they should maintain their local languages based on the 1945 Constitution, Article 36. The sustainable development and education of language should cover English, Bahasa Indonesia, other foreign languages and the local languages. Yet according to some education experts in Indonesia, there were no clear and specific regulations to guide the local educators and curriculum planners, for example, to promote language education in schools (See also Jakarta Post, 2001, Jazadi, 2003b).

The national language policy should involve every community, all sectors of government and all organizations including the private and the public (Ingram, 1993; Djite, 1994). On the other hand, there has been a wrong perception among the community which argues that the national language policy should be the responsibility of the Department of Education and Culture, particularly the maintenance of the National Language Centre. On the other hand, many government and private agencies have not used the standardized Bahasa Indonesia. They are more strongly influenced by the use of English jargon and terminology in running their business because of the impact of globalization (Ingram, 1993; Crystal, 2000). As a result, it seems that Bahasa Indonesia has been undermined.

The Sustainability Based on the Situation
The imbalance of Bahasa Indonesia education and development in the urban areas on the one side and in the rural areas in the other side, have not resulted in a balanced result (Alwasilah, 1997; Sumapouw, 2003). This is not only due to the limitation of TV transmission programs into the rural areas but also because many people in the rural areas cannot obtain the program satisfactorily. Furthermore, both government and private agencies have not paid close enough attention to Bahasa Indonesia education and development particularly at the Kabupaten and Propinsi level (Alwasilah, 1997; Basri, 1996). In relation to the above issues, the Ministry of Domestic Affairs issued a Decree No.20/1991 on 28 October 1991. The decree was forwarded to all governors, Bupati (Head of District) and mayors across Indonesia. It aimed at promoting Bahasa Indonesia for the sake of national unity (Abas, 1987; Halim, 1998). Another decree was issued by the Ministry of Education and Culture Decree No. 1/U/1992 on the promotion of Bahasa Indonesia for the strengthening of national unity. Furthermore, the local government of Jakarta issued a Local Government Regulation No.1/1992 on the use of Bahasa Indonesia on sign posts, banners and advertisements in DKI Jakarta Province. Halim (1998) suggested that this good example must be followed by all government and private agencies at the local government levels. The Memorandum of Understanding on the national language policy signed by the National Language Centre, the local government of DKI Jakarta, Central Java and Aceh is an appropriate action plan to promote sustainability of national language policy across provinces of Indonesia.

Huda (2000) argued that the national language policy must also cover the complete formulation of the status, function, and use of foreign language in Indonesia. Alwasilah (1997) suggested that this policy was required to overcome the language problems related to the domination of foreign language popularity, particularly English, and the detrimental impact of foreign language use on Bahasa Indonesia and local languages.

Finally, based on the previous discussions, it is important to review the national language policy in order that the sustainable national language policy of all aspects could be achieved in the future. In addition, the status of National Language Development should be upgraded and based on the Indonesian National Language Congress III (1978) and the Indonesian National Language Congress IV (1983).

Multilingualism and Language Policy
The situation of local, national and global languages in Indonesia has become a reality for many years alongside the history of the Republic of Indonesia which consists of bilingual and multilingual communities (Alisjabana, 1976; Abas, 1987). Furthermore, the language awareness among Indonesian communities has grown significantly following the development of Indonesia.

The local language as one of the linguistic problems in Indonesia, should be seriously taken into consideration (Mu’adz, 2000; Rosidi, 2001). The enormous number of local languages in Indonesia has become an important asset. For this reason, it is both essential and urgent to define and develop the functions of local, national and global 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 Role and Function of Bahasa Indonesia in the Globalization Era.
In order to prepare for the globalization era, it was necessary to maximize the role and function of Bahasa Indonesia (Alwi at. al. 2000; Moeliono, 2000). Bahasa Indonesia should be studied and evaluated. In addition, the problems of learning Bahasa Indonesia must be identified and solved. Gunarwan, (2000) suggested that establishing positive attitudes toward language learning could become the target of education for language maintenance.

Moelinono (2000, p.26) argued that there were several factors which were not conducive to the development of Bahasa Indonesia:
First, many Indonesian people in particular areas are not yet able to use Bahasa Indonesia. Furthermore, some are not motivated to learn Bahasa Indonesia because they think it is not necessary. According to the linguists, many Indonesian people have not considered the importance of learning the skills of reading and writing of Bahasa Indonesia. Second, many people still used local languages in certain local situations.

This leads to problems with Bahasa Indonesia development. In other words, lack of support for Bahasa Indonesia might contribute to the inadequate promotion of the Bahasa Indonesia (Alwasilah at al., 2000). However, the use of local languages might cause suspicion among those people who don’t understand the local languages in spoken form.

Third, the use of the foreign language and English, as a prestigious language would be beyond the role, status and function of language by individuals and communities (Alwasilah, 1997; Crystal, 2000). Such habits and attitudes might not show significant respect of  Bahasa Indonesia as well as the people.

Fourth, casualness of Bahasa Indonesia teaching or Bahasa Indonesia development have resulted in several errors and mistakes in the use of Bahasa Indonesia (Moeliono, 2000). The linguistic factors that have needed to be corrected have included word choice, euphemism and language structure.

The Status and Function of Local Languages in the Globalization Era
Taha (2000, p.34) suggested that the status and function of local languages in Indonesia in the current situation were based on several factors.
  1. The explanation of Article 36 of the 1945 Constitution stated that “in the areas where local languages are actively spoken, the local people maintain and develop their local languages”.
  2. At a national language seminar in February 1975 on the status and function of local languages in relation to the national language, the languages mentioned previously were said to function as local languages. There were several functions of local languages: a symbol of local pride, local identity, and as a lingua franca of local family and community. Furthermore, in relation to national language, local languages had several functions such as: (a) supporter of national language, (b) instructional language at primary schools in particular areas to support the teaching of Bahasa Indonesia and other subjects, and (c) as supporting instrument of local cultural development (Halim, 1980). Listing and intensifying the use of local languages were also formulated in the seminar of national language politics in 1975.
  3. The 1993 Guidelines of State Policy (GBHN), Number 3 f, stipulated that “the maintenance of local language should be sustained in order to develop and enrich Bahasa Indonesia vocabulary and Indonesian cultural diversity” (Alwi et. al., 2000). Consequently, it is necessary to conduct research, as well as study and develop the local language and literature and publish them in the mass media and other publications.
  4. One of the agreements of the fourth Indonesian Language Congress in 1993, particularly in the area of local language and literature, was that the local languages in certain areas could be taught to the student speakers without hampering the teaching of Indonesian language and literature (See Mahsun 2000; Mu’adz, 2000). For that reason, curricula, textbooks of teaching and learning methodology and other infrastructure to support local language education should be developed.

Language Maintenance and Educational Policy
There are a lot of local languages in Indonesia used every day by the local people in their own family and community (Grimes, 1992; Kopong, 1995). The use of local language as a means of communication represents the homogeneity of the speakers. In other words, it is not possible to use the local language if in a family, for example, husband and wife, come from different ethnic backgrounds. Yet, language choice could be the appropriate answer (Basri, 1996).

Furthermore, as a means of communication local languages are widely used as the means of expressing local art and cultural performance (Kopong, 1995; Sneddon, 2003). Some local languages in Indonesia have their own script whereas most local languages do not have any script. On the other hand, many local languages use Latin script for language maintenance purpose.

The use of local language script is commonly found in writing traditions in several strong languages such as Javanese, Sudanese and Minangkabau (Mahsun, 2000; Mu’adz, 2000). Furthermore, local languages are also used in particular mass media such as radio, television and newspapers. Several FM radios have local language news as well as entertainment programs in local languages.
In terms of cultural ceremony and rituals, local languages are usually used as the medium of expression. There are several kinds of traditional events in Indonesia which incorporate the use of local languages (Basri, 1996; Kopong, 1995). For example, wedding ceremonies in particular areas in Indonesia use the local language as a means of expression.

In the educational field, local languages are usually used either as instructional languages or as school subjects. As instructional languages, they are used in Grades 1 to 3, particularly in those geographic areas where many very young students are not yet able to speak Bahasa Indonesia (Mu’adz, 2000).

Local Language as an Instructional language and as a Subject

Indonesian as an instructional language and as a subject at schools has been widely accepted in Indonesia. There have been no complaints regarding the use of Bahasa Indonesia in the school educational settings (Abas, 1987; Sumampouw, 2003). Nevertheless, the use of local languages in educational settings could give rise to problems since there are hundreds of local languages existing in Indonesia. Yet, according to government policy in each district or Kabupaten there should be only one dominant local language that could be used as an instructional language or taught as a school subject (Utomo, et al., 1997; Rosidi, 2001).

Some local languages have been taught at schools in Indonesia. Yet, there are still many obstacles encountered in local language education. One of the obstacles is that there is no formal educational institution preparing prospective local language teachers for primary and secondary schools (Mahsun, 2000; Mu’adz, 2000). For these reasons, many schools still have difficulties in dealing with the recruitment of local language teachers. The current solution is only a temporary one since it involves qualified teachers of other languages to teach the local languages. 

What are the prospects for other languages in Indonesia?  According to Grimes (1988), of 670 local languages in Indonesia only 50 local languages are recognized as having a future, whereas 620 local languages are threatened to be endangered due to the number of speakers falling to less than 100.000 people. Based on the data collected in 1990, there were eight local languages which had more than two million speakers, while the other 660 local languages had more than 27 million speakers with around 40 thousand indigenous speakers on each average. Thirty local languages had more than 100 thousand speakers and were considered safe (BPS, 1990). Thus over 620 languages were threatened (See also, Crystal, 2000 and Sneddon, 2003). Table 3.1 shows the languages with more than two million speakers in 1990 in Indonesia.







Table 3.1 The Languages of Indonesia with more than two million speakers
No.
Language Name
Number of Speakers
%
1.
Javanese
60.267.461
38.08
2.
Sundanese
24.155.962
15.26
3.
Indonesian
24.042.010
15.19
4.
Madura
6.792.447
4.29
5.
Minang
3.527.726
2.23
6.
Bugis
3.228.742
2.04
7.
Batak
3.120.047
1.97
8.
Bali
2.589.256
1.64
9.
Banjar
2.755.337
1.74
10.
Other Languages
27.070.883
17.11
11.
Not answered
712.629
0.4
12.
Total
158.262.639
100
Source: BPS (1990)
There has been no report on moribund language in Indonesia so far. Yet, if there is no action plan for language maintenance to prevent the threat, moribund languages will occur (Basri, 1986; Crystal, 2000). Consequently, there are several factors that are conducive to the formation of moribund languages in Indonesia.

First, of 600 local languages in Indonesia most have a very small number of speakers and, in addition, these speakers live in isolated and remote areas (Basri, 1986; Grimes, 1988). Mobility, urbanization, transmigration, and reforestration might also contribute to the incidence of moribund languages. Furthermore, the minority groups of local language speakers live with many people from different ethnic groups. Meanwhile many children who have a good command of Bahasa Indonesia tend to migrate to the city to advance their education (Sumampouw, 2003). When they complete their study and get a good job, they seldom go back to their home town. Since they have gained a different linguistic and cultural background and do not live with their ethnic group, the process of language loss has taken place.

Second, more than 600 local languages do not have a writing tradition or script. Local knowledge and history are only orally reported and discussed (Kopong, 1995). For that reason, variety in appreciation and understanding of the local language exists between different generations. Such a condition results in a lack of language and cultural pride among children. Neverhtheless, most schools are dominated by the use of the Indonesian language in most aspects of education, not much special educational effort is designed to encourage the children to appreciate their language and culture (Basri, 1986). As a result, the local people do not realize that the schools have alienated the children from both their socio-cultural environment and from their mainstream cultural environment that they do not yet fully understand (Nagai, 1999; Teasdale, 2000). In addition, through formal education the children might accept that their own language and culture are inferior to the national language and culture. As a result, when they complete their years of study and get a job, they feel prouder to use their national language than their local ethnic language to communicate with their friends of the same ethnic and linguistic background (Sumampouw, 2003).
Third, the domination of Bahasa Indonesia as a national language has threatened the existence of local languages (Mu’adz, 2000). In general, the mass media have used Bahasa Indonesia as a means of communication and as a consequence Bahasa Indonesia has become the only instructional language which were generally used from the pre-school level to the university level (Basri, 1986; Rosidi, 2001). The use of Bahasa Indonesia as a single instructional language has largely had a detrimental impact on the development of local languages. For example, the use of the local language has been limited to only the home language. The children do not have an appreciation of their local language because the language is not used in the school setting. Sudaryanto (1991) stated that the National Development Language Centre focused more on national language development than on local language maintenance. As a consequence, the local language is not a compulsory subject at school. Intermarriage among different ethnic and linguistic background people is likely to contribute to local language loss. In other words, the trend of intermarriage is highly conducive to this language loss (Paulston, 1994). The children are more likely to acquire and use their national language, Bahasa Indonesia, as the means of communication both in formal situations and non-formal situations (Sumampouw, 2003). Thus, the national language becomes the dominant language among the family after intermarriage.
Local Language as an Instructional Language in Schools
Article 36 of the 1945 Constitution states that the national language in Indonesia is Bahasa Indonesia. The explanation of Article 36 of the 1945 Constitution is as follows:
The local languages of Indonesia e.g. Javanese, Sundanese and Madurese, are maintained by their speakers. The local languages are also maintained and developed by the Government of Indonesia. The local languages have become a part of Indonesian living culture.
 (Mu’adz, 2000, p. 82)

Article 36 has a close link with Article 32 which sates “the Government of Indonesia develops Indonesian national culture” with the following explanation.
The national culture is the culture created by all the Indonesian people. The old and original culture is the ultimate national culture. Culture development must aim at development of civilization, culture and unity without rejecting positive things originated from foreign culture which can develop and enrich the national culture itself, as well as promoting the self-esteem of Indonesian people
(Mu’adz, 2000,  p.82).

Based on the Articles of the 1945 Constitution above, it is implied that like the national language, the local languages are maintained by the government and the local languages function as a means of cultural expression and in addition form an integral part of the national culture (Kopong, 1995).

Exclusive use of Bahasa Indonesia as an instructional language in schools was not criticized either politically or academically. The policy has become one of complacency (Alwasilah, 1997; Abas, 1987). The use of the Indonesian language as the only instructional language in schools should be politically and academically reviewed because the policy does not have any link with the spirit of the two related articles given above. 
There are several reasons why the use of the local language as the instructional language at school must be reviewed (Basri, 2003; Sumapouw, 2003). First of all, the use of the Indonesian language as the instructional language in schools includes the use of all teaching materials, test items and the teaching and learning processes. There is no problem with the use of Bahasa Indonesia in schools if the majority of students are speakers of the Bahasa Indonesia. On the one hand, 75 per cent of students have their own local languages and only two per cent of students are native speakers of the Indonesian language (Mu’adz, 2000). On the other hand, most students in primary school have to study mathematics, social sciences and other subjects with a poor command of the Indonesian language. Consequently, many students have difficulties in understanding the lessons they learn at school.

According to some studies conducted in Indonesia, many students from primary schools in the remote villages have lower academic performance compared to their counterparts in the cities (Mu’adz, 2000). The students in the remote villages have to learn both their lessons and Bahasa Indonesia at the same time, whereas the students living in the cities are native speakers of Bahasa Indonesia or at least bi-lingual (See also Harris, 1990). In other words, the urban students can learn Bahasa Indonesia directly. Meanwhile the rural students have double burdens; their own compulsory language lessons and Bahasa Indonesia.

Several studies on second language acquisition have recommended that the learning process of science concepts should be carried out in the first language or mother tongue (UNESCO, 1953). The first language is the ideal language to build the basic concept of children’s knowledge to understand their world view. If the foundations of children’s knowledge concepts have been strongly established in the first language, the understanding of the same concepts of knowledge conveyed in the second language would be easier to learn. The same thing would happen to the learning of a second language (Krashen and Biber, 1988; Cummins, 1989; Lightbown and Spada, 2003). For that reason, the first language should be used as the instructional language at schools before the student masters a second language.

Freeman et al. (1992) stated that students studying at schools with English as the only instructional language, often lagged behind in their other school subjects, for example, mathematics and the sciences. On the other hand, students studying at schools with their mother tongue as the instructional language could follow the subjects more easily. A longitudinal study in United States conducted by Remirez 1991 (cited in Mu’adz, 2000) showed the same results as discussed previously.

Based on previous studies, local languages used as the instructional languages at the lower primary school level, Grades 1 to 4, would obviously be required, whereas for Grade 5 and 6, both the mother tongue and the Indonesian language should be used together (Mu’adz, 2000). It would be important to stress that the use of local languages in schools would probably not hamper the students’ Indonesian language development. Thus, the use of local languages as the means of communication would not threaten the position of Indonesian language as a national language that must be mastered by all Indonesian people (Marhum; 1999; Sumampouw, 2003).

Mu’adz (2000) suggested that there were several important reasons why the local languages must be taught at schools in Indonesia. First, the local language could become the means of positive self-image formation for students as native speakers. The use of local language in schools should encourage the students to take pride and have self-confidence in themselves. They would feel that their local languages were respected in schools. For this reason, the students might feel more comfortable at school. Lucas et al (1990) in their study of six high schools with bilingual education and with high academic performance showed that the six school bilingual programs respect the students’ local languages and culture. The researchers recorded eight ways in which schools respect the local language and culture:
a)      treating students as individuals, not as members of a group;
b)      learning about students’ culture;
c)      learning about the students’ language;
d)     hiring bilingual staff of similar cultural background to the students;
e)      encouraging students to develop their primary language skills;
f)       allowing students to speak their primary languages except when the  development of the English language was the focus of instruction and interaction;
g)      offering advanced as well as lower division content courses in the students’ primary languages; and
h)      instituting extracurricular activities that would attract students.

However, if schools did not show pride in students’ local languages and culture, the students might rapidly lose their self-confidence (Lucas et al. 1990). Thus, by the time students started their higher academic activities, they did not have sufficient preparation regarding both academic and cultural matter because their understanding of the lessons has transmitted through a language that they had not mastered very well. This burden only discouraged the students from further study.

The other reason why local languages must be taught in schools is that it is necessary to maintain the local language in order to prevent it from becoming endangered or extinct (Skutnab-Kangas and Cummins, 1988; Crystal, 2000). However, the use of local language as an instructional language could also be enriched by foreign languages. Many science concepts that derived from foreign terminology have been adopted into local languages.

The use of local language as the instructional language may result in forming the habit by the children to use their local language for science and technology concepts they study at schools (Mu’adz, 2000). Thorough this process, the terminology of science and technology can be adopted. The students may maintain their habit of using their local language right up to the highest levels of their schooling.

The use of a local language as an instructional language may contribute to the greater appreciation and pride of children towards their local language and culture (Saifuddin, 2004). The children may be encouraged to learn their culture more intensively so that they know about its variety and uniqueness, the local wisdom and the universal values of their culture (Kopong, 1995, Teasdale, 2000). The understanding of local culture could encourage the students to learn their national culture. Furthermore, they are not uprooted from their basic culture.



Local Language as a School Subject
Mu’adz (2000:p.85) suggested that there were several reasons why some particular local languages in Indonesia should be incorporated into the school curriculum: First, the 1945 Constitution recommends the maintenance of local language. The students should give their local language the same value as their national language. Therefore, the local language should be incorporated into the school curriculum. Second, the students might be expected to become more highly motivated to learn their local language, history and culture if the local languages were incorporated into the school curriculum (Utomo at al., 1988). The incorporation of local language into the school curriculum would mean that the government had put the educational institution closer to the socio-cultural situation of the children (Mu’adz, 2000; Saifuddin, 2004). It was also expected that the students would become the agent or rescuer and developer of their own local language and culture. Without the active participation of students, the development policy of the local language and culture could not be easily implemented.

Third, the mastery of writing skills in their mother tongue could boost the children’s development of cognition and intellectuality. Swain et al (1990) reported on a study of comparison of bilingual education groups. The first group was a group that learnt reading skills with their mother tongue whereas the second group learnt reading skills using their second language. When the two groups learnt a third language, it was found that the first group (with mother tongue) learnt the third language faster than the second group. The study showed empirical evidence of the importance of local language teaching (Nagai, 1997). The local language supported the development of the children’s intellectuality.
Local language teaching should be differentiated into two types that were the teaching of local language as the first language and the teaching of local language as a second language (Mu’adz, 2000). The content of the two types of language teaching were different. The teaching of a local language as the mother tongue or first language included both language issues and local culture and history. However, the teaching of a local language as second language was focused on the use of local language for practical and communicative purposes (See also Nunan, 1988). In addition, the teaching of local language as a second language would commonly be implemented in urban areas since most students used Bahasa Indonesia or other local languages as their mother tongue. However, the programs for the incorporation of a local language into the local content of the school curriculum had not considered the above recommendation.

Educational Decentralization Policy
According to Hanson and Anderson (1998, p.2), decentralization is defined as the transfer of decision making authority, responsibility and tasks from higher to lower organizational levels or between organizations. Hanson and Anderson (1998) further suggest that there are three major forms of decentralization.
  1. Deconcentration typically involves the transfer of tasks and work, but not authority, to other units in the organization.
  2. Delegation involves the transfer of decision making authority from higher to lower hierarchical units, but that authority can be withdrawn at the discretion of the delegating unit.
  3. Devolution refers to the transfer of authority to an autonomous unit that can act independently, or a unit that can act without first asking permission (Hanson & Anderson, 1998; p. 2).

Karmel (1971) reported on the use of decentralization to the Committee of Enquiry into education in South Australia that two forms of decentralization should be considered. These forms were to:
(a)    involve the devolution of authority within the Education Department,
(b)   involve people outside the department in general policy decisions.

Caldwell (2002, p.2) argued that devolution was suitable for the decentralization of education. He further argued that:
Responsibility should be devolved as far as possible upon the people involved in the actual task of schooling, in consultation with the parents of the pupils whom they teach and, at senior levels, with the students themselves.  Its belief  in this grass-roots approach to the control of schools reflects a conviction that responsibility will be most effectively discharged where the people entrusted with making decisions are also the people responsible  for carrying them out, with an obligation to justify them, and in a position to profit from their experience.

Sturman (1989, p.5) suggested that there were four different types or levels of decentralization: regionalization, school-based curriculum decision making, teacher-based curriculum decision making, and the participation of parents and community in curriculum decision making. The types and levels of decentralization were also suggested by Millard, (1988) and Marsh and Willis (1999). Each of these was addressed through reference to the different frames of influence, that is, respectively, the administrative frame, the school frame, the individual frame and the community frame.

Mboi (1989, p.234) argued that decentralization had also given more attention to the minority groups, namely the groups that might have been neglected and marginalized in the past. In Indonesia decentralized government and local autonomy were the most current policies. The concept and application of a decentralized policy was introduced from January 2001. However, Tilaar (2003) argued that the regional autonomy had also resulted in the revival of tribalism, ethnic pride and ethnic fanaticism. Yet Madjid, (1999, p.204) claimed that the implementation of democracy in Indonesia in the regional autonomy era was significantly influenced by the decision making of dominant ethnic groups in particular areas.

Karim et al. (2003) argued that the introduction of regional autonomy laws (decentralization) also brought about several conflicts of interest among stakeholders within government institutions in Indonesia. Furthermore, Liddle (1996) maintained that bureaucracy also dominated the government, in the sense that bureaucrats were the most powerful actors in most policy conflicts. Sjahrir (2004) argued that conflict of interest in Indonesia in the regional autonomy era was inevitable.

According to the Ministry of National Education, (2002,p.2), in the education sector, local autonomy was meant to develop democratic, transparent and accountable education, creating educational institutions that were more autonomous, independent, professional and not influenced by ordinary self-interest. Davis and Stark (2001,p.4) suggested that the decision of those on whom we depend should be independent, unbiased and impartial in order to avoid conflict of interest in a particular domain.

Indonesia’s schools needed to develop a capacity to govern themselves in areas of financial, curriculum and human resources management (See Listiyono, 2003). Furthermore, Waris (2000, p.3) argued that a decentralized strategy was naturally a legal process of relocating powers from the centre to regional and local authorities. Basically, this was a distribution of benefits and burdens of education to all local authorities and citizens. The law had given broad powers to local governments in all public sectors except the sectors explicitly reserved to the central government, such as foreign policy, defence security, justice, monetary and fiscal matters and religion. Jalal and Musthafa (2001, p.15) reported that:
Central Government holds authority in handling issues in national identity and integrity, international education services, national standardization and cross-provincial interests. The authority covers the making of policies, guidelines, standards, requirements, procedures and administration. The local governments are responsible for its implementation. Since the implementation of Regional Autonomy is still in the framework of unitary state of the Republic of Indonesia, the local education system should be in the framework of national education system.

There were several benefits of autonomous education. Kopong (1995), for example, suggested that people at a grass roots level and local authorities would have the opportunity to plan, manage, implement, and evaluate their local educational institutions. In other words, local authorities and educators would get empowerment in educational decision making (Caldwell, 2002; Ministry of National Education, 2002). Through democratization, all communities would have access to involvement in the development of education. However, Goodlad (1991) suggested that the role of education in a democratic society, and the nature and the locus of control most appropriate to schools were charged with serving the often conflicting interests of both individuals and polity.

How to make an efficient autonomous education system would become the main issue. Jazadi (2003b), for example, argued that it was expected that decentralized education would be better than a centralized one. Skills and capacity were required to implement efficient educational decentralization. The development of institutional and individual capacity that could improve efficiency in educational management was a major task. Furthermore, it was believed that participation of local communities could boost equality and relevance (Kopong, 1995; Nagai, 1997).

Developing a new curriculum must aim at accommodating regional and local diversity. A quality standard of curriculum could be achieved through a diverse curriculum design (Keeves, 1990; Kopong, 1995). Meanwhile, a competency based curriculum had been tried out at a number of schools. The curriculum was based on the local main competency of each district or region. Kopong (1995) argued that currently every school was expected to develop local curriculum content in addition to innovation in instructional strategies.

Schools would have the opportunity to govern themselves through educational decentralization (Caldwell, 2002; Madya, 2002). They should aim to achieve a professional and efficient management, effective instruction and excellent educational output. In addition, schools should become the frontier for the development of creativity and innovation for better educational outputs. Teachers should define themselves as managers dedicating themselves to gain optimum results from their students, particularly in the areas of learning and performance.

Schools were currently turning to become more professional. They were expected to become more efficient educational institutions and could develop in the competitive surroundings (Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997). Each school would be required to use its resources effectively and to achieve outstanding performance relative to others.

The Ministry of Education (2002) reported that the government, society and families should be responsible for public education. More effective educational services could be achieved through synergized efforts (Jazadi, 2003b). School autonomy would bring more and more people’s minds and thought into education. The government would no longer intervene in school management and in addition the local communities would be given greater opportunities to develop their school (Kopong, 1994; Nagai 1997).  School based management would be introduced to make the schools more independent.

Political reform in Indonesia led to the enactment of Law No. 22 of 1999 on decentralization and regional autonomy, as well as Government Regulation No. 25 of 2000 on the central government’s authority and the autonomous provincial government’s authority (Surya, 2002; Ministry of National Education, 2002). Each local government, district and municipality council was given greater autonomy to control its own people and to provide greater public service for them than the central government formerly did (Alm & Bahl, 1999; SFDM P4D, 2002). In terms of democratization issues, politicians and local community would have greater autonomy for public policy making than the bureaucrats formerly provided. In line with the above policy on decentralization and regional autonomy, the Ministry of National Education (2002), for example, took a number of measures which included (a) decentralizing educational management through piloting the implementation of school-based management, a management system which was just the opposite of a centralized one; (b) the restructuring of the Ministry of Education organization, and (c) the passing of the Educational Bill.

Following the downfall of the Orde Baru Regime, the New Government of the Republic of Indonesia introduced Law No. 22 of 1999 on Regional Government Autonomy and Government Regulation No. 25 of 2000 on the sharing of authority in education. The People’s Consultative Assembly issued Decree No. IV/MPR/2000 on policy recommendations which were concerned with the implementation of Regional Autonomy that the National Assembly had recommended full implementation of autonomy as of 1 January 2001, and asked Government to issue the regulations needed for the full implementation (Santoso, 2003). In line with educational decentralization, Madya (2002) reported that Government Regulation No. 25/2000 stipulated the sharing of authority between central government and local government.

Jalal and Musthafa (2001) reported that educational decentralization was concerned with (a) institutional and personal affairs, (b) budgeting, and (c) academic affairs. In the institutional and personal matters, the district had to formulate regulations on the implementation of educational decentralization such as district regulation for organizations and work systems, the recruitment of teachers and other educational personnel, staff development and planning (see Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997). The district also had full autonomy in formulating budgeting policy and its related regulations. Thus the district had greater opportunity to determine the direction or orientation of the educational development to meet its own needs.
Regional Autonomy in Perspective of Education
According to Surya (2002, p.2), one of the major changes in Indonesia was a national commitment to implement regional autonomy based on Law No. 22/1999. Decentralization of education was a logical consequence of this commitment and was expected to empower the provision of education at the level of districts, institutional education and classrooms (Jalal and Musthafa, 2001). Educational decentralization may be implemented through the provision of power for teachers and other school personnel to make their best professional decision at the micro level.  Surya (2002, p, 2) stated that:

LANGUAGE POLICY AND EDUCATION: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE


This chapter aims to provide a global perspective on the relations between national language policies and to raise the question of what languages should be taught in schools. The review is presented in order to provide a broad picture of background information on the theory and methods used in this study.

The era of globalisation has brought with it many significant implications for both the learning of languages and education. The teaching of modern languages is becoming a major educational issue around the world. Currently, it is inevitable that English should play a key role as a global language. However, this development has an implication for the use of national language and under many circumstances the use of the local language.

The teaching of national languages and local languages has been under review for many years in many parts of the world. On the one hand, national language education is widely promoted and improved through the development of a language policy and educational planning. On the other hand, there is a deep concern among local people, linguists, teachers and anthropologists about the endangerment of local languages. Local teachers have often criticised the weakness of top down policies introduced by central governments which do not bring about advantages of the maintenance of local languages.

The structure of this chapter is as follows. The first section discusses important issues that are associated with language policies and language planning in an educational context. The second section considers information background on multilingualism and the associated educational issues. The third section examines language shift and maintenance and the last section focuses on indigenous language policies and the educational programs that flow from them.

Language Policy and Language Planning
Phillipson (2002) indicated that there is a tension between a globalising language and the paramount need to formulate and implement language policies that meet local, cultural, linguistic, political and economic needs. On the other hand, Delors (1996, p.16) argued that one of the great challenges for education in the globalization era is the tension between tradition and modernity. In this view, Teasdale (2000, p.5) suggested that:
This necessary tension is a functional and creative tension. Such a tension is necessary and desirable for the production of both a balance and harmony among the cultures involved. A positive perspective is required to help ease the tensions that exist among the local, national and global cultures.

Djité (1994, p.63-67) argued that language policy and language planning actually refer to many different processes even though they are often used interchangeably and sometimes overlap. Cooper (1989, p.45) in his discussion on language policy, defines language policy as:
The combination of official decisions and prevailing public practices which is related to language education and use. It includes language planning, defined as deliberate efforts to influence the behaviours of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of language codes.


From this definition it is obvious that language policy and language planning has an inseparable relation and common procedures. The government, the community and the schools are the important stakeholders of both language policy and language planning (See Corson, 1990; Ingram 1993). However, it can be argued that the implementation of language policy and language planning requires active involvement of schools.


Generally governments and other authorities make language policy through the deliberate choice(s) that are associated with language usage and social life (Lo Bianco, 1987a; AACLAME, 1990; Ingram, 1993 Djité, 1994; Annamalai, 2003; Smalicz & Secombe, 2003). The societal level involves the identification of the language for communication problems, the formulation of the different alternatives available and the making of decision related to the language norm (a language or a dialect) to be introduced into the education system. The language level covers the linguistic corpus and the procedures of general standardisation such as the writing of a grammar and the selection of an appropriate lexicon.

Language planning is derived from language policy. The societal level involves the work of carrying out or enforcing decisions made about the selected language norm(s) and the dissemination of this decision through the government, the school system and media (Djité, 1994; Ager, 2001). For example the implementation of planning is carried out through the introduction of selected language norm(s) either as a medium of instruction, or as a subject to be taught in all schools and universities (Coady & Laoire, 2002; Karyolemou, 2003). The implementation procedure involves a sustainable evaluation process followed by re-assessment and by a new assessment of the whole plan to find out where changes to improve the plan may be required as well as to ensure that the stated language policy goals are achieved. Language planning undertakes stylistic and terminological modernisation of the language norms to perform the functions of modern life at the language level (Ingram, 1993).  Meanwhile, Ager (1996, p.1) argued that:
Language planning is important in all types of society, too. In families, and in small, monolingual groups, language is the cement that binds people together and the symbols that repel the outsider and it is important to maintain its uniqueness; in large, multilingual societies, conflicts between different languages often symbolise power relationships between different groups and it is essential for rulers to maintain social control through the linguistic control.


Skutnab-Kangas and Cummins (1988) suggested that the language policies of the government may be classified into four kinds in terms of the implicit or explicit goals of the policy. They are policy of elimination of multilingualism, tolerance of multilingualism, maintenance of multilingualism and promotion of multilingualism.

Language policy is often associated with national cohesion and may prove to be only symbolic and never being fully implemented. It can be restricted by a government’s political will in dealing with improving the language situation. Language planning refers to the actual accomplishment of the task of finding solutions to the identified language problems (Djité, 1994; Smolicz & Secombe 2003).

Kloss (1969) has argued that status planning is concerned with the allocation of language or language varieties to particular functions (for example, as the medium of instruction, the official language, or the vehicles of mass communication). Examples of the allocation of language to new functions are found in the history of all nations. Clear examples include: the shift from Dutch to Bahasa Indonesia as the language of government administration in Indonesia; the shift from French to Vietnamese when the French were expelled from Vietnam.

One function of planning is to examine the forces that influence language usage in a society (eg, language maintenance and shift, or language attitudes), and to learn how to obtain benefits from these forces in order to meet planned objectives. In order to recognise and support the linguistic diversity of the nation and to ensure that the functions of linguistic variety in a policy are supported within the restrictions of available resources is another major function of status planning (see Jernudd 1986).

Kloss (1969) differentiated status planning from corpus planning. He claimed that corpus planning was primarily a linguistic process since it was concerned with the issues of coining new terms, reforming spelling or adopting a new script and formulating the rules of correct grammar. Cooper (1989) argued that pattern followed function in corpus planning. In other words the structures were selected so that a given form, overt or covert, could be served by a modification or treatment of the corpus and that the identification of the desired communicative functions preceded the selection of structures.  Thus, corpus planning, in order to be successful, must involve the achievement of a delicate balance between the old and the new, between traditionalism and rationality. Moreover, corpus planning required sensitivity to what the target population would “like, learn and use” (Fishman 1983, p. 115-117).


Basis for Planning and Education Agencies
The educational sector was involved in every case in which the development of an official language policy had taken place. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997,p. 8-9)  argued that:
Yet, it was suggested that the entire burden of planning language change should not be placed in the hands of the education ministry if it did not have, the scope, the resources or the authority to impose language usage beyond the educational settings.

Ditje (1994) argued that each community should be encouraged to take part in the development of language policy and in language planning. In fact, the success of language policy implementation should not only depend on the government or each educational institution, in particular, but every community should also be responsible for the effective implementation of language policy and language planning. Thus, it is clear that the participation of the local community in the development of language policy and the implementation of language maintenance is absolutely necessary.

The educational sector should make a number of language policy and planning decisions. Schools should be considered to be suitable settings for the development and implementation of language policy. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) suggested five major language policy and planning decisions.

First, the education system should determine which language(s) would be taught within the curriculum, determine when the commencement of curriculum instruction would take place and what the duration of instruction would be, and determine what level and type of proficiency would be considered necessary to fulfil the needs of the society by the end of instruction (Corson, 1999).
Second, the recruitment of teachers must be defined. Who teaches the language(s) in the curriculum must be considered. Where and how to recruit proficient and qualified teachers must also be taken into consideration.

Third, it would be necessary to determine what segments of the student population should be exposed to language education and how to identify  each segment in order to provide it with readiness training, and to induce each segment to take the available instruction. In addition, parental and community support would be needed.

Fourth, assessment procedures would need to be defined. Assessment would need to measure students’ academic performance and teachers’ performance, as well as system performance in order that language performance meet societal needs (Keeves, 1997).

Finally, it would be necessary to determine how to introduce all of the activities both financially and physically, where to generate the resources from, and how to maintain language education across the whole system (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997).

Language in Education Planning
Language in education planning is basically different from language planning. Language planning is generally a function of government which must penetrate many sectors of society (Lo Bianco, 1987 b; AACLAME, 1990; Ingram, 1993). However, language in education planning affects only one sector of society, the educational sector (Corson, 1987; Cooper, 1989; Baldauf & Luke 1990). A number of countries over the past 20 or so years have considered language in educational planning but only the formal educational structure has been involved.
There is a clear reason why the educational sector is chosen as the area for language planning (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). The educational sector is concerned with the establishment of the standard language – whether the official national language or the official foreign language.  A standard language is associated with a set of discursive, cultural and historical practices. Individuals must acquire the standard language through individual participation in the usage of norms and these norms are commonly instilled in the educational sector.

The educational sector is selected as the area of language planning. It is thus, the transmitter and perpetuator of culture (Emmit and Pollock, 1997; Harris, 1990). But language planning is considered to involve only the so-called ‘standard language’.

A Model for Language in Education Planning
Figure 2.1, below, shows a summary of the various stages that might be used in the planning of language education as recommended by Kaplan and Baldauf (1997). The six typical stages are: the pre-planning stage, the survey stage, the report writing stage, the policy formation stage, the implementation stage, and the recurring evaluation stage which feeds back into the system at various points.

Language Policy and Planning
1 = PRE-planning stage: undertake historical research, and make cost estimated;
2 = SURVEY stage: design, test, disseminate and collect data;
3 = REPORT stage: write report, test recommendations;
4 = POLICY stage: design and test policy strategies;
5 = IMPLEMENTATION stage: devise implement strategies;
6 = EVALUATION stage: evaluate all phases and feedback into the system.

Language-in Education Policy

7 = EDUCATION Policy: separate from general policy
8 = CURRRICULUM Policy: identify what language, and when;
9 = PERSONNEL Policy: provide in-service/pre-service training;
10 = MATERIALS Policy: identify what, how much, how soon;
11 = COMMUNITY Policy: encourage positive parental attitudes, funding sources,
        Recruiting teachers/students
12 = EVALUATION Policy: evaluate curriculum and student success, teacher
        Success/consider interest, cost effectiveness, societal change, basic policy.

Language in education planning involves a series of subsidiary steps as can be seen in the bottom half of Figure 2.1. It is necessary for the plan to provide the basis from which the environment can be interpreted, and it is necessary for a broad recommendation to be advanced to provide the basis on which planning might take place. Both a policy formulation stage and an evaluation stage are required in language planning in education, as in more general language planning activities (Cooper, 1989; Ditje, 1994). Some of the policy formation and evaluation can take place as a part of general governmental planning processes if a language in education is being undertaken as a part of national activity (Teasdale, 2005).

Figure 1 The language planning feedback loop
Source: Kaplan and Baldauf (1997, p. 124)

Clampit (1995) suggested that it was necessary to find out what languages people in a particular community actually spoke, what were the purposes of the languages spoken, who were the speakers, where did the speakers live and what was the motivation to maintain some languages. This information would be best obtained through a sociolinguistics survey. Alwasilah (1997) indicated that planning may also have implications for attitude change in relation to instruction in schools if the languages were stigmatised. Nevertheless, if the languages were considered to have high prestige or economic advantage it might be necessary to change those impressions or views in order to prevent a heavy imbalance in a community who wanted to learn a language and to preclude anger on behalf of parents whose children were not selected (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1993).
Language in Education Policy
Scott (2000, p.25) argued that there were broadly three theories about how policy works. These were a centrally controlled model, a pluralist model, and a fragmented multi-directional model. The first two were shown to be flawed and the last, it was argued, incorporated more of the features of how policy worked in the educational arena.

The following figure shows three models of policy making that could be applied to the educational arena.
Policy is made
Model  A                                               
     Policy is implemented

Policy is made
Model  B                                                                                                                      
   Policy is contested and remade

Policy is implemented

Policy is made
Model C
    Policy is rewritten                                   Policy is contested and remade


Policy is made during its implementation
Figure 2 three models of policy making
Source: (Scott, 2000, p.24)

In the era of educational democratisation or decentralisation of education model B and in particular, Model C could be applicable to be implemented in respect to the policy making process in the educational arena. Those models seem to consider both bottom up and top down systems in policy making processes (Jalal & Musthafa, 2001).

Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) argued that language planning generally had been referred to part of human resources development planning, and in turn had been associated with being involved in modernisation and community development. It was necessary for educational sectors to know what languages were desirable in the community and for what purpose the language would be used, for example, if a government wanted to develop its commercial ties with a particular country or region. The government would need to provide language education to produce individuals who had a good command and competence in the language of the new commercial partner (Lo Bianco, 1987a; AACLAME, 1990; Ingram, 1993).

Through its national policy on language, the education sector in Australia has considered the introduction of language education for tourism and trading purposes with its trading partners in Asia, such as Indonesia, China, Korea, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan (Ingram 1993, Ditje, 1994). The languages of these trading partners have been taught at junior secondary, senior secondary and tertiary levels. The introduction of these languages for commercial purposes, in the short term, has been expected to produce speakers of these languages while in the longer term to produce a pool of speakers in the community to sustain the appreciation of a wider range of partners and their cultures (Lo Bianco, 1987a, 1987b, AACLAME, 1990)
Governments should provide a number of instrumental incentives to motivate young people to learn the languages on offer. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) suggested that such encouragement might cover tax incentives to business organisations that hired specialists of those languages, since proficiency of language was required for maintaining foreign services. In order to improve instruction in those languages, allocation of funding would be absolutely necessary, including special salaries for the training of qualified teachers.

Language Policy in Schools
Language policy in schools refers to the resolution of language problems that school meet in settings of linguistic and cultural diversity (Corson, 1999; Coady & Laoire, 2002; Brun & Ramoniene, 2003). Many people consider the language policy of a school as an integral and necessary part of the administration and of curriculum practice (Ashworth, 1988). A language policy is a document compiled by the staff of a school, and is often assisted by school community, that guides the teaching and use of particular languages in the school (Djiteé, 1994; Khaparde, 2002).

Teachers and administrators are responsible for the design and implementation of the school language policy, through a policy making group or ideally through the participation of the whole school staff and the wider school community (Corson, 1990).

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).

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.

There may be two sorts of incentive; the first incentive is to provide or defray the costs of training, both in the language and in the general pedagogy, and long term incentives offered to provide satisfying careers for both language teachers and to encourage the maintenance of language proficiency (Djite, 1994; Ingram, 1993). Furthermore, the use of scholarships implies the development of some sort of screening mechanism to permit the selection of those most likely to succeed and most likely to commit themselves to a career in the field.

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). 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). 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.

New methods have been frequently rejected by teachers without reference to their quality. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) have argued that there are several reasons why teachers feel uncomfortable with new methods. First, they may not understand the theoretical assumptions upon which a particular method is founded. Second, the ways in which the teachers are trained may contradict the assumptions. Third, the method may be different from the method of target language learning which they know from work experience. Language in education requires the selection of an appropriate instructional method.

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. It would not be efficient to train one million students to ensure the availability of 100,000 fluent speakers if the society projected that it would need 100,000 speakers of a particular language. A clear cut objective of language teaching in the schools would be to attain some level of bilingualism in the target language among the target population by the end of a period of study. 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 2.3 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 3 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. Specifically, there needs to be evaluation of students to calculate whether they are attaining the objectives set by the system. Moreover, there is a need to evaluate the teachers to assess whether they have the language skills necessary to give quality instruction at the level demanded by the system. In addition, there needs to be a total evaluation of the system in order to calculate whether the objectives set are commensurate with the needs, abilities and population desires.

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).

Issues in Multilingualism and Education Policy

Multilingualism has become a common issue in many parts of the world including developed and developing countries. In this context, multilingualism is associated with local languages, national languages and international language (Baldauf and Luke, 1990).

On the one hand, the government and the local communities in all countries are challenged to manage multilingualism by introducing a language policy for multilingualism (Lo Bianco, 1987a). On the other hand, the education sector needs to provide significant resources for the development and promotion of multilingualism. The incorporation of multilingual teaching into the school curriculum needs to have positive implications for the development and promotion of local, national and global language education particularly in an era of globalisation and the expansion of democracy world wide (Nagai, 1997).
The promotion of multilingualism must cover linguistic diversity, such as vernacular language, national language and English as a global language. The following sections discusses the relevant issues.

A Vernacular Language
According to Walton and Eggington (1990, p. 54), a vernacular language means an indigenous local language that is used by people in a certain district or place. They further state that the term ‘vernacular language’ is used in a more political sense by UNESCO to mean a language dominated or oppressed by another and with the implication that vernacular languages are generally spoken by relatively small groups of people, who typically have little or no tradition of writing and the language is unlikely to be standardised. Holmes (1992, p.80-86) argues that the term ‘vernacular’ is used in a number of ways. It generally refers to a language which has not been standardised and which does not have official status.

There are more than 1,000 different vernacular languages spoken in the Pacific region. They make up around one-fifth of the world languages. They generally involve a very small number of speakers since the region’s population is small and scattered: the number of speakers per language account for approximately 5000-6000 with the largest number of speakers being found in Fiji with about 300,000 speakers, Samoa with about 250,000 speakers and Papua New Gunea with about 200.000 speakers (See Grimes, 1992; Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1995). The smallest numbers of speakers, at the other end of the scale, make up about 170 languages, virtually all of them in Melanesia, and spoken by fewer than 200 speakers. Mugler and Lynch (1996, p. 2-5) reported that:
The majority of vernacular languages found in the Pacific region have related roots to each other. They belong to the members of Austronesian language family. According to history, 1000 years ago, the ancestors of vernacular language speakers migrated from west to east and settled in the islands of the Eastern Pacific regions. Linguistic changes subsequently occurred in each different area leading to the great linguistic diversity as can be seen today.

Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands both have a different language origin in terms of their vernacular languages family. In fact, they do not belong to an Austronesian family. Linguists suggest the ultimate origins of Papua New Guinea vernaculars are obscure. The Papua New Guinea ancestors were predicted to have been in the Pacific region for much longer – maybe 50,000 years or more (Grimes, 1992; Digest, 1999).

Before the European people came to the Pacific region, none of the vernacular languages were transcribed. European missionaries, using the letters of the Roman alphabet devised the writing system of the Pacific vernacular languages (Nagai, 1997). Many languages, particularly in Melanesia, are not yet written, although some Pacific vernacular languages have been written for more than 150 years.

In terms of minority languages, in the South-East Asian region for example, there are hundreds of languages that are indigenous to South-East Asian people that can be grouped into minority languages (Crystal, 2000). A large number of minority languages, more than 20, can be found in the remote areas of South-East Asian countries such as Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, Philippines, West Malaysia and even Singapore.

Minority language speakers are motivated by religious and political factors. Anthropological linguists and Ministries of Culture recommend preserving and maintaining the identity of minority language (Crystal, 2000). However, the central government and the border controls perhaps want rapid assimilation into the main stream of national culture, economy, religion and politics. Mugler and Lynch (1996) argued that when it came to the policy making stage including educational policy, the two goals were necessarily in conflict. Consequently, It was really important to consider both top down policy and bottom up policy making in order to manage the conflict of interest that arose.



The South East-Asian governments have much in common in their attitudes toward minority groups. They agree that the territories of minority language speakers need to be protected. The minority groups need to be allowed to assimilate, migrate, disappear, or stay intact where they are, but the tendency for separatism needs to be prevented from developing (Walton and Eggington 1990). Even though they may be isolated from national educational planning, the language they speak needs to be considered.

The strengthening of regional and national pride may lead to further research on minority languages. A strong national language is an important issue, in what Gonzales (1979 in Noss, 1984) calls ‘language welfare’. Then a language firmly rooted in natural or regional antiquity is considered to be even more important.

 

A National Language


Indigenous languages which are given official priority in particular countries by the government concerned can be defined as national languages (Nos, 1984; Grimes, 1992; Digest 1999). For example, in South East Asian countries the national languages are Bahasa Indonesia in Indonesia, Bahasa Malaysia in Malaysia, and Thai in Thailand. Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa Malaysia, Malay and the Tagalog language of Philippines belong to the same family.

In terms of national languages, two categories need to be considered. One is the nature of the national language which refers to what the national language is supposed to be (Nos, 1984). The other is the role of the national language which is associated with what the national language is supposed to do. In ASEAN countries, every country is in a different situation regarding the nature and the role of its national language.

A Global Language and Its Impact

Crystal (1997) argued that a language can be defined as a global language when it is recognised 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 recognised 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.

Language Shift and Maintenance
According to Clampitt (1995), language maintenance and shift are terms that refer to a choice made by a society as to which language is used for certain functions. This choice may lead to the death of a minor language in its totality, leaving no speakers of the minor language or the language may die in a specific community if the shift to the new language does not occur. If language shift occurs only in certain sections of society then some degree of language maintenance of the minor language takes place (Paulston, 1994; Campit, 1995).
There are several conditions that could contribute to the promotion of language shift. These conditions are associated with societal bilingualism, migration, industrialization, the schools’ and government’s use of the language, urbanisation, different ethnic intermarriage, and the prestige levels of the new language and minor language (Paulston, 1994).

Factors Contributing to Language Shift
Why would a community shift its language from one to another? The most obvious reason would be associated with the importance of learning the second or new language. Getting a job could have become the economic reason for people to learn the second language (Lo Bianco, 1987a; Ingram, 1993).

The second important reason could be that the community was not concerned with the importance of maintaining their ethnic language. Holmes (1992: p. 65) suggested that:
The speakers probably see no advantages of maintaining their language and in addition to the lack of knowledge on the detrimental impact of language shift to the ethnic language situation. Language shift can not be avoided without an active language maintenance program. Furthermore, since a language shift was not perceived as a threat and the speakers abandoned it, language loss might occur.

Demographic factors also contribute to the language shift. Based on several studies, language shift tends to take place in urban areas whereas rural areas seem to be more resistant to language shift (Crystal, 2000; Nagai, 1997). Because of longer isolation from the centres of political power they can fulfil most of their social needs in the ethnic or minority language, so the rural community has resistance to language shift.

In terms of language attitudes, the minority language tends be more highly valued in the areas where language shifts tend to be slower. When the local people see their language as an important symbol of ethnic identity and culture, they generally maintain it longer (Nagai, 1997). The active use of a minority language is associated with the positive attitude and support of the community toward the ethnic language. Such attitudes may help people to resist the pressure from the predominant group to switch to their language (Crystal, 2000).

Language shift can be accelerated by the incidence of intermarriage between couples of different ethnic backgrounds. The children of the intermarried family tend to use the predominant language if multilingualism is not normal in the community. Holmes, j. (1992) gives an example. He stated that German immigrants to South Australia were typical. They were slow to shift to English, and maintained their German language for many generations. Meanwhile, Paulston (1994, p. 12-13) argued that:
A shift to a dominant language is encouraged if opportunity of access to the dominant language and the socioeconomic incentives are present. The mechanism of language shift is bilingualism, often but not necessarily parents use the original language with grandparents and the new language with their children.

Intermarriage or exogamy could lead to the typical language shift for one partner, at least, within the family. The socio-economically favoured group could influence the direction of language shift.

Language Policies and Education for Indigenous People
Indigenous refers to aboriginal peoples who live in modern nation states across the globe (Corson, 1997, p.77). Race or cultural differences distinguish them from the dominant populations of their countries. Indigenous languages in several cases undergo assimilatory pressure from the dominant languages. Many indigenous languages have become endangered, moribund or event extinct (See Crystal, 2000). Recently, governments in some countries introduced official language policies to maintain and promote the development and use of indigenous languages in their countries.

Historical Notes
According to history, the contact between colonizers in many parts of the world and indigenous peoples led to pressure on the aboriginal peoples to follow the mainstream of imposed cultures. Nagai (1997) reported that alien language and cultures were institutionalized for the indigenous peoples and a schooling system was based on the alien languages and cultures. Furthermore, the alien language and culture became the indigenous peoples only route to education (Corson, 1997). In the 1970s, policy makers thought that the indigenous peoples would benefit from learning and using the colonizers’ languages which provided access to the cultural and economic goods of the dominant cultures.

One of the crucial language planning decisions that a country can make is the determination of a language to serve as the medium of instruction in schools (Fasold 1984; Keeves, 1987; Corson, 1997). Corson (1997) gave examples from Tanzania and Ireland where the determination of the language of education was to some extent part of the determination of the national language, but in both countries compromises had to be made. In Ireland, Irish could not be used as a medium of instruction in schools because too few people could speak it. In Tanzania, Swahili was judged to be widespread enough to be made the nationwide language of primary education.

The concept of education in a familiar language began to spread in PNG especially in rural areas. The use of vernacular language at an early stage of schooling was considered to be effective to assist children to relate better to their own environment, appreciate their own cultural values, and make them more psychologically secure (Somare, 1974; Vallen, 1987; Nagai 1997). 

In the early development of bilingualism the advantages of bilingual education was not widely promoted and often the evidence was covered up in the face of competing ideologies (Cummins 1984 cited in Corson, 1997). In 1951, a UNESCO committee of experts argued that it was now axiomatic that the best medium for teaching a child was the child’s mother tongue (UNESCO 1953, p.11). The committee further claimed that their case was based on psychological, sociological and educational grounds.

Significant Contributions
A revision in policy priorities for vernacular languages of all kinds, along with changes in attitudes to bilingual education and bilingualism, was supported by many studies in several countries (Skutnabb-Kangas 1984; Cummins & Swain 1986; Skutnabb-Kangas & Cummins 1988; Corson 1993). The policy makers gradually became more receptive to the lasting demands of indigenous people for the maintenance of their language in those countries where social justice becomes a political priority. Consequently, in those countries bilingual and bicultural forms of education were appropriate.

Where the local people became more involved in the schooling process, and where their ethnic language was valued and used as a medium of instruction in their schools, the whole program of schooling was directed towards elevating the status of the community and questioning the role of formal education in that process. Language questions became subsumed under much more important issues (see Corson, 1998; Harris, 1990).

The International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention Number 169 on indigenous people gave support to the policies of bilingual and bicultural education in 1990. Articles 27 and 28 of ILO were concerned with the rights of these people and sought to establish their own educational institutions and facilities. It was argued that children belonging to the peoples concerned should, wherever practicable, be taught reading and writing in their own mother tongue and their ethnic language, namely, or the language commonly used by the group to which they belonged (ILO 1990, p. 16).

The worst and most shameful policies of the past were recently repeated in some countries. The Kurdish peoples experienced various forms of linguistic oppression in the several countries that they inhibited as home lands. In the twentieth century, Sadam Husesin’s Regime in Iraq attempted to eliminate the Kurds as people, even though they spoke an Iraqi official language. In addition, legislation in Turkey forbad the public use of the Kurdish languages and punished their use in education (Mc Dowall 1994; Skutnab-Kangas & Bucak 1995; Havrest, 1997). Even though more than 80 per cent of the indigenous people spoke their traditional languages and many spoke nothing else in the Chiapas region of Mayan, the people received insufficient official support for their languages in education.
Indigenous languages have sometimes received supportive treatment in the development of educational policies elsewhere in South and Central America (Corson, 1993). For example, in Peruvian Andes, some Quechua speaking people had access to bilingual education in Quechua and Spanish. Quechua children who received a bilingual education compared favourably on the educational outcomes with other Quechua children who received a monolingual education in Spanish (Hornberger 1988a, 1988b).

Problems and Difficulties
Norway is a country that has a largely homogenous language and culture whereas Australia and Canada are two countries that have had great heterogeneity on the language and culture of their indigenous peoples (Corson, 1997). In the two heterogenous countries, there have been marked constraints imposed in the development of language policy. In Australia, English alone has dominated education, while in Canada, both English and French have dominated but in separate regions of the country.

The most comprehensive and the most effective language policies are Norway’s language policies, developed at the national level for the Sámi peoples. The legislation enacted in 1992 gave language rights and culture to the Sámi (Magga, 1995). The Norwegian Parliament acted to strengthen official use of three Sámi languages and to declare the Sámi language and Norwegian as equal languages with equal status. A Sámi Language Council was formed. The council supported the work of the Sámi Education Council which had a very important role in Sámi language education.
Through the Sámi Language Act, children obtained access to instruction in Sámi, in all subjects, parent or student choice in deciding whether a student received instruction through Sámi, and the possibility existed for Sámi children to be taught in their mother tongue for nine compulsory years of education (Corson, 1995; Corson, 1997). Meanwhile, outside the Sámi area instruction in Sámi was guaranteed for pupils with a Sámi background. Any children, regardless of background, had the right to be taught in Sámi. A great range of bilingual education provisions were offered by Norwegian schools. The schools have successfully produced graduates who were fully bilingual in both their national language and their aboriginal language

New Zealand is a country without an official national policy for its Maori people and their language. New Zealand language policies in education have developed along with educational policy changes in general. Many bilingual Maori and English elementary schools and monolingual Maori schools were developed through the changes of language policy in education (Corson, 1997; Durie, 2004). Maori and community and tribal groups were quick to take advantage of these changes. The indigenous people themselves were heavily involved in the development of Maori language policies in education.

There were three developments in New Zealand education that could be considered to be significant for Maori language policy (Corson, 1993). The first was ‘Kohanga Reo’ or ‘language nests’. It involved the non-governmental sponsorship of the pre-school movement. The Kohanga had little equipment and had no structured curriculum but there was a lot of singing and movement. The Kohanga program aimed at creating a Maori home. Many adults or parents took part in the activities, interacting with the children and providing language and culture models. In 1980s, many children sent on to state elementary schools had become bilingual and bicultural. In fact, the children inevitably acquired English that was the dominant culture outside the Kohanga, where there was unchallenged culture dominance (Corson, 1993; Durie, 2004).

The second was the establishing of multilingual ethnic schools which incorporated the values of the various minority cultures into the dominant educational values. Some of them had Kohanga Reo conducted in the school yards (May, 1994). The Maori Language was used as the mode of instruction in these elementary schools for children from Maori backgrounds who wanted bilingual education in Maori and English.

The third significant development program was the Maori Philosophy Elementary Schools or Kura Kupapa Maori. National reform in educational policy encouraged small groups of local people to establish their own state funded schools. The Kura Kupapa responds to a passionately felt belief among many Maoris that the European style school system which had become their sole avenue to formal education was not appropriate organisationally or pedagogically for the sustenance and development of Maori culture (Corson, 1993). The Maori home had a close link to the classroom environment. Maori language and culture became central in these homes and schools. At the same time the schools dealt with a modern up to-date and relevant curriculum following the introduction of guidelines by the State. The school was expected to produce fully bilingual and bi-cultural students (Hingangaroa, 1995).
Indigenous language education applies only to the indigenous language used inside the Arctic Circle where Innukituit is used, but only in the elementary grades whereas English is gradually introduced in later years (Kirkness & Brown, 1992). Canada provides important models for designing and implementing programs using Aboriginal languages as the medium of instruction (Corson & Lemay 1996). The models and their programs are exemplary, rather isolated and spread across the country. There is little coordination at the local and national level. The efforts of local Aboriginal people are needed. An Aboriginal language policy study called for the policy makers to ensure the survival and revitalisation of Aboriginal languages across Canada (Assembly of First Nations, 1988).

Australia’s Language Policies in education needed to address many different Aboriginal languages and great distances which had to be faced with the implementation of educational reform (AACLAME, 1990; Lo Bianco, 1987b). A single national Coordinating Body was established to order overseas developments. In Australia language policy was recognised more formally than in many other countries, with the implicit guarantee of language rights for a community’s Aboriginal people.

A great deal of preliminary work for this development was carried out by the National Aboriginal Language Program (NALP) that raised expectations of more lasting reforms through providing financial support for the preservation and development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages (Djite,1994). More than 90 Aboriginal languages benefited from this program, either directly or indirectly, during the first four years. The programs also contributed to the incidence of consciousness among teachers toward the problems of Aboriginal first language speakers and Aboriginal languages were more easily recognised in public and Aboriginal students’ retention rates  were markedly improved (AACLAME, 1990).

The funding support for NALP is currently managed by the Aboriginal Education Assistance Act. The production and development of the languages within their home territory is easily promoted or guaranteed since there is no Commonwealth legislation giving some form of official language status to Aboriginal and Torres Islander languages. The school policy is rather peace meal and varies greatly from one area to another. Walsh (1991, p. 47-48) argued that bilingual education was one possible solution to the decline of traditional languages. The Kriol/English program at Barunga School has been considered to be notably successful (Harris, 1991). The Aboriginal first language schools now exist mainly in parts of Northern Territory. The languages are used exclusively in the primary grades with a progressive transition to English as the goal (Romaine, 1991; Fesl, 1988).

Summary
In summary, language policy and language planning are often used interchangeably and sometimes overlap. ‘Language policy’ can be defined as the combination of official decisions and public practice which are related to language education and use. ‘Language planning’ has resulted from language policy.

Official language policy is implemented in the educational sector. The educational sector makes a number of language policy and planning decisions since the role of language in educational planning involves only the educational sector. Thus, only the formal educational structure is basically involved in language education planning. Language in education planning includes six typical stages, such as preplanning stage, survey stage, report stage, policy stage, implementation stage and evaluation stage. However, the role of language in education also includes educational policy, curriculum policy, personnel policy, material policy, community policy and evaluation policy.

In many developing countries, a multilingualism language policy that involves local languages, the national language and the global language are recognised. English is now considered the most popular and dominant global language in many parts of the world.

The issues of strengthening and balancing local, national and global language policy need to be taken into consideration in line with the Delors report on the local and global tensions. From this review it can be argued that the problem of language shift which seems to cause language loss in many parts of the world can be solved through strengthening and balancing local, national and global language through formal education.

Finally, it is important to consider the introduction of language policies particularly for multilingualism which can bring about the promotion of a global language as well as the maintenance and development of the local and national languages in the formal education sector.