Refuting Ideas for the Elimination of English

Language Lessons in Middle-High Schools

By Rika Rostiany, NPM 2019-747-0251

Nadiem Makarim, the new Minister of Education and culture began his term of service with a
session called the hearing process. During this process, Nadiem tried to learn various thoughts
from related parties in an effort to advance the education sector.

One of the parties invited by Nadiem was the Indonesian Teachers Association (IGI) at a
meeting on November 4, 2019. One of the ten IGI ideas conveyed to the Minister of Education
and Culture through its chairman, Muhammad Ramli Rahim is the elimination of English
subjects at the junior and senior high levels.

"Indonesian Language, Mathematics, English and Character Education based on religion and
Pancasila became the main subjects in elementary school, and therefore English learning in
junior and senior high school was abolished because it should have been completed in
elementary school. English learning focused on conversation and not grammar "Thus the
formulation of the IGI proposal as released by jpnn.com 4/11/2019.

This paper is a refutation of the main points of the proposal, as well as a message for the
initiators with a number of points of view below. First, the IGI proposal above is not based on the
results of scientific research.

IGI's perception that English is sufficiently studied in elementary school and is considered
complete is a form of naivetés, neglect of the culture of thinking and behaving scientifically. As
teachers and school members, scientific culture should be reflected in attitudes, behavior, and
speech.

Especially when presenting ideas relating to the public interest, the main basis should once
again be on the results or evidence of scientific research, and not personal assumptions or
opinions. To strengthen its ideas, IGI should be able to disclose relevant research data and
facts.

Without data, the proposal feels bland and shows IGI's impartiality to the fate of the teacher.
Behind this idea, has IGI ever thought about the continued impact if the idea was actually
executed? What is the fate of thousands of English teachers in Indonesian middle and high
schools?

Shouldn't IGI also outline a model of offering solutions to English-Middle School high school
teachers who might no longer teach due to the proposal?

If not, this is like solving a problem by raising a new problem. It is truly not a wise choice, in the
midst of building a research tradition as a basis for public policymaking.
Second, learning English is not as simple as learning conversation. The benefits of learning
English should not be narrowed for the purpose of being a tool of communication.

If so, even in elementary school it does not need to be studied, because courses and tutoring
institutions can realize that goal. But there are other benefits for foreign language learners at
school, including English. What is that? Study and enrich cross-cultural understanding (cross-
cultural understanding).

As part of culture, a language can be an entry point for efforts to get to know the culture of its
speakers. How important is learning English and the culture of its speakers?

In fact, English is an international language that is used in many countries, and Indonesian
generations cannot avoid international promiscuity. So even middle and high school students
may not be restricted in their rights to master English as a foreign language with the largest
number of speakers in the world.

The right to learn English as well as the culture of its speakers will open opportunities for young
Indonesians, for example for the benefit of studying abroad and getting a job.

Third, in addition to the benefits of cross-cultural knowledge, learning English as well as

Indonesian also opens opportunities and fosters the interest of learners to pursue linguistics,
literature, and journalism.

English can be a stepping stone for children to cultivate other relevant fields of science. So, with
this many opportunities, why should limit middle and high school kids to learn English?

Fourth, for the sake of simplifying the curriculum, the option is not only to reduce the number of
subjects. An interest-based learning approach is another alternative. The child focuses on
learning the lessons he likes and is interested in early on.

Thus, students do not have to learn as many subjects as they currently do, but instead, children
pursue subjects chosen according to their interests and talents.

That way, children will be very good in areas of interest, even if they only learn a few subjects,
not learning many subjects but only a few are mastered. This model is in line with labor market
demand trends that want a specialist, not a generalist.

Fifth, the claim that says English lessons should have been completed at the elementary level is
absurd. What English competencies according to IGI's point of view have been completed in
elementary school?

IGI, like turning a blind eye, does not comprehensively see the condition of basic education in
Indonesian centers. Unfortunately, if you use the condition of elementary schools in Java as a
parameter to make that statement. The impact will only widen the gap in the quality of education
between schools in Java with Papua and NTT for example.

Sixth, the policymaking process in education has always used the perspectives of adults,
program drafter, experts, and experts. Occasionally, students are given the opportunity to
express their thoughts and ideas.
The principle of the best interest for children needs to accommodate the perspectives of
children including in formulating educational policies for them because not all adult thought
formulations are in accordance with children's learning needs.

A concrete example, high school students majoring in Natural Sciences / Social Sciences
according to K13 study English only 2 hours a week, in contrast to Mathematics, Indonesian,
and majors that are allocated 4 hours per week. But then English became a subject tested in the
National Examination.

This happens at the upcoming UN 2020. The difference in the frequency of meetings and the
adequacy of study time clearly affect the children's preparation. And remember, in the field they
complain about that.

As such, as long as it is not supported by adequate research results, IGI's proposal to abolish
English language lessons in junior and senior high school levels is irrelevant and is not the best
solution for preparing the golden generation of Indonesia now and in the future.