Curriculum 2013 and Challenges of the Teachers Training


By: Afrianto Daud
(This article was frist written for the Jakarta Post)




The curriculum change initiative by the government still reap the pros and cons until today. Apart from questioning some philosophical ideas and basic concepts underlying the new curriculum, as voiced by the panel of professors of ITB in a public discussion on the curriculum recently (13/3/2013), those who are critical to the new curriculum also argue that the governement seems to impose the change and tends to rush. Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) and a number of parents who join in a Coalition to Refuse Curriculum 2013 has even submitted a petition to the headquarter of Kemendikbud. The petition was initially conducted online in December 5, 2012, and now has been signed by more than 1,500 people.

Yet, the government does not seem to change the master plan it has made. This can be seen from the statement of Prof M Nuh, Kemendikbud’s minister, saying that the Curriculum 2013 will go ahead as planned by July 2013. Nuh insisted that the rejection was not the thing to worry because all the preparations have been set up (Kompas, 3/16/2013). It seems that the socialization and the public hearing made by the government functions only as a 'lip service' within the curriculum change administrative procedures. Whatever feedbacks and public inputs it gets, the government already has a default plan, the curriculum will continue to be run as planned earlier.

A curriculum change within an education system in any country is actually a common thing, even a necessity. This is because the world inside and outside schools keeps changing, sometimes with a speed even faster than expected. So, the curriculum change is needed in the context of answering the challenges, problems and needs we are currently facing.

However, in Indonesia, recent curriculum changes often bring noise as the changes did not give enough time for each educational stakeholder to really understand the concept of change. Once again, a short test period of public hearing was more impressed only as a lip service by the government. In developed countries, like Australia, public testing of curriculum change can take up to four years. Even after the change takes place, there will be still an ongoing consultation. For us, the public test of a curriculum only takes place for a few months.

The absence of a comprehensive research-based evaluation of the implementation of the previous curricula is also among the reasons that make the resistance is getting stronger. The ongoing curriculum, 2004 KBK curriculum which was then refined by KTSP in 2006, is still realtively new. There may be even some teachers in a particular area who are still struggling to understand and apply the KTSP. However, today they are again shocked by the government's plan to re-change the curriculum.

Reading some of the basic philosophy and concepts within our previous curricula, then we will find that the theoretical concepts offered in the curricula are all good. Some of the ‘new’ important points proposed in the curriculum 2013 have actually also been mentioned in the preceding curricula. In other words, excluding the addition of learning hours and the dismissal of some subjects policies, the ‘new concepts’ of change offered by the government in Curriculum 2013 are not purely new.

The emphasis on thematic learning in the elementary level, for example, has also been named in the 2004 KBK curriculum; that at the level of elementary, classroom teachers should implement an integrated learning that uses themes to relate some subjects to provide meaningful experiences to students. The emphasis on the pocess assessment and portfolio, in addition to product assessment, is not a new issue either. The KBK curriculum with KTSP have also mentioned this concept. This is not to mention when it comes to emphasis on active learning methodologies. This concept has been very long touted, even since the 1984 curriculum with its very popular method - CBSA.

Therefore, what is more interesting to study and ponder now is why a lot of great concepts in our curricula did not work well in the field as as expected?

Answering these questions is certainly not a simple matter, because there are so many interrelated variables influencing the success of an educational process. The culture of a nation, support from parents and the community, the environment, policy in education and learning methodologies are among the factors. However, of all the variables, I think the teacher's competence and commitment are among the main factors that will determine the great concept in the curriculum can be successfully implemented in the field.

Yes, teachers. They are indeed the major players in our efforts to advance the national education. It is the teachers who are in the frontline dealing directly with the students in the real world. They will translate the nicely written concepts in the curriculum documents into a real action in the classroom. I think that everyone, including the government, is aware of this.
Therefore, if the government urges to implement this new curriculum by July 2013, it must seriously prepare these teachers in order to understand the concept of the curriculum and able to use it in the classroom. The bottom line is the government is obliged to conduct effective socialization and training series. This is not an easy task considering the size and the wide range of our national education with more than 2.9 million teachers scattered around 208,701 schools across the country.

The most serious challenge is to train primary school teachers to be ready to conduct the integrative thematic learning. Not just because of the majority of them are rarely touched by trainings, it is also because they have been ‘fossilised’ with the subject-based learning approach over many years. So imagine how challenging (not to say difficult) when teachers must incorporate all basic competencies of the various fields of study (Mathematics, Bahasa Indonesia, Civics, Sport and the Arts, and Religion) in one time meeting of creative learning.

The burden on the government to train these teachers will be heavier especially if it is associated with the demands of the curriculum that requires teachers to develop the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domain equally. We are not yet talking about Bloom's taxonomy details that emphasize the need for a teacher to gradually develop the learning process to focus on improving the ability of students from the lower to the level of ideal competence; from knowing, understading, to applying, analysing, syntesising, and evaluating.

Training teachers to skillfully deploy portfolio assessment is also another challenge. Not only because this kind of assessment requires a strong commitment and specific skills from teachers in implementing it, but also because the teachers are still 'haunted' and 'distracted' by other valuation models that are also considered important, such as the National Exam, which is by principles opposed to the model of portfolio and process assessment.

Above all, the hardest challenge is how to change the mindset of teachers before implementing the new curriculum. Training that focuses only on the artificial change, such as introducing the teachers to the new concepts or skills in the curriculum in 2013, would never make substantive changes in the field. All great changes always begin from changing the way of thinking. Therefore, a revolutionary training and socialization method involving great motivators, psychologists and professional pedagogue is necessary.

The question then is “can the government really prepare these teachers before the new curriculum is actually implemented (in some pilot schools) within this relatively short time?” The government needs to seriously address these concerns. We certainly do not want that the fantastic budget (Rp 2.49 billion) will evaporate in vain, if this great project is not well planned, and professionally executed.

* The writer is teaching at FKIP of Riau University, a PhD candidate in the School of Education, Monash University in Australia.
‘Kudeta Bahasa’ dan Imprealisme Linguistik

‘Kudeta Bahasa’ dan Imprealisme Linguistik


Oleh: Afrianto Daud
(Tulisan ini pertama kali diterbitkan oleh harian Riau Pos, 14 September 2013)

 
Satu minggu belakangan nama Vicky Prasetyo mendadak menjadi bahan ocehan banyak orang di social media segera setelah video wawancaranya dengan sebuah media infotainmen menyebar luas di jejaring social media itu. Wawancaranya menjadi buah bibir karena gaya bahasanya yang ‘khas’ dengan banyak istilah dan kosa kata yang ‘unik’ dan ‘asing’ mengalir lancar dari mulutnya. ‘Statusisasi hati’, ‘konsipirasi kemakmuran’, dan ‘mensiasati kecerdasan’ adalah diantara kosa kata ala Vicky. Mayoritas orang sepertinya merasa ‘geli’ (untuk tidak mengatakan ‘muak’) mendengar istilah asing ala Vicky ini. Karena, dari sisi Bahasa Indonesia yang baik dan benar, istilah-istilah itu terdengar sangat tidak pas. Meminjam istilah Vicky sendiri, bisa dikatakan bahwa apa yang dilakukan Vicky telah ‘mengkudeta’ Bahasa Indonesia. Karenanya, sebagian orang tak tahan untuk membully Vicky di berbagai situs dunia maya.

Tulisan ini tidak bermaksud menambah daftar bullying pada Vicky secara pribadi, tidak juga dimaksudkan untu mengupas sisi kehidupan pribadi Vicky. Apalagi saya memang tidak pernah mengenal nama ini sebelumnya. Tulisan ini lebih akan menyorot dan menganalisa ada apa di balik fenomena gaya bahasa Vicky dan apa hubungannya dengan proposisi yang disampaikan Philipson (1992) dalam bukunya berjudul linguistic imprealisme.

 ‘Penjajahan’ Baru
Dengan menggunakan perspektif post-colonialisme (pasca-kolonial), Philipson menyebut bahwa penyebaran bahasa Inggris yang masif kepada dunia ketiga dan atau negara berkembang telah menyebabkan satu bentuk ‘imprealisme baru’ yang dia sebut dengan ‘imprealisme linguistik’ itu. Yaitu ketika pengajaran bahasa Inggris secara terstruktur, sistimatif, dan masif ke banyak negara itu telah membawa dampak negatif. Jenis imprealisme ini menambah dominasi negara pengguna bahasa Inggris, seperti UK dan USA  terhadap banyak negara berkembang setelah mereka sangat kuat dan mewarnai banyak negara lain di bidang ekonomi, militer, sosial, dan politik.

Secara ekonomi, pengajaran Bahasa Inggris adalah bisnis yang besar. Jutaan dolar mengalir ke negara produsen material pengajaran Bahasa Inggris (USA, UK, Australia) dalam bentuk pembelian materi audio-visual, buku, sumber daya manusia dan lain-lain. Dan secara budaya, ‘negara importir’ bahasa Inggris ini juga terus mencengkramkan kukunya dalam beragam bentuk di negara pengguna Bahasa Inggris.

Di lapangan,akibat dari imprealisme baru ini bisa dilihat dari fenomena ‘penyikapan khusus’ masyarakat dan atau pemerintah terhadap eksistensi Bahasa Inggris dan pengajaran Bahasa Inggris di banyak negara non-english speaking countries, termasuk Indonesia. Sebagaimana kita tahu, dari sekian banyak bahasa asing, bahasa Inggris telah dipilih dan ditetapkan menjadi pelajaran wajib di sekolah menengah kita sejak kita merdeka.

Penggunaan bahasa Inggris telah menyerbu keseharian kita, mulai dari penggunaanya pada nama hotel, pusat perbelanjaan, sampai pada kosa kata yang digunakan masyarakat kita dalam keseharian. Bahasa Inggris juga dengan sadar digunakan dalam berbagai acara radio, tivi, surat kabar, dan bahkan di dunia pendidikan kita.

Adalah wajar jika kita mengganggap kemampuan berbahasa Inggris adalah penting, karena kita tidak bisa menolak fakta bahwa bahasa Inggris adalah bahasa global yang akan kita butuhkan pada banyak kesempatan. Kita tentu juga berkepentingan untuk masuk dalam lebih dari 1,8 milyar orang yang berbicara bahasa Inggris di dunia saat ini. Karena pentingnya Bahasa Inggris ini, bahkan negara maju sekelas Jerman-pun juga mulai memasukkan pelajaran Bahasa Inggris sebagai bidang studi wajib di sekolah menengah mereka sejak tahun 2012.

Masalahnya adalah, kampanye pentingnya bahasa Inggris ini sepertinya diam-diam juga telah meracuni alam bawah sadar sebagian masyarakat kita bahwa bahasa Inggris seakan dianggap ‘mutiara paling berharga’, lebih penting dari kemampuan berbahasa lainnya. Karenanya, tak heran jika  mereka yang bisa berbahasa Inggris seperti mendapatkan perlakuan istimewa di masyarakat.

Di dunia pendidikan, perlakukan khusus pada status bahasa Inggris ini dengan mudah terlihat dalam beberapa kebijakan pemerintah. Tidak hanya menjadi pelajaran wajib, namun bahasa Inggris kadang dijadikan alat ukur short cut dalam menentukan sebuah sekolah atau seorang guru telah maju dan ikut perkembangan zaman. Praktik dalam penerapan RSBI yang kontroversi dulu, misalnya, bisa menjelaskan fenomena ini, ketika ukuran ‘berstandar internasional’ oleh sebagian kalangan disimplifikasi menjadi pengajaran menggunakan bahasa Inggris.

Bercermin dari  Vicky
Saya menduga bahwa fenome gaya bahasa Vicky adalah bentuk ekstrim dari sisi lain akibat imprealisme linguistik seperti yang disampaikan Philipson di atas. Yaitu ketika alam bawah sadar sebagian orang mulai ‘terjajah’ dan diam-diam menganggap bahwa kemampuan berbahasa Inggris adalah simbol dari status sosial. Bahwa mereka yang bisa berbahasa Inggris adalah orang-orang keren, kalangan intelek, modern, terdidik, dan dari kelas menengah ke atas. Akibatnya, sebagian orang seperti ‘memaksakan diri’ untuk bergaya memakai bahasa Inggris. Pemaksaan diri ini kemudian kebablasan, seperti kecendrungan yang terlihat pada fenomena Vicky.

Dalam bentuk yang lebih soft, fenomena ini juga bisa diperhatikan saat sebagian kalangan, seperti para politisi, pengamat, atau pembawa berita radio dan TV yang secara sengaja menggunakan istilah asing (bahasa Inggris) pada sebagian pilihan kata mereka. Walaupun sebenarnya tidak ada konteks yang memerlukan mereka untuk menggunakan istilah asing itu. Sekali lagi, itu mereka lakukan mungkin mereka menganggap bahwa semakin ‘canggih’ pilihan bahasa yang mereka gunakan, maka akan semakin ‘keren’ mereka akan dipersepsi pendengar mereka.


Saya tentu tidak sedang mengatakan bahwa kita sama sekali tak boleh menggunakan istilah asing itu. Dalam tulisan inipun, saya tidak bisa menghindari penggunaan beberapa istilah bahasa Inggris. Namun, poin saya adalah bagaimana kita menempatkan kembali bahasa Inggris ini pada porsi seharusnya. Gunakan dia secara tepat jika diperlukan.

Fenomena Vicky ini bisa dijadikan momentum semua pecinta bahasa Indonesia untuk memikirkan cara agar ‘kudeta bahasa’ ala Vicky ini tidak berakibat buruk pada eksistensi Bahasa Indonesia. Pada saat yang sama, kita mungkin perlu memikirkan cara bagaimana kita bisa menempatkan Bahasa Inggris secara proporsional dalam kehidupan kita sebagai bangsa. Tentu kita masih tetap sepakat dengan pandangan yang mengatakan bahwa bahasa adalah identitas penting yang melekat pada setiap bangsa. Dengan demikian, rusaknya bahasa bisa dikatakan juga ikut merusak sebuah bangsa. Karena alasan inilah kita berkepentingan agar jangan sampai ‘virus bahasa’ ala Vicky ini melahirkan bentuk Vicky lain dan kemudian ‘mengkudeta’ bahasa nasional kita. Wallahu’alam.

 *  Penulis adalah dosen FKIP Universitas Riau, Kandidat PhD di Fakultas Pendidikan, Monash University Australia
‘Language Coup’ and Linguistic Imperialism

‘Language Coup’ and Linguistic Imperialism


By. Afrianto Daud 
(This article was first written for the Jakarta Post)

In the last one week or so, the name of Vicky Prasetyo was suddenly becoming the ravings of a lot of people on various social medias shortly after his video interview with a media infotainment was widespread in the social media networks. The interview caught peoples’ attention as it has a ‘unique style’ of language with many ‘foreign’ terms and ‘weird’ vocabulary that flow smoothly from his mouth.

'Statusisasi hati ', konspirasi kemakmuran ' , and ' mensiasati kecerdasan ' (hard to find equal proper english translation for these terms) are some of vocabulary Vicky mentioned. Majority of people seem to feel 'amused' (not to say ' sick ') listening to Vicky’s style of using these uncommon terms. This is because from the standard Indonesian language point of view, those terms sound very inappropriate.

Borrowing a phrase from Viky himself, it can be said that what Vicky had done was like a ' coup' for Bahasa Indonesia. Therefore, some people just couldn’t refrain themselves for not to bully Vicky at various sites of cyberspace.

This article does not intend to add to the list on bullying to Vicky personally, nor intended to peel the personal lives of Vicky. Moreover, I never knew the name before. This article is going to highlight and analyze what is behind the phenomenon of Vicky’s language style and what to do with the proposition introduced by Philipson (1992) in his book Linguistic Imperialism.

By using post–colonialism’s perspective, Philipson said that the massive spread of English to the third world or developing countries has led to a ‘new form of imperialism' which he called as 'linguistic imperialism'. He continued that the structured, systemized, and massive teaching of English to many countries have inevitably brought about some negative effects.

This massive English teaching, for example, has added to the domination of the so-called ‘English exporting countries’, such as the UK and USA on many developing countries. This has doubled up their powers as they are already very strong and coloring many other countries in the economic , military , social , and political fields.

From economic perspective, the English teaching is a big business. Millions of dollars flowing into the countries where English language teaching materials are produced ( the USA , UK , Australia ) in the form of purchasing for audio - visual materials , books , human resources and others. And at the same time, culturally these 'English exporting countries' are also constantly exerting their nails in various forms to the people in the target of English language teaching (the language learners). Philipson refers this new domination with linguistic impralism mentioned above.

On the field , the result of this new imperialism can be seen from the phenomenon of  'special attitude ' from public and or government of the existence of English and English language teaching in many non - English speaking countries , including Indonesia. As we know, from many foreign languages, English has been chosen and set to be a compulsory subject in our secondary schools since few years after our independence .

The use of English has invaded our daily lives, ranging from its use for the name of hotels, shopping centers, to the everyday vocabulary used by some members of our society. English is also deliberately used in a variety of radio and television programs, in some newspapers and magazine, and even within our national education.

It is reasonable if we assume that English speaking ability is important, as we just cannot deny the fact that English is a global language that we will need on many occasions. We are also having an interest to be part of more than 1.8 billion people who speak English in the world today. Because of the importance of English as a global language, even some developed countries, like Germany had also started to impose the teaching English as a compulsory subject in their high school curriculum starting from 2012.

The problem is that the importance of English’s campaign seems to have also surreptitiously ‘poisoned’ the subconscious mind of our society that English is considered as " the most precious pearls ' in our life; that it is more important than any other language skills. For this reason, it is not really a surprise to see that those who are able to speak English well get special treatments and some privileges from the community.

In the world of education, for example, the special treatment on the status of English can be easily seen in some government policies. Not only became a compulsory subject, but English occasionally used as a short cut measure and determine if a school or a teacher has developed quite well and can be categorized as ‘sophisticated ones’. The practice within the implementation of the controversial International Standardized School Pilot project (RSBI) before , for example , could explain this phenomenon , when the notion of the ' international standard ' by some have been simplified to the use English as a medium of instruction.

In the case of Vicky, I suspect that the phenomenon of language style he used is an extreme form of the other side as a result of this linguistic imperialism as Philipson presented above. That is when the subconscious minds of some people started to be 'colonized' in some ways and unknowingly thought that the English speaking ability is a symbol of social status; that those who speak English are cool people, the intellects , modern , educated , and from middle to upper class. As a result, some people tend to 'force themselves ' to speak the stylish English. This self-imposed perception later in some occasions goes too far, as the tendency seen in the phenomenon of Vicky.

In a softer case, this phenomenon can also be observed when some people, such as politicians , observers , or radio and TV news anchors who deliberately use the English terms on many parts of their word choices, even though there is no particular context that requires them to use the terms. Once again, it is very likely that they did it as they might assume that the more ' sophisticated ' choice of language they use, the 'cooler ' they would be perceived by their listeners.

I am certainly not saying that we should all avoid the use the foreign terms in our communication. However, my point is that how we could use the English proportionally in a proper way and in a proper context. Use it wisely when it is necessary.

This Viky’s phenomenon could be used a momentum for all Bahasa Indonesia lovers to think and find ways to prevent the 'language coup' done by Vicky in order not to negatively affect on the existence of Indonesian language. I believe that we still agree with the old view saying that language is an important part of identity which is inherent in every nation. Thus, the destruction of the language could also be said to be potentially ruining that particular nation. For this reason, we are all concerned not to let 'language virus ' from Vicky generate ‘another Vicky’ and then subsequently 'coup' of our national language – Bahasa Indonesia.


Afrianto Daud is teaching English at Riau University and is currently doing his PhD in the Faculty of Education, Monash University Australia