The English Language Curriculum and its Development at the School Level

The scholars and academics at national and regional levels contended that there was no difference between the competency-based curriculum (2004) and the school-based curriculum (2006). The aim was to achieve communicative competence. The BSNP official contended,

“There is no drastic change between the current and the previous curriculum. This is a school-based curriculum development, so school teachers have freedom to develop their own curriculum to fit the schools as long as it is based on the core-competency standardized by the BSNP. Teachers should be creative in developing their curriculum. But, many teachers are not aware that they are now free to develop their own curriculum based on the standards set by the board.”

A similar vein was also noted by the curriculum designer. She said, “Content and competency standards are not changed, so basically they are the same, except that in the curriculum book or curriculum document in 2004, we provided the fully-fledged curriculum, whereas in the 2006 curriculum, actually the school develops its own curriculum but they have to use competence standards taken from the CBC. The school only receives the competence standard and no description of whatever standard, no elaboration of the underlying theories. All subjects are under the name of competence-based curriculum. It’s a big shift paradigm in 2004.”

Mulyasa (2008) added that the 2006 curriculum could be different between schools; thus, schools were required to develop their own curriculum to accord with the sociocultural environment and

Ch. 4: The Perspectives of Curriculum Designers, Academics, and Supervisors Page 72

the particular characteristics of students as well as of the school. Similarly, a lecturer who is a staff member in the Directorate General of Management for Primary and Secondary Education (DGMPSE) pointed out that learning indicators in the 2006 curriculum were not written down in the syllabus devised by the government. According to him, teachers need to develop the syllabus and lesson plans, however, he was unsure of teacher capability to do it.

A national curriculum designer said, “Developing the curriculum documentation is not a simple job, and teachers are not curriculum developers. Their job is teaching in class”. This indicated that teachers seemed not to be able to develop the curriculum. Teachers become curriculum implementors in class. Furthermore, she noted, “I think it’s easy to say than do. It’s not an easy matter. The school curriculum covers everything, all subjects and I’m not sure of the schools’ ability to develop its own curriculum. I think they continue the old practices. To me, teachers are not curriculum developers, all they want is that ‘I don’t care about the curriculum or syllabus, just give me the materials and I just follow the book’.”

An English lecturer and textbook writer reiterated the same point, “Teachers are not curriculum developers and they are not ‘born’ to think of that”. This indicated that the teachers’s job was to teach, not to develop, revise or evaluate the curriculum. Also, he highlighted the importance of the district supervisor in assisting teachers because the decentralized system required them to do so.

A regional trainer as well as English lecturer said, “There is no difference between competency- based and school-based curriculum; however, the infrastructure such as teachers and district supervisors should totally comprehend the curriculum. Everybody seems unfamiliar with the curriculum. The district supervisors just understand the surface/superficial, not the substance of the curriculum”. It indicated that teacher professionalism, particularly pedagogical and professional competences, still remained a big issue in the implementation of the KTSP curriculum, six years after its implementation.

She further remarked that the district supervisors should help the schools though they seemed to blame the school if it had a curriculum developed that was different to other schools. Another point was that the district supervisors insisted on the three phase strategy of teaching – Exploration, Elaboration and Confirmation. It made teachers more confused. Eventually, as an English trainer, she suggested teachers have two lesson plans, one for the district supervisor which accords to what he/she wants and the second for their own convenience to accord with the best method the teachers believed in. This indicated that even academics seemed to suggest that all members – policy makers, people in university, teachers, and supervisors – should be well informed and grounded.

Ch. 4: The Perspectives of Curriculum Designers, Academics, and Supervisors Page 73

As previously touched upon, the Indonesian government had been restructuring its governance arrangements from a centralized to a decentralized system which was embedded in the philosophy of diversity in unity. This had impacted on the educational paradigm in the context of decentralization, democratization and regional autonomy (Madya, 2008). This was revealed in the 2006 curriculum that was first introduced as the 2004 competency-based curriculum. The KTSP curriculum should be based on standards of graduate competency, content and process developed by central government. Though the government had accommodated the uniqueness of each district through the 2006 curriculum, school staff found difficulty in developing their school-based curriculum. Schwartz (2006) contended that the curriculum developer provides teachers with clear materials and specific directives; in fact, the standard competence and basic competence stipulated by the government seemed to indicate ‘very general’. A pre-service and in-service trainer noted that the language in the competency standard and basic competence is not ‘teacher friendly’.

4.1.2 Teaching Materials Development

Regarding teaching material development, all agreed that teachers in general were unable to develop their own teaching materials. Teachers depended very much on the textbooks published by national and local publishers. “Many teachers teach English by the books; they are not creative”, said the BSNP official. An assessor for junior high schools, also a lecturer at a Yogyakarta state university noted,

“Basically books are provided by the government. Teachers can adapt and it seems they follow the books rather than their written lesson plans. However, teachers use more LKS written by incompetent writers and it does not go through a good selection process. The biggest problem is teachers do not do what they have planned. Syllabus and lesson plans are for the sake of official documentation. Teachers do not reflect on their teaching. That’s a report of Monitoring and Evaluating done by JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) in six provinces.”

A book writer and also senior lecturer pointed out that the government provided electronic textbooks and few teachers took the teaching materials from that electronic resource. It might be because the electronic books were expensive. As a result, teachers used the cheap textbooks published by a local publisher. He further said,

“Teachers about 50 % use more students’ workbook (LKS) and they are not written by competent writers. Less than 5 per cent write their own teaching materials.”

A lecturer and textbook writer for secondary students further stated, “Teachers’ reading comprehension is very low. It impacts on teachers’ abilty to develop teaching materials and particularly to determine indicators or learning aims. If the learning aim is not good, it then becomes bad”. Another point to highlight according to this lecturer is teachers’ classroom language. They failed to create the classroom as the place to communicate in English for both teachers and students. Teachers seemed to explain and eventually teachers focused more on written

Ch. 4: The Perspectives of Curriculum Designers, Academics, and Supervisors Page 74

activities from Lembar Kerja Siswa (student workbook). Teachers according to him did not have “strong beliefs” regarding English language, learning and teaching; thus, when teachers found a new methodology, they then adopted it and did not relate it to what they already understood about ELT. “When it comes to a new paradigm, they immediately become confused”, he contended. He further said that teachers are still incapable of planning a lesson; only less than five per cent could develop teaching materials. In other words, teachers depended much on textbooks. In addition, an English language trainer and an assessor said, “Teachers teach the same texts, same procedures, same persons, different years, they are not able to develop according to their situation and accommodate students’ condition. They are practitioners rather than professionals. They just simply try what they have heard”.

Regarding English language teaching, Government Regulation No. 19/2005 stipulates that language education should develop language competence with special emphasis on reading and writing according to the literacy level set for every level of education. In the content standard, it is mentioned that the ultimate goal of learning English is to participate in discourse or to communicate ideas, feelings, etc in spoken and written English accurately, fluently and in an acceptable manner (Agustien, 2006). Thus, the curriculum aimed at providing school graduates with skills in the sense that they are expected to achieve the competence required to obtain communication skills. She further remarks that the 1994 curriculum was claimed to aim for communicative competence; but it listed many topics, but never listing the targets of communicative events, that is, the genres such as description, recount and narrative. “It is only as long as they cover the topics and the grammatical items, not the communicative events. The textbook used was based on the 1994 curriculum, according to my colleague’s research, listed more on themes and limited text types (description, recount and some narratives).” A person from the DGMPSE said, “Due to the decentralized system as well as school-based management, teachers themselves ought to develop their syllabus and lesson plans in accordance with school and students’ characteristics; however, teachers follow textbooks and student workbooks written by incompetent writers (diragukan kompetensinya (sic) – writers that we are in-doubt about their English competence)”.