Primary Source of the Research:
The Regulation of the National Education Minister of the Republic of Indonesia, 78 on the Implementation of ISS in Primary and High Schools, Year 2009.
Key Words:
International Standard School (ISS), Social discrimination, Education commercialism, Critical discourse analysis
I. Introduction
The Indonesian government’s support of the adoption of International standard schools (ISS) or Sekolah Berstandar Internasional in its primary and high schools was firstly realized through passing the Act on national education system number 20, in 2003 that states “the government and local government organize at least a unit of education at all levels of education, to be developed further as a unit having international standards of education” (pp. 26-27). This policy gives access and legalization for the schools, both public and private, to adopt and develop international curricula and examinations in their schools such as International Baccalaureate (IB), International General Certification of Secondary Education (IGCSE), Global Assessment Certification (GAC), International Primary Curriculum (IPC) and so on as well as cooperating with a number of educational institutions from OECD or other developed countries.
The government, as stated in its national education strategic plan for 2005-2009, asserts that by allowing its educational institutions to go global, access for better education becomes more widely available. In so doing, the government speculates that Indonesian education quality can be extensively enhanced. Internationalised national education is also expected to increase the government’s prestige in the international community, especially among countries under the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). However, these brilliant ideas in theory are not being implemented as perfectly as the government’s expectations because of the limited conditions in Indonesia. The indications of these problems can be recognized when most schools involved in ISS project are still unable to improve their education quality. Instead, they are engaged in education exclusivity and commercialism (Dharma, 2007, Winarti, 2008a, Wirnadianhar, 2008; the Jakarta Post, 2011).
Although the issue of ISS project has become a public debate in the country, there is only a limited number of research on this issue. Moreover, at the moment most of the available research on this ISS project has been more focused on how the policy is being implemented in both primary and high schools (Suraiya, 2008; Kustulasari, 2009) rather than on the implication of this policy in creating social issues particularly in the education sphere. By using critical discourse analysis (CDA) this project will attempt to show how the policy statement has been shaping the landscape of education in Indonesia. In specific, the research seeks to answer the following questions: 1) how does the policy documents represent education discrimination in Indonesia? 2) how does the policy document construct education commercialism in Indonesia? Through this documentary investigation, it is hoped that the policy or decision makers will be more wary and mindful of the potential issues represented in and originated from the policy statement. Moreover, this analysis will enrich discussion on the ISS issue particularly from the social issue perspective that is still rarely carried out.
The policy document researched in this analysis is the regulation of the National Education Minister of the Republic of Indonesia, 78 on the implementation of ISS in both primary and high schools, year 2009. This policy was released by the Indonesia national education minister in 2009 and is used as the current implementation guideline or framework that should be adhered by any schools involved in ISS project. By referring to the Act number 20, year 2003 on National Education, this policy outlines and details the implementation procedures, from pre condition that should be met by the schools to the evaluation procedures. As the ISS project framework, the policy plays critical role in providing a legal support for the ISS operation and practices. Considering its critical role, this policy document is selected and used to be the primary sources for this analysis. This policy consists of twelve chapters with 35 articles that are written in Indonesian language. For the sake of this analysis, some parts of the discourses or statements of the policy that are related to the issues being investigated will be translated into English.
II. Critical Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis is a qualitative method that has been adopted and developed by social constructionist. As a part of discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis “focuses on how language as a cultural tool mediates relationship of power and privilege in social interaction, institutions and bodies of knowledge” (Rogers et al., 2005, p. 367). Critical discourse analysis scrutinizes the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are constructed, reproduced, and resisted by texts and talks in the social and political context. It is intended to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality (van Dijk, 2001). Bloor and Bloor (2007) indicated that “critical discourse analysis is concerned in the way in which language and discourse are used to achieve social goals and in the part this use plays in social maintenance and change” (p. 2). Critical discourse analysis is one of the most prominent approaches to discourse analysis of social policy including the education policy (Rogers, et al., 2005; Jacobs, 2010) that emphasises the importance of ideology and discursive strategy used by the actors to shape political outcomes. As such, critical discourse analysis is concerned with “language as social practice” (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997, Rogers, et al., 2005) and sees the context of language use to be critical (Wodak, 2000).
As the media of discourse, policy documents are written and produced through a complex administrative process and are influenced and constructed under certain social, political and economic conditions and agenda (Simon, 2006). In a policy analysis, critical discourse analysis challenges researchers to question policy making processes, how dialogue takes place, and how power relations produce dominant discourses and marginalises others (Thomas, 2005). It requires a deeply reflexive approach to recognise the rules of formation and to understand the patterns of power relations, through “self-conscious analytical scrutiny” (England 1994, p.82). Jenkins (1993) and Hewit (2009) informed that the common feature in policy analysis is that policy brings to mind the actions of the agent or organisation and involves many elements.
In conducting the discourse analysis, Fairclough (as cited in Rogers et al., 2005; Thomas, 2005 and Jacobs, 2010) suggested an analysis framework that constitutes three levels of analysis; the text, discursive practices, and the socio-cultural practices. The analysis of the text involves the study of language structures produced in a discursive event such as vocabulary, grammar cohesion and structure within the text. The analysis of discursive practices examines the production and interpretation of texts by examining the strategic devices used by the author or agent to reinforce arguments. The analysis of social and cultural practices includes an exploration of what is happening in a particular socio-cultural context where texts are situated.
III. International Standard School (ISS) Project in Indonesia: Social and Political Perspective
The survey on international educational performance conducted by the OECD in 2003 and UNESCO has ranked the Indonesia education performance in a gloomy position compared to other OECD and partner countries. This condition has driven the Indonesia government to initiate a legal framework for reforming the national education resulting in the increase of national budget spending on education reaching 20 percent of total national expenditure. In 2003, the government also introduced new regulation on national education system promoting access and quality of education for all (nine year school program), decentralisation of education management and education standardisation including internationalisation of national education including primary and secondary schools.
Since firstly introduced in 2003, internationalisation of primary and secondary schools in the country has gained both supports and criticisms represented by the intense public debate on this issue. From the social perspective, opponents of the ISS project argue that the implementation of ISS project in Indonesian primary and secondary schools has potential for creating social discrimination and educational commercialism. Dharma (2007) asserted that the government regulation that requires the students attending ISS to have outstanding ability, distinctive achievements, and high intelligence has inevitably created discrimination and social stratification among students. He further added that such a requirement has clearly neglected students with average ability and achievement that according to the national constitution have the same right as those considered brilliant. The assumption that considers intelligence ability as the main indicator of success in ISS is also apparently to be overly emphasised that overlook other success indicators possibly possessed by students with average intelligence such as creativity, critical thinking, persistence and so forth.
Another issue that rises up discrimination is regarding the financial matter and quality education. Winarti (2008) and Gower (2009) indicated that studying at ISS is more expensive than regular schools. As such, there is a common conception in the country that the students attending ISS are economically better than those attending regular schools. Moreover, the emergent view that ISS always provides better quality education than the regular schools may also create education divide where quality education is only for those attending ISS. In other words, quality education is only devoted for those with outstanding intelligence, distinctive achievements and those who are rich that clearly reflects unequal education opportunity for all students in the country.
Dealing with educational commercialism, the government asserts that all public ISS will be awarded Block Grants of around 100-300 million rupiah per year (around AUD 11.000-33.000) which is expected to be adequate to fulfil the needs of the ISS operation. However, a study undertaken by Suraiya (2008) concludes that over three years of implementation, the financial support from the government is inadequate to cover the basic needs of the ISS such as internet access, printed sources, teaching media, teachers’ development programs and so forth. This has forced the schools to seek financial assistance from the private sector including students’ parents. The Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) recently reported that in 2009, the percentage of additional registration fees of the ISS is the highest, reaching 20 million rupiah per student. An even more dramatic situation is occurring in private ISS. Wirnadianhar (2008) points out “most schools require the parents to pay around 70 million rupiah for installment plan and approximately 80 million rupiah per year for tuition fees, excluding the fees of extracurricular programs.” By selling the international label, schools can gain credibility for increasing their tuition fees, which definitely leads to education commercialism.
IV. Descriptions and Analysis
a. Education Discrimination
In terms of education discrimination, the writer found that the policy document both explicitly and implicitly constructs and symbolizes discrimination either for students or teachers. The first instance of this is presented in the following excerpt:
The main objective of implementing ISS project is to produce qualified and competent individuals that meet both the national competency standard and competency standard of at least one accredited school either from OECD or other developed countries (Chapter I, Article 2, Point a).
The inclusion of student competency standard from OECD or other developed countries in the above passage clearly indicates that upon the completion of the study the students of ISS will possess better competency than those in the regular schools. Even though there is not an explicit explanation of what competency standard gained by ISS students, the label ‘OECD and developed countries’ is expected to direct the audience to have an imagery view frequently attributed to the OECD and developed countries such as better prosperity, well educated and skilful people that are likely difficult to achieve by regular schools.
In terms of the teaching and learning process, the policy document unambiguously states that the teaching and learning approaches used in ISS must incorporate those applied in OECD and developed countries as outlined below:
ISS meets both the national teaching and learning process standard and standard of those from OECD or other developed countries (Chapter II, Section 3, Article 5, Point 1).
As in the preceding case, the inclusion of OECD and developed countries in this policy statement indicates that the teaching and learning process in ISS is much better than in the regular schools. While discrimination in competency standard is directly imposed to the regular school students, the discrimination message in the above excerpt is more specifically directed to the regular school teachers as the teaching and learning agents and the regular school performances at large.
Another form of inequality constructed by the investigated policy document is dealing with English usage as the medium of instruction as presented in the following passages:
ISS may use English or other internationally recognised foreign languages as the medium of instruction for particular subjects (Chapter II, Section 3, Article 5, Point 3).
The teaching and learning process for the following subjects; Indonesian, religions, Citizenship, History and locally-based subjects must be delivered in Indonesian (Chapter II, Section 3, Article 5, Point 4).
In the above discourses, the policy document explicitly indicates that English is highly promoted to be the language instruction in ISS, except for the following subjects Indonesian, Religions, Citizenship studies, History and other local based-subjects. The exclusion of the above subjects has an implication that these subjects are viewed to be less critical that also directly impacts on the images of teachers teaching those subjects. Moreover, this exception seems quite contradictive with the spirit and mission of the ISS project itself. Teachers of ISS, in policy statement, seem to be categorised into two large groups; teachers teaching subjects that are relevant to global issues and challenges and teachers teaching subjects that are not relevant to those issues. Different with the previous policy that discriminates between teachers of ISS and regular school, the discrimination reflected in the above statement occur among the ISS teachers.
Dealing with the students enrolment, it is evident that that the policy document constructs injustice and neglects the notion of education for all that are widely promoted by all nations. The first instance of this case is described in the following quotation:
One of the enrolment requirement for ISS is that the candidate must pass the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) test and or academic aptitude test with the test results above the national average (Chapter III, Article 16, Point 1, Subpoint 2, for Primary School, Subpoint 3 for Secondary School and Senior High School).
The enrolment of ISS requires the candidates to have intelligence ability or academic aptitude beyond the national average. Although it is not mentioned in the above excerpt, it is quite obvious that intelligence or academic aptitude is seen to be the key determinant factor for students’ success in ISS. Accordingly, the policy document has effectively construct audience’s understanding that ISS is only allowed and devoted to highly intelligent students. In other words, students with low intelligence ability do not have the same opportunities for quality education as those with high intelligence.
b. Education Commercialism
At the outset, the education commercialism represented in the investigated policy document can be recognised by analysing the following passages:
ISS is allowed to ask for any additional tuition fees in order to cover any additional tuition cost that exceeds the budget allocation as determined by the school operation and budgeting plan (Chapter II, Section7, Article 13, Point 3).
The policy statement explicitly states that ISS are given privilege to seek financial assistance from private sectors particularly from parents. This statement inevitably gives access and legal support for the ISS to set high tuition and enrolment fees that undoubtedly lead to education commercialism.
Another policy statement indicating similar issue is reflected in the following excerpt:
According to their roles and responsibilities, the central, province and district government as well as the society must financially support the implementation of ISS project (Chapter II, Section7, Article 13, Point 2).
In the above passage, the policy apparently does not put the private sectors as the main sources of school’s income indicated by the last order of the word ‘society’, however, the modal ‘must’ gives a strong impression of the legal consequences when the private sectors particularly parents are unable to financially contribute to the ISS operation. Two above statements indirectly give an impression that quality education is always expensive and therefore it requires financial support including from the parents. In other words, the above statements have constructed a paradigm of education commercialism among schools in Indonesia.
V. Conclusion
The investigation of the policy document on ISS project has revealed that some of policy statements both explicitly and implicitly have symbolised and constructed education discrimination and commercialism in Indonesia. The discrimination is clearly reflected on the inequality students’ competency standard and enrolment requirement between international standard and regular schools. For the teachers, the inequality is manifested in the different teaching and learning strategies and standard between international standard schools and regular schools as well as the exclusion of several subjects in using English or other foreign languages as the medium of instruction. Meanwhile, the education commercialism is represented in the government legal support for gaining financial assistance from the parents and the use of ambiguous expression in the policy that is frequently abused by the ISS particularly for gaining financial advantage from private sectors including students’ parents.
References
Act of the Republic of Indonesia, 20, on National Education System (2003).
Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (2007). The practice of critical discourse analysis. An introduction. London: Hodder Arnold.
Dharma, S. (2007, July 13). Sekolah bertaraf internasional: Mau dibawa kemana? (ISS: where will it be brought to?). Retrieved October 22, 2011 from http://satriadharma.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/sekolah-bertaraf-internasional-quo-vadiz/.
England K. (1994). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research‟, The Professional Geographer 46 (1), 80-89.
Fairclough, N. , & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Introduction to discourse analysis (pp. 258–284).London: Sage.
Gower, S.M. (January 22, 2009). Education for all: what hope? Retrieved October 27, 2011 from The Jakarta Post website http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/01/22/education-all-what-hope.html.
Hewit, S. (2009). Discourse analysis and public policy Research. Center for Rural Economy Paper Series 24. Newcastle University.
Jacobs, K (2010). Discourse analysis, in Social Research Method (2nd Ed). Sydney: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, B. (1993). Policy analysis: models and approaches, in Hill, M. (ed.) The policy process: a reader (pp. 34-44). Harvester Wheatsheaf: Hemel Hempstead
Kustulasari, A (2009). The ISS project in Indonesia: a policy document analysis. (Master Thesis). Ohio: Ohio State University.
OECD (2003). First result from PISA (Executive Summary). Retrieved October 25 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/31/47469635.pdf.
Rogers, R., Berkes, M.E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, O.G. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: a review of literature. Review of Educational Research, 75 (3), 365-416.
Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia, 78 tentang Penyelenggaraan Sekolah Bertaraf Internasional pada Jenjang Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah Tahun 2009 (Regulation of the National Education Minister of the Republic of Indonesia, 78 on the implementation of ISS in primary and high schools, year 2009). (2009)
Simon, C.A. (2006). Policy analysis. In Bevir, M., (Ed), Encyclopedia of Governance. Retrieved from
Suraiya, A. (2008). A Portrait of international Classes in Padang Senior High School: Progress of Implementation, Students’ language Learning Strategies, and Parents’ Involvement (Master Thesis). Padang: Universitas Negeri Padang (Padang State University).
The Jakarta Post (February, 04, 2011) Stopping RSI is impossible now, minister says. Retrieved October 25, 2011 from The Jakarta website http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/04/02/stopping-rsbi-program-impossible-now-minister-says.html.
van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen , ed. , D. Schiffrin , ed., & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourseanalysis (pp. 352–371). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Winarti, A. (2008a, June 27). State schools found favoring wealthier students. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved October 19, 2011 from http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/06/27/state-schools-found-favouring-wealthier-students.html.
Wirnadianhar, (December 23, 2008). Memandang dari balik pagar sekolah bertaraf internasional. Retrieved October 20, 2011 from ANTARA website http://www.antara.co.id/print/?i=1230046688.
Wodak, R. (2000). Recontextualisation and the transformation of meaning: A critical discourse analysis of decision making in EU-meetings about employment policies. In S. Sarangi , ed. & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Discourse and social life (pp. 185–206). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Wodak, Ruth Busch, Brigitta. Approaches to Media Texts. The SAGE Handbook of Media Studies. 2004. SAGE Publications. 1 Nov. 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment