Will English Lesson Still Be Effective In Curriculum 2013?

Department of Education in Indonesia has repeatedly changed the curriculum. Public often judge that the change of Minister of Education will be followed by the change of the policy. Education Unit Level Curriculum (=Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan/ KTSP) will be replaced by the Curriculum 2013 in this July 2013. The reason is the failure of some schools to implement KTSP. The educators do not fulfill the teaching requirements demanded by KTSP such as lesson plans (RPP) and syllabus. Even if they have it they just buy and do not teach the way that is written on it. So, the Department of Education assessed it as a failure in the implementation of KTSP. This new curriculum is considered as a process to improve the quality of education. Students are directed to be more creative in learning with observation based learning method and forming networking. However, there are some lessons which are reduced the hours of lesson on the grounds of efficiency and effectiveness in Curriculum 2013, one of which is the English subject. Thus, if the government applied Curriculum 2013 in Senior High School, I believe that English lesson would not be effective anymore because four aspects (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) in English would not be achieved, teachers should compress the material, and the compression of the material could not be absorbed by some students optimally.

First, there are four aspects that must be achieved in English lesson—listening, speaking, reading, and writing with their sub aspects like vocabulary, grammar, and writing orientation. If there are only two hours of lesson a week, these aspects would not be achieved. For example, the teacher gave the material with one of these aspects in two hours of lesson (one day/meeting) a week, the teacher would take score from students in next week/meeting and I think that it would be wasting time. So, in one effective-month (4 meetings in Curriculum 2013) the teacher could only take score for two aspects of English lesson. In KTSP, there are four hours of lesson (two days/meetings), these four aspects could be reached/scored in one effective-month (4 meetings). Let us say that the teacher gave the material in the first day/meeting in a week, the agenda for next meeting was taking score for what they had gotten in the first day/meeting. If one week is for one aspect, one month would be taking score for four aspects.

Second, teacher should compress the material of each meeting with students. Not every month is an effective-month with four meetings (in Curriculum 2013), and if it had ten lessons in English textbook, how can a teacher finish the material without compressing it of each meeting? I think, the way is the teacher would give the material briefly and then give the student some worksheets that must be completed by students to show how far they understand material given. However, if the worksheet given is not collected in the same day (could be tomorrow/the day after tomorrow/next week), a lot of students will not collect the task because they do not understand what to do. Sometimes, they only cheat other students’ task and copy it. Is that what the government and teachers want? I do not think so. The government and teachers want more creative students by studying new material from teacher by themselves with their way, so they can understand the lessons well by their own way.

Third, the compression of material could not be absorbed by the students optimally. Every student does not have a same perception in absorbing a new material of lessons. One student can understand a new lesson directly by listening once what the teacher said and do the task given, but there is another student who cannot understand by listening once, maybe that student has to listen twice or more and be explained until the details of material. So, if the teacher applied the first way to teach, how can the second type of student understand? If the teacher applied the second way to teach, the first type of student who is supposed to be able to go to the next material would be left behind because the teacher had to repeat the material many times.

Therefore, if the government applied Curriculum 2013, I believe that English lesson would not be effective anymore because teacher could not take score for each aspect of English lesson, teacher should compress the material of each meeting with students, and some students could not understand the lesson perfectly. In Curriculum 2013, the students are required to be creative in learning and understanding the material being studied, but it would be better if the students who need special guidance are given more attention. Do not let them be left behind due to the way to teach was wrong, because it can cause them become not-self-confidence and a cheater. For the government, please consider public reactions about this, because there are many teachers who give less approval to this new curriculum with a variety of reasons like I have discussed in this essay. Finally, I am sure that the English lesson could not be effective anymore due to the reduction of English hours of lesson.