State Policy And English Language Teaching For Refugees
Purwanti Kusumaningtyas Anita Kurniawati
Faculty of Language and Literature Satya Wacana Christian University
Salatiga
Abstract
The fact that Indonesia does not ratify The 1951 Convention of Refugee relating to the Status of Refugees and Protocol 1967 does not seem relevant to English language teaching (ELT) until it becomes a meaningful media for the NGOs to assist the foreign refugees in Indonesia. Despite the refugees’ need of learning the language, the policy has indirectly placed English language teaching in a minor position. This paper will share the cases of English language teaching offered by two non-government institutions – Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) and World Relief (WR). It will describe how ELT is used by the institutions as a media of psychosocial assistant for the refugees. It will view how far ELT principles can be applied and how much the impact of the state policy relating to the status of refugees influences the practice of ELT for refugees (ELTR). In conclusion, the paper proposes a model of culturally responsive teaching for ELTR as teaching in difficult circumstances.
The experience to help Jesuit Refugee Service develop materials of English lessons for adult refugees revealed a number of problems of English language teaching for refugees (hereafter ELTR). Firstly, English classes for adult refugees are different from “normal” English classroom. “Normal” English classrooms set for those who come to learn English, thus, the participants are ready to learn the subject. The refugees do not come specifically to learn English. Their stay in Indonesia is only temporary as they are waiting for opportunities to go to the target country like Australia or Canada or New Zealand. English classes are only one of the activities they use to kill the time, so it will not interest them when it is burdensome.
Secondly, the class setting depends on the type of refugee camp and service given by the refugee service. For example, JRS Yogyakarta has informal English classes that make use of one room in the refugee camp in Bantul as the refugees live in a building provided by the Bantul’s Department of Social Affair. Their classes may be conducted indoor or outdoor depending on the agreement made each day. JRS Bogor conducts what is called home tutoring, in which the English teachers visits the refugees’ “houses” and have classes there (Observation in JRS Yogyakarta, July 3 – 6, 2013 and in JRS Bogor, July 25, 2013). WR offers semi-formal English classes where the participants register like the other students of formal schools, learn the lessons in classrooms with u-shape chairs, have student’s book each, have regular learning time, but may discontinue their participation when they have immigration stuff to do or their time to leave for the target country comes (Observation and FGD in WR Cisarua, Bogor, July 23 – 24, 2013).
Thirdly, with such condition, the teachers have to adjust their teaching so that it suits the refugees’ needs. They need activities to kill their time and friends to socialize. With such condition, English teaching may not be conducted merely to help them master the language, but it may be a means of psychosocial assistance.
A number of questions related with ELTR in a transit country which does not ratify the convention and protocol about refugees can be listed as follows. What is the purpose and focus of ELTR there? Is it for psychosocial assistance of for English learning? If it is the first and ELT is a media to do it, how should ELTR be conducted? What is the curriculum like? What is the classroom setting like? What is the role of evaluation? If it is focusing on English learning, how does the refugees’ difficult condition influence the classroom? And so, how do the teachers adapt with such situation? What kind of adaptation do they have to make? What other consideration do the teachers have to include in preparing their lessons?
Indonesia and Foreign Refugee Management
The word “refugee” is defined by the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951, Article I, paragraph 2, as any person who
“As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. (Convention, 2010)
The convention lists a set of recommendations that each country which signed it or ratified it should do to protect refugees, including facilitation of refugee travels, principle of unity of the family, welfare services, and international co-operation in the field of asylum and resettlement (Convention, 2010).
Indonesia did not ratify the convention and later the protocol that amended some points of the convention. The implication is that Indonesia does not have refugee service management system. The government does not have any official bureau or offices to assist refugees, as the only available office to deal with migration is the Immigration Office. The most obvious problem with this is as many refugees cannot show the required papers such as passports and visas or living or work permit, their arrival is bluntly considered as illegal. They will be either sent to the immigration detention center (IDC) or imprisoned (http://www.komnasham.go.id/penelitian-dan-pengkajian/1495-siaran-pers-komnas-ham-jangan-kriminalisasi-pencari-suaka; March 22, 2012).
Indonesia cannot hinder the increasing number of refugees who arrive since 2009. Indonesia, with its location in the middle of countries that provide shelters for asylum seekers and refugees such as Australia and New Zealand, makes it a good place of mixed population movements. Indonesia, which does not ratify The 1951 Convention and Protocol 1967, has to host about 3.230 people escaping from Afghanistan (71%), Myanmar (8%), Sri Lanka dan Iraq (http://www.unhcr.or.id/id/, March 25, 2012). Nikola Errington and Taya Hunt (2012) noted that the refugees risked their lives to escape from their home countries with the hope for a better life in the other countries, but they often had to experience double sufferings in the transit countries. In Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand, asylum seekers and refugees are vulnerable to arrest and detention in conditions that do not meet international standards. The arrest is often without clear reasons if not because of immigration matters, such as visas or identity papers. Those with papers from UNHCR would be sent back to the organizations which assist them. But those without papers will be imprisoned.
are working in cooperation with UNHCR. The works of these organizations range from giving financial supports to providing assistance to find necessary papers for both the asylum seekers and refugees. Asylum seekers are those who left their home countries in search for asylum, and they usually are not equipped with necessary papers to live in foreign countries. UNCHR will release a certificate notifying their status, either as asylum seekers or refugees. Refugees are likely to have more chance to transport to the target country. However, not all of them are patient enough to wait the opportunity. They often believe in the idea that opportunities are to be sought for, not to be waited for. They will again run away from the transit country or the refugee shelter by illegal transport, like boats (WR staff and JRS staff, FGD, July 23, 2013).
The refugees’ first need in transit countries is administrative, practical, and social. Administratively, those who escaped without proper immigration papers will struggle for getting the certificates, notifying their status as either asylum seekers or refugees, which are released by UNHCR. Practically, they will need housing and many of them need financial supports. They would need to socialize with their neighbors and acceptance and proper treatment are what they need. During the time waiting for the opportunities to move to the target country, meaningful activities to kill the time and boredom even to avoid frustration are necessary. One of the ways to help the refugees reduce their boredom is English lesson. The refugees’ vulnerability makes English teaching special for them as they are learners with difficult circumstances.
ELTR as English Teaching in Difficult Circumstances: WR Case
WR is a Christian organization, headquartered in Bali. Eva Simarmarta, WR’s Project Coordinator in Bogor, wrote that WR’s vision is “In community with the local church, WR envisions the most vulnerable people transformed economically, socially, and spiritually.” And WR has a mission “to empower local church to serve most vulnerable” (email communication, July 31, 2013). As stated in their slogan which says “stand/for the vulnerable,” WR concerns with empowerment.
WR conducts classes in their office in Cisarua. Refugees would come and register to the staff for joining English classes. They would get schedule for their classes and they had to follow the institution’s regulation. There are dos and don’ts posted in the office and the classrooms for reminder. Limited room availability makes strict scheduling helpful. Classes are set like ordinary classrooms, with a teacher responsible for one class (Eva and Ika, interview, July 23, 2013; observation, July 23 – 24, 2013)
WR views education as centered on the teacher. It has a set of standard for volunteers who would apply for English teaching position. They name the position TESOL Tutor that requires personnel who can
“conduct English assessment for Children and Adult creatively and Fun Learning both group classes and one on one tutoring in an interesting way,
develop lesson plans for ESL tutoring sessions both for one-on-one and group sessions
assess the participants on English language abilities (pre-test) develop with creatively English visual aid for teaching. make lesson learn for teaching purposes.
teaching English for children, women and men with creativity, material and Fun Learning.
assist the refugee/asylum seeker to able communicate Basic English. (Simarmarta, email, July 30, 2013)
A set of curriculum and materials are prepared the Project Coordinator for the teachers to use. The teachers are allowed to add materials whenever necessary. The participants also get the materials from the teachers. The teachers plan their lessons and they have full authority to decide what to learn on the day and what materials to use. After teaching, the teachers would record their class activities into a table of classroom report. As the classes are conducted like a school, teacher-student relation is built on the basis of conversation and discussion about the lessons, not personal matters (Eva and Ika, interview, July 23, 2013; observation, July 23 – 24, 2013).
Test is given to assess the participants’ achievement and certificates will be released to notify the participants’ achievement. However, the institution also realizes that the refugees may not be able to complete their English lessons as they can leave the place at any time (FGD with WR staff, July 24, 2013). ELTR is conducted just like the other ordinary school. Simarmarta explicitly stated that their English classes are just a school without uniform (interview, July 23, 2013).
ELTR as English Teaching in Difficult Circumstances: JRS Case
Center (2012) as well as in Yogyakarta refugee community housing. The organization’s vision is to build “a world which is free of boundaries, separation, and forced displacement; a world where people were able to travel freely and safely; and, a world living the value of hospitality to anyone.” With the vision, the organization has a mission “to accompany, serve, and advocate the rights of refugees and those who are forced to be displaced.” (http://jrs.or.id/en/about-us/).
JRS offers English classes to refugees in Bantul and Bogor. They recruit volunteers who can speak English from English Teacher Education (ETE) institutions, School or Faculty of Letters and from International Relation Department. They do not have a set of standard for their English teaching volunteers. The most important thing is that the volunteers have a sense of mission to serve others in need.
They give a short orientation to the volunteers before they meet the refugees to teach. The volunteers are introduced to the organization’s vision and mission as well as the nature of their works. They should perceive refugees as their “family” (in the notion of extended family) or friends, so whatever they do to assist them, they will keep this in mind (JRS Bantul volunteers, FGD, July 6, 2013; JRS Bogor volunteers, FGD, July 25, 2013).
Based on JRS’s vision and mission, ELTR is used as a media for psychosocial assistance. IOM defines psychosocial as
“relates to the interrelation of behavioral and social factors, and, more widely, to the interrelation between mind and society. Psychosocial describes the dynamic relationship between psychological, social and cultural elements informing human development (IOM, 2009c). Psychosocial activities therefore focus on the interconnectedness of social-collective issues, individual-personal internalized states, and the cultural and anthropological constructs around the relation, and not merely on the social implications of mental care, or on the psychological implications of social needs and related responses.” (Thaepant, 2010)
ELTR does not aim at English mastery, but at interrelation of mind and society. English lesson helps them with topics to talk about, with the hope that the volunteers will befriend with the refugees.
The refugees in Bantul are all holding “refugee” status from UNHCR and IOM supports them with housing and financial as well as administrative assistance (discussion with JRS staff, July 23, 2013). IOM rents two big buildings from the Department of Social Affairs for those refugees to live.
Refugees in Bogor consist of both with asylum seeker status and refugee status. Unlike those in Bantul, they live in houses in kampong. A house can be used for a family or it can be a shared house for a number of refugees. With this condition, ELTR is conducted in home tutor model, in which the teachers would visit the refugees’ house and have classes there.
Classes are divided into two major levels, Basic and Intermediate. Each level is divided into three sub-levels: one, two, and three. The number of groups will depend on how many refugees are interested in joining the classes. Placement test is conducted in a less serious setting. It can be a completion of a test sheet or mere light conversation with the refugee(s) (JRS Bantul volunteers, FGD, July 5, 2013).
JRS does not have specific curriculum for their English classes. They have books to guide the lessons, but they do not stick to the materials. They do not stick to a strict lesson plan, either. The volunteers would have plans but they are also ready for sudden changes in their teaching sites. Usually they have a number of plans and bring a number of sets of materials. When changes happen, they have a set of back-up plans ready at hand.
The classes are very flexible. In Bantul, when there are only a few participants coming to join the classes, the classes will be combined. That is because sometimes they have to go for administrative matters such as renewing their refugee certificate or going to the immigration office for visa matters. The class flexibility appears differently in Bogor. As the class type is home visit, the class situation will have to tolerate disturbances such as neighbors peeping or joining the conversation (observation, July 25, 2013).
The ups and downs of the mood of the refugees often become the reason of class modification. In Bantul, the refugees’ bad mood can change the class into a meeting for sharing. The teachers still consider this an English class as they communicate in English. The unstructured-ness of the class, where conversations just flow, following what the participants want to talk about, requires the teachers’ high capability to improvise. Sofie said that in such condition, the refugees’ change from gloom to smile at the end of the session was the success of the class (FGD, July 6, 2013). English is just the means of communication. In Bogor, the refugees’ mood will be easily recognized because of the fewer number of participants. English lesson can turn up into a discussion of politics of any other topic and it does not matter because it is not really a class, but a visit.
With such high flexibility, it is hard to set a well-structured curriculum with set materials. The English book is used as a ready set of materials for the participants to choose. The teachers usually have additional materials ready in their bags, so they are ready to accommodate the refugees’ wants (JRS Bantul’s volunteers, FGD Bantul, July 5, 2013; JRS Bogor’s staff and volunteers, FGD Bogor, July 25, 2013).
the refugees in the circle and be invited to share their opinion or be involved in the conversation with the class participants. In Bogor’s home tutor, any visitors are involved to the conversation as they are considered as the refugees’ guests (Observations in Bantul, July 3 - 6, 2013; observation in Bogor, July 25, 2013).
Test is conducted very informally and the purpose is to monitor the participants’ improvement. It is used to recommend the participants to move to the higher level. Uniquely, it is possible to happen that a participant refuses to move to another group because he feels secure and comfortable with the group he is in now. When it happens, the teachers would not push them to move, but would talk about this to understand what he feels and why he feels so. When it is possible, the teachers would strongly recommend the participant to move, but they would not force him (FGD with volunteers in Bantul, July 5, 2013).
The way the test is conducted is also to help reduce the refugees’ tension. Nevertheless, the refugees feel responsible to perform well. If they come to the session without knowing if it was a test time, they would complain and ask for remedy.
ELTR and The State’s Immigration Policy
The experience of the two organizations tells how the principles of ELT need modification to adjust the difficult circumstances. The state’s immigration policy has made ELTR a type of teaching in difficult circumstances. As has been discussed above, the problems with the refugees’ status and floating-ness in this transit country make their life unpredictable and therefore, English learning for them is more a thing to kill the time than one of the attempts to prepare to live in the target country.
ELTR hardly implements any of the hypothetical approaches of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) that Krashen (1982) listed. Some believe that SLA works like how a child acquires language, where truth values are more emphasized than the language forms. WR’s English class does not seem to believe in this as the teachers, who are in favor of native-speakerism (a belief that native speakers – American / Australian / British English – is the “right” English), try their best to teach “standard” English to the participants. The materials they use are taken from books from the “native-speaker” countries. The sharing session in JRS class when the participants feel inconvenient to learn indicates that grammar and structure are not emphasized. JRS’ mission considers SLA a bonus for the refugees.
The third belief says that second language learning, which puts monitor to the process of using the language, requires enough time, mastery of the form, and knowledge of the rules to monitor the language they produce (Krashen, 1982). In a way, JRS classes may give the participants enough time to monitor their language production, but they would need more emphasis on the activities to help their mastery of the form and the knowledge of the rules. WR classes stress on the mastery of the last two, but the process of monitoring their language production is more done by the teachers as the classes are fully teacher-centered.
The fourth hypothesis which suits best for beginner to intermediate level of second language learners believes that learners have to get enough comprehensible input of the language in class time before they are ready to produce it. And for beginners, it is best done in class as the real world does not provide comprehensible input, especially for the adult learners. JRS’s Basic classes give fair input, but cultural background often interferes with their understanding of the information. For example, to understand time, some refugees from Myanmar may take a long time to comprehend how to read time in English as their language grammar uses a different way of reading time (observation, Bantul, July 26, 2013). The organizations should really make use of the English classes to provide as much comprehensible input to the participants as outside the class, they speak either their mother tongue or even Bahasa Indonesia – as they have to communicate and socialize with Indonesian people outside the classes.
Lastly, some believe that affective factors, which include motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety, play a great influence to the success of language acquisition. Language performers with high motivation and self-confident as well as low anxiety will perform better in second language acquisition. Motivation may not be a problem for the participants as they come to WR’s office to register. JRS’s participants read English materials in their spare time, even once one shared that he learned English even before JRS’s English lessons were offered (Observation, Bantul, March 2012). Self-confidence does not seem a big problem either as can be seen among JRS’s participants who would enthusiastically do all the tasks given by the teachers. On the contrary, the last aspect – anxiety – can be the biggest problem. It is not about their English lessons, but it is more about their lives in general: their refugee status, their visas, the news of being accepted in the target country, and their memory of their family in their home countries. JRS’s participants show that their up-and-down mood interferes much with their English lessons. It often changes the class setting that the teachers have prepared.
learning environment, coherently arranges the activities into a whole, encourages the students’ motivation and gives opportunities to the students to reach success, and reflects individual teacher’s personal philosophy.
Regarding the professional standards, it is likely to cause fundamental problem in the teachers’ professional qualities. Starting from the recruitment that will be open for anybody interested to be the organizations’ volunteers, ELTR classes are taught by those who may not have English Teacher Education (ETE) background. It means that the professional standard of the organizations for ELTR teachers does not “reflect the methodology that language teachers should know, the teaching skills they should possess, and the behavior they are expected to exhibit in their classrooms” (Richard and Bohlke, 2011). It leads to the next principle that is inapplicable in ELTR classes, in which the lesson does not reflect “solid understandings of the nature of language, of second-language learning and teaching, and of his or her learners – taking into account their needs as well as their learning styles and preferences” (Richard and Bohlke, 2011).
Generally, ELTR classes provide supportive and positive learning environment where the students are focused and relaxed and work together as a group or a community, but they have difficulties in maintaining the coherency of the arrangement of the activities from opening, sequencing, and closings, especially if the class is conducted as what JRS has done.
The available ELTR classes may be motivational and give opportunities to the success of the students. Unfortunately, there is no indication that the teachers reflectively ask themselves these questions: if they varies the way of teaching the lessons, if they include activities that primarily there are to maintain motivation, if they can find ways to make the tasks more interesting, if they can increase the personal value of the lesson to the learners, and if they can build in more opportunities for success in the lessons. In WR classes, it is not easy to evaluate the voluntary teachers’ personal philosophy as reflected in the lesson as their teachings are more purely about the language whereas JRS’s classes may indicate the volunteers’ philosophy that has been influenced by the institution’s vision and mission.
Birch (2009) wrote that teachers are in a strategic position to influence infrastructure, to invest in their social capital, and to construct what Anderson (1991) calls moral imagination. Teachers of effective language lessons must have solid general education background, a deep knowledge of their subject matter, familiarity with numerous pedagogical approaches, strong communication skills, and effective organizational skills (Nieto, 2010; Vilegas& Lucas, 2002). In response to the refugees’ needs for psychosocial assistance, the voluntary English teachers must hold these additional qualities; they are a sense of mission, solidarity with, and empathy for, their students, the courage to challenge mainstream knowledge, improvisation, and a passion for social justice (Nieto, 2010).
education certificate or are still studying at ETE institution, then they should meet those first five qualities. The additional five are hardly found among those holding formal ETE’s certificates. The difficulties that WR or JRS faced in finding volunteers indicate that a sense of mission is hard to find. Even if those volunteers have a sense of mission, empathy and solidarity with the participants may need to be more polished. ELTR like what JRS conduct will show that ELTR teachers have sufficient ability to improvise the materials and teaching setting to face any possible situation in the classroom. In the student-centered classes, awareness of the participants’ vulnerability helps the teachers be more courageous to challenge mainstream and passionate for social justice than in the teacher-centered practice.
A Proposed Model: Culturally Responsive ELTR
English class for refugees is a meeting of people of different backgrounds where mixed cultural relation cannot be avoided. A culturally responsive approach is needed to make the class a meaningful and effective one. In this case, culture is not limited only to rituals and dances and songs and products, but it is widely defined as
“the ever-changing values, traditions, social and political relationships, and worldview created, shared, and transformed by a group of people bound together by a combination of factors that can include a common history, geographic location, language, social class, and religion.” (Nieto, 2010).
Teachers have to keep in their mind two important principles of the important integration of culture in teaching. Firstly, they should think of culture in unsentimental way. It means that they should refer to the complete situation and not simplistically refer to the mythical belief or stereotypes. Secondly, they have to acknowledge the sociopolitical context of culture, which means that particular historical, social, political, and economic conditions shape culture and therefore they are “influenced by issues of power.” (Nieto, 2010)
Principles of culturally responsive pedagogy that Richards, Brown and Forde (2007) suggest for inclusive education can be adopted to develop ELTR which can accommodate the refugees’ needs and modify the principles of effective language learning. Culturally responsive pedagogy includes three components to reform. The institutional dimension should reflect the administration and its policies and values. This includes the administrative structure and the way it relates to diversity and the use of physical space in planning schools and arranging classrooms. Institutional reformation into a multiculturalist “learning community” (Zepeda, 2004) is necessary to initiate.
read about successful teachers in diverse settings, develop an appreciation of diversity, and participate in reforming the institution (Richards, Brown and Forde, 2007).
The teacher’s personal processes to be more culturally responsive will reform the instructional dimension. The materials, strategies, and activities that form the basis of instruction are reformed into culturally responsive ones. Here are some possible actions that are modified from Richard, Brown, and Forde’s suggestion (2007). First, teachers should acknowledge the participants’ differences as well as their similarities. The validation of participants’ cultural identity in classroom practices and instructional materials is necessary. It can be done through the use of textbooks and the implementation of classroom activities that are culturally supportive of the participants. To be more specific, Bank stated that
“Foundational to a culturally responsive pedagogy implemented by teachers who have English language learners (ELL students) in their classrooms is the teacher’s ability to recognize and draw on students’ native languages and cultures” (in Taylor and Sobel, 2011).
Teachers educate about the diversity of the world around them. In attempt to promote equity and mutual respect among the participants, all participants have to feel the fair and respectful treatment. Standard of behavior that require respectful treatment of all needs to be established and maintained by the teacher as the role models who always demonstrate fairness and remind participants that difference is normal.
Evaluative and descriptive assessment of the participants’ ability and achievement will be less burdensome for the participants as long as their status in the transit country is uncertain. ELTR is more useful for the participants to build bond among themselves to reduce anxiety. The teachers should foster a positive interrelationship among the participants and their environment. If possible, community events are conducted to help the participants socialize.
Conclusion
The state’s policy of refugee management makes the life of the refugees harder. As they stay in Indonesia until the target country can accept them, they may be a floating society that is the most vulnerable socially and politically. This does not seem relevant to the educational world until education is used as a media for psychosocial assistance. JRS and WR cases tell that ELTR puts English teachers in a position effective to contribute to the social relation in the place where the refugees stay.
reformed teacher education that is aware of the political position of education can promote a more socially just state and society.
References
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread on nationalism. London: Verso.
Birch, B. M. (2009) The English Language Teacher in Global Civil Society. New York: Routledge.
Convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees. (2010). UNHCR. The UN Refugee Agency.
Errington, Nikola and Hunt, Taya. (2012). The Search. Protection Space in Malaysia, Thailand, Indoneisa, Cambodia, and the Philippines. Bangkok: JRS Asia Pacific
Nieto. Sonia. (2010). Language, Culture, and Teaching. Critical Perspective. Second Edition. New York & London; Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Richards, Heraldo V., Brown, Ayanna F, and Forde, Timothy B. (2007). Addressing Diversity in Schools: Culturally Responsive Pedagogy. Teaching Exceptional Children. Volume: 39. Issue: 3. January/February.
Taephant, Nattasuda, Phd. (2010). IOM Training Manual on Psychosocial Assistance for Trafficked Persons. Bangkok: International Organization for Migration.
Taylor, Sheryl V. and Sobel, Donna M. Culturally Responsive Pedagogy: Teaching Like Our Students’ Lives Matter. United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Villegas, Ana Maria and Lucas, Tamara. (2002). Preparing Culturally Responsive Teachers: Rethinking the Curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education. Volume: 53. Issue: 1. Zepeda, Sally J. (2004). Leadership to Build Learning Communities. The Educational
Forum; Winter 2004; 68, 2; ERIC® pg. 144
http://jrs.or.id/en/about-us/
