I

t is noble to take responsibility for some of the failures in one'€™s department. But to make a decision in which others have to solve the cause of your failure is irresponsible and, hence, unacceptable. This seems to be the case regarding the Culture and Education Ministry.

Responding to the 2015 Education First (EF) English Proficiency Index'€™s (EPI) finding that Indonesia suffered from a decline in English proficiency, the ministry'€™s training and courses development director Yusuf Muhyiddin pledged in November to push for the use of English in offices and institutions '€” as if many of the staff in such places were native speakers of English, or, at least, bilingual.

Not long afterward, the Research and Technology and Higher Education Ministry came up with a policy requiring university lecturers to teach bilingually.

This means that the decline in students'€™ English proficiency, which surely starts in junior high school and senior high school, is to be handled at universities.

Worse, its handling will be entrusted to lecturers. This not only is irresponsible but is also wrong.

Bilingual instructions need bilingual instructors. And to understand them, students must have a certain level of English. It is for this reason that international tertiary institutions which apply a bilingual curriculum require their prospective students to gain a certain score in English test such as IELTS, TOFEL or the new Pearson'€™s Computer-Based Academic (English) Test.

This policy is surely based on the assumption that university students in Indonesia have the required level of English to understand lectures in English and that the lecturers assigned to teach bilingually are bilingual. At least, they must be capable of conveying instructions in English.

However, none of this seems to be true of Indonesian universities and students. Many lecturers do not speak English well enough to lecture in English, let alone bilingually.

Some lecturers assigned to teach English as a basic subject are not even capable of speaking English.

Recently, for example, a lecturer teaching English in a public university in Surabaya became an object of ridicule among some of his new students when he said at the beginning of his class, '€œDon'€™t become late. OK?'€ His students immediately lost trust in him and in the subject he was supposed to teach.

Professional assignments such as English proficiency enhancement are best left to the specialists, for improper teaching can lead to failure, even deterioration. Isn'€™t this the case in our formal schools? Many Indonesian students mispronounce words because of the improper teaching of English.

Perhaps it comes from hearing participants on TV talk shows say words confidently but wrongly.

Language teachers are responsible for improving and developing students'€™ fluency and accuracy. For this, teachers need '€œlanguage awareness'€, which enables them to correct students'€™ mistakes along the way.

And to be able to do so, teachers must have a certain level of English. In other words, a language teacher not only needs to be aware of the English produced by his students, but must always use correct English himself.

Failing to do so means a two-fold problem '€” not ensuring correct language exposure and reinforcing incorrect language production on the part of the students. A language teacher who fails to do this is a failed teacher.

Here lies the difference between a language teacher and a bilingual one. This is the very reason why international tertiary institutions apply the policy mentioned above. They do not want to be bothered by the inadequate use of English by their students and the task of correcting their English once they are accepted. And even if they do, they do not have its subtlety.

Therefore, instead of shifting the responsibility of improving students'€™ English to universities and lecturers, why not retrain school English teachers and upgrade those whose English is inadequate to teach English in English? Yusuf'€™s directorate could design such a training course and make existing teachers attend it. If his office does not have the resources to run the course, he could offer it to other parties. And once such teachers are ready, they could be made to teach English in English.

As for universities, they could be assigned to design and run English programs for their students whose English needs upgrading. Almost every big university in Indonesia has a language unit.

At present, they are only tasked with designing and running English tests that students have to take at the beginning of their study and upon completion (those who do not pass the required level at the beginning have to retake the same test prior to finishing their study).

If universities are short of trainers, they can simply recruit lecturers whose English is good enough. And if there are not enough lecturers fit to be involved, universities could seek outside help.

Yusuf'€™s department could assist in this and monitor progress. Small universities that do not have the luxury of a language unit could be pushed to establish one in collaboration with other established universities or language schools.