Abstract
This case study investigates stakeholder perceptions of English teaching in Indonesian elementary schools (ES), emphasizing its urgency and challenges. Focus group discussions with teachers, principals, local education authorities, and parents revealed strong support for mandatory English instruction at ES. However, stakeholders identified systemic barriers, including shortages of qualified teachers, inconsistent curriculum, and inadequate resources. The study urges policymakers to replace laissez-faire language education policy with a clear national policy, coupled with systemic investments in teacher training, equitable resource allocation, and multilingual curricula that can balance globalization needs with linguistic diversity preservation.
Introduction
English teaching is now a common practice in formal education systems worldwide, including Indonesia. This is based on the belief that mastering English as a global language will give the next generation a competitive edge (Choi & Lee, 2008; Kaplan & Baldauf, 2005; Spolsky, 2013). Initially, English was taught at secondary and upper education levels. However, there is a growing demand in the 21st century for English to be taught at earlier levels, driven by parents and education systems in non-native English-speaking countries (Moon, 2012).
Introducing English instruction at earlier educational stages, such as at ES, presents numerous potential advantages. Advocates contend that children possess a heightened aptitude for language acquisition due to their cognitive flexibility (Cruttenden, 1978; Lightbown & Spada, 2021). Early exposure to the English language contributes to the development of improved pronunciation, fluency, and self-confidence (Hartshorne et al., 2018; Hernandez et al., 2021). Additionally, attaining English language skills at an early age can facilitate broader opportunities for future academic success (Ali et al., 2023; Cummins, 2000) and participation in global communication (Gee, 2008; Spolsky, 2013).
Nevertheless, teaching English at earlier educational levels presents various challenges. A significant concern pertains to the readiness of schools and teachers to deliver effective English instruction. In numerous expanding and outer circle countries, there exists a frequent shortage of teachers proficient in both English language and age-appropriate pedagogy (Baldauf et al., 2013; Kirkpatrick, 2012; Zein, 2017). Limited teaching resources and inconsistent curriculum development further exacerbate the issue (Nunan, 2003). Moreover, the introduction of English at ES may amplify sociolinguistic hierarchies and threaten linguistic diversity (Kohler, 2019; Zein, 2020) in diverse contexts like Indonesia.
English Language Teaching at Elementary Schools in Indonesia
Status of English Teaching at ES in Indonesia’s Curriculum
aLH: Lesson Hour.
Unlike other countries in Southeast Asia, Indonesia remains the only country in the region where English is not a compulsory subject at ES (Baldauf et al., 2013; Kirkpatrick & Liddicoat, 2017). Within ASEAN, where English serves as a lingua franca (Kirkpatrick, 2012), Indonesia’s hesitancy to institutionalize English at ES contrasts sharply with regional neighbors. English teaching at ES has been a long-standing language policy debate in Indonesia, a nation characterized by superdiversity with around 700 languages (Arka, 2013; Eberhard et al., 2025; Zein, 2017). Language-in-education policy must reconcile globalization-driven demands for English with the imperative to protect linguistic diversity, ensure equitable resource distribution, and foster multilingualism (Zein, 2020). Thus, there is an urge to examine how the stakeholders and users perceive the new language policy (e.g., the reintroduction of English at ES in the newest national curriculum) amidst Indonesia’s education contemporary challenges and superdiversity. This study seeks to answer: (1) How do stakeholders perceive the future policy of English teaching at ES? (2) What are the current practices of English teaching at ES? (3) What are the necessary factors for the successful future implementation of English teaching at ES?
Literature Review
English’s global dominance stems from historical imperialism and globalization (Pennycook, 2017; Phillipson, 1992, 2013). Some scholars critique this as “linguistic imperialism”—a system perpetuating structural and cultural inequalities that marginalize local languages (Phillipson, 2013; Rubdy, 2015; Tollefson, 2000). Phillipson (1992) argued English linguistic imperialism as “the dominance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages” (p. 47). Structural inequalities relate to material properties such as programs, institutions or financial allocations, while cultural or ideological inequalities refers to immaterial properties such as attitudes, imagery of English for success, and popular culture.
In societies where English is robustly promoted as the language for “development” and “modernization,” learning English is a highly commercialized good. For example, access to schools with strong English programs is widely aspired to by Indonesian families, although incurring significant financial cost. This condition has created social injustice where access to commercialized English programs is at the hands of the rich, creating social divisiveness between the rich and the poor (Feng & Adamson, 2019; Maharani et al., 2024). Concurrently, English’s hegemony in commerce and media promotes Western values that are often incompatible with local identities (Alrabai, 2018; Liyanage, 2019), while its institutional privilege in bodies like the ASEAN or the European Union entrenches linguistic bias (Kirkpatrick, 2012; Phillipson, 2013). Though framed as vital for development, English’s prominence paradoxically reinforces social, economic, and political injustices (Phillipson, 2013; Rubdy, 2015; Tollefson, 2000). Phillipson (2013), thus, underscored the significance of language-policy-in-education in setting the agenda for English to be learned and used in ways that promote equality and justice.
Why Teaching English at Elementary Schools?
English has established itself as a global language essential for science, technology, and the economy, with around 1.5 billion users worldwide (Kachru, 2005). Across Greater Asia, English is pivotal to economic modernization (Ali et al., 2023; Kirkpatrick & Liddicoat, 2017; Piller & Cho, 2013). With this trend, English is a primary foreign language taught across all education levels.
Historically, English instruction begins at secondary or tertiary levels, aligned with post-war policies linking English proficiency to national development and competitiveness (Alfarisy, 2021; Alrabai, 2018; Kirkpatrick & Liddicoat, 2019b; Kohler, 2019). Students and graduates need to master English for academic and professional purposes, enhancing their countries’ economic competitiveness (Ahmed, 2010; Al-Darwish, 2006; Picard, 2018). Countries like Japan prioritizes English for professional purposes (Honna & Saruhashi, 2019), while Taiwan and the UAE embeds it in exams to enhance workforce readiness (Chen, 2013a; Gobert, 2019). The privilege of English as the “other” language to be taught and learned in formal education is a common practice worldwide. Parental demand further accelerates the trend. Families—including in conservative regions like the Arabian Gulf—increasingly seek English education (Morrow, 2011). Globally, parents recognize English as crucial for survival in the modern world, pushing for its early introduction in schools (Feng & Adamson, 2019; Piller & Cho, 2013). Thus, teaching English at ES is now standard practice and is a common strategy to improve the proficiency of English as a global asset (Kaplan et al., 2013; Kirkpatrick & Liddicoat, 2019b; Morrow, 2011; Spolsky, 2013).
The trend for early English instruction is partly grounded on language acquisition theories such as the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) (Lenneberg, 1967) or neural plasticity in young learners (Cummins, 2000). These theories posit that children learn languages more easily and achieve greater fluency (the “younger, better” hypothesis) (Nunan, 2003; Snow & Katz, 2010). However, research in second language acquisition has challenged this, with studies showing that late starters can be faster and more efficient learners given the same amount of instruction (Muñoz, 2006; Muñoz & Singleton, 2011). The advantage of an early start depends heavily on teaching methods, quality, and exposure, with some research noting minimal advantages in typical school contexts (Dolean, 2015; Myles, 2017; Singleton & Pfenninger, 2018). The goal of native-like pronunciation itself faces criticism in contexts where communicative competence is prioritized (Jenkins, 2000). Cognitive benefits associated with bilingualism/multilingualism, such as enhanced metalinguistic awareness, apply regardless of acquisition age (Bialystok, 2001; Dolean, 2015; Muñoz, 2008). Thus, while English programs at ES respond to global and societal pressures, their pedagogical justification requires nuanced consideration of contextual variables and alignment with goals emphasizing functional proficiency and local linguistic identities over idealized fluency.
Key Issues and Challenges of English Teaching at Elementary Schools
Implementing English at ES faces multifaceted challenges. First, the status and objectives of English vary significantly, with some countries introducing it as an optional subject while others as a compulsory one (see Baldauf et al., 2013; Kirkpatrick & Liddicoat, 2019a). Divergent aims further complicate implementation. Some countries emphasize language competence, like China, Hong Kong, and Singapore (Chua, 2013; Poon, 2019; Wu, 2013), while others prioritize positive attitude and cultural awareness associated with English, as seen in Japan, and Taiwan (Chen, 2013a; Kohler, 2019; Terasawa, 2022). This variability can exacerbate inequalities, as affluent schools access better resources while underdeveloped regions struggle.
Second, linguistic equity concerns further complicate implementation of English education. In superdiverse contexts (e.g., Indonesia and Vietnam), the penetration of “imported” languages of global importance into a polity such as English risks reinforcing a language hierarchy—one is superior and more important than others (Phillipson, 2013; Zein, 2020). The introduction of English at ES may accelerate language shift (e.g., Java to Indonesian or Muong to Vietnamese) and marginalize indigenous/local languages (Bradley, 2019; Kirkpatrick & Liddicoat, 2017; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2019). Historically, language policies prioritize national language for nation-building, often at the expense of linguistic diversities (Kohler, 2019; Zentz, 2017). Unchecked promotion of a new language could also lead to subtractive bilingualism/multilingualism, where younger generations prioritize English at the expense of local languages, threatening cultural heritage of linguistically rich countries like Indonesia (Pervez, 2023; Zein, 2020).
Third, teacher quality and adequate resources pose critical barriers. A number of countries face shortages of trained English teachers, leading to reliance on underqualified personnel, particularly in public schools (Bradley, 2019; Chen, 2013b; Chodidjah, 2008; Wu, 2013). Concurrently, funding shortfalls limit teaching materials, perpetuating educational injustice (Chen, 2013b; Kirkpatrick & Liddicoat, 2019b; Li, 2011). Addressing these resource gaps is crucial to achieving the intended outcomes of English language education.
Implementing English teaching at ES involves navigating several policy areas such as the status of English and starting grade levels (access policy), the purpose of English instruction (curriculum policy), teacher selection and training (personnel policy), and the availability of teaching resources (materials policy). All of these policy areas intersect with the contextual factors of polities such as histories, identities, and socio-linguistics (Baldauf et al., 2013; Kaplan & Baldauf, 2005).
Theoretical Framework
This study employs Ruiz’s (1984) language orientation framework—language-as-a-problem, language-as-a-right, and language-as-a-resource—to examine how stakeholders view the role and value of English in education. Each orientation offers unique insights into the ideological positions that shape language policies and teaching practices (Hornberger, 2006; Ruiz, 1984).
The language-as-a-problem orientation conceptualizes language as an obstacle to achieving educational or societal goals. From this perspective, stakeholders might emphasize challenges such as inadequate teacher training, limited resources, or students’ struggles with English proficiency (Ricento, 2000). These concerns often lead to deficit-focused policies to fix language-related barriers rather than leveraging the potential benefits of linguistic diversity.
The language-as-a-right orientation, in contrast, emphasizes equitable access to language learning and the preservation of linguistic identities. Ruiz (1984) highlighted the importance of recognizing language as a basic right, advocating for the freedom to maintain and develop their linguistic heritage while gaining access to broader communicative tools. This orientation aligns with principles of social justice and inclusivity, particularly in multilingual societies where linguistic diversity is at risk (Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 2008).
Finally, the language-as-a-resource orientation frames language as an asset that contributes to both individuals and society. This perspective emphasizes the cultural, cognitive, and economic benefits of English proficiency, particularly in a globalized context where English often serves as a lingua franca (Ruiz, 2010). Policies informed by this orientation encourage leveraging English as a tool for career advancement and intercultural communication while maintaining respect for linguistic diversity.
By utilizing Ruíz’s framework, this study explores how educational stakeholders perceive the current practices of English instruction, their expectations for its future policy, and the factors necessary for its successful implementation. The framework allows for a nuanced analysis of stakeholder beliefs and highlights the interplay between ideological orientations and practical considerations in shaping language education policies. Moreover, it enables a critical examination of whether these beliefs reflect equitable and sustainable approaches to language education (Johnson & Ricento, 2013). As Hornberger (2006) observed, Ruíz’s framework is particularly valuable for understanding language ideologies across micro and macro levels.
Method
This study is situated within a constructivist-interpretive qualitative paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln, 2003), employing a case study design to investigate English teaching at ES in Kabupaten Nagekeo as a bounded system. The study aims to understand the socially constructed meanings of the phenomenon being examined by focusing on the contextual background of the participants (Creswell, 2003, 2007).
Context of the Study and Participants
Kabupaten Nagekeo is an underdeveloped regency in Indonesia facing challenges of inadequate infrastructure, insufficient revenue, and a shortage of skilled personnel. In education sector, the pressing issue faced by the local government is low literacy and numeracy rates among students at ES. Most English teachers at ES in the regency have a beginner level (A1 CEFR) (PSKP, 2024).
Pseudonyms of Participants and Backgrounds
Data Collection
We opted for FGD as we aimed to understand more communal or collective perspectives. FGD enabled us to gather diverse viewpoints quickly, serving as a time- and cost-effective data collection method under limited resources at the research site (Galloway, 2020). This method aligns with the study’s constructionist paradigm, which prioritizes understanding how stakeholders negotiate shared beliefs about English teaching at ES. A semi-structured interview protocol was developed incorporating prompt questions like, “What are your views on the current status of English teaching at ES?”, “How do you envision the future policy of English teaching at ES?”, and “What challenges do you foresee when implementing English teaching at ES?” Participants were encouraged to share both supportive and critical perspectives, with discussions framed as exploratory rather than evaluative. This approach accommodated Indonesia’s cultural context, where social harmony can influence group discourse, potentially discouraging overt dissent in evaluative settings (Gelfand et al., 2011; Uz, 2015). All four researchers co-developed the semi-structured interview protocol and pilot-tested it through iterative role-playing exercises to ensure adherence to core questions, culturally sensitive facilitation, and consistent neutral questioning/probing techniques.
To mitigate power imbalances, FGDs were conducted separately for each category of participants, taking into account potential power dynamics/imbalances that may arise among participants of differing status (Krueger & Casey, 2014). Each FGD was facilitated by two researchers and lasted approximately 3 hours for each category group. FGDs were conducted in Indonesian. Relevant documents such as official reports, guidelines, and curriculum pertinent to the research interest were gathered to understand authorities’ directives on the issue being investigated.
Data Analysis
The qualitative data analysis method proposed by (Creswell, 2007) was employed to identify units of meaning and develop emerging themes. Values coding was exclusively applied to discern participants’ values, attitudes, and beliefs, representing their perspectives or worldviews (Saldana, 2009). Transcripts from each FGD were independently coded by their respective researchers facilitating the FGD. At the first level of coding, we focused on the units of meaning in participants’ statements, generating 52 codes (e.g., “for academic success,” “limited resources,” and “teacher competency”) out of around 273 excerpts. Initial coding achieved nearly 90% inter-coder reliability. Discrepancies were resolved through negotiated consensus meetings involving all four researchers to refine codes, categories and themes iteratively until full agreement. At the second level of coding, we grouped the codes into categories (e.g., “limited resources”, “teacher competency” categorized as “instrumental challenges”). At this stage, we also used the three orientations of Ruíz’s framework to map the codes (e.g., “academic success” and “employment” grouped into a language-as-a-resource orientation). At last, themes were developed according to the [sub]categories. Some insights from the documentation were incorporated into the interpretation to enrich the themes (Bowen, 2009). Data were analyzed in its original language, Indonesian, and translated accordingly after completing the analyses.
Findings
Emerging Themes
Instrumental-Pragmatic Disposition Towards English Teaching at ES
The participants exhibited a strong disposition toward the importance of English, perceiving its mastery as essential for both present and future needs. This stemmed from a collective belief in English as an international language, which makes it a necessity for students to learn it. EF1 noted that his private school’s reason for teaching English is “responding to the current demands because, in the era of globalization, English is an international language”. NTEST1 echoed this, asserting its importance “to introduce it from an early age... [for] English is today’s need.” Stakeholders viewed English proficiency as a crucial asset for individual and societal advancement. TESP1 and TEST2 both linked early English instruction to its role in enabling students “to compete internationally, … [and] continue their undergraduate, master’s or doctoral studies abroad”. Similarly, LEA1 stressed early learning of English as a skill for “to prepare future generations.” EF2 further warned that Indonesia lags “compared to neighboring countries in terms of English language skills for children” without English teaching at ES. These views highlight participants’ collective recognition of English’s critical role in accessing global opportunities, fostering individual development, and enhancing national competitiveness.
Beyond its instrumental value for individual advancement, participants consistently identified English instruction at ES as a critical mechanism to address persistent educational disparities across schools and regions. This perspective was particularly pronounced among parents from non-English teaching schools with NTESP3 articulating a clear desire to level the playing field noting, “Currently, we experience differences in education. The kids’ performances at public schools are always inferior to kids at private schools. So, if in private schools’ kids learn English, kids in the public must also learn English to eliminate the differences.” This sentiment reveals an awareness of the socio-economic stratification exacerbated by English instruction, where affluent private schools can offer English, thereby creating an academic advantage not accessible to public schools, particularly in underserved rural areas. SP3, a school principal, further highlighted the geographic dimension of this inequity, pointing out, “The further east [part of Indonesia] you go, sometimes the more it is neglected. While we all know English has been taught since kindergarten in big cities.” This perceived “neglect” in eastern Indonesia underscores historical patterns of uneven development and resource allocation that disproportionately affect remote regions. Consequently, stakeholders in Kabupaten Nagekeo viewed English instruction at ES as a crucial “equalizer,” not merely bridging the gap between public and private institutions but also addressing the widening divide between urban and rural educational opportunities. This strong pro-English stance can be interpreted as reflecting the district’s aspirational goals for socio-economic mobility and a desire to “catch up” with urban centers, where English is already firmly institutionalized.
In addition to being viewed as a language that benefits individuals and nations, English teaching at ES is perceived to benefit students’ academic transition across school levels. A parent from NTES believed, “If students learn English from elementary school, I’m sure that when they enter middle and high school, they would be better able [to learn English]” (NTESP4). This was corroborated by observations from TES principal and teacher. TES principal observed, “Students’ with English learning experience at elementary schools are better prepared… and do not feel overwhelmed when they get to the middle schools” (TESP3). While TES teacher noted, “It will become the basis for continuing to the next level [of learning English]” (TES3). This finding highlights the view of early exposure to English as a foundational element that equips students with the skills and confidence needed to tackle more advanced levels of English learning as they progress through different educational stages.
Although respondents from all different groups view English and its teaching at ES necessary, there was a divergence of opinions regarding the appropriate starting grade for English instruction at ES. Some participants, such as TEST1 and TEST4, advocated for early introduction regardless of their age or education level, citing young children’s cognitive abilities and stronger memories. TEST1 stated, “If English is taught to year one, it’s better because younger students have stronger memories,” while TEST4 shared a practical example: “I teach year one [English alphabets], even if it’s only a week, they already know how to pronounce the alphabet.” The sentiment of “the earlier, the better” is compelling for these respondents.
Conversely, other participants argued for a later start due to concerns about students’ foundational literacy skills either in their first and national language. TEST6 emphasized the importance of focusing on basic literacy because “For grades 1 and 2, some can write and some can’t, some can read and some can’t. Similarly, LEA2 argued, “Students in grade 1 and 2 focus on basic literacy first.” Thus, TEST6 and LEA2 with some other stakeholders propose that “English can start from grade 3.” LEA2 raised a concern over multiple simultaneous language learning, stating, “We are now also making use of local language in learning... We don’t want Indonesian and English to confuse the students [use of local language].” This group of participants advocated for a later start, expressing concern about the potential risk that introducing English teaching at ES too early could interfere students’ foundational literacy skill in their local and national language.
English not Compulsory at ES but in Existence
English serves as a de facto subject at ES, reflecting a broader recognition of its importance and has been taught through various modes of delivery. As SP3, a principal of a private school, reported, “ … Schools under our foundation began implementing English teaching 5 years ago, it is offered as a private course. We employ English instructors who teach students in the afternoons.” Another private school principal shared, “The English class occurs every Saturday as an extracurricular activity” (SP1). An educational foundation representative highlighted, “Since 2012, our elementary schools have been teaching English to students from year 1 to 6, employing qualified English teachers… We established it as mulok” (EF1). Despite the varied methods of delivery, all private ES reported to have been accommodating English teaching at their schools for years. They also viewed English not merely as a necessity for their students but also as “a competitive added value” for their institutions. Consequently, these schools were taking extra initiatives such as “to recruit qualified English teachers and create simple teaching guidelines, like modules, and also provide some training for English teachers” (SP3). This proactive approach speaks to the schools’ recognition of English as essential for student success and institutional credibility.
In contrast, the implementation of English at public ES is more variable and largely depends on individual school discretion. This variability is influenced significantly by changes in the national curriculum. For instance, a public-school principal (SP4) explained, “Our school used to have English [subject] mainly for introduction of basic daily conversation but when K13 [one of the former curriculums] implemented, English was excluded so we dropped it.” Similarly, a parent (TESP1) noted, “In our school until 2021 semester 2, there is English, but it is not compulsory… it is included in mulok.” A school supervisor provided a broader perspective on the curriculum changes and their impact: Since KBK, KTSP, and K13 [former Indonesian curriculums], schools have actually realized that English is needed, but it is not stated as a compulsory but an optional subject. So, according to their contexts, schools can accommodate it. (SS2)
This finding highlights that the implementation of English teaching at ES greatly depends on the prevailing status of English in national education policy.
Compelling Future Supports and Challenges
The implementation of English teaching at ES is influenced by several cultural, pragmatic, and instrumental factors. A strong culture of compliance with central government directives emerges as a potential driver of English implementation at ES. LEA2 explicitly stated, “What local governments doing cannot deviate from central policies, we must implement any policies from central government.” This compliance-oriented culture suggests that if English were mandated at the national level, local authorities would likely respond swiftly and adjust accordingly and vice versa. This sentiment also reflects a top-down structure that can leverage changes. LEA1 mentioned that “Dinas [LEA] can pay English teachers’ honorarium allocated in BOSDA [local school grants], if the central government permits it.” It highlights how local governments can operationalize national directives to support English teaching at ES.
Public schools similarly reflect this adherence to national directives. A school supervisor (SS2) observed, “Public schools generally tend to follow the direction of the central government.” This reveals a reactive stance where schools wait for national mandates to determine their priorities. It also highlights the potential for large-scale change if central policies decisively advocate for English instruction at ES. Private schools, on the other hand, operate with a markedly different ethos. Their motivation to teach English appears less tied to compliance and more rooted in strategic positioning. As SP3, a private school principal, explained, “It is clearly stated in our grand design, English teaching is our brand.” This instrumental motivation underscores the varying incentives that drive English implementation across school types.
While cultural and bureaucratic dispositions might offer a conducive policy-making framework, the instrumental realities of teacher shortages and inadequate resources reveal structural barriers that could hinder meaningful implementation. The issue of teacher supply emerges as a fundamental challenge, both quantitatively and qualitatively. A school supervisor highlighted, “It is the current reality in our region that all elementary schools have limited number of teachers as well as their competency, not to mention for English teachers” (SS1). NTES2 further explicated this issue, “Teachers are mostly contractual teachers. So, if we have to recruit an English teacher, it would be another burden.”
It was a consensus among the participants that English is a distinct subject requiring specific qualification and competence. SP2, a principal, argued, “The teacher should be an English teacher, not a classroom teacher, because it is related to competence.” This was echoed by SP4: “We must recruit teachers with English qualifications and not plot classroom teachers to become English teachers.” However, English teachers with such requirement are scarce. NTES3 reported, “We’ve tried to recruit qualified English teachers but it’s hard to find.” Such a sentiment was similarly expressed by TEST5, “We opened a vacancy for English teachers and conducted a selection test. We found not many candidates possess the required competency to teach English to elementary students.” This finding reflects the broader and systemic issue in rural or underdeveloped areas, where schools already grapple with general teacher shortages and low competency levels, let alone the introduction of additional subjects like English.
Structural and regulatory challenges complicate the integration of English teaching at ES. LEA2 emphasized, “If English teaching at elementary schools is to be implemented, the most crucial factor to consider is teacher recruitment regulation.” There exists a regulatory blind spot that fails to accommodate the unique requirements of introducing a new subject like English. NTES1 raised this issue, “It is important to decide the legal status of our future English teachers because at the moment they do not legally exist in the current system, in terms of the linearity of their qualification, for example.” This finding calls for urgent policy attention to address these structural gaps and highlights the importance of aligning policy, regulation, and practice to ensure that English teaching at ES is not only aspirational but also operationally feasible.
The absence of adequate teaching and learning resources presents a substantial challenge. Teachers often find themselves compelled to generate their own materials to meet the needs of their students. As TEST4 highlighted, “I have been teaching English since 2015 and I have to prepare my own teaching materials… I mostly find them from the internet because no books are available at my school.” Similarly, TEST8 underscored the gap in resources by stating, “There are no media and books as teaching and learning resources… most of the time, I use Google to search lesson plans and other materials.” Teachers often have to create their own materials. TEST4 shared, “I have been teaching English since 2015 and I have to prepare my own teaching materials… I mostly find them from the internet because no books are available at my school.” This deficiency in resources has a detrimental impact on the quality of English education, as illustrated by SS2’s observations: I have 10 schools under my supervision. One school is already running its English teaching quite well established, two schools merely introduce English at a very basic level while other seven schools do not provide any English lessons… In my observation, the unavailability of teaching and learning resources including other supporting instruments badly affects the implementation process. (SS2)
SS1 concluded, “We all agree that English needs to be taught at the elementary school level but as we all know it is not supported by a curriculum document and its supplements.” According to these participants, addressing these resource challenges requires recognizing it as a foundational element of English teaching at ES.
Discussion
The findings highlight multifaceted stakeholder perceptions of English teaching at ES in Indonesia. Guided by Ruíz’s (1984) framework, the study reveals how English is viewed as a valuable development tool (language-as-a-resource), a challenge to equity (language-as-a-problem), and an access issue (language-as-a-right). These orientations interact dynamically, shaping stakeholder attitudes and influencing the policy discourse on early English education.
The overwhelming stakeholder support for English teaching at ES highlights a powerful language-as-a-resource orientation. This instrumental-pragmatic disposition strongly reflects the perception of English as linguistic capital (Bourdieu, 1991) and provides empirical support for broader theories on the economic utility of English as a critical component of human capital development in a globalized world. Proficiency in English can significantly enhance individuals’ economic and social prospects in the current modern and globalized era (Ali et al., 2023; Carnoy, 2016; Tollefson, 2000; Zentz, 2016). According to Zentz (2016), what really makes the difference is the access to socio-economic resources associated with English and not the language itself. A language has little or no value if it is not perceived to facilitate individuals’ access to social or material goods (Ruiz, 2010).
For stakeholders in an underdeveloped region like Kabupaten Nagekeo, the demand for English is not just for a life skill but also for aspirational capital—a perceived pathway to upward mobility and a means to close the developmental gap with urban centers. English is perceived as vital for “eliminating differences” with urban centers, reflecting families’ strategic investment in linguistic resources to bridge spatial inequalities (Ali et al., 2023). This perception reflects a deep internalization of global linguistic hierarchies, where English stands as non-negotiable currency for socio-economic mobility in a neoliberal world order (Piller & Cho, 2013). English is seen as lifeline for regional development which exemplifies Ruiz’s language-as-resource orientation, but with localized urgency.
The language-as-a-right orientation surfaces in calls for equitable access, with participants advocating for mandatory English to ensure all students have an “equal starting point.” In general, education, as a public good, should be non-rivalrous and non-excludable (Anomaly, 2018). The proactive approach of private ES, viewing English as a “competitive added value,” directly supports and nuances existing literature on linguistic imperialism and educational inequity. As Phillipson (1992) argued that the dominance of English is often maintained through structural and cultural inequalities. Our findings illustrate how, in the absence of a clear national policy, private ES proactively leverage English as a market differentiator, effectively commercializing access to a perceived global asset (Piller & Cho, 2013). While responsive to parental demand, this practice inadvertently reinforces the social injustice where access to quality English education becomes largely dependent on socio-economic status (Feng & Adamson, 2019). On the other hand, the reactive stance of public ES portrays an operational reliance on central government funding and bureaucratic structures that foster a culture of compliance (Bjork, 2005). This is a culture that traps public in a cycle of inaction or fragmented implementation, perpetuating the equity gap. The contrasting approaches of private and public ES starkly illustrate how ambiguous language policy actively disadvantages the public system and rural regions within Indonesia’s decentralized governance (Kirkpatrick & Liddicoat, 2017).
The language-as-a-problem orientation is evident in the discussion of systemic barriers. The critical shortage of qualified teachers and resources confirms and provides a granular, on-the-ground perspective to broader studies reporting challenges for countries implementing English instruction (Choi & Lee, 2008; Feng & Adamson, 2019; Ismatiah et al., 2023; Kirkpatrick & Liddicoat, 2019a; Nguyen, 2013). In particular, these barriers mirror broader struggles in rural Indonesia, where the number and quality of English teachers at ES are insufficient (Kaltsum, 2016). The lack of clear national policy exacerbates inequities. Due to the ambiguous status of English at ES, English teachers are not officially recognized in the system and thus are not eligible for professional benefits such as certification or other benefits. In particular, teachers’ debates about optimal starting grade (early vs. post-literacy foundation stage), emphasis on special qualification and competence, and resources are not about pedagogical preferences but responses to their frontline reality. English teachers at ES grapple with multilingual classes, insufficient training, scarce materials, and the lack of formal recognition within the system (PSKP, 2024; Sulistiyo et al., 2020), reflecting the practical impossibility of effective implementation without systematic support.
There is an interplay and tension how English is viewed as a valuable tool for development (language-as-a-resource), a challenge to equitable implementation (language-as-a-problem), and an issue of educational access and rights (language-as-a-right). While stakeholders overwhelmingly support English instruction at ES, disagreements about the appropriate starting grade reveal underlying tensions between pragmatic aspirations and pedagogical realities. These tensions suggest that support for English is conditional on systemic improvements, rather than unconditional endorsement. It also points that while the sentiment of “the younger, the better” is compelling, its practical application requires careful planning. Policymakers must carefully weigh the benefits of early exposure to English against the risks of undermining and engendering diversification of bilingualism, multilingualism and plurilingualism that characterizes Indonesia’s superdiversity (Zein, 2020). English should neither be learned nor utilized in ways that suppress or eliminate other languages and identities (Phillipson, 2013).
Rather than creating flexibility, the current laissez-faire approach in language-in-education policy in Indonesia has generated a vacuum filled by market forces and entrenched inequities. The commercialization of English access in private schools demonstrates how ambiguity enables the commodification of a perceived global good, exacerbating social stratification (Feng & Adamson, 2019; Phillipson, 2013). Our findings challenge notions that policy neutrality benefits diversity and reinforce Tollefson’s (2000) argument about the inherently political nature of language policy, where inaction or ambiguity serves specific interests. Furthermore, the study nuances the understanding of linguistic equity in superdiverse contexts. The strong language-as-a-resource orientation driving demand risks marginalizing the language-as-a-right perspective essential for preserving Indonesia’s linguistic heritage unless explicitly counterbalanced by policy. Thus, our findings also support the urgent need for policies that actively promote additive multilingualism (Pervez, 2023; Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 2008; Zein, 2020).
Limitations
While this study provides valuable insights into stakeholder perceptions of English teaching in Indonesian elementary schools, it is important to acknowledge several limitations. First, its focus on a single, rural, and relatively underdeveloped district (Kabupaten Nagekeo) inherently shapes the generalizability of the findings. The specific challenges faced by this region may have predisposed stakeholders to view English in overwhelmingly positive and aspirational terms, potentially amplifying the “language-as-a-resource” perspective. Findings might differ in urban centers where English is more established and its sociolinguistic complexities are more apparent. Second, our study did not include the direct perspectives of students, whose experiences and aspirations are central to the policy’s impact and could offer a crucial dimension to the understanding of English teaching’s immediacy and effectiveness. Similarly, stakeholders at higher provincial or national level (Ministry of Education) whose rationale for the current policy ambiguity remains unexamined. Finally, while efforts were made to mitigate power imbalances by conducting separate FGDs for different participant categories, the inherent dynamics of group discussions warrant further reflection. The research team, as external academics, might have inadvertently influenced discourse. Despite employing culturally sensitive facilitation techniques, the Indonesian cultural context, which often values social harmony (Gelfand et al., 2011; Uz, 2015), could have led to a tendency for participants to present more socially desirable responses or to self-censor dissenting views in a group setting. Our analysis also prioritized thematic content over interactional nuances, which limits insights into how consensus was constructed and risks overlooking how certain voices may have been interactionally silenced. Future research could triangulate these findings with individual interviews and classroom observations to capture a more complete picture.
Implications
The study underscores four interconnected and actionable implications for language-in-education policy making. First, policy clarity is paramount. To remedy the current laissez-faire approach that heightens inequality, the Indonesia’s Ministry of Education should establish a national language-in-education policy for English at ES that explicitly designates English as a compulsory subject from a specific grade level (e.g., Grade 3) with clearly defined learning objectives, expected competencies, and pathways for progression to secondary levels. Second, teacher supply and quality improvement must be addressed systemically. Teacher education/training institutions need to overhaul pre-service teacher education programs to include specific pathways for ES English language specialists, ensuring new graduates are equipped for this role. Similarly, national policymakers need to develop competency standards and certification processes for ES English teachers, distinguishing them from general classroom teachers. A national program for specialized English teacher training at ES is required. This program should focus not only on English proficiency (e.g., targeting CEFR A2/B1 minimum for ES teachers) but also on age-appropriate communicative language teaching pedagogies and strategies for low-resource contexts. Third, resource allocation must be equitable. An affirmative policy must be implemented that budgets for the development and distribution of textbooks and digital resources prioritize schools in underdeveloped regions. Last, multilingualism must be actively fostered. The national curriculum should adopt context-sensitive, multilingual approach that integrates English alongside the national language (Indonesian) and local languages. The national curriculum, for example, could explicitly permit and encourage translanguaging, allowing teachers and students to use national or local languages to scaffold English learning. The implication of this study provides concrete steps towards institutionalizing English at ES in a manner that is equitable, sustainable, and culturally sensitive, addressing the immediate needs identified by stakeholders while safeguarding rich linguistic of superdiversity countries, like Indonesia.
Conclusion
Respondents in this study strongly support early English education, advocating for it to be mandatory at ES to address disparities and ensure equal starting points for all students. It is reasonable to expect that future policy will be pressured to give English a more stable, compulsory status. Without deliberate and well-structured policy interventions, however, Indonesia risks entrenching inequities and sacrificing its linguistic superdiversity for the perceived benefits of globalization. A multilingual approach—one that harnesses English as a resource while actively safeguarding national and indigenous languages—is imperative to ensure that younger generations inherit both global opportunities and their invaluable cultural roots.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the INOVASI Program and the Pusat Standar dan Kebijakan Pendidikan, BSKAP, Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset dan Teknologi of the Republic Indonesia for granting full access to the data used in this study.
Consent to Participate
Informed consent was obtained verbally before the respondents’ participation in the focus group discussion. The consent was audio-recorded in the presence of an independent witness.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.