Foreign Workers and the Direction of Literacy

Speaking the language every day does not automatically make us adept at interpreting it. This fact is revealed by the results of the Academic Ability Test (TKA) for high school/SMK and equivalent levels, which indicate that the quality of Indonesian language learning still leaves much to be done. On a scale of 0–100, the Indonesian language subject recorded an average score that is merely ‘average’.

This is ironic amid daily language practices. Education should be a process of liberating consciousness that lifts learners from ‘magical unawareness’ to ‘critical awareness’ (Freire, 1970).

The TKA results should be read as an educational alarm. Language learning is not merely about mastering forms, but further about the ability to reason and interpret texts. Restructuring classroom practices to policy directions cannot be delayed so that the perspective of TKA as an annual numerical evaluation ritual can be mitigated.

THE IRONY OF TKA

The release of 2025 TKA data by the Ministry of Education provides facts worth reflecting on. The Special Region of Yogyakarta recorded an average of 65.89, surpassing Jakarta at 63.39. Visually, Jakarta’s children live in an environment almost entirely in Indonesian. Meanwhile, Yogyakarta’s children are familiar with Javanese from an early age in their daily lives.

In fact, closeness to language does not necessarily correlate directly with proficiency in understanding texts. Frequency of use is apparently not the main determinant. Perhaps the issue is not what language is used, but how it is taught and lived. Language used without processing will not grow into reasoning power.

The gap in disparities becomes even clearer when reading the TKA results map from west to east. In eastern Indonesia, the highest Indonesian language score is in Southwest Papua with an average of 52.19. Conversely, the lowest is in Papua Pegunungan at 44.26. Compare with the west. Riau Islands recorded the highest average of 58.07, while North Sumatra, the lowest in this area, is still at 53.19. In other words, the lowest score in the west is about 8.93 points higher than the lowest in the east, or a difference of around 20.2%. This means the eastern region is still lagging.

BANKING EDUCATION SYSTEM

Conventional learning still dominates classrooms. Learning still positions students passively. Knowledge is treated as something already formed to be ‘deposited’ by the teacher and ‘stored’ by the students.

In learning practices, material is presented through student worksheets that demand short and uniform answers. The teacher delivers the topic, students take notes, then work on questions with a single reference to the textbook. This pattern actually reduces space for questioning and discussion and demands only material completion.

These practices show that language is treated as an object to be mastered, not as a tool for thinking and understanding experiences. As a result, the ability to repeat information stands out more than the proficiency to interpret texts. This kind of formula is known as the banking system of education (Paulo Freire, 1970). The teacher plays a central role as the depositor of knowledge, while students are positioned as empty containers. This one-way learning formula has taken root in most of our classrooms.

The impact is reflected in TKA achievements. Students may be accustomed to using spoken language, but they struggle to reason through reading content and draw conclusions. As long as learning relies on memorisation, any evaluation risks only recording the same problems.

ORAL AND WRITTEN

The difference between students’ oral and written language abilities also affects TKA achievements. The use of vernacular is often equated with full language mastery, whereas fluency in speaking does not always correlate with proficiency in reading academic texts.

The use of spoken language in writing often occurs in social media posts. Unfortunately, awareness to switch to standard language in academic and formal contexts is minimal, thus considering them the same.

This difference is also intertwined with language traditions in Indonesia. In western regions, literacy is relatively more rooted through reading and writing habits. Conversely, in some eastern regions, oral traditions grow stronger as the main medium for knowledge transmission.

This linguistic ecology difference creates disparities in TKA scores. Students in western regions will more easily solve academic questions than those in eastern regions. This issue cannot be read simply as a difference in education quality alone. TKA more records written language proficiency within the formal school framework, while oral reasoning potential and communication skills in oral traditions have not received adequate space.

Worse still, language learning still emphasises memorising rules. Orality has not been utilised as a bridge to written literacy, while reading and writing are treated as technical skills. As a result, students rich in ideas and fluent in speaking actually struggle to express them in written texts.

Therefore, improving language learning is not enough by fixing questions or raising assessment standards. More fundamentally, building learning that integrates oral and written abilities in a balanced way.

COLLABORATION TOGETHER

TKA Indonesian language achievements should not drag us into blaming anyone. The numbers are not a final verdict, but a portrait of interconnected policies, learning practices, and academic culture.

Improving language quality demands collaborative work involving the four centres of education: family, school, community, and state. Language grows at home, is honed at school, tested