PSPK
0
The Government’s commitment to realizing equitable, high-quality education has been articulated in the Draft National Long-Term Development Plan (RPJPN) 2024–2045 (BAPPENAS, forthcoming). The issues of learning loss and learning gaps that were widely discussed during the COVID-19 pandemic are in fact manifestations of a learning crisis that has existed in Indonesia for a long time. Even long before schools were closed due to the pandemic, Indonesian students’ learning outcomes lagged far behind those of developed countries, and a significant portion of Indonesian children received education of far lower quality than their peers (Anggraena et al., 2022).
The learning achievement of Indonesian 15-year-olds as measured by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is one of the indicators frequently used to illustrate Indonesia’s prolonged learning crisis. Over nearly 20 years, PISA results show that improvements in Indonesian students’ literacy and numeracy achievements have been very gradual. The majority of Indonesian students remain below the minimum level of literacy competence. Only about 30% reach or exceed the minimum level of reading literacy, and only around 28% do so in mathematics literacy (OECD, 2019). These low percentages indicate that most Indonesian children have not yet received their right to a quality education.
Beyond the generally low achievement levels, numerous studies in Indonesia consistently reveal achievement gaps based on socioeconomic status (SES). Analysis of PISA 2015 results shows that students’ SES significantly contributes to test outcomes, both at the individual and collective levels (Aditomo & Felicia, 2018). Individual SES effects refer to score differences between students from more affluent families and those from lower-SES backgrounds. Even when students attend the same junior or senior high school, those from more affluent families tend to achieve higher test scores. This indicates that school quality alone is insufficient to explain disparities in learning outcomes among Indonesian students.
The same analysis also found collective SES effects. Most schools in Indonesia—both public and private—are segregated by SES. Some schools predominantly serve students from higher-SES families, while others predominantly serve students from lower-SES backgrounds. Junior and senior high schools with mostly higher-SES students demonstrate significantly higher literacy scores than schools dominated by lower-SES students. Differences in student input based on SES are a strong predictor of learning outcomes. For this reason, segregation in access to education—particularly education provided by the state—has become a key concern for PSPK due to its tangible impact on learning inequality and, ultimately, on future life opportunities and welfare.
As a civil society organization (CSO), PSPK seeks to play a role in advocating for policies that strengthen equitable access to quality education, including by submitting a set of education policy recommendations for the next five years (2024–2029). Addressing inequities in educational opportunity has long been part of PSPK’s mission. For PSPK, access and learning quality are inseparable—every child has the right to access quality education. PSPK focuses on policies that can reduce SES-based educational disparities for two main reasons. First, studies in Indonesia (e.g., Pattinasarany, 2016; Felicia, 2016; World Bank, 2019) demonstrate the seriousness of systemic inequalities that marginalize children from lower-SES families in accessing quality and affordable education.
Second, reflecting on its experience partnering with government at both national and local levels, PSPK observes that education policies increasingly aim to promote equitable educational opportunities. This is a positive and important direction that must be strengthened in the next administration. However, PSPK also finds that paradigms of educational equity still vary—and even conflict—among policymakers and stakeholders. Influenced by meritocratic thinking, some argue that access to state-provided education should be based on achievement. Others (including PSPK) believe that equitable access means designing systems that do not systematically marginalize children from certain social groups, recognizing that achievement-based criteria often advantage children from more affluent backgrounds.
These differing paradigms motivate PSPK to recommend policies focused on equalizing educational opportunity. Based on PSPK’s experience supporting central and local governments, policymakers and stakeholders gradually develop a shared understanding of what educational equity entails through the policy formulation process. This underscores the importance of paradigm consistency—between central and local governments and across policies over time.
This edition of KILAS PENDIDIKAN aims to explain the background of policy recommendations to strengthen equitable, child-centered quality education. It also serves as an introduction to subsequent editions that will explore each policy pillar in greater depth. Drawing on developments in national education policy and PSPK’s advocacy experience, five priority education policy areas were identified as critical, urgent, and impactful in closing learning outcome gaps.
These five policy areas are: equitable access to quality and affordable schools; equitable, high-quality learning; equitable distribution of qualified teachers; vocational education as workforce preparation; and equitable access to and quality of higher education. Based on empirical data, literature reviews, and institutional reflection, this edition seeks to answer: How did PSPK select these five policy areas to advance educational equity?
Over the past five years, central government education policies have been guided by the vision of producing “Pancasila Students”—learners who are faithful, morally upright, globally diverse, collaborative, independent, critical thinkers, and creative. PSPK supports this vision and its indicators, including literacy and numeracy measurement through the Minimum Competency Assessment (AKM), character development through the Character Survey, and school capacity assessment through the Learning Environment Survey.
Rather than redefining national education goals, PSPK’s policy recommendations focus on how these goals can be achieved for all Indonesian children through an equitable education system.
For PSPK, “children” include all students—from early childhood through higher education. They are the primary beneficiaries of the education system. Using Bronfenbrenner’s socio-ecological framework, PSPK views individuals holistically—not merely as passive “students” but as children with agency. The term “student” refers to one’s role within school; beyond school hours, they remain Indonesian children shaped by broader contexts.
This perspective expands PSPK’s analysis beyond classroom instruction. While learning occurs in schools, its success is influenced by family upbringing, access to information and technology, neighborhood environments, and local culture (Felicia, 2016; Randall et al., 2022). Although education policy cannot fully address out-of-school factors, awareness of their significance is essential for effective policy formulation and implementation.
PSPK recognizes that policy inevitably involves trade-offs. Policies that benefit some may disadvantage others. Thus, PSPK advocates policies that primarily benefit children—recognizing that Indonesia’s education system serves approximately 66.5 million children (BPS, 2023b) living in diverse socioeconomic conditions.
PSPK observes differing interpretations of equity in education. Some equate equity with open competition based on merit, such as academic achievement for school admissions or funding eligibility. PSPK, aligning with OECD frameworks (OECD, 2018) and Indonesian policy directions, rejects market-based logic in favor of social justice principles that allow for asymmetric, affirmative support for disadvantaged students, schools, and regions.
Educational equity means that family background, gender, disability, residence, religion, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status should not determine access to quality education or learning outcomes. Education systems must account for factors beyond children’s control—such as being born into poverty—and ensure these do not hinder academic success.
SES is typically measured by parental education, occupation, and income. In PISA, SES includes years of parental education, occupational status (ISEI), and household assets (Avvisati, 2020). SES affects not only financial resources but also social and cultural capital that shape learning environments.
PSPK’s PEMANTIK assessment shows that household income significantly impacts children’s literacy and numeracy outcomes, reinforcing SES as a key determinant of learning achievement. Moreover, SES-based segregation driven by merit-based school admissions exacerbates between-school inequalities, even among state-provided schools.
Despite high enrollment rates, PSPK emphasizes the importance of access to quality, state-provided education. Public schools allow stronger government oversight to ensure learning quality. However, PSPK also supports partnerships with high-quality private schools through voucher systems to expand access for low-income students.
By 2029, PSPK envisions equitable access to quality education from early childhood through upper secondary education, supported by legal frameworks extending compulsory education to 12+1 years.
Access alone is insufficient without quality learning. PISA results consistently show SES-based disparities in learning experiences. PSPK adopts an ecosystem perspective, recognizing the interaction of teachers, curriculum, students, and external factors. Kurikulum Merdeka aims to address these challenges, but requires sustained systemic support and professional learning communities.
Teachers play a decisive role in learning outcomes. PSPK identifies challenges in teacher distribution, data alignment, and professional development. Ensuring equitable access to competent teachers requires data-driven placement strategies and welfare guarantees.
Vocational education is critical for workforce readiness. PSPK emphasizes strong industry partnerships, adaptive curricula, and employment commitments to ensure vocational graduates’ successful labor market transitions.
Only 13% of Indonesia’s productive-age population has higher education experience. Expanding equitable access while improving quality is essential to national competitiveness. PSPK supports institutional autonomy, reduced administrative burden, and mission differentiation for inclusive, globally recognized universities.
Education reform is complex. Policies alone cannot transform classrooms without supporting interventions, capacity building, adequate budgets, stakeholder engagement, and effective communication. Misalignment between policy intent and practitioner expectations can hinder implementation, as seen with Kurikulum Merdeka.
PSPK identifies at least 11 stakeholder groups influencing education policy, underscoring the need for strategic engagement and coordination. Time is also critical—systemic change requires gradual adaptation.
Indonesia must continue strengthening equitable education policies by addressing the education ecosystem holistically. Access and quality are inseparable, and policies must consistently prioritize children—especially those most disadvantaged. PSPK’s five policy areas offer a strategic framework for closing educational gaps through targeted, feasible, and collaborative interventions over the next five years.
ud pada tahun 2029.
Aditomo, A., & Felicia, N. (2018). Ketimpangan Mutu dan Akses Pendidikan di Indonesia. Kilas Pendidikan, Edisi 17(August), 1–8. https://osf.io/preprints/inarxiv/k76g3/download
Anggraena, Y., Felicia, N., Eprijum, D., Pratiwi, I., Utama, B., Alhapip, L., Widiaswati, D. (2022) Kajian akademik kurikulum untuk pemulihan pembelajaran. Pusat Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran, Jakarta.
Avvisati, F. (2020). The measure of socio-economic status in PISA: a review and some suggested improvements. Large-scale Assess Educ 8, 8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-00086-x
Badan Pusat Statistik (2023a). Angka Partisipasi Murni (APM) 2020-2022. https://www.bps.go.id/indicator/28/304/1/angka-partisipasi-murni-a-p-m-.html
Badan Pusat Statistik (2023b). Jumlah Peserta Didik Tahun Ajaran 2022/2023.
Ballantine, J. H., & Hammack, F. M. (2012). The sociology of education: A systematic reader.
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L., Grunow, A. & LeMahieu, P. (2015). Learning to Improve: How America’s Schools Can Get Better at Getting Better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). Teacher testing and the improvement of practice. Teaching Education, 12(1), 11-34.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and standards: How we can ensure a competent, caring, and qualified teacher for every child. National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, Kutztown Distribution Center, PO Box 326, Kutztown, PA 19530-0326.
Felicia, N., Chozin, N., Beldatis, Q., Elmir, M. (2023) Polemik PPDB, Kekurangan Daya Tampung, dan Opsi Kebijakannya. KILAS Kebijakan PSPK.
Felicia, N. (2016). Factors associated with cognitive development of primary school children in eastern Indonesia. State University of New York at Albany.
Huang, A. (2020, September). Policy Note: Strategies to Improve Indonesia’s Teacher Recruitment Process. RISE Programme in Indonesia.
Ginsburg, M., Massón Cruz, R. M., Rodríguez Alfonso, E., & García Isaac, Y. (2019). Teaching comparative education in Cuba and the United States. Encyclopaedia of Teacher Education. Singapore: Springer. Disponible en: https://doi. org/10.1007/978-981-13-1179-6.
Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American economic review, 94(2), 247-252.
OECD (2023). PISA 2022 Result Factsheets: Indonesia. OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD (2018). Equity in Education: Breaking Down Barriers to Social Mobility, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264073234-en
OECD (2019), “Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators”, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/EAG2019_CN_IDN.pdf
OECD (2005), “Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers”. Education and Training Policy, OECD Publishing, ISBN-92-64-01802-6. https://www.oecd.org/education/school/34990905.pdf
Randall, R., Sukoco, G.A., Heyward, M., Purba, R., Arsendy, S., Zamjani, I., Hafiszha, A. 2022. Reforming Indonesia’s curriculum: how Kurikulum Merdeka aims to address learning loss and learning outcomes in literacy and numeracy. Jakarta: INOVASI.
Shihab, N., Felicia, N., Makarim, F., Elmir, M., & Beldatis, Q. (2023, Februari). Increasing Access to Public Schools in Jakarta. Comparative & International Education Society, Pittsburgh, United States.
Spillane, J. P. (2004). Educational leadership. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 26(2), 169-172.
Pattinasarany, I. R. (2016). Stratifikasi Dan Mobilitas sosial (1st ed.). Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia.
Wilcox, K. C., Lawson, H. A., & Angelis, J. I. (2017). Innovation in odds-beating schools: Exemplars for getting better at getting better. Rowman & Littlefield.World Bank. (2019). Aspiring Indonesia—Expanding the Middle Class.
Access the full Education Brief: Policy Recommendations for High-Quality, Child-Centered Education here.
