PSPK
0
Among student activists, Paulo Freire is often regarded as the Lionel Messi of the educational world. His progressive ideas on education represent our deepest concerns about some of the most fundamental problems of life: inequality and—borrowing Ivan Illich’s term—the transformation of education into an increasingly mechanical process.
Inequality in education is indeed a troubling reality. The 2015 PISA report (an organization that measures students’ cognitive skills) revealed that disparities in school quality in Indonesia reached 49 percent. This figure lags far behind countries with top-performing education systems such as Finland, with only 11 percent, or even neighboring Singapore at 39 percent.
This research presents alarming facts. Imagine this: with such a high level of inequality, a student attending a so-called “non-favorite” school is effectively two years behind in literacy compared to a peer attending a “favorite” school—despite being at the same level of formal education.
This realization struck me deeply. Public outrage erupted across Indonesia when the Minister of Education implemented the zoning policy. Many criticized the policy as lacking comprehensiveness and as infringing upon students’ freedom.
In fact, the zoning policy reflects the Ministry’s good faith effort to address the long-standing complexity of education problems—particularly at the primary and secondary levels—related to schools and the New Student Admission System (Penerimaan Peserta Didik Baru / PPDB).
Reports such as the 2017 Network for Education Watch (NEW) Indonesia study highlight classic educational issues: unequal access between the poor and the wealthy, the phenomenon of “seat trading” in elite schools involving officials’ children, and the rejection of poor students by both public and private schools.
Zoning serves as a multiplier effect policy capable of addressing these issues simultaneously. Limited access for disadvantaged students is often caused by feudal practices such as selling seats in elite schools to those who can afford them.
If left unchecked, such practices push education toward a neoliberal trajectory—where education becomes commodified and access depends solely on one’s ability to pay market prices.
Zoning also aims to dismantle the concentration of high-achieving and affluent students in certain “elite zones.” This phenomenon is a major contributor to widening disparities. Research by the Center for Education and Policy Studies (PSPK) shows that the greatest contributor to educational inequality lies not in individual differences within schools, but in disparities in school quality themselves.
At its core, zoning eliminates exclusivity and hierarchical caste systems in student admissions by removing economic and social status as determining factors. Notably, the 2018 PPDB zoning policy introduced a groundbreaking provision: a 20 percent quota prioritizing students from low-income families. Through this policy, economic conditions were no longer meant to be a barrier to accessing education.
These layered problems and supporting data explain why the Ministry of Education remained firm in implementing the zoning system.
Unfortunately, this pro-poor policy was exploited by certain parties through fraudulent practices. Investigations into the 2017 PPDB by NEW Indonesia revealed widespread falsification of certificates of poverty (Surat Keterangan Tidak Mampu / SKTM). As a result, the Ministry abolished this quota, pledging instead to support underprivileged communities through other mechanisms such as educational allowances and the Indonesia Smart Card (KIP).
Will zoning alone eliminate disparities between schools? Especially given the technical issues encountered in the field—ranging from objections to the diminished role of exam scores, unclear distance measurement indicators, to insufficient school capacity.
These challenges, however, should not undermine the noble intent behind the policy. It is crucial to understand that zoning is merely one component of a broader policy framework.
Take the Full Day School (FDS) system, previously introduced as part of character education policy. Zoning complements FDS by reducing commuting time, thereby mitigating complaints that FDS limits parent-child interaction.
Moreover, zoning can initiate a fairer distribution of teacher quality, which has long been concentrated in specific schools and regions. For instance, data from Indonesia’s National Civil Service Agency (BKN) in 2017 revealed stark disparities in the distribution of civil servant teachers.
Jakarta had 33,037 civil servant teachers serving 4,624 schools (a ratio of 1:7), while North Kalimantan had only 1,116 teachers across 744 schools (1:1). This imbalance must be addressed. The proposed zoning of teachers—validated by the Minister and the Director General of Teachers and Education Personnel (GTK)—is a logical extension of the zoning policy.
Another long-term impact of zoning is the equitable distribution of school infrastructure. The existence of elite schools naturally leads to concentrated development investments. Zoning redirects development priorities toward regional needs rather than reinforcing the dominance of a few schools.
In my view, this is a concrete effort to liberate Indonesian education from disparity and injustice.
As highlighted in OXFAM’s Inequality in Indonesia report, the core issue is political capture—where strategic policy decisions benefit only certain groups. Policies that genuinely favor equity, poverty alleviation, and liberation from oppression must not succumb to pressure from vested interests or fail due to technical challenges that are, in fact, solvable.
This article was originally published in GeoTimes under the title “Zonasi, Pendidikan yang Membebaskan ala Kemendikbud.”
Author: Irsyad Madjid
