In recent years, Indonesia’s education landscape has witnessed a fiery debate surrounding the concept of “favorite schools,” a phrase on everyone’s lips yet never enshrined in the country’s official education policy. These institutions—lauded by some and reviled by others—are magnets for ambitious parents and high-achieving students, drawing praise for superior quality and scrutiny for perceived social inequities. As policymakers, educators, and the public grapple with the future of educational excellence, the controversy around these favored bastions of learning reveals profound insights and persistent fault lines in Indonesia’s quest for equitable, world-class education.
The term “favorite school” has no formal status in Indonesia’s education nomenclature, a fact widely acknowledged by observers and policymakers alike. Unlike official designations such as “public,” “private,” or “national plus” schools, “favorite school” has emerged organically from public discourse. Its genesis is simple: when a school consistently delivers high quality—through academic outcomes, teaching standards, resources, or alumni—it becomes a sought-after destination for students and families. This reputation is solidified over years, even decades, as a school builds an ecosystem of talent, discipline, and achievement.
But why has the notion of “favorite schools” become so contentious? The heart of the matter lies in their scarcity, exclusivity, and the perception of unfair advantages. In a nation with hundreds of thousands of schools and over 44 million students, the number of truly high-performing institutions remains exceedingly small—far fewer than are needed to satisfy broad public demand for excellence.
However, critics argue that this approach, while well-intentioned, fails to address the underlying shortage of quality itself. If high-quality education is not available in every neighborhood, then zonation merely distributes mediocrity rather than excellence. In practice, the policy has led to new problems: manipulation of residence records, falsification of economic status certificates, and grade inflation—all symptoms of a black market for educational opportunity. These unintended consequences echo classic economic theory, whereby high demand and low supply in any marketplace inevitably spawn incentives for circumvention.
A parallel can be drawn to the broader economy: when demand for a good significantly exceeds supply, illicit or unofficial channels emerge. The “favorite school” phenomenon, then, is not merely about education; it reflects a complex interplay of demand, scarcity, and social aspiration.
In the United States, despite a robust tradition of educational equality, there exist numerous magnet and specialized high schools such as Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology (Virginia), Academic Magnet High School (South Carolina), Signature School (Indiana), and Notre Dame High School. Gaining admission to these schools is a mark of distinction, and they have consistently produced leaders in science, technology, and public life.
The United Kingdom, too, maintains selective “grammar schools,” such as Mossbourne Community Academy and Woodford County High School, which serve as engines for social mobility as well as academic achievement. Other developed nations employ diverse models—Japan’s “super science” schools, Singapore’s integrated program schools, and Germany’s tripartite system—to identify and nurture talent from an early age.
If even the most egalitarian advanced economies tolerate, and sometimes celebrate, the existence of high-performing selective schools, is the existence of Indonesia’s “favorite schools” truly a societal wrong—what the Kompas article provocatively calls a “sin”? Or are they, instead, essential nodes for fostering innovation and cultivating leadership talent?
Proponents of equal distribution argue that the very presence of favored institutions undermines national cohesion and entrenches inequality. High-quality education, they contend, should be every child’s right—not the preserve of the urban elite or the affluent few. By channeling resources and public attention into a handful of top schools, the education system fails in its foundational mission of serving all.
However, advocates for excellence point out that suppressing or diluting high-performing institutions does little to raise the overall standard. Instead, they argue, Indonesia must both promote broad-based improvement and support “lighthouses” of excellence where students and educators can flourish. In this view, confining everyone to the same median level risks stifling innovation, ambition, and achievement—vital qualities in a competitive, knowledge-driven global economy.
Achieving this vision—“Indonesia Emas 2045”—will require a leap in educational outcomes. Average performance simply will not suffice; the nation needs an elite cadre of graduates capable of leading in science, engineering, medicine, and public administration. The argument, advanced in leading commentaries, is that “favorite schools” play a crucial role in this strategy: they produce the innovators and national leaders who can drive systemic change.
Yet, the focus on a “golden generation” must not obscure the needs of the many. Without a substantial improvement in the baseline quality of the broader school system, the gains delivered by elite schools risk being too isolated to create the hoped-for national transformation.
Proponents argue this distribution would:
Indonesia’s policymakers—and its school communities—face a dual challenge. They must safeguard elite pathways as engines of leadership and change, while refusing to accept a stagnant, mediocre status quo for the majority. Vision and pragmatism must go hand in hand: zoning and access reforms balanced with investments in quality; selectivity tempered by broad-based opportunity; and a relentless focus on results, not rhetoric.
As Indonesia shapes its education strategy in the coming years, it would do well to embrace a “both-and” approach: both equity and excellence, both access and aspiration. By supporting a network of world-class schools while vigorously lifting the national baseline, the nation can unlock its demographic bonus and secure a brighter, more just future for all.
The fate of the “favorite school”—and indeed, of Indonesia’s educational future—will hinge not on slogans or simplistic solutions, but on the courage to tackle root causes, the wisdom to learn from global peers, and the resolve to act in the interests of generations yet to come.
Source: Kompas.id What is the Favorite School Sin?
The Curious Case of “Favorite Schools”: Origins and Context
The term “favorite school” has no formal status in Indonesia’s education nomenclature, a fact widely acknowledged by observers and policymakers alike. Unlike official designations such as “public,” “private,” or “national plus” schools, “favorite school” has emerged organically from public discourse. Its genesis is simple: when a school consistently delivers high quality—through academic outcomes, teaching standards, resources, or alumni—it becomes a sought-after destination for students and families. This reputation is solidified over years, even decades, as a school builds an ecosystem of talent, discipline, and achievement.But why has the notion of “favorite schools” become so contentious? The heart of the matter lies in their scarcity, exclusivity, and the perception of unfair advantages. In a nation with hundreds of thousands of schools and over 44 million students, the number of truly high-performing institutions remains exceedingly small—far fewer than are needed to satisfy broad public demand for excellence.
The Zoning Dilemma: Can Equal Distribution Replace Excellence?
In response to the dominance of “favorite schools,” Indonesia has recently implemented a “zoning system” (sistem zonasi), aiming to democratize access by tying admissions to geographic proximity rather than test scores or other achievement measures. The goal is noble: to distribute opportunity and raise the quality of underperforming schools by preventing concentration of the best students and teachers in a handful of elite institutions.However, critics argue that this approach, while well-intentioned, fails to address the underlying shortage of quality itself. If high-quality education is not available in every neighborhood, then zonation merely distributes mediocrity rather than excellence. In practice, the policy has led to new problems: manipulation of residence records, falsification of economic status certificates, and grade inflation—all symptoms of a black market for educational opportunity. These unintended consequences echo classic economic theory, whereby high demand and low supply in any marketplace inevitably spawn incentives for circumvention.
A parallel can be drawn to the broader economy: when demand for a good significantly exceeds supply, illicit or unofficial channels emerge. The “favorite school” phenomenon, then, is not merely about education; it reflects a complex interplay of demand, scarcity, and social aspiration.
Global Comparisons: Are “Favorite Schools” Truly a Sin?
The polarization of opinion around elite schools is hardly unique to Indonesia. Across the world, societies have grappled with how to balance access with excellence.In the United States, despite a robust tradition of educational equality, there exist numerous magnet and specialized high schools such as Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology (Virginia), Academic Magnet High School (South Carolina), Signature School (Indiana), and Notre Dame High School. Gaining admission to these schools is a mark of distinction, and they have consistently produced leaders in science, technology, and public life.
The United Kingdom, too, maintains selective “grammar schools,” such as Mossbourne Community Academy and Woodford County High School, which serve as engines for social mobility as well as academic achievement. Other developed nations employ diverse models—Japan’s “super science” schools, Singapore’s integrated program schools, and Germany’s tripartite system—to identify and nurture talent from an early age.
If even the most egalitarian advanced economies tolerate, and sometimes celebrate, the existence of high-performing selective schools, is the existence of Indonesia’s “favorite schools” truly a societal wrong—what the Kompas article provocatively calls a “sin”? Or are they, instead, essential nodes for fostering innovation and cultivating leadership talent?
The Moral Conundrum: Equity Versus Excellence
At the core of the debate is a persistent moral question. Do “favorite schools” perpetuate privilege and cement educational disparities? Or do they serve as necessary laboratories for educational innovation, propelling capable students to their fullest potential and, eventually, benefiting society as a whole?Proponents of equal distribution argue that the very presence of favored institutions undermines national cohesion and entrenches inequality. High-quality education, they contend, should be every child’s right—not the preserve of the urban elite or the affluent few. By channeling resources and public attention into a handful of top schools, the education system fails in its foundational mission of serving all.
However, advocates for excellence point out that suppressing or diluting high-performing institutions does little to raise the overall standard. Instead, they argue, Indonesia must both promote broad-based improvement and support “lighthouses” of excellence where students and educators can flourish. In this view, confining everyone to the same median level risks stifling innovation, ambition, and achievement—vital qualities in a competitive, knowledge-driven global economy.
Indonesia’s Demographic Bonus: A Timely Imperative
Indonesia is approaching a significant demographic inflection point: within a short span, it will have a majority working-age population. This so-called “demographic bonus” is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, with the potential to transform Indonesia into a top-five global economy.Achieving this vision—“Indonesia Emas 2045”—will require a leap in educational outcomes. Average performance simply will not suffice; the nation needs an elite cadre of graduates capable of leading in science, engineering, medicine, and public administration. The argument, advanced in leading commentaries, is that “favorite schools” play a crucial role in this strategy: they produce the innovators and national leaders who can drive systemic change.
Yet, the focus on a “golden generation” must not obscure the needs of the many. Without a substantial improvement in the baseline quality of the broader school system, the gains delivered by elite schools risk being too isolated to create the hoped-for national transformation.
The Realities and Risks of Selectivity
The elevation of favorite schools brings undeniable strengths. These institutions often feature:- Highly qualified, motivated teachers and staff
- Rigorous academic programs and extracurricular activities
- Strong cultures of discipline, achievement, and mutual respect
- Robust support for student well-being and development
- A track record of alumni who succeed at the highest national and international levels
Systemic Risks:
- Socioeconomic Stratification: Selection criteria, even when nominally merit-based, often reflect broader social inequalities. Students from wealthier families may benefit from better preparatory resources, private tutoring, and parental support, skewing admissions in their favor.
- Moral Hazards: As seen in the manipulation of family records or grade inflation, excessive competition for limited places can incentivize unethical behavior and erode trust in public institutions.
- Neglected “Non-Favorites”: Schools not blessed with the “favorite” label may receive fewer resources, lower-quality applicants, and struggle to attract or retain top educators.
- Parental and Teacher Stress: The stakes placed on entrance exams and school choice create high anxiety and can crowd out intrinsic joy in learning.
Policy Considerations: Striking a Balance
The Kompas article suggests a pragmatic approach: creating at least three “favorite schools” per province, spanning SD (elementary), SMP (junior high), SMA (senior high), and SMK (vocational). In total, this would amount to 152 elite institutions—a number considered safe from the charge of elitism given Indonesia’s large school and student population.Proponents argue this distribution would:
- Ensure regional representation and accessibility
- Serve as hubs for teacher training and curriculum innovation
- Provide benchmarks and aspirational goals for other schools
- Mitigate the perception that excellence is the exclusive preserve of Jakarta or major urban centers
International Lessons: Inclusive Excellence
Global experience reveals several lessons for addressing the favorite school dilemma:- Transparent, Multi-Faceted Admissions: Incorporating not just academic achievement, but also potential, socio-economic background, and motivation, can help level the playing field for disadvantaged students.
- Equitable Funding: Governments must ensure that ordinary schools receive sufficient resources to reduce the “magnet effect” of favorites.
- Partnerships: Elite schools can serve as training centers and share best practices, supporting broader systemic improvement.
- Mobility Pathways: Opportunities for students to transfer or access specialized programs reduce the lifelong impact of a single entrance test.
The Road Ahead: A Call for Courageous, Clear-Eyed Policy
The question is not whether Indonesia should have favorite schools—these exist, and will likely continue to do so, as long as communities seek excellence. The real question is how to harness their potential for the collective good, while resolutely tackling the risks of exclusivity and inequity.Indonesia’s policymakers—and its school communities—face a dual challenge. They must safeguard elite pathways as engines of leadership and change, while refusing to accept a stagnant, mediocre status quo for the majority. Vision and pragmatism must go hand in hand: zoning and access reforms balanced with investments in quality; selectivity tempered by broad-based opportunity; and a relentless focus on results, not rhetoric.
Conclusion: Is the Real Sin in the School, or the System?
The label of “sin” leveled at favorite schools may mask a deeper discomfort: the challenge of reconciling aspirations for fairness with ambitions for greatness. Institutions of excellence are not, by themselves, the source of inequality. Rather, it is systemic failure to match supply with genuine, widespread quality that creates the conditions for resentment and social tension.As Indonesia shapes its education strategy in the coming years, it would do well to embrace a “both-and” approach: both equity and excellence, both access and aspiration. By supporting a network of world-class schools while vigorously lifting the national baseline, the nation can unlock its demographic bonus and secure a brighter, more just future for all.
The fate of the “favorite school”—and indeed, of Indonesia’s educational future—will hinge not on slogans or simplistic solutions, but on the courage to tackle root causes, the wisdom to learn from global peers, and the resolve to act in the interests of generations yet to come.
Source: Kompas.id What is the Favorite School Sin?
