Built to Equalize, Prone to Divide: The Reality of School Zoning

 

b='

 By Eva Fauzyah Rahmah

“In a system meant to offer equal access, why do parents feel they’re competing for survival?”

— Built to Equalize, Prone to Divide

A few years ago, choosing a school for your child was relatively simple. Parents could make decisions based on academic reputation, distance, or family tradition. Today, however, especially in Indonesia’s urban centers, conversations about education are increasingly filled with anxiety: long waiting lists, unaffordable private schools, and a school zoning system that, for many, is more of an obstacle than a solution.

In my own housing complex — mostly upper-middle-class families — parents have taken to registering their children at prestigious private schools as early as three years in advance. Why? Because public schools — despite being the default option — are no longer perceived as accessible, even for those living nearby.

This phenomenon raises a deeper question: Is school zoning — designed to make education more equitable — actually working?

The Idea Behind Zoning: Equal Access

School zoning was formally introduced through the Ministry of Education and Culture’s Regulation No. 17/2017 as part of an effort to reform basic education. The goal was clear: to reduce inequality by ensuring all children, regardless of their socio-economic background, had equal access to quality public schools.

Before zoning, the admissions process (PPDB) for public schools was highly competitive, often favoring high-achieving students from privileged backgrounds. “Top” schools filtered applicants through academic merit, which indirectly excluded many children from disadvantaged households. As a result, elite schools became more elite, while others stagnated.

Zoning aimed to break this cycle. By requiring public schools to accept a majority of students based on geographic proximity, the hope was to redistribute quality more evenly across neighborhoods. But as with many public policies, implementation has proven to be far more complex than theory.

On the Ground: From Moral Hazard to Displacement

Rather than equalizing access, school zoning has, in some cases, sparked a wave of manipulative behavior. One of the most common forms? Fake residential data.

It’s now an open secret that parents “buy” or “borrow” home addresses near top-tier schools to get their children through the zoning filter. Temporary rentals, forged family cards (Kartu Keluarga), and even illegal services promising entry into certain schools have all emerged in response to rigid zoning boundaries.

This behavior is a textbook case of moral hazard — where the policy’s very structure incentivizes manipulation.

The deeper issue lies in unequal school quality. Not all public schools offer the same learning environment, facilities, or teaching standards. When access is determined by location but quality remains inconsistent, families will go to great lengths to game the system — especially if their child’s future is on the line.

Paradoxically, even underprivileged children can find themselves pushed out. Some fail to secure a seat in public schools because they don’t live in the right zone or lack the academic record to qualify under special admission quotas. Many are then left with only two options: enroll in low-cost private schools — often underfunded and academically weak — or worse, drop out altogether.

For some families, even the cheapest private tuition becomes an unbearable burden. The result? A child may be withdrawn from school entirely and pushed into the informal labor market to help support the household. In this context, zoning doesn’t just restrict access — it can derail a child’s entire future, forcing them into underage work before their right to basic education is ever fulfilled.

The Pressure Mounts: When Parents Start Planning at Birth

One weekend afternoon, my husband and I were chatting about our daughter’s education. I told him how some neighbors had registered their toddlers for private school years in advance — just to guarantee a spot.

He sighed. “It wasn’t like this before,” he said. “Now even getting into a decent school means joining a waiting list. My teteh — my older sister — had to register her child when he was only two years old.”

This anxiety is becoming widespread. Upper-middle-class parents are pulling out of the public system entirely, opting instead for private institutions — often at exorbitant cost. Meanwhile, affordable options grow scarcer and more competitive.

At the same time, school zoning has created a new kind of inequality — based on zip code. Those who happen to live near well-resourced schools are automatically advantaged. Those who don’t? They must settle for “whatever’s available,” regardless of quality.

Education — once a bridge to social mobility — is now a battleground, with stress and competition beginning far too early.

The Numbers Don’t Tell the Whole Story: Aggregates Can Oversimplify Inequality

Let’s take Jakarta as an example. For the 2024/2025 school year:

• Total public elementary school (SD) seats: 95,677

• Estimated total applicants (across levels): 139,841

• Estimated elementary-level applicants: 110,000–120,000

This means at least 20% of prospective elementary students may not be accommodated by public schools. On paper, the math is simple: demand exceeds supply. But reality is far more complex.

This data is an aggregate — and in this case, aggregation can be dangerously misleading. Within one province — even within one municipality — school infrastructure and demographic trends vary dramatically. Some neighborhoods may have a public school within walking distance, others may not. Some zones may have sufficient schools, but not enough classrooms. Others may have schools nearby, but population growth has far outpaced the capacity of the facilities.

In short, zoning presumes a level of infrastructural equality that simply does not exist on the ground. It applies a blanket rule to a deeply uneven playing field — and in doing so, it creates a false sense of fairness.

Is There a Way Forward?

Zoning, at its core, is not a flawed idea. The problem lies in a lack of systemic readiness. When the intention is equity but the capacity is lacking, it creates new barriers instead of breaking old ones.

What should policymakers consider?

1. Equalize school quality

   • Distribute top-performing teachers and principals fairly

   • Ensure transparent and needs-based school funding

   • Invest in infrastructure and professional development

2. Reform the PPDB structure

   • Adopt a hybrid admissions model: 50% zoning, 25% academic merit, 15% social affirmative action, 10% family relocation/mutasi

   • Incorporate socio-economic data and school background in assessments

3. Expand capacity where needed

   • Build new schools in high-density areas

   • Increase classroom capacity through additional shifts or parallel classes

4. Crack down on data manipulation

   • Verify address changes rigorously

   • Penalize fraudulent admissions

Conclusion: Real Equity Requires Real Choices

Zoning was born out of a desire for justice. But justice doesn’t mean restricting people’s choices — it means making all available choices equally good.

As long as disparities in quality persist and public school seats fall short of demand, zoning will remain a patchwork policy. It may protect certain ideals, but it cannot guarantee equity on its own.

The state must not only control how students are distributed, but also expand and equalize the ground they stand on. Because when it comes to a child’s education, proximity should not determine destiny.