Scrutinizing the push for IB schools
The establishment of IB schools in Indonesia could be seen as exacerbating the pre-existing educational divide, turning it into a chasm between the haves and have-nots.
The government’s decision to introduce International Baccalaureate (IB) schools under the National Long-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) is framed as an advancement toward a globally competitive educational system. By being too elite-centric, this reform undermines efforts to reduce educational disparity between the rich and the poor, ultimately failing to achieve the vague, unclear goals of establishing an Indonesian identity.
The establishment of IB schools in Indonesia could be seen as exacerbating the pre-existing educational divide, turning it into a chasm between the haves and have-nots. These schools, with their stringent admission criteria, cater almost exclusively to students from privileged backgrounds, who have the resources to achieve the necessary accolades for entry. The IB schools that recently signed a contract with the Higher Education, Science and Technology Ministry will only admit students with proven national or international achievements.
However, nationally, high-achieving students are more likely to come from wealthier families. For instance, students who achieved at least minimum proficiency in the 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results were disproportionately from wealthier backgrounds. Specifically, 45 percent of wealthy students versus 15 percent of poorer students reached proficiency in reading, and 36 percent of the wealthy versus 9 percent of the poor reached proficiency in mathematics. In other words, the strict admission criteria of such schools will be much more likely to be fulfilled by the richest students in the country.
“If you struggle, you can achieve anything you want despite all odds.” This fairy tale-like motivational statement, however, is at odds with the data. How can anyone expect a child to become a high achiever if they cannot even access education? Data from Statistics Indonesia show that in 2024, the richest individuals have an average of 11.5 years of schooling, while the poorest only have 7.4 years. In other words, wealthy students are already graduating from senior high school, while many impoverished students cannot even continue their education beyond junior high. While this elitist approach might be defended with beautiful, yet unrealistic, statements, it fails to address the harsh realities of inequality in education.
Philosophically, this scenario challenges the egalitarian ethos of education, which, according to thinkers like John Dewey, should serve as an instrument of democracy and social equality, not a mechanism for perpetuating or even worsening social hierarchies. While there is no opposition to IB schools in general, it is problematic to use taxpayers' money to discriminately benefit those who do not need assistance.
The allocation of potentially vast sums of public funds toward these elite institutions rather than addressing the basic educational needs in underprivileged areas points to a critical misplacement of priorities. This approach not only widens the educational gap but also raises ethical questions about the equitable distribution of educational resources. If education is to be a tool for social mobility and empowerment, as Paulo Freire would argue, then the current policy seems misaligned with these philosophical ideals, focusing on excellence for the few at the expense of basic education for the many.
The financial commitment to IB schools, which could amount to substantial public funds, thus appears misaligned when compared with the pressing need for basic educational infrastructure in remote, underserved areas. While the RPJMN does include initiatives aimed at revitalizing school facilities, the focus on elite education through IB schools does little to address the foundational issues plaguing educational access and quality for the majority.
This disparity is not just about wealth but about the allocation of educational resources, where investment in high-end education could arguably be redirected to ensure all children have at least the basic right to education, thereby potentially reducing rather than exacerbating the educational divide.
The philosophical underpinnings of this educational policy appear muddled when considering the purpose and end goals of education. The introduction of IB schools, aimed at cultivating global leaders, presupposes a definition of education that prioritizes international recognition and economic competitiveness over cultural identity, social integration and national literacy rates. This approach neglects the “categorical imperative” of education that it should be universally accessible and aimed at the moral and intellectual development of all individuals, not just the elite. The cultural relevance of the IB curriculum in Indonesia, a nation with rich traditions and languages, is also suspect. While the initial use of Kurikulum Merdeka might be seen as an attempt to marry local with global educational values, the overarching question remains: Does this model truly serve the educational, cultural and philosophical needs of Indonesian society?
Education should be a dialogic process where students and teachers co-create knowledge, reflecting on their reality to transform it. However, the IB model, with its one-size-fits-all approach, might impose a form of educational colonialism, where global standards are prioritized over local cultural epistemologies.
This raises existential questions about the purpose of education: Is it to mold individuals into global citizens at the cost of cultural identity, or to nurture a sense of belonging and agency within one's own context? The focus on leadership development through an international curriculum might overlook the broader educational landscape where the majority of students require foundational skills rather than elite education.
The rationale behind integrating IB schools into the Indonesian educational system lacks clarity concerning alignment with national educational ambitions as delineated in the RPJMN. The IB curriculum, while globally recognized, does not directly tackle the endemic educational challenges within Indonesia, such as widespread illiteracy or the low average years of schooling.
These schools, aimed at producing leaders through an international lens, seem disconnected from the urgent need to elevate overall educational standards, particularly when the majority of students struggle with basic literacy and numeracy. Because the IB schools treat only the brightest students, Indonesia's low literacy rate, which is predominantly driven by low achievers, will barely improve, as they are less likely to be enrolled in IB schools in the first place.
Furthermore, the elite nature of IB schools is also not aligned with our target of improving years of schooling, or any of our education’s targets written in the RPJMN. The cultural relevance of an international curriculum in such a context is also questionable; how does a curriculum designed for a global audience resonate with the cultural, linguistic and socio-economic diversities of Indonesia?
The big questions remain, what is the purpose of our education system and what is its end goal?
Written by Nathanael Pribady and Faris Hafizh Makarim, graduate student at Columbia University.
This article was published in thejakartapost.com. Click to read: https://www.thejakartapost.com/opinion/2025/01/28/the-mirage-of-progress-scrutinizing-the-push-for-ib-schools.html.