New Edition of Flagship Schools: When the State Rebuilds the Educational Hierarchy*
By:
*Masduki Duryat*
_(Deputy Chairman of the Indramayu Regency Education Council)_
Amidst the narrative of educational equality, the state appears to be re-designing “islands of excellence.” While the zoning policy (now developed into a domicile-based student admission system with several pathways) has for years attempted to erode the stigma of favored schools, a variety of specialized schools have emerged: Garuda School, People’s School, Maung School in West Java, and most recently, the Integrated National School (SNT).
The question is not simply whether they are all good, but whether these various models complement or conflict with each other in the direction of national education policy.
This is where the paradox arises: the state talks about equality, but at the same time builds institutions that are by design exclusive (Ministry of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2026).
*Paradox of Equity and Excellence*
Conceptually, SNT offers an interesting idea. The integration of junior high and senior high schools within a single ecosystem allows for sustainable talent development. Management by a single director, a national curriculum enriched with STEM, arts, sports, and global competencies, represents an innovation that has been difficult to implement because junior high school governance is held by districts/cities, while senior high schools are held by provinces.
However, the problem lies not in the academic design, but in its policy position within the overall national education system. Indonesia currently has several models of affirmative action and excellence schools. Garuda Schools are geared toward producing future leaders and world-class science talents. People’s Schools are focused on providing services for extremely poor families as an instrument of social mobility. West Java developed Maung Schools with their own characteristics. In addition, regular schools remain the backbone of educational services. Now, SNT (National Non-Governmental Schools) is emerging, targeting high-achieving students.
The question is simple yet fundamental: how many types of schools does the country actually want to build?
*Overlap or Differentiation?*
In public policy theory, a new program should be introduced to fill a policy gap, not create one. If SNT is aimed at achieving students with superior facilities and an enriched curriculum, then its differentiation from Garuda School becomes less clear. If both foster the best talent, what are their strategic differences other than nomenclature?
At the regional level, the same question arises regarding Maung School. If the provincial government also develops achievement-based flagship schools, then SNT has the potential to enter an area already occupied by local governments. Rather than strengthening synergy, these various school models could create competition between programs, overlapping budgets, and even public confusion regarding the best educational path for their children.
What is really needed is not more flagship school labels, but a national education architecture that clearly clarifies the functions of each and does not overlap.
*Return to Favorite Schools?*
A more serious issue is its implications for the spirit of equal access to education. Over the past few years, zoning policies have been born with a simple philosophy: reducing the concentration of top students in certain schools so that the quality of education can be more equitable. This policy has drawn criticism because the equalization of teacher quality and facilities has progressed slower than the equalization of students. However, the overarching goal is quite clear: to eliminate school caste.
Now, when the state itself is building schools explicitly for high-achieving students, a philosophical contradiction emerges. If only the best students are accepted into SNT, complete with international facilities and the best teachers, the public perception of “favorite schools” actually gains new legitimacy from the state.
Ironically, what was once intended to be eliminated through zoning now has the potential to be rebuilt through new policies.
*The Main Problem Isn’t Flagship Schools*
In fact, no developed country has completely eliminated flagship schools. South Korea, Singapore, Japan, and Germany still have specialized schools for developing specific talents. The problem is not the existence of flagship schools, but their proportion to the quality of regular schools.
The government’s statement that only around 75 out of approximately 7,200 sub-districts have A-accredited elementary, junior high, and senior high schools with literacy and numeracy outcomes above the national average actually reveals the true root of the problem: the majority of regular schools are substandard. This means that the main problem is not a shortage of flagship schools, but rather too few truly good ones.
If large investments are more directed towards building dozens of new SNTs, cement while thousands of regular schools continue to face shortages of teachers, laboratories, libraries, and learning technology, the quality gap is actually widening.
*Excellence Must Be Contagious, Not Accumulated*
The government has stated that SNT will become a center for teacher and curriculum development for surrounding schools. This is a great idea, but its success depends heavily on a concrete dissemination mechanism. The experience of various previous superior schools shows that quality transfer does not automatically occur simply because they are located in the same area.
Educational excellence only becomes meaningful if it can improve the quality of the ecosystem, not simply by gathering the best students on one campus. Because high-achieving students will generally succeed wherever they study; the challenge for the country is precisely how to enable regular schools to produce extraordinary achievements.
*Restructuring the Policy Compass*
Indonesia certainly needs schools that can compete globally. However, the country also needs consistent policy direction. If the chosen philosophy is equity, then all programs must strengthen equity. If talent-based differentiation is chosen, then it needs to be openly explained that the zoning paradigm is indeed shifting.
What must not happen is two paradigms running concurrently: on the one hand, erasing the stigma of favorite schools, while on the other, the state itself creates schools that are designed to become new favorites. Without a comprehensive explanation, the public will see education policy not as a consistent roadmap, but rather as a collection of programs that are born alternately according to changing priorities.
Ultimately, the quality of national education will not be determined by the number of new names attached to schools, but by the state’s ability to ensure that every child—regardless of school—has an equal opportunity to receive a quality education. The measure of an education system’s success is not the number of top schools, but rather the number of underdeveloped schools.*#
Indramayu, June 26, 2026
—–
