A Warning Sign of Failure in Regional Education Governance
By: Masduki Duryat*
The current school leadership crisis in Indramayu is not simply a matter of vacant positions, but rather a stark illustration of systemic failure in education management.
When 226 principal positions are threatened with vacancy if simultaneous rotations occur, while the selection process yields only 100 candidates ready for inauguration, it is not just the individual interests of teachers that are collapsing, but the state’s legitimacy in honoring the profession of educational leadership. This is not an administrative crisis—it is a crisis of trust.
Teacher Rationality and the Logic of Failed Incentives
Structurally, the low interest in becoming a principal, especially at the elementary school level, can be understood through a rational choice approach.
Teachers, as rational actors, will weigh the pros and cons before making career decisions. In this context, a mere allowance difference of around Rp108,000 is clearly not commensurate with the increased workload, administrative pressure, and legal risks.
This logic aligns with Gary S. Becker’s analysis, which asserts that individuals will avoid choices with high costs and low benefits. Therefore, teachers’ decision to “stay in their comfort zone” is not laziness, but rationality.
Motivational Distortion: When Position Becomes an Investment
The emergence of the issue of independent BCKS training, costing Rp7-8 million, exacerbates motivational distortion.
Despite the government’s denial, public perception of teachers has already been formed. In public policy theory, perception is often stronger than fact. Deborah Stone states that policies operate not only in the rational realm, but also symbolically.
When teachers feel compelled to “invest” from the outset, the leadership orientation shifts from devotion to calculating “return on investment.” This is a symptom of the dangerous commercialization of the position.
School Principal: Leader or Risk Manager?
Another equally important factor is the increasingly hostile culture of the education bureaucracy.
Sudden reports, administrative pressure, and external intervention from the inspectorate, the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP), NGOs, and law enforcement agencies create a high-risk environment.
Principals are no longer seen as instructional leaders, but as administrative risk managers. However, according to Michael Fullan, school success is largely determined by the principal’s capacity to lead learning change, not simply administrative compliance.
PPPK and the Illusion of Meritocracy
This situation is exacerbated by the unclear career path for PPPK teachers. When they are encouraged to participate in the selection process but have no certainty of appointment, the state creates false hope.
From an organizational justice perspective, this has the potential to undermine institutional trust and commitment. John W. Meyer calls this phenomenon decoupling, where formal policies are not aligned with actual practices.
Regulations that Generate Status Anxiety
Regulations such as Permendikdasmen No. 7 of 2025, which limits the tenure of principals to 4–8 years, actually create new disincentives.
Instead of encouraging regeneration, this policy creates status anxiety. In Indonesia’s still-hierarchical bureaucratic culture, returning to teaching after serving as principal is seen as a symbolic step backward.
This is not simply a matter of prestige, but a matter of professional identity that the state has yet to fully develop.
Reform or Losing a Generation
A deeper look reveals that the regional school principal management system remains trapped in the old paradigm: position as a burden, not an honor; risk as a threat, not a challenge; and regulation as control, not facilitation.
It’s therefore not surprising that interest continues to decline.
The Solution: System Reconstruction, Not Patchwork
First, regional governments must reformulate incentives. Principal allowances should be designed based on workload and job risks. A significant increase is not merely a matter of welfare, but a signal of state recognition. An OECD study (2019) shows that a competitive incentive system directly contributes to the quality of school leadership.
Second, the government must ensure zero-cost recruitment. All forms of BCKS training must be fully funded by the regional/state budgets (APBD/APBN), and this must be communicated widely to restore teacher trust.
Third, de-bureaucratization of principal duties is necessary. Administrative burdens irrelevant to improving learning quality must be reduced through the digitization of an integrated reporting system.
Fourth, the central government needs to clarify career pathways for PPPK. If PPPK are allowed to participate in the selection process, there must be legal certainty for their appointment.
Fifth, regulations regarding the principal’s term of office need to be reviewed with a more flexible approach, for example through a performance-based extension scheme.
Sixth, legal protection for school principals must be strengthened so that they do not operate in the shadow of administrative criminalization.
Conclusion: When Schools Lose Their Leaders
The principal crisis in Indramayu is a reflection of a broader crisis in education policy.
If this strategic position continues to be abandoned, we are witnessing the delegitimization of the educational leadership profession.
When schools lose their leaders, it is not only the institution that collapses, but also the future of the generation itself.**
Indonesia, March 18, 2026
*)The author is the Rector of the Al-Amin Islamic Studies Institute in Indramayu and a lecturer at the Postgraduate Program at UIN Siber Syekh Nurjati Cirebon, residing in Kandnghaur Indramayu.
——-
