*The Principal’s Inherited Sin:*
_When the Position Comes with Debts Not of One’s Own Making_
By:
*Masduki Duryat*
_(Deputy Chair of the Indramayu Regency Education Board)_
It should come as no surprise that more and more teachers are choosing to remain on the sidelines rather than become school principals. In some schools, assuming the role of principal is no longer merely about accepting a mandate to improve educational quality; instead, it feels like inheriting a “legacy of sin”—past debts, unfinished administrative tasks, audit findings, and even the risk of facing oversight bodies and law enforcement agencies.
Stories like this may sound simple. A principal is due for a transfer. Before leaving the school, they are required to settle all “debts” inherited from the previous principal—bringing the balance down to zero rupiah. Yet, those issues existed when they first took the position; they had even made efforts to pay them off in installments and reduce the outstanding amount.
*The Position Is Not a Debt Inheritance*
In government administration, financial accountability should not operate on the logic that “whoever holds the office now bears the burden for everything.”
Government Regulation (PP) Number 12 of 2019 concerning Regional Financial Management affirms that any party whose unlawful actions or negligence result in regional financial loss is obligated to reimburse that loss. Consequently, accountability must be linked to the specific actions and authority that caused the loss, rather than simply arising because someone happened to succeed a previous official.
Therefore, if there are indeed obligations or losses originating from the previous principal’s tenure, these matters should be clearly documented in the handover report. Details regarding who caused the issue, the amount involved, the evidence, the current status of resolution, and the party responsible must be explicitly stated.
What should be passed on to the new principal is not the debt itself, but the status of the issue.
This is where the situation becomes complicated: a handover witnessed by education agency officials might declare that no debts exist, only for “unofficial debts”—actually inherited from the former principal—to surface later. If this is indeed the case, the next question is no longer merely “how does the new principal settle the debt?” but rather, why did this obligation not officially surface during the handover process?
*When “Under-the-Table” Deals Become an “On-the-Table” Burden*
Government administration is built upon principles of evidence, transparency, accountability, and traceability. Regulations governing regional financial management treat the resolution of regional financial losses as an integral part of the official financial management mechanism.
Therefore, if an obligation is known only informally—unrecorded in the official handover minutes—yet is subsequently used to pressure the new principal into paying it off, a more serious investigation is certainly warranted.
We must avoid a paradoxical situation: where documents indicate no issues upon assuming office, yet old problems suddenly emerge upon departure, placing the entire burden on the new official’s shoulders.
If such a mechanism truly occurs and repeats itself, it is no longer an individual issue; it has become a systemic ailment.
*Audits Must Not Become “Sin” Manufacturing Machines*
Audits are certainly necessary. In fact, the greater the use of public funds, the more crucial oversight becomes.
Regulation of the Minister of Education and Culture (Permendikdasmen) Number 8 of 2026 reinforces the principles of transparency, accountability, reporting, and educational units’ readiness for audits. BOSP (School Operational Assistance) management is now directed toward greater integration via ARKAS and Dapodik, featuring stricter reporting and inspection mechanisms.
However, an audit is not an instrument for identifying a scapegoat for past issues.
An audit should answer: what happened, when it happened, who held authority at the time, what the transaction evidence is, whether a loss occurred, the value of that loss, and the mechanism for recovery.
It should not simply conclude: “There is a finding? The current principal pays.”
If an audit was conducted in the previous year, yet the new principal is subsequently burdened with the same issue without clarity regarding the status of the prior finding, then the effectiveness of the oversight system itself must be called into question. Sound oversight should prevent recurring errors, not leave new administrators living in fear that any long-standing issue could suddenly become their personal liability.
*Schools Ultimately Lose Their Leaders*
This is where administrative issues intersect with the quality of education.
A principal preoccupied daily with rectifying administrative shortcomings, settling “inherited debts,” enduring repeated audits, and worrying that every decision might be flagged as an irregularity will inevitably have dwindling energy for leadership.
Yet, a principal ought to be focusing on far more substantive matters: how to improve the quality of learning, improving literacy and numeracy, building school culture, enhancing teacher competence, strengthening student character, and creating a healthy learning environment.
The 2026 BOSP regulations position fund management as a tool to support educational quality—including literacy, numeracy, and planning based on the “Education Report Card” (*Rapor Pendidikan*).
It is ironic if a principal spends more time extinguishing administrative “fires” than igniting the spark of learning.
*Why Are Teachers Reluctant to Become Principals?*
This question should not be taken lightly.
If becoming a principal entails immense responsibility—while authority does not always match the risks involved—it is entirely rational for some teachers to choose to remain in their “comfort zone.”
It is not because they lack leadership capacity, nor because they are indifferent to education. Rather, they are likely weighing the risks.
A principal’s allowance is not always commensurate with the workload. School problems arise from all directions: demands from parents, teachers, the school committee, the community, NGOs, the media, the inspectorate, the police, and the Audit Board (BPK), alongside anxieties regarding law enforcement agencies.
At the same time, the system does not necessarily provide adequate protection for principals who act in good faith.
*Reform Must Begin with the Handover Process*
Therefore, this issue cannot be resolved simply by asking a new principal to “clear the slate” (settle all outstanding issues to zero).
A much more rigorous handover mechanism is required: a preliminary audit prior to the transition, an inventory of assets and liabilities, a detailed official handover record, a clear separation of responsibilities based on tenure, and the resolution of findings through official channels.
If the outgoing principal caused financial loss, the matter should be resolved through established accountability mechanisms. If there are legitimate school obligations, they should be recorded as institutional liabilities, with the payment source officially designated. Institutional obligations must not be transformed into the new principal’s personal debt; a school is not the principal’s private company.
A principal is the leader of a public institution, not the heir to a predecessor’s administrative transgressions. If this “inherited debt” malaise is allowed to persist, do not blame teachers for being reluctant to become principals. Nor should it come as a surprise if principals are more preoccupied with surviving audits than with ensuring their students do not fall behind in educational quality.
For education will never advance if the very people meant to lead schools are instead kept busy accounting for transgressions they did not commit.
Indramayu, August 19, 2026
——
