Address and Age Determine Schooling: Does the SPMB Achieve Equality?

Education is always cited as the right of every citizen, with the New Student Admission System (SPMB) designed as an effort to broaden educational access and realise equitable education services across various regions. However, in practice, the SPMB is still frequently questioned: does this system truly provide equal opportunities for all students?

One of the most scrutinised SPMB pathways is the domicile route. Conceptually, this pathway was created with the positive goal of bringing students closer to schools, reducing transportation costs, and alleviating traffic congestion. Yet, in reality, the domicile route potentially limits access for students who come from outside a school’s priority area.

This issue becomes highly complex because the quality of education in Indonesia is not yet fully equitable. There are still schools with better facilities, more complete teaching staff, and superior achievements compared to others. When access to these schools is largely determined by proximity of residence, students with strong academic abilities, high motivation, and great potential but who live far away have very little chance, or even find it difficult, to be accepted.

Inequality of opportunity is also evident in the distribution of admission quotas. In some regions, including Jakarta, the domicile pathway quota receives a much larger portion compared to the achievement pathway, both academic and non-academic. For students whose family card address is outside the school’s priority zone, the achievement pathway becomes their only hope for acceptance. The limited quota makes competition in this pathway extremely tight and disproportionate to the number of high-achieving students seeking access to quality public education. Consequently, many students opt to attend private schools with modest quality just to continue their education. For families from lower-middle economic backgrounds, private school fees are difficult to afford, and some families even choose to send their children to school in other regions to live with relatives to secure an educational opportunity. This phenomenon indicates that policies intended to create equity have not yet fully addressed the public’s need for equal access to education.

Beyond the domicile issue, the selection mechanism that prioritises age also sparks debate. Using age as a consideration can be understood as an effort to give older students a chance so they are not left behind in obtaining an education. However, when age becomes a primary determinant over achievement, competence, or potential, the selection process risks ignoring the principle of rewarding ability and effort. Many students who have strived to build academic or non-academic achievements from an early age feel their opportunities are narrowing because they must compete within a limited achievement quota, while results on other pathways are more influenced by administrative factors such as home address and age. This condition can foster a perception of injustice within society, especially among those who believe that education should be a space to develop potential, not merely determined by location or date of birth.

Of course, educational equity remains an important and commendable goal. However, equity should not be interpreted as limiting students’ opportunities to choose schools that match their abilities and aspirations. True equity means ensuring that every child, regardless of where they live or their family background, has the same opportunity to access quality education. Ultimately, educational equality does not only mean the availability of school seats for all children, but also equal opportunity to obtain the best education according to their abilities and potential. As long as access to education is heavily influenced by home address and age, the aspiration of delivering a truly fair and inclusive education system remains a homework assignment that needs to be completed together.