Zonation system in admission of new student at state secondary school in Indonesia: how predictable to learning success

Introduction. A new student acceptance model with the zoning system raises various problems, including the unequal number of public schools in an area causing students to experience barriers to obtaining a proper education. The decrease in motivation and achievement of students is because the selection is only based on zoning, and the achievements of prospective students at the previous education level are not considered. Students fail to enter superior schools because they are outside the zone. The distribution of quality public schools are not evenly distributed, causing limited choices and causing the implementation of the principle of justice in access to education services – lack of readiness of local governments in setting zones.

Aim. From the problems above, this study aims to find differences in learning achievement in terms of admission, predict learning achievement from elementary school to junior high school, and determine graduation document predictions with a zoning system on student achievement.

Research methodology and methods. The research used a quantitative approach from October 2021 to March 2022. The research sample was 356 students who entered the 2018 state junior high school and graduated from the 2020 school year junior high school. The sampling technique for this study used proportional random sampling. Determining the size of the research sample was done by considering the pathways for accepting new students: the zoning path, the achievement path, the affirmation path, and the parent transfer path. Data analysis used ANOVA and multiple regression analysis at a significance level of 5%.

Results and scientific novelty. The results showed no difference in the average report cards of junior high school students when viewed from the path when they entered the junior high school through the zoning system. The results of one-way ANOVA obtained F = 1.298 with a significance level of 0.275. The differences in the entry paths of students to junior high school, namely from the zoning pathway, academic and non-academic achievement pathways, affirmation pathways, and parental transfer paths, are proven not to affect their learning achievement in junior high schools. There is a linear regression from students’ learning achievement in elementary school to students’ learning achievement in junior high school. The partial and simultaneous tests show that it is not proven that learning achievement in elementary school affects learning achievement in junior high school. When they graduate from elementary school, students’ learning achievement has a weak predictive power on students’ learning achievement in junior high school. The national primary school-based school examination average, elementary school report card average, and elementary school examination average, used as entry requirements to junior high school in the zoning system, only have a predictive power of 1.4–2,7%.

Practical significance. Parents can use this research to make decisions on their child’s education. Parents do not need to worry about the zoning system implemented by the government in accepting new students because the zoning system does not affect children’s achievements at the level of education they take. The school must also implement education systems and policies properly so that the quality of education in each institution is maintained so that parents do not worry about choosing a place for their child’s education.

1. Slowik J., Peskova M., Shatunova O. V., Bartus E. The competences of young teachers in the education of pupils with special educational needs. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2021; 22 (10): 139–160. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2020-10-139-160

2. Rindrayani S. R. The implementation of character education in Indonesia high school curriculum program. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2020; 8 (1): 304–12. DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2020.080137

3. Muammar M. Problematika Penerimaan Peserta Didik Baru (PPDB) Dengan Sistem Zonasi Di Sekolah Dasar (SD) Kota Mataram. El Midad Jurnal PGMI. 2019; 11 (1): 41–60. DOI: 10.20414/elmidad.v11i1.1904 (In Indonesian)

4. Darya I. G. P. Evaluasi Implementasi Sistem Penerimaan Peserta Didik Baru (PPDB) di Kota Balikpapan, Indonesia. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan. 2020; 20 (1): 32–41. DOI: 10.17509/jpp.v20i1.24551 (In Indonesian)

5. Brandenburg R., McDonough S. Ethics, Self-study research methodology and teacher education. Vol. 20. Singapore: Springer; 2019. 174 p.

6. Marcelli M., Scanu S., Frattarelli F. M., Mancini E., Carli F. M. A benthic zonation system as a fundamental tool for natural capital assessment in a marine environment: A case study in the Northern Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy. Sustainability. 2018; 10 (10): 1–14. DOI: 10.3390/su10103786

7. Alghamdi A. K. H. Saudi undergraduate students ’ need s of pedagogical education for energy literacy. Turkish Science Education. 2020; 16 (4): 521–537. DOI: 10.36681/tused.2020.5

8. Suna E., Tanberkan H., Özer M. Changes in literacy of students in Turkey by years and school types: Performance of students in PISA applications. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. 2020; 11 (1): 76–98. DOI: 10.21031/epod.702191

9. Hanreddy A., Östlund D. Alternate curricula as a barrier to inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education. 2020; 12 (3): 235– 247. DOI: 10.26822/iejee.2020358217

10. Erni S., Wang X., Taylor S., Boulanger Y., Swystun T., Flannigan M., Parisien M. A. Developing a two-level fire regime zonation system for Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 2020; 50 (3): 259–273. DOI: 10.1139/cjfr-2019-0191

11. Sriartha I. P., Giyarsih S. R. Spatial zonation model of local irrigation system sustainability (A case of subak system in Bali). Indonesia Journal of Geography. 2015; 47 (2): 142–150. DOI: 10.22146/ ijg.9253

12. Lopez de Aguileta G. Developing school-relevant language and literacy skills through dialogic literary gatherings. International Journal of Educational Psychology. 2019; 8 (1): 51–71. DOI: 10.17583/ ijep.2019.4028

13. Roper M., Taimo L., Bisgard J. L., Tjasink K. Validating an evaluation school functionality tool. African Evaluation Journal. 2020; 8 (1): 1–16. DOI: 10.4102/aej. v8i1.423

14. Arteaga I., Thornburg K., Darolia R., Hawks J. Improving teacher practices with children under five: Experimental evidence from the Mississippi Buildings Blocks. Evaluation Review. 2019; 43 (1–2): 41–76. DOI: 10.1177/0193841X19865070

15. Ochako M. N., Aseey A. A. Operational strategies and sustainability factors influencing implementation of education intervention in honduras, central America: Avanzado libros project. International Journal of Education and Practice. 2020; 8 (2): 347–355. DOI: 10.18488/journal.61.2020.82.347.355

16. Mc Pherson-Geyser G., de Villiers R., Kavai P. The use of experiential learning as a teaching strategy in life sciences. International Journal of Instruction. 2020; 13 (3): 877–894. DOI: 10.29333/ iji.2020.13358a

17. Alasheev S. Y., Kuteinitsyna T. G., Postalyuk N. Y., Prudnikova V. A. Managerial focus of a regional vocational education and training system on the needs of socio-economic development. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2021; 23 (10): 44–77. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2021-10-44-77 (In Russ.)

18. Yam F. C., Kumcagiz H. Adaptation of General Phubbing Scale to Turkish culture and investigation of Phubbing Levels of university students in terms of various variables. Addicta: The Turkish Journal on Addictions. 2020; 7 (1): 48–60. DOI: 10.5152/addicta.2020.19061

19. Brouwer S., Amick B. C., Lee H., Franche R-L., Hogg-Johnson S. The predictive validity of the return-to-work self-efficacy scale for return-to-work outcomes in claimants with musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 2015; 25 (4): 725–732. DOI: 10.1007/s10926-015-9580-7

20. Bozkurt S., Ekitli G. B., Thomas C. L., Cassady J. C. Validation of the Turkish version of the cognitive test anxiety scale–revised. SAGE Open. 2017; 7 (1): 1–9. DOI: 10.1177/2158244016669549

21. Ozsaban A., Turan N., Kaya H. Resilience in nursing students: The effect of academic stress and social support. Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences. 2019; 9 (1): 71–78. DOI: 10.33808/ marusbed.546903

22. Koçak D. Academic jealousy scale: Validity and reliability study. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. 2019; 10 (4): 467–479. DOI: 10.21031/EPOD.566752

23. Fatchurahman M., Setiawan M. A., Karyanti K. Evaluation of the CSE-UCLA model on the performance of school counselor in Indonesia. Perspektivy nauki i obrazovaniya = Perspectives of Science and Education. 2022; 56 (2): 561–572. DOI: 10.32744/pse.2022.2.33

24. Nurieva L. M., Kiselev S. G. Problems of analysis of the relationship between the learning context and TIMSS testing results. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2023; 25 (1): 108–141. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2023-1-108-141 (In Russ.)

25. Bulkani B., Setiawan M. A., Wahidah W. The discrepancy evaluation model in the implementation of online learning (on the basis of parents’ perceptions). Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2022; 24 (2): 116–137. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2022-2-116-137

26. Pluzhnik I. L., Guiral F. H. А. Modelling a high quality education for international students. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2020; 22 (6): 49–73. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2020-6-49-73

27. Romanov E. V. Efficiency assessment of higher education institutions: Contradictions and paradoxes: Part I. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2019; 21 (9): 9–48. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2019-9-9-48 (In Russ.)

28. Deutschlander D. Enhancing engagement with faculty and staff to facilitate student success: An evaluation of a parent intervention. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2019; 41 (3): 239–259. DOI: 10.3102/0162373719845653

29. McGee J. B., Winters M. A. Rethinking the structure of teacher retirement benefits: Analyzing the preferences of entering teachers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2019; 41 (1): 63–78. DOI: 10.3102/0162373718798488

30. Karkar A. J. M., Fatlawi H. K., Al-Jobouri A. A. Highlighting e-learning adoption challenges using data analysis techniques: University of Kufa as a case study. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning. 2020; 18 (2): 136–149. DOI: 10.34190/EJEL.20.18.2.003

31. Al-Mahasneh O. M. K., Ayasrah M. N. M., Yahyaa S. M. S., Al-Kriemeen R. A., Al-Swalha A. S. Favorite methods of teaching and evaluation among students in university colleges. International Journal of Education and Practice. 2020; 8 (2): 365–378. DOI: 10.18488/journal.61.2020.82.365.378

32. Pechnikov A. N., Prenzov A. V., Mashoshina A. A. The features of processes of skills (special competencies) formation. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2018; 1 (20): 9–53. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2018-1-9-53 (In Russ.)

33. Quiroz J. L., Peeters L., Chasco C., Aroca P. Equal access to university education in Chile? An application using spatial Heckman probit models. Mathematics. 2022; 10 (280): 2–23. DOI: 10.3390/math10020280

34. Firmansyah F., Mustofa A., Estradivar., Damora A., Handayani C. N. N., Harris J., et al. Relationship between the wakatobi national park zonation system and dynamics of coral reef ecosystem condition. COJ (Coastal and Ocean Journal). 2017; 1 (2): 147–156. DOI: 10.29244/COJ.1.2.147-156 (In Indonesian)

35. Choi J. H., McCart A. B., Hicks T. A., Sailor W. An analysis of mediating effects of school leadership on MTSS implementation. Journal of Special Education. 2019; 53 (1): 15–27. DOI: 10.1177/0022466918804815

36. Mulyono W. D., Suprapto. The relationship between new student selection tests and learning achievement at the vocational program. Atlantis Press: Advance in Enginering Research. 2021; 209 (Ijcse): 739–744. DOI: 10.2991/aer.k.211215.123

37. Saklofske D. H., Austin E. J., Mastoras S. M., Beaton L., Osborne S. E. Relationships of personality, affect, emotional intelligence and coping with student stress and academic success: Different patterns of association for stress and success. Learning and Individual Differences. 2012; 22 (2): 251–257. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.02.010

38. Ayuningtyas A., Riyono B. Exploring anchor personality and true meaning in Indonesian young adults. Changing Societies & Personalities. 2023; 7 (2): 102–128. DOI: 10.15826/csp.2023.7.2.233

39. Barteit S., Guzek D., Jahn A., Bärnighausen T., Jorge M. M., Neuhann F. Evaluation of e-learning for medical education in lowand middle-income countries: A systematic review. Computers & Education. 2020; 145 (October): 1–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103726

40. Saribeyli F. R. Theoretical and practical aspects of student self-assessment. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2018; 20 (6): 183–194. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2018-6-183-194