The Conundrum of Educational Reforms in Indonesia and Vietnam: National Goals or Global Market Demands?

Over the past decade, many countries have pursued major educational reforms, including two prominent Southeast Asian nations: Indonesia and Vietnam. Interestingly, both countries were driven to reform largely because of their performance in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Indonesia, which took part in PISA in 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2018, consistently recorded poor results. In the 2018 cycle, for example, Indonesia ranked 74th out of 77 countries in mathematics and 73rd out of 78 in science (OECD, 2019). This persistent lag behind other nations created a strong sense of urgency, pushing Indonesia to undertake wide-ranging reforms aimed at improving literacy and strengthening the global competitiveness of its young generation (Sherly et al., 2021).

Vietnam, by contrast, participated in PISA for the first time in 2012 and achieved a surprisingly high global ranking at 17th, outperforming England, the United States, Norway, and Sweden (Dimmock, 2016). Despite this impressive result, Vietnam still opted to introduce extensive educational reforms to further enhance learning quality across the country (Dimmock et al., 2021).

In short, although both Indonesia and Vietnam launched educational reforms in response to PISA outcomes, the motivations behind their actions were fundamentally different, making a comparison between the two particularly insightful.

Therefore, this essay seeks to compare the education reform processes carried out in Indonesia and Vietnam, which unfolded at nearly the same time. It also aims to examine whether these reforms were shaped by broader global policy influences or emerged primarily from each nation’s internal drive to improve quality and fulfill the educational aspirations articulated in the early years of their independence.

Historical Background and Ideological Influences Shaping the Reform

A nation’s education system is deeply rooted in its historical trajectory and the goals of its nation-building project. Education is, without question, a deliberate effort by state authorities to shape citizens in line with national ideals and local cultural values. Thus, to fully understand the reform processes in both countries, it is essential to first examine their historical backgrounds and guiding ideologies. Doing so allows us to identify the foundational principles and values that underpin their education systems and that inform the reforms being analyzed (Apple, 2004).

The Influence of Historical Background and National Ideology on the Indonesian Education System

Until the 17th century, the territory that is now Indonesia was governed by a number of Islamic kingdoms, including Samudra Pasai, Banten, Ternate, and Tidore (Ricklefs, 2008). The arrival of European powers in the 16th century, however, dramatically reshaped the region’s political and economic landscape. The Portuguese were the first to come, seeking control over the spice trade, but they were soon supplanted by the Dutch, who in the early 17th century established the Dutch East Indies as a colonial administration (Kahin, 1952). Alongside this, the Dutch East India Company (VOC) was formed to manage trade and exploit natural resources. Dutch colonial rule lasted for more than three centuries and deeply affected Indonesia’s social and economic structures (Ricklefs, 2008). By the early 20th century, anti-colonial resistance had intensified, culminating in the Proclamation of Independence on August 17, 1945 (Kahin, 1952).

These historical developments shaped the ideological foundations of Indonesia’s independence movement, which revolved around three major currents: Islam, socialism, and nationalism. Islamic groups sought to reclaim authority lost to European colonizers (Ricklefs, 2008), socialism emerged as a counterforce to VOC-style capitalism and was influenced by broader global tensions between the Allied and Central powers during World War II (Anderson, 1991), while nationalism attempted to bridge the divide between Islamic and leftist factions by fostering unity in the struggle against colonial rule. This nationalist faction introduced Pancasila (Kahin, 1952), a unifying state ideology centered on national cohesion, anti-colonialism, and social justice. Unity was crucial not only for reconciling the three ideological groups but also for integrating a highly diverse population, 1,340 ethnic groups, 715 languages, and six major religions, into a single nation-state (Kahin, 1952). The commitment to anti-colonialism and social justice grew out of the prolonged suffering endured under centuries of foreign domination (Anderson, 1991). As a result, Indonesians were determined to prevent any form of renewed subjugation, a commitment explicitly embedded in the constitution and carried forward into national development efforts (Kahin, 1952), including the shaping of human resource policies led by the Ministry of Education.

Ki Hajar Dewantara, Indonesia’s first Minister of Education, established the foundations of an anti-colonial education system within the national curriculum (Subkhan, 2018). Drawing inspiration from Paulo Freire’s pedagogical ideas, he envisioned an education that would cultivate students’ awareness of oppression and pathways to liberation (Rahayuningsih, 2021). In the early post-independence period, education was seen as a means to emancipate individuals and society from colonial structures, with students expected to develop critical consciousness and champion social transformation (Subkhan, 2018).

However, the direction of national education shifted after the end of Indonesia’s first presidency. Under the new president, Soeharto, Indonesia forged closer relations with the World Bank and became significantly influenced by McNamara’s push for a global nine-year compulsory education program tied to conditional loans (Clark, 1981). Soon after securing World Bank funding for education development, Soeharto issued a presidential instruction to construct primary and secondary schools across the country, including in remote rural areas, known widely as the inpres schools (World Bank, 1980). Although the nine-year compulsory education policy successfully raised school participation rates, it also brought a substantial shift in the curriculum: from fostering critical awareness to adopting a banking model of education centered on memorization (Subkhan, 2018). This transformation was clearly shaped by World Bank loan requirements, which sought to move education away from progressive, left-leaning, and anti-colonial values. Consequently, the educational philosophy of Ki Hajar Dewantara gradually diminished in practice, even though his legacy continued to be recognized symbolically through the celebration of his birthday as National Education Day (Rahayuningsih, 2021). Instead of grounding education in national ideals of anti-colonialism, unity, and social justice, the system increasingly shifted toward market-driven priorities.

By 2018, Indonesia began to feel the profound effects of the fourth industrial revolution, with technology companies rapidly transforming the national economy. This raised growing concerns that the education system was not preparing students with the skills needed for the digital age, creating pressure for comprehensive reforms (Kemendikbudristek, 2019). At the same time, Indonesia’s aspiration to join the OECD, which demands strong economic performance and a highly skilled workforce, further encouraged the government to align its education system with the competencies expected in the 21st century (Setkab, 2020).

The Influence of Historical Background and National Ideology on Vietnam's Educational System

Similar to Indonesia, Vietnam’s education system has been shaped by a long historical trajectory and deeply rooted national ideologies. Early Vietnamese education was strongly influenced by Chinese civilization, with a formal Confucian-based system established as early as the 11th century. This system emphasized social, moral, and political instruction and was dominated by officials who had passed demanding imperial examinations (Nguyen, 2016). By the late 19th century, Vietnam had become part of French Indochina, ushering in significant changes to its educational landscape. The French introduced a Western-style system that created a divide between those who continued with traditional Vietnamese-Confucian education and those who entered French schools, institutions largely reserved for the elite to cultivate a loyal administrative class (Nguyen, 2016; Huong, 2004).

Following independence from France and throughout the Vietnam War, education in the North and South developed along separate ideological lines. In the North, the communist government prioritized raising literacy levels and instilling socialist ideology. In contrast, the South adopted an education model influenced by the United States, particularly in the development of primary and secondary schooling. After Vietnam’s reunification in 1975, the communist government worked to integrate these two systems and continued to promote socialist educational principles. However, the introduction of the Doi Moi (renovation) policy in 1986 fundamentally reshaped not only Vietnam’s economy but also its education system. This policy sought to modernize and internationalize education, enhance quality to meet global standards, and respond more effectively to market needs. Over time, Vietnam’s initially progressive educational vision became increasingly aligned with market-oriented priorities, mirroring the shift seen in Indonesia during Soeharto’s banking education era (Huong, 2004). Investment in higher education, curriculum development, and expanded access continued to grow (Nguyen, 2016), while international partnerships were strengthened to facilitate knowledge exchange and best practices. In this context, Vietnam’s Marxist-Leninist educational ideals, centered on collective consciousness, equality, solidarity, and human development, began to merge with neoliberal expectations for competitiveness and human capital production (Huong, 2004). This shift reflects the growing influence of market pressures over socialist educational goals.

By 2012, Vietnam’s participation in the OECD’s PISA assessment exposed uneven educational quality across the country. While more developed regions produced students who were globally competitive in literacy, other areas experienced high dropout rates, which inflated Vietnam’s PISA results since many lower-performing students left school before being tested (Dimmock, 2016). In response, the Vietnamese Communist Party initiated the Fundamental and Comprehensive Education Reform (FCER), aiming to restore the socialist commitment to educational equity (Dimmock et al., 2021). Yet the curriculum reforms emphasized 21st-century competencies, skills often associated with competitive, market-driven values, thereby creating tension between socialist ideals of collective development and the demands of a globalized economy.

The Implementation of Educational Reform Initiatives in Indonesia and Vietnam

Each country uses its own terminology to describe its education reform efforts: Indonesia refers to its initiative as the "Merdeka Belajar Reform Package", while Vietnam names its approach the "Fundamental and Comprehensive Education Reform". Although the labels differ, the two reforms share substantial similarities in both substance (curriculum, pedagogy, teacher agency) and implementation processes (reform governance, school leadership). These components will be examined in greater detail in the following sections.

Curricullum, Pedagogy, and Teacher Agency

Curriculum, pedagogy, and teacher quality are three key elements that significantly influence the content of education (Ormrod, 2015). In the process of educational reform, both Indonesia and Vietnam emphasize significant changes in these three areas. The shift in the global economic landscape towards the Fourth Industrial Revolution serves as a primary reason for both countries to revise their curricula (Chu et al., 2017). The changing demands of the labor market for graduate skills are also a major driver for both countries to reform their national curricula to educate students in 21st-century skills released by the OECD, ranging from critical thinking to cognitive flexibility (OECD, 2018). Consequently, textbooks are revised to align with these 21st-century skills, and exercise questions are elevated from the second level of Bloom's taxonomy, comprehension, to the third and fourth levels, application and analysis (Chu et al., 2017). The Indonesian government refers to this new curriculum as the "kurikulum merdeka," while the Vietnamese government does not have a specific term but only socializes that the new curriculum is more comprehensive according to the needs of the times.

Curriculum changes will be futile if not accompanied by changes in pedagogy (Ho & Dimmock, 2023). Good content will fail to be effective when delivered incorrectly. Therefore, both Indonesia and Vietnam strive to retrain and improve the quality of teachers and shift pedagogy from teacher-centered to student-centered (Dimmock, 2019; Damayanti & Asbari, 2024). This is a significant change, where teaching methods previously dominated by lectures and exercises suddenly shift to include more discussions, presentations, and practices. Teachers who were once knowledge transmitters now become facilitators of knowledge. This nearly 180-degree change in pedagogy presents a significant challenge. How to train and re-standardize teachers scattered across the country, especially considering Indonesia and Vietnam's geographical diversity and the various challenges posed by ethnic and racial diversity. Facing these challenges, both countries utilize teacher agency (Dimmock, 2019; Damayanti & Asbari, 2024), where selected teachers with potential to become change agents and trainers for other teachers are trained and familiarized with the 21st-century curriculum and student-centered learning before teaching their peers in other regions. Indonesia, fond of jargon, refers to these teachers as "guru penggerak," while Vietnam does not have a specific term but essentially employs the same strategy. The process of engaging teacher agency is not only for the sake of acceleration and efficiency of reform but also to cultivate teacher leadership skills. Both the Indonesian and Vietnamese governments hope that their teachers can become more adaptive in the future (Dimmock, 2019; Damayanti & Asbari, 2024). Thus, when there are changes in the labor market demand in the future, and the curriculum must change again, they will not struggle to adapt.

Reform Governance and School Leadership

In addition to content, the process of reform itself, such as reform governance and school leadership, is also crucial. In the cases of educational reform in Indonesia and Vietnam, both countries simultaneously conducted reforms within a relatively short period (Dimmock, 2017; Maulana, 2021). This differs from the reform process in Hong Kong and Singapore. Hong Kong introduced a new type of school leadership by granting more autonomy to principals to lead in the 1990s, and reforms in content, curriculum, and pedagogy were only implemented in 2012. Conversely, Singapore changed its content in the late 1990s, and reforms in processes, governance, and school leadership were introduced in 2016. This indicates that the reform processes in Hong Kong and Singapore were gradual, with an adaptation period of about 12-15 years (Dimmock, 2017). However, Indonesia and Vietnam conducted their reforms very quickly and simultaneously. This certainly poses a unique challenge and requires a different approach to reform management compared to Singapore and Hong Kong, which tend to stagger their reforms.

At this stage, Indonesia and Vietnam also have different tasks at hand. Based on the results of PISA, Indonesia still has two main tasks, namely improving quality and ensuring equity (Maulana, 2021). Meanwhile, Vietnam has only one main task, which is equity (Dimmock, 2017). This means that with a PISA ranking in the bottom five, Indonesia must work harder than Vietnam because both content and processes need to be completely reformed. In contrast, Vietnam, with a ranking in the top fifteen, indicates that it has already adapted quite well in terms of content and only needs further refinement, while its main task lies in the process of ensuring better equity and reform governance. This difference in tasks also results in different efforts in reform governance by both countries.

Due to having a heavier workload, the Indonesian government then established three programs to facilitate the process of reform governance: “kepala sekolah penggerak”, “sekolah penggerak”, and “organisasi penggerak” (Maulana, 2021). Kepala sekolah penggerak are outstanding school leaders who are trained first to understand the reform process and possess leadership skills above average. These principals are expected to have good leadership autonomy so they can adapt according to the needs and characteristics of their respective schools (Mariana, 2021). This is crucial because Indonesia's vast geographical conditions with rich diversity require the national education reform process to undergo recontextualization to adapt to local culture while still aligning with the same vision. The primary task of kepala sekolah penggerak is to ensure that guru penggerak understand the curriculum content reference, perform teaching practices effectively, and share their experiences with fellow teachers at the school (Mariana, 2021). Then, when kepala sekolah penggerak and guru penggerak are able to oversee the implementation of the new curriculum practices effectively at the school, the school will transform into a sekolah penggerak and become a model in the area (Marliyani & Iskandar, 2022). Furthermore, in the process of reform governance, the Indonesian government also involves organisasi penggerak (leading organization), which is not found in Vietnam. These leading organizations are foundations or NGOs that have long contributed to education in Indonesia, have strong agency, and can serve as partners for schools to implement educational reforms more quickly (Maulana, 2021). Currently, the two strongest organisasi penggerak are Muhammadiyah and Nahdlatul Ulama, which are two Islamic mass organizations that have many schools across the country. These organizations even existed before Indonesia's independence. 

Meanwhile, in Vietnam, the process of reform governance is simpler, as everything is centralized in the leadership of school principals (Dimmock, 2020). The leadership of school principals is equally important as in Indonesia due to the geographical expanse and diversity. Thus, the autonomy of school principals' leadership in Vietnam also determines the success of the reform process (Dimmock, 2019). School principals also work closely with teacher leaders to ensure that the new curriculum content is effectively delivered in schools (Dimmock, 2020). The autonomy of school principals is not limited to managerial autonomy as in Indonesia, but also extends to the curriculum domain (Dimmock, 2019). School principals have the freedom to observe the implementation of the curriculum and modify it according to the needs of the local context as long as it remains aligned with the thread of 21st-century skills. Additionally, most school principals in Vietnam, besides serving as school principals, are also community leaders and communist leaders in their respective areas (Dimmock, 2020). This is why Vietnam does not require organisasi penggerak as one of the reform actors. Because the key opinion leaders for the community already exist within the school itself and are represented by the school principal, unlike Indonesia where key opinion leaders tend to be in mass organizations. If Indonesia does not involve key opinion leaders from the community, the wave of protests will be greater than if they are involved. However, because most school principals in Vietnam are communist leaders, ideological conflicts are also stronger. The government needs to provide understanding that this reform is not aimed at distancing Vietnam from socialist values, but rather a temporary development strategy so that the young generation of Vietnam can compete globally and boost the development of the communist state of Vietnam in the future (Duggan, 2001).

The Exit Solution Between National Ideology and Neoliberalism Battle

Both Indonesia and Vietnam position their educational reforms as strategic approaches to balance national ideology with global competitiveness. Indonesia's "merdeka belajar" initiative aims to restore Ki Hajar's early anti-colonial and justice-oriented educational philosophy while integrating 21st-century skills to enhance competitiveness. The Indonesian Ministry of Education acknowledges this blend as a temporary strategy to bolster national competitiveness without abandoning its foundational values (Aditomo, 2023).

Similarly, Vietnam, post-Doi Moi in 1975, transitioned from a purely socialist system to a market-oriented socialist economy to strengthen its global economic standing. In education, this shift means reforming curricula to include skills like communication and problem-solving, crucial for the labor market yet still grounded in socialist principles. Vietnam views these reforms not as a shift towards neoliberalism but as necessary adaptations to ensure economic survival and excellence on the global stage.

Epistemic Governance

From the comparison of educational reforms between Indonesia and Vietnam, I can draw several conclusions; (1) Both countries are experiencing an ideological crisis within their national education systems. On one hand, they wish to maintain their respective national ideologies, but on the other hand, the strong influence of the global economic system compels them to adapt to neoliberalism, (2) The OECD, as a group of the strongest economies, holds significant power in pushing and influencing countries to undertake reforms, (3) Although the initial reasons for both countries sound different, with Indonesia appearing more neoliberal from the start and Vietnam still having a socialist hue with a focus on inequality issues, the essence of their reform content is not very different, and (4) Essentially, the reform processes in both countries are similar, but there are some recontextualization adjustments made according to the educational culture of each country. Further details can be seen in Table 1 below.

It can be said that the most interesting finding I obtained from the comparative analysis of educational reform between Indonesia and Vietnam is the process of homogenization in educational content and systems (Burbules & Torres, 2000). This phenomenon is quite unique, how two countries that initially had different national educational directions are now turning towards a market ideology characteristic of neoliberalism. Gradually, the aspirations of the Indonesian government to form a diverse and prosperous society are being eroded, as well as the Vietnamese government, which initially wanted to form a socialist society that values collective principles, is slowly succumbing and yielding to the direction of reform influenced by global trends. Interestingly, if this reform process is broken down into small elements like the "21st-century curriculum that invites students to think critically" (Voogt & Roblin, 2010), "student-centered pedagogy" (Salvatori, 1989), and "school autonomy" (Clark, 2009), they all appear attractive and ideal. However, from a broader perspective, I see that each of these elements is performing a large orchestration to make a country more neoliberal. So, what is actually wrong with these elements?

Upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the term "critical thinking" in the 21st-century curriculum represents a fundamentally different concept from Paulo Freire's interpretation, which has significantly influenced educational systems in Indonesia and Vietnam. In contemporary curricula, "critical thinking" primarily enhances skills to a level slightly beyond those required in pre-Industry 4.0 work environments, addressing the demands of modern autonomy and technological advancements (Altun & Yildirim, 2023; Liu et al., 2016). Conversely, Freire's approach to critical thinking involves a deeper engagement with social phenomena, encouraging learners to identify societal flaws and injustices and empowering them to enact change (Dale et al., 2011; Kincheloe, 1993). This difference reveals a dual approach within the educational reforms of both nations, where the goals of aligning with global workforce demands and fostering an informed, proactive citizenry seem to converge yet remain distinct.

Then, is it possible for Indonesia and Vietnam to fully return to their respective ideologies in the future, after claiming that educational reform is only a temporary compromise between Pancasila/socialism and neoliberalism as what they said on their goals? History has shown that economic grips during the colonial era hindered the progress of Islam and Confucianism, making it difficult for them to rise again. Moreover, as outlined in Table 1, the 21st-century educational reform era influenced by the OECD shows a uniform approach in both countries, both in content and process. This raises the question of whether this is a sign of absolute standardization under the strong economic power of the OECD, which regulates the global economy. The OECD seems to have become the new face of the allied bloc controlling economic power, just like during the colonial period. Its role in forcing countries to adjust their education systems and influencing the educational reform process in Indonesia and Vietnam is becoming more apparent.

Through the process of comparing educational reforms between Indonesia and Vietnam, we have reached the conclusion that there is a specific epistemological movement influencing the world (Nguyen, 2016). Education, which was previously varied and rich in diversity, is increasingly moving towards homogeneity and uniformity (Chan, 2007). However, a question arises: why must education become uniform and be driven by market demands? This process of epistemic governance is not only happening in this era; if we look back at history, this process also occurred in previous periods.

In Diagram 1, it is illustrated how the original epistemologies of the two countries, Islam and Confucianism, gradually disappeared due to past colonization. Western liberalism education slowly entered among some elite groups, and the colors of progressive education influenced by socialism also entered to counter the colonial thoughts that the West began to cram into schools and communities. The tug-of-war between Western influences and socialism became more pronounced in the post-colonial era. Then, around the 1980s, efforts at epistemic governance that tried to introduce Western education with a neoliberal breath began to re-enter; Indonesia entered this era through the World Bank's conditional loans and Vietnam through the Doi Moi reforms. By 2010, both countries were influenced by PISA and the OECD and underwent massive reforms to meet the needs of 21st-century skills. At this juncture, one must question whether the educational reform initiatives genuinely enhance the nation education goals in both countries or simply cater to the demands of the global neoliberal labor market. Who truly gains from these educational reforms and the governance of knowledge? Additionally, there is a concern whether this might lead to a new form of economic and educational colonization akin to historical precedents.

Conclusion

The educational reform processes in Indonesia and Vietnam have increasingly adopted a neoliberal and market-oriented approach. Unintentionally, this has diminished the influence of foundational ideologies such as Pancasila in Indonesia and socialism in Vietnam within their respective educational systems. As is well understood, each country maintains its own imagined community (Kanno& Norton, 2003), reflecting the epistemology it nurtures. For instance, Islamic epistemology once fostered a prosperous society in Medina (Gibb, 2013), Confucian epistemology historically guided Eastern societies towards harmony, peace, and happiness (Wright, 1975), and socialist epistemology has been instrumental in cultivating societies with a strong sense of collective awareness and equality (Cole, 2014). Educational reforms should not eliminate these local epistemologies through a power imbalance driven by international organizations like the OECD. Doing so would equate these reforms to a subtle form of colonization, emerging through classroom interactions and gradually eradicating other epistemologies, similar to what has occurred with indigenous societies (Whyte, 2017). Such actions risk undermining the diverse intellectual heritage that forms the foundation of these nations’ identities and societal structures.