Educating Children in an Era of Uncertainty
The world Indonesian children inherit today is no longer one that promises certainty. Artificial intelligence (AI), automation, social media, and the digital economy are transforming how people learn, work, and build relationships. Professions that seem promising today may vanish within a few years. Skills learned at school can quickly become obsolete. A degree earned today may not match the requirements of job applications in the years to come.
In the words of sociologist Zygmunt Bauman (2000), we are living in an era of liquid modernity, a society that changes faster than humans can establish habits and certainties. Data shows that Indonesia’s educational challenges are no longer solely about school access, but about the quality of learning and human formation. Education for students is not enough if it merely chases high scores.
The 2022 PISA results indicate that the reading, mathematics, and science literacy skills of Indonesian students remain far below the OECD average. Only about 25 per cent of Indonesian students reached the minimum competency level in reading, and 18 per cent in mathematics. At the same time, most Indonesian students reported a relatively high sense of belonging to their schools. This suggests that the challenge is not just getting children to attend school, but ensuring that schools truly become spaces for human formation.
Not Just Surviving
In such circumstances, there is a tendency to make adaptation the primary goal of education. Children are encouraged to quickly master new technologies, use AI, think flexibly, and be ready for change. All of this is indeed important. However, if education stops at the ability to adapt, we have only solved half the problem.
Bauman warned that liquid modernity produces not only innovation but also a culture of disposability. What is discarded is not just goods, but also jobs, relationships, and even people deemed no longer relevant. The logic of consumption slowly seeps into social life: the old is replaced, the slow is abandoned, and the unproductive is cast aside.
The question for education then shifts. It is no longer merely, “How can children survive change?” but rather, “How can children remain responsible human beings when everything around them is constantly changing?”
This is where Bauman’s thought intersects with Indonesian educational philosophy, resonating with the ideas of Ki Hadjar Dewantara, Driyarkara, and Mochtar Lubis. Ki Hadjar Dewantara long asserted that education is an effort to guide the natural strengths of children so that they may attain the highest possible safety and happiness as human beings and members of society. Education is not merely about preparing a workforce, but about shaping a person. In Ki Hadjar’s view, the ability to adapt is important, but it must always be directed by a nobler purpose: the formation of character and humanity.
This idea is deepened by Driyarkara, who viewed education as a process of humanising young people. Education is not about filling heads with information, but about helping individuals grow into persons capable of taking responsibility for themselves and others. A person does not become human in isolation, but through relationships, responsibility, and communal life.
A similar perspective appears in the thought of Mochtar Lubis. In his famous speech, Manusia Indonesia, he criticised a societal tendency to glorify outward success while neglecting integrity. His critique remains relevant in the digital age. Indonesia does not lack intelligent children, but it still needs more citizens who are honest, courageous, and responsible.
Thus, the true challenge for Indonesian education is not choosing between character and competence, but uniting both. Children need to master AI, but they must also learn to use it ethically. They need to think creatively, but also to respect human dignity, as implied in the National Education System Law. They must be prepared to change professions several times throughout their lives, but not to change their values every time circumstances shift.
Interestingly, PISA data also shows that parental involvement in children’s education in Indonesia has remained relatively stable, even increasing compared to 2018. Around 43 per cent of students attend schools where the headteacher reports that at least half of parents actively discuss their child’s progress with teachers on their own initiative. This finding underscores that character formation cannot be left to schools alone; the family remains a decisive educational environment.
Therefore, Indonesia’s future education agenda must go beyond strengthening literacy, numeracy, or digital skills. Education must also strengthen moral literacy: the ability to make responsible decisions amidst uncertainty. In the age of AI, where answers can be obtained in seconds, what is increasingly scarce is not information, but the wisdom to use that information for the common good. The advancement of AI is not meant to falsify work reports just to please a superior.
Bauman taught that the world will become increasingly liquid. We may not be able to restore the certainties that previous generations possessed. Yet we can still choose the values that will serve as anchors when everything else is in flux: honesty, loyalty, and responsibility. Perhaps that is the task of Indonesian education in the twenty-first century: not to promise a certain future, but to shape responsible human beings.