Education Policy Research Series Discussion Document No. 5 Education Systems in ASEAN+6 Countries: A Comparative Analysis of Selected Educational Issues
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
EducationPolicyResearchSeries
DiscussionDocumentNo.5
EducationSystemsinASEAN+6Countries:
AComparativeAnalysisofSelectedEducationalIssues
EducationPolicyResearchSeriesDiscussionDocumentNo.5
EducationSystemsinASEAN+6Countries:
AComparativeAnalysisofSelectedEducationalIssues
EducationPolicyandReformUnit
UNESCOBangkok
Publishedin2014bytheUnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization7,placedeFontenoy,75352Paris07SP,FranceandUNESCOBangkokOffice©UNESCO2014
ThispublicationisavailableinOpenAccessundertheAttribution‐ShareAlike3.0IGO(CC‐BY‐SA 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐sa/3.0/igo/). By using thecontentofthispublication,theusersaccepttobeboundbythetermsofuseoftheUNESCOOpenAccessRepository(http://www.unesco.org/open‐access/terms‐use‐ccbysa‐en).
ThedesignationsemployedandthepresentationofmaterialthroughoutthispublicationdonotimplytheexpressionofanyopinionwhatsoeveronthepartofUNESCOconcerningthelegal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning thedelimitationofitsfrontiersorboundaries.
The ideasandopinionsexpressed inthispublicationarethoseoftheauthors; theyarenotnecessarilythoseofUNESCOanddonotcommittheOrganization.
Design/Layout:JinAHwangTHA/DOC/14/004‐E
i
Preface
This comparative report reviews and analyses a range of selected educational issues inAssociation of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)+6 countries, which include 10 ASEANmembercountriesplusAustralia,China,India,Japan,NewZealand,andtheRepublicofKorea.Inparticular,ithighlightsthekeyissues,challengesandopportunitiesforimprovingsystemperformanceandreducingeducationaldisparitiesacrossASEAN+6countries.Itthusprovidesuseful inputs for informing policy options for education development in these and othercountries. The issues reviewed are grouped into three policy areas: 1) sector policy andmanagementframeworks,2)secondaryeducation,and3)technicalandvocationaleducationandtraining(TVET),allofwhichareofcriticalimportanceinthecontextofformulatingandoperationalizingeducationreformagendasinthesecountries.AcomparativereviewofthecurrenteducationalcontextinASEAN+6countriesindicatesthat:
AllASEAN+6countrieshavealegalprovisionforfreeandcompulsoryeducationforatleastsomelevelsofbasiceducation.
Educationsystemstructuresvary,however6+3+3isthemostcommonintheregion,followedbya6+4+2system.
Most ASEAN+6 countries have decentralized some functions and responsibilities tolowerlevelsofadministrationbutremainrathercentralized,especiallywithregardtostandardsettingandteachermanagement.
Many ASEAN+6 countries have promoted alternative education and the use ofequivalency programmes, however the ways alternative learning programmes areorganized,deliveredandcertifieddiffer.
There is an increasing recognition of the association between quality of learningoutcomes and enabling factors for quality education such as curriculum andassessment, quality assurance, teaching and learning time, language in educationpoliciesandteacherquality.
TrendsinTVETenrolmentratesvaryacrosstheregion;inmostcountries,theshareofTVEThastendedtodecreaseoverthepastdecade.AllASEAN+6countriesrecognizethe importance of TVET and many include it in their national socio‐economicdevelopmentplans,howeverTVETcontinuestobe“unpopular”andthedemarcationbetweengeneralandvocationaleducationisincreasinglyblurred.
TherearewidevariancesinthewayscountriespreparetheirworkforceandperformeducationallyinTVETbutmosthaveattemptedtoputinplacesystemsforTVETqualityassuranceandqualificationsframeworks.
Reviewingtheseissuesandthediverseapproachesthatcountrieshavechosentorespondwithhas shed some lights on the possible policy choices for a country wishing to undertakeeducation reform in these areas.Evidence reveals thathighperformingeducation systemsappearto:
Commitstrongly,bothlegallyandfinancially,toeducation Spendmoreandspendwiselyoneducation Devolvemoremanagementresponsibilitiestosub‐nationallevels Produceandusemoredata Undertake frequent curriculum reforms to respond to changing needs and make
educationmorerelevant
ii
Trainandutilizebetterteachers Providealternativepathways toeducationonthebasisofgender,ethnicity,poverty
andgeographicallocation.Theanalysisofcountryexperiencesinimplementingeducationpolicyreformalsoprovidesvaluable lessons for any successful education policy development. Education policy, inparticularreformpolicy,ismostlikelytobesuccessfulifitisdevelopedwith:
Visionaryandconsistentpolicy Focusonequityandlearning Monitoringofprogressandoutcomes Partnershipsundergovernmentleadership
ThepaperisDiscussionDocumentNo.5intheEducationPolicyResearchSeries,publishedbyUNESCOBangkok.Thisseriesofdocumentsaimstocontributetothedebatearoundthemostpressingeducationpolicy issues in theAsia‐Pacificregion,with theobjectiveofsupportingeducationpolicyreforminMemberStates.ThedocumentsinthisseriesalsocontributetotheUNESCOBangkokknowledgebaseoneducationpolicyandreformissues.
iii
Acknowledgements
Thisreportwasinitiallypreparedasabackgroundpaperprovidingcomparativeanalysisoneducationsectorpolicy,planningandmanagementacrosscountriesoftheAsia‐Pacific.Theideaofa comparative reportonASEAN+6educationsystemswas initially conceivedwhenUNESCOwas calleduponby theMalaysianMinistryofEducation to conduct anEducationPolicyReviewinNovember2011andlaterbyMyanmarMinistryofEducationinthecontextoftheComprehensiveEducationSectorReview(CESR)inMyanmarinJune2012.Thereportisbasedonfact‐findingmissionsfromvariousUNESCOstaffaswellasanalyticalworkbyUNESCOBangkoksuchastheAsia–PacificEducationSystemReviewSeries,theonlineEducationSystemProfiles(ESPs),secondaryeducationcountryprofiles,andselectedcountrycasestudyreports.DifferentsourcesofinformationarenotalwayscitedexplicitlybuthavebeenverifiedtotheextentpossiblebyUNESCOBangkok.The report also builds on a brief literature review of academic articles, policy reports,government documents and international agency reports examining the various topicscovered in the report. As such, the report does not provide an exhaustive analysis of theeducation systemsbut focuseson thoseareas that are closer to themandate, comparativeadvantageandcountryexperienceofUNESCOintheregion.AteamfromUNESCOBangkok’sEducationPolicyandReform(EPR)Unit,comprisingLeThuHuong, Satoko Yano, Ramya Vivekanandan, Margarete Sachs‐Israel, Mary Anne ThereseManuson, Stella Yu, Barbara Trzmiel,William Federer, Diana Kartika, Karlee Johnson andAkinaUeno.Peer‐reviewandcommentswereprovidedbyGwang‐CholChangandYoungSupChoi.ThereporthasbeenfurtherreviewedandeditedbyRachelMcCarthy,AyakaSuzukiandJin‐AHwang.Comments or questions on the report are most welcome and should be sent toepr.bgk@unesco.org
iv
ListofAcronyms
ADB AsianDevelopmentBankASEAN AssociationofSouthEastAsianNationsASEAN+6 AssociationofSouthEastAsianNations+sixcountriesASEM Asia‐EuropeMeetingCBT CompetencybasedtrainingCESR ComprehensiveEducationSectorReview(Myanmar)CVET ContinuousVocationalEducationandTrainingEFA EducationforAllESPs EducationSystemProfilesGDP GrossDomesticProductGDVT GeneralDepartmentofVocationalTraining(VietNam)GNP GrossNationalProductHRD HumanResourceDevelopment(Singapore)HRDF HumanResourceDevelopmentFund(Malaysia)IBE UNESCOInternationalBureauof EducationILO InternationalLabourOrganizationISCED InternationalStandardClassificationofEducationIVET InitialVocationalEducationandTrainingLMI LabourMarketInformationMEST MinistryofEducation,ScienceandTechnology(RepublicofKorea)MOE MinistryofEducationMOEL MinistryofEmploymentandLabour(RepublicofKorea)MOET MinistryofEducationandTraining(VietNam)MOHR MinistryofHumanResources(Malaysia)MOLISA MinistryofLabour,InvalidsandSocialAffairs(VietNam)MOLSW MinistryofLabourandSocialWelfare(LaoPDR)MOLVT MinistryofLabourandVocationalTraining(Cambodia)MTEF Medium‐TermExpenditureFrameworkNQF NationalQualificationFrameworkOECD OrganisationforEconomicCo‐operationandDevelopmentOJT OntheJobTrainingPES ProvincialEducationService(LaoPDR)PISA ProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessmentPPP Public‐PrivatePartnershipsSDF SkillsDevelopmentFund(Singapore)SEAMEO SoutheastAsianMinistersofEducationOrganization
v
TVED TechnicalandVocationalEducationDepartment(LaoPDR)TVET TechnicalandVocationalEducationandTrainingUIS UNESCOInstituteforStatisticsUN UnitedNationsUNESCAP UnitedNationsEconomicandSocialCommissionforAsiaandthePacificUNESCO UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganizationUNEVOC UNESCOInternationalCentreforTechnicalandVocationalEducationand
TrainingVCs VocationalCollegesVET VocationalEducationandTraining(Australia)
vi
Contents
Preface............................................................................................................................................................................i
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................iii
ListofAcronyms......................................................................................................................................................iv
ListofTablesandFigures...................................................................................................................................vii
Introduction.........................................................................................................................................1
1.ARegionalPerspectiveonEducation......................................................................................3
1.1 TheGreatDiversityoftheAsia‐PacificRegion.............................................................................31.2 MacroTrendsShapingEducationDevelopmentintheRegion.............................................5
2.EducationSystemsinASEAN+6Countries.............................................................................7
2.1 EducationPolicyandManagementFrameworks........................................................................72.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1.2 Legalandfinancialcommitmenttoeducation .................................................................. 7 2.1.3 Startingageanddurationofcompulsoryeducation ..................................................... 11 2.1.4 Sectormanagement ................................................................................................................. 13 2.1.5 Teachermanagementpolicy ................................................................................................. 18 2.1.6 Qualitydeterminants ............................................................................................................... 22 2.1.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 29
2.2 SecondaryEducation.............................................................................................................................302.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 30 2.2.2 Formalpathwaystoeducation ............................................................................................. 31 2.2.3 Curriculumatthesecondarylevel ....................................................................................... 33 2.2.4 Secondaryteachers .................................................................................................................. 37 2.2.5 Studentassessmentatthesecondarylevel ....................................................................... 41 2.2.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 44
2.3 TechnicalandVocationalEducationandTraining(TVET)..................................................452.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 45 2.3.2 Legislativeandinstitutionalpolicyframeworks ............................................................. 46 2.3.3 Financing .................................................................................................................................... 52 2.3.4 TVETdeliverysystem .............................................................................................................. 54
2.3.5 ContentofTVETatthesecondarylevel ............................................................................. 61 2.3.6 QualityandrelevanceofTVET ............................................................................................. 63 2.3.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 67
3.WhatLessonsCanBeLearnt?..................................................................................................69
References................................................................................................................................................................71
vii
ListofTablesandFigures
Table1:CountriesthatRatified/AcceptedtheConventionagainstDiscriminationinEducation(CADE,1960).....................................................................................................................8
Table2:DeterminationofCoreRecurrentSchoolFundingItemsfromtheLevelofGovernmentwithPrimaryFundingResponsibility,SelectedCountries....................11
Table3:EducationSectorStructureandYearsofPrimaryandSecondaryEducation.........12 Table4:OverviewofMTEFImplementationinSelectedASEAN+6Countries.........................13 Table5:DistributionofKeyResponsibilities..........................................................................................14 Table6:KeyMilestonesofEducationDecentralizationReforminSelectedEducation
Systems...................................................................................................................................................15 Table7:TheLocusofTeacherEmployment(Selection,Management,andPaymentof
Teachers)...............................................................................................................................................16 Table8:ChallengesinDecentralizationofBasicEducationFinancingandDeliveryfrom
SelectedAsianCountries.................................................................................................................16 Table9:PercentageofStudentsEnrolledinPrivatelyManagedSchools,SelectedASEAN+6
Countries................................................................................................................................................17 Table10:TotalExpenditureonEducationasaPercentageofGDP,PrivateSources,All
Levels.......................................................................................................................................................17 Table11:PrivateEducationExpenditureasaPercentageofTotalEducationExpenditurein
SelectedAsianCountries.................................................................................................................18 Table12:OverviewofTeacherManagementPolicies...........................................................................21 Table13:TeacherRewardsandIncentivesinSoutheastAsia...........................................................22 Table14:FrequencyofCurriculumReform...............................................................................................23 Table15:EducationCurriculumReformMilestones.............................................................................23 Table16:OverviewofNationalAccreditingandQualityAssuranceBodyinASEAN+6
Countries................................................................................................................................................25 Table17:StudentLearningTime*,SelectedEducationSystems......................................................26 Table18:AverageTeachingTime(HoursperWeek)............................................................................27 Table19:LanguagePolicies..............................................................................................................................28 Table20:CountryRequirementsforEnteringaTechnicalorVocationalProgramme...........31 Table21:AlternativePathwaystoEducation,SelectedCountries...................................................32 Table22:KeyMilestonesinAlternativeSecondaryEducationinSelectedCountries............33 Table23:MajorChallengestoAlternativeEducationinSelectedCountries...............................33 Table24:ExamplesofCurricularAimsfromSelectedCountries.....................................................34 Table25:ContentsofNationalCurriculumFramework.......................................................................35 Table26:AvailabilityofOptiontoChooseSubjectsforStudyatLowerandSecondaryLevels
....................................................................................................................................................................36 Table27:MappingofContentAreasTaughtatLowerSecondaryLevel.......................................36 Table28:AdditionalAspectsofTeacherQualificationinSelectedCountries.............................37 Table29:LevelofResponsibilityforRecruitmentofSecondaryTeachers..................................38
viii
Table30:SecondaryTeachers’AverageAnnualSalariesinPublicInstitutionsinSelectAsia‐PacificCountriesasaPercentageofGDPPerCapita..........................................................39
Table31:TheUseofExaminationsforthePurposesofSelectionandCertificationinASEAN+6Countries...........................................................................................................................41
Table32:DetailsofAssessmentsUsedforAccountability..................................................................42 Table33:ExaminingBodiesofASEAN+6Countries...............................................................................42 Table34:ParticipationinMajorInternationalAssessmentsbyASEAN+6Countries.............43 Table35:AccreditationforCompletionofLowerandUpperSecondaryEducation................44 Table36:LegislativeandPolicyFrameworksforTVET(SelectedCountries)............................46 Table37:MinistriesResponsibleforTVETProvision(SelectedCountries)................................48 Table38:SummaryofEmployerEngagementTypes,byCountry...................................................50 Table39:PublicPrivatePartnershipsinSelectedASEAN+6Countries.........................................51 Table40:DecentralizationinTVET...............................................................................................................51 Table41:TVETDeliveryModes.......................................................................................................................55 Table42:TVETServiceProviders,SelectedCountries..........................................................................55 Table43:TVETEnrolmentsatSecondaryandTertiaryLevels.........................................................58 Table44:ShareofTVETStudentsamongTotalStudents....................................................................58 Table45:ExistingApprenticeship/DualSystemProgrammesinASEAN+6Countries..........63 Table46:OverviewofStandards,QualityAssurance,QualificationsandRecognition...........64 Table47:StatusofNationalQualificationFramework(NQF)inASEAN+6Countries............65 Table48:SurveysofLabourMarketbyType............................................................................................67
Figure1:YearsofFreeandCompulsoryEducation..................................................................................8 Figure2:PublicExpenditureonEducationasaPercentageofTotalGovernment
Expenditure,SelectedYears(2007‐2010).................................................................................9 Figure3:PublicExpenditureonEducationasaPercentageofGDP,SelectedYears
(2007‐2010)............................................................................................................................................9 Figure4:ShareofEducationExpendituresbySub‐Sector(%),SelectedYears
(2007‐2010).........................................................................................................................................10 Figure5:OfficialStartingAgeofFormalEducation(NumberofASEAN+6Countries).........12 Figure6:TotalNumberofYearsofSchoolingRequiredforEntrytoTeacherTraining........19 Figure7:LowerSecondaryTeachers’AnnualSalariesinPublicInstitutionsas
aPercentageofGDPPerCapita...................................................................................................40 Figure8:UpperSecondaryTeachers’AnnualSalariesinPublicInstitutionsas
aPercentageofGDPPerCapita...................................................................................................40 Figure9:InstitutionalStructureofTVET...................................................................................................54 Figure10:PercentageofTertiary,Non‐degreeEnrolment(ISCED5B)in
TVETProgrammesinSelectedCountriesbyGDPPerCapita,2002............................57 Figure11:DiagramofMalaysia’sEducationSystem................................................................................60
1
Introduction
Countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)1 , despite differences inpolitical systems, ideologies, historical background, development priorities and educationstructures,shareacommonvisionforanASEANcommunity.ForASEANcountries,educationiscoretodevelopmentandcontributestotheenhancementofASEANcompetitiveness.Infact,theASEANCharter,launchedin2007,clearlyemphasizesthestrategicimportanceofclosercooperationineducationandhumanresourcedevelopmentamongASEANmembercountries.ThecriticalroleofeducationinpromotingASEANsocialandeconomicdevelopmentandthebuilding of a strong ASEAN community has also been widely recognized and repeatedlyconfirmedatvarioushigh‐levelpolicydialogues2andinpolicydocuments.3Inthisregard,onenotableregional initiative is themovetowardsasharedregionalqualifications framework,whichaimstopromotetherecognitionofqualificationsandqualityassuranceintheprovisionofeducation.
ASEAN+6,whichincludestheadditionofAustralia,China,India,Japan,NewZealandandtheRepublicofKoreatotheASEANmix,isaregionalcooperationframeworkaimingtoaccelerateeconomic growth in EastAsia andpromote cooperation in areas vital to this growth. ThiscooperationisbeneficialnotonlytoitsmembersbutalsoothercountriesoftheAsia–Pacificregion. Examination of education systems in ASEAN+6 countries reveals a combination ofgenerallyhighperformingsystems(e.g.Australia,Japan,theRepublicofKorea,Singapore)andsystemswheresubstantialimprovementmaybeneeded(e.g.Cambodia,LaoPDR,Myanmar).Bycomparison,analysisprovidesgreaterscopeforunderstandingwhyaneducationsystemperformsbetterinonecountrythaninanother.Atthesametime,comparisonalsoprovidessolidevidenceandthuspracticallessonstohelpimproveeducationsystemperformance.Tohelp inform this reflection, it is important to examine the policies in any given educationsystem, the ways in which they interact and impact upon system performance and otherunderlyingfactorsthatmayinhibitorstrengthenestablishedpolicies.
Againstthisbackdrop,UNESCOBangkok’sEducationPolicyandReformUnithasundertakenadeskstudyofeducationsystemsinASEAN+6countries.ThereportoutlinesthefeaturesofASEAN+6countryeducationsystemsinthecontextofon‐goingdiscussiononpolicyoptionsforeducationdevelopmentandreforminthesecountries.Inparticular,ithighlightsthekeyissues, challenges and opportunities for improving system performance and reducingdisparities across ASEAN+6 countries with a focus on sector planning and management,secondary education and technical and vocational education and training (TVET), areasofcriticalimportanceinformulatingandoperationalizingtheeducationreformagendainmostofthesecountries.Thisreportistheproductofthatstudy.
Thereportprovidesasourceofcomparativedataforresearchers,policyanalysts,educationsystemmanagers and policymakers in areaswhereUNESCO believes policy dialogue andreformiscriticalforimprovingeducationsystemperformance.Datahasbeencollectedandcomparisons have been drawn wherever possible for all 16 countries under analysis.Implications drawn are designed to serve education policy dialogue and reform efforts in
1 ASEANcountriesincludeBrunei,Cambodia,Indonesia,LaoPDR,Malaysia,Myanmar,thePhilippines,Singapore,Thailand,andVietNam.2Forexample,theASEANEducationMinisters’Retreatin2005,the11thASEANSummitin2005.3Forexample,ASEANVision2020andtheVientianeActionProgramme(VAP).
2
ASEANcountriesbutarealsorelevanttomanycountriesintheregionwishingtoparticipatein,andfullybenefitfrom,theregionalcooperationand/orintegrationprocess.
Thisreporthasbeencompiledforrapidassessmentandthushasemployedasimpleapproachtodatacollectionandanalysis.Eachpolicyareaisbrieflyintroduced,andadescriptionofthepolicydimensionsunderreviewispresented.Conclusionsarethendrawnprimarilybasedonthecomparativeanalysisoftheeducationalissues.Theyarealsoinformedbytheexperienceof UNESCO in the Asia‐Pacific region,working closelywith government counterparts, civilsocietyanddevelopmentpartnerstosupporttheeducationaldevelopmentneedsofmembercountriesandtheiraspirationsineducation.
Constraintsencounteredinthecompilingofthiscomparativereportincludedalackofreliabledataaswellassomewhatinconsistentandincomparabledatafromacrossvarioussources.Whereverpossible,thereporthasreliedonexistingresearchorstudyreportsavailablefrominternational development organizations aswell as internationally comparable andofficialgovernmentdatasources.Insomecases,however,thedataavailable,particularlyfromonlinesources,isdifferentfromdataprovidedbygovernmentsourcesorcollectedbyUNESCOstaff.Insuchcases, internationallycomparabledatahasbeenused,complementedorverifiedbyfindingsfromfurtherresearchorUNESCOin‐houseexpertknowledge.Developmentbanks,academic and UN data sources have also been used extensively in order to provide atriangulatedanalysisoftheissues.Inaddition,onlycountrieswithrelevantdatahavebeenincludedinthetablesandfiguresthroughoutthisreportandthus,notallASEAN+6countriesarealwaysincludedintheanalysis.
The report is presented in three chapters. Chapter 1 provides a regional perspective oneducationdevelopmentintheAsia‐Pacific,including:thegreatdiversityoftheAsia‐Pacificandthemacrotrendsshapingeducationdevelopmentintheregion.
ChapterTwocomprisesadetailedaccountofASEAN+6countries’statusonselectededucationsystem issues from a comparative perspective. Section 2.1 presents analyses on thelegislation, planning andmanagement of the education system. Section 2.2 comprises theanalysis of secondary education focusing on issues of pathways, curriculum, teachers andassessment at the secondary level. Section 2.3 provides a brief overview of technical andvocationaleducationandtraining(TVET)withsubtopicsfocusingonlegal,institutionalandpolicyframeworks,financingTVETdeliverysystemsandtherelevanceandqualityofTVET.
ChapterThreeidentifiessomemajorpointsforreflectionbasedontheanalysisoftrendsandkeyissuesintheASEAN+6educationsystems,pointsofrelevanceforASEAN+6countriesandothersoutsidethisgroupingintheirreviewofeducationpolicyandinthecraftingofeducationdevelopmentstrategies.
3
1. ARegionalPerspectiveonEducation
At the outset, it is important to provide perspective on the broader development contextwithintheAsia‐Pacificregion,theregiontowhichASEAN+6countriesbelong.ThefollowingchapterthuspresentsaregionaloverviewoftheAsia‐Pacificincludingthegreatdiversityoftheregionandmacrotrendsshapingeducationdevelopment.
1.1 TheGreatDiversityoftheAsia‐PacificRegion
TheAsia‐Pacificregion4spansa largegeographicalarea,stretchingnorthwardtoMongolia,southwardtoNewZealand,eastwardtotheislandstatesofOceania,andwestwardtoIran.Countriesrangeinareaandpopulationfromamongthebiggestandmostpopulouscountriesintheworld,includingChinaandIndia,tosmallislandcountriessuchasNauruandTuvaluinthePacificOcean.Theregion ishome tomore than4.2billionpeopleor61percentof theworld’spopulation(UNESCAP,2011)andhence,developmentgainsintheAsia‐Pacificwillcontinuetohaveasignificantimpactontheglobaleducationoutlook.
Inadditiontoitsimmensephysicalexpanse,theregionischaracterizedbydiversityintermsof landscape, societies, history, culture, religion, and ethnicity. Countries also demonstratevaryingdegreesofpolitical,socialandeconomicdevelopment.Broaddemographic,culturaland economic characteristics of the region can help provide context to the concomitantstrengths,issuesandchallengessurroundingeducationdevelopmentintheregion.
Demographiccharacteristics
Over the last half century, theAsia‐Pacific regionhas experienced a significant populationboomwithmanycountriesdoublinginsizeinthistime.Becauseofthis,theAsia‐Pacificregionholdsalargeshareoftheworld’syouthpopulation,estimatedat60percent(UNYouth,2013,p.1).Oftheregion’stotalpopulation,17.9percentareyouth.Thisisbothachallengeandanasset.Youngpeopleareoneofthemostvaluableresourcestoanygivencountryastheycancontributesignificantlytodevelopmentandgrowth.Atthesametime,youthoftheAsia‐Pacificareconfrontedwithahostofsignificantchallengesthatinmanycaseshindertheircapacitytocontribute to development. Some of these de‐capacitating challenges include insufficientand/orinadequateeducation,unemploymentandHIVandAIDs.
Insufficientandinadequateeducation
Thereare69millionilliterateyouthintheAsia‐Pacificregionalone.(UNESCO,2012g)
Unemployment Therearemorethan700millionyoungpeopleinAsia‐Pacific,butonly20percentoftheregion’sworkersareagedbetween15and24,theseyoungpeopleaccountforalmosthalftheAsia‐Pacific'sjobless.5
4TheAsia‐PacificregionfollowsthespecificUNESCOdefinition.Thisdefinitiondoesnotforciblyreflectgeography,butrathertheexecutionofregionalactivitiesoftheOrganization.ForafulllistofUNESCOMemberStatesintheAsia‐Pacific,visit:http://www.unescobkk.org/asia‐pacific/in‐this‐region/member‐states/5http://www.ilo.org/asia/areas/WCMS_117542/lang‐‐en/index.htm
4
HIVandAIDs
Nearly5millionpeoplearelivingwithHIVintheAsia‐Pacificregion.(HIVandAidsDataHubforAsia‐Pacific,2013).Nearly351,000peoplebecamenewlyinfectedin2012,asignificantproportionofwhichareyoungpeople.
TheAsia‐Pacificregionisalsohighlymobileasmigrationtoandfromtheregionaswellaswithintheregionandwithincountriescontinuestoincrease.Theregionishometomorethan53 million immigrants (UNESCO, 2012f). Important intra‐regional migration reflects bothdemographictrendsandtheincreasingintegrationoftheeconomiesoftheAsia‐Pacificregion.The pattern of rural‐to‐urban migration is also evident as countries move from largelyagricultural economies to manufacturing and service‐based economies in their path toindustrializationandpost‐industrialisation.
Because of this increase in migration, cross‐border movement of labour has grownsignificantlyatarateovertwotimesfasterthanthegrowthofthelabourforceoftheorigincountries(Abella,2005).Over50percentofmigrants in theAsia‐PacificregioncomefromSouthAsia(primarily fromIndia,Bangladesh,PakistanandSriLanka),andtherestmainlyoriginatefromSouth‐EastAsiaandthePacific(IndonesiaandthePhilippines)(ILO,2006).Thegrowingmobilityoflabouracrossbordershasbenefitedbothsendingandreceivingcountriesas well as the migrants themselves, although the extent of these benefits varies; indeed,migration alsobrings aboutnegative consequences such as “braindrain”, themigrationofhighly skilled workers, “brain waste”, or educated and skilled migrants from developingcountries being only able to find unskilled jobs in developed countries, and the risk ofdependencyonforeignlabour.Inaddition,protectingthebasicrightsofmigrantworkersandtheiraccompanyingchildreninreceivingcountrieshasbecomeamajorconcern.Theswellingnumbers of irregular migrants signal the immense problem of managing migration in apositive and protective way as the children of migrants in irregular and informal workarrangements often do not have adequate access to education services. Ultimately, thisincreaseinmigrationrequirescarefulplanningandpolicyactiontocaterforthesocialandeducationalneedsofmigrantsandtheirfamilies.
Culturalcharacteristics
TheAsia–Pacificregionishometoagreatdiversityofethnic,linguisticandreligiousgroups.Infact,thereareover3,500languagesspokenacrossregion.Atthesametime,manylanguagesshareacommonrootorfamily,forexampleinthelandsbetweenIndiaandtheislandofBali,Indonesia, the ancient Hindu epic "Ramayana" permeates the daily lives of the people.Languages spoken in Indonesia,Malaysia and thePhilippinesbelong to the same languagefamily.ThesearealllinkedwiththosespokeninthePacific,thusthetermMalayo‐Polynesianlanguage.IndigenouspeoplesofAustraliaandNewZealandalsohavedeeplinguistictieswiththislanguagefamily.
Economiccharacteristics
Overthepasttwodecades,theAsia‐Pacificregionhascontinuedtomaintainhigheconomicgrowth rates exceeding that of other regions, andhas consequentlybecomeknown as the"growth centre" of the global economy (UNESCO, 2012f). The Asia‐Pacific’s combined
5
economy accounted for 35.36 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) in 20096 ,making it one of the world’s largest aggregate economies. The region’s middle‐incomeeconomiesregisteredthehighestgrowth,withsomegraduatingtohigherincomestatus.EastAsiaandthePacificledtheglobalrecoveryfromtheeconomiccrisisin2009/10withChinadrivingmost of the economic expansion. Over the coming years, the region is expected tocontinuetoenjoythehighestgrowthratesintheworldandtoserveastheengineoftheworldeconomy.
CountriesoftheAsia‐Pacificregiondemonstratevaryinglevelsofeconomicdevelopmentandratesofgrowth.WhileAustralia,Japan,NewZealand,theRepublicofKorea,andSingaporearecategorized as highly industrialized countries, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Nepal, Papua NewGuineaarestillinthelow‐incomecategory.ChinaandIndia,meanwhile,representtheworld’stwomostsignificantemergingeconomieswithanincreasingshareintheworld’swealth.Othereconomies,suchasIndonesia,Malaysia,thePhilippines,ThailandandVietNambelongtothemiddle‐incomecategory.
1.2 MacroTrendsShapingEducationDevelopmentintheRegion
The21stcenturypresentssignificant,multi‐faceted,rapidandinterdependentchallengesandopportunities for all countries of the world, including the Asia‐Pacific. These range fromincreasing economic interdependency, technological development, growing pressure onnaturalresourcesandenvironmentaldegradation,rapidlychanginglabourmarkets,shiftinggeo‐politics, older, highly mobile and more urbanized populations amid growingunemploymentandwideninginequalities.Theseemergingchallengesandopportunitieshaveimportantimplicationsforeducationpolicy‐makinganddelivery,andneedtobereflectedintheshapingofbothnationalandinternationaleffortineducationaldevelopment.Thecurrentthinkingonmacrotrendsshapingeducationdevelopmentintheregionwerewelldocumentedin“TowardEFA2015andBeyond–ShapingaNewVisionforEducation”conferencepapersandpresentationsaspartofaregionalhighlevelmeetingorganizedbyUNESCOBangkokonthefutureofeducation(9‐11May2012).7Thesetrendsarehighlightedbelow:
Demographicchangeandmigration
Rapidlyageingpopulations,youthbulgesandlargemigrantpopulationsraisequestionsabouthoweducationpolicyshouldadaptforthefuture.Issuesofglobalizationversustheneedtomaintainregionalandlocalidentitiesarealsoimportantissuestoaddress.
Socio‐economictrends
The region continues to function as an engine of global growth, but performance acrosscountries remainsmixed; there are vast disparities between andwithin countries and thehighestprevalenceofextremepovertyintheworldisfoundinthisregion.Aselsewhereacrosstheglobe,theregion’sdramaticeconomicdevelopmenthasoftenledtoawideningratherthannarrowingofdisparitiesinlivingstandardsandsocialandeconomicopportunities.
6BasedontheGDPshareofWorldTotal(PPP)DataforYear2009fortheAsia‐Pacificcountries,aspertheUNESCOdefinition.MoredetailsontheGDPshareofworldtotalforspecificcountriescanbefoundathttp://www.economywatch.com/economic‐statistics/economic‐indicators/GDP_Share_of_World_Total_PPP/2009/7Seethefullpapersandreportsathttp://www.unescobkk.org/education/epr/erf/
6
In addition, as countries move to knowledge‐based, creative economies, innovation nowbecomescentraltonationalcompetitiveadvantagewithsignificantimplicationsforthekindsofworkandjobspeoplewilldo,andtheskillsthateducationshouldprovideforinthefuture.
Technologicaladvancement
Theubiquitous spreadof informationandcommunication technologyhas raisedquestionsabouttheroletechnologyshouldplaywithineducationsystems.Inparticular,thereisagreatinterestinhoweducationcanbothbenefitfromandcontributetothedigital(andlearning)societyinwhichwelive.
Climatechangeandenvironmentaldegradation
TheAsia‐Pacificregionhasbeensignificantlyaffectedbynaturaldisasters.Infact,between1974and2003,abouthalfofalldisastersworldwidetookplaceinAsiaandthePacific(EM‐DAT, 2009). In the decade 2000‐2009, 85 percent of global fatalities related to naturaldisasters occurred in the Asia‐Pacific (ADB, 2011), making it one of the most vulnerableregions to natural disaster and other environmental changes. This has highlighted theimportance of education in supporting knowledge‐based practices on prevention,preparedness andmitigation in response to thedeleterious impactsof climate changeandenvironmentaldegradation.
Enhancedintegrationandinterconnection
Bydefaultandbydesign,countriesaremoreconnectednowthaneverbeforetechnologically,environmentally,economicallyandsocially.Atthesametime,intensifyingglobalcompetitionhassparkednewconversationonhoweducationcannotonlyprovidetherequiredknowledgeand skills in amore interconnectedworld, but also reconcile and resolve conflicts. In thisregard,educationisincreasinglyseenashavingacriticalroleinstrengtheningdevelopmentandleadingsocialandeconomictransformation.
7
2. EducationSystemsinASEAN+6Countries
Thischapteranalyseseducationpolicyandmanagement frameworks, secondaryeducationandTVET, three educationpolicy areas that constitute important reformdomains inmosteducationsystemsoftheAsia‐Pacificregion.Totheextentpossible,eachofthesepolicyareasisanalysedfromacomparativeperspectiveandasetofconclusionsaredrawnasreflectionpointsforpolicymakersandpractitioners.Itishopedthatthesereflectionpointsmayguideeducationpolicymakers in theirdiscussiononpossibleareas forandapproachestopolicyreform.
2.1 EducationPolicyandManagementFrameworks
2.1.1 Introduction
Education policies can play a critical role in transforming the education landscape andoutcomes of learning. A prominent featureof the successful educational transformation inmanycountries is thatpolicyreformeffortsandprogrammesareguidedbyacleargoalorvision,andimplementedthroughacoherentplanning,managementandmonitoringprocess.Policiesandprogrammesneedtoaddressallofthecomponentsofthesysteminacoordinatedand coherent way so that changes, in turn, become mutually reinforcing and promotecontinuousimprovement.8
In this section, selected aspects of education policy and management frameworks arecomparedacrosstheeducationsystemsofASEAN+6countriesandsomeemergingtrendsareidentified.Theseaspectsinclude:levelofcommitmenttoeducationdevelopment,educationalstructure,sectormanagement,teacherpoliciesaswellassomeotherqualitydeterminants.
2.1.2 LegalandFinancialCommitmenttoEducation
Legalcommitment
AllASEAN+6countrieshaveratifiedtheConventionoftheRightsoftheChild,internationallycommittingthemselvestoprovidefreeprimaryeducationtoallchildren.Theserightshavebeen built into most national legislation, 9 which then serves as an important regulatoryinstrumentoutliningwhat,howandwhencitizensofacountryshouldexercisetheirrightstoeducation.Whilethiscommitmentissignificantachievement,fewerASEAN+6countrieshaveeither ratified or accepted the Convention against Discrimination in Education (Error!Referencesourcenotfound.).
8 SeealsoCohen&Hill(2001);Elmore(1995);Vinovskis(1996).9Anestimated90percentofallcountriesintheworldhavelegallybindingregulationsrequiringchildrentoattendschool(UNESCOInstituteforStatistics,2010).
8
Table1:CountriesthatRatified/AcceptedtheConventionagainstDiscriminationinEducation(CADE,1960)
Ratified CountriesYes Australia,BruneiDarussalam,China,Indonesia,NewZealand,PhilippinesNo Cambodia, India, Japan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Republic of Korea,
Singapore,Thailand,VietNamSource:UNESCO(2012a).
AllASEAN+6countrieshavealegalprovisionforfreeandcompulsoryeducationforatleastsomelevelsofbasiceducation,mostlyforprimaryeducation(Figure1).Theaveragedurationof free and compulsory education for the ASEAN+6 countries is 7.7 years. Among thosecountrieshaving only free and compulsoryprimary education, it should be noted that thedurationforprimaryeducation inLaoPDR,MyanmarandVietNamis5yearswhile it is6yearsinthePhilippines,theRepublicofKorea10andSingapore.Itshouldalsobenotedthatinsomecountries,uppersecondaryeducationisprovidedfreeofcharge,eventhoughitisnotcompulsory(e.g.,Malaysia,Japan).Ontheotherhand,althoughlowersecondaryeducationiscompulsoryinVietNamandtheRepublicofKorea,onlyprimaryeducationisfree.
Figure1:YearsofFreeandCompulsoryEducation
Source:CompiledbyUNESCOstaffbasedonIBEdata(2011).
Financialcommitment
Financial allocation to the education sector provides a clear indicator of governmentcommitment to education. On average, ASEAN+6 countries allocate 14.7 percent of theirgovernment expenditure on education. The share of education in the total governmentexpenditure varies across the countries (from 8.54 percent in Brunei Darussalam to 22.3percent in Thailand in 2010), but on average (among 13 countries with data available),countriesspendaconsiderableamountoftheirpublicresourcesoneducation(Figure2).
10 Secondaryeducationiscompulsoryandpartiallyfree.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
9
Figure2:PublicExpenditureonEducationasaPercentageofTotalGovernmentExpenditure,SelectedYears,2007–2010
Note:Themostrecentyearisselectedduringtheperiod2007‐2010forwhichdataisavailable.DataforMyanmaristakenfromUNESCO(2011).
Source:UIS(2012).
Relative government spending on education is clearer when the share of educationexpenditureasapercentageofGDPiscompared(Figure3).ASEAN+6countriesallocateanaverageof4percentoftheirGDPtoeducation.
Figure3:PublicExpenditureonEducationasaPercentageofGDP,SelectedYears,2007–2010
Note:Themostrecentyearisselectedduringtheperiod2007‐2010forwhichdataisavailable.DataforMyanmaristakenfromUNESCO(2011).
Source:UIS(2012).
Allocation of financial resources to education sub‐sectors reflects the relative prioritiescountriesgivetocorrespondingeducationlevels(Figure4).Forinstance,Thailandspends6.8percentofitseducationbudgetonpre‐primaryeducation(UIS,2009),whichismuchhigherthanothercountriesintheregion.Indeedinmanyothercountries,privateproviderslargelyfundpre‐primary education.High‐income countries tend to spendmoreon secondaryand
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
highereducation,whilealargeshareoftheeducationbudgetisallocatedtoprimaryeducationindevelopingcountries,possiblyduetolimitedresourcesavailableforeducation.
Figure4:ShareofEducationExpendituresbySub‐Sector(%),SelectedYears(2007‐2010)
Note:Themostrecentyearisselectedduringtheperiod2007‐2010forwhichdataisavailable.DataforMyanmaristakenfromUNESCO(2011)
Source:UIS(2012).
Formulafundingisacommonfundingmechanismineducation.Whenusedappropriately,itcanbeaneffectivemeanstoensureequityandefficiencyofresourceallocation.ManyoftheASEAN+6countriesapplyformulafunding,atleastpartially,intheallocationoffundswhilefactors and weights used in the formulae vary considerably among countries (Error!Referencesourcenotfound.).CountriessuchasAustraliaandRepublicofKoreaintegratedifferent student and school characteristics and needs into the formulae. This enables“disadvantaged schools” to receivemore financial support in amore systematic way. Forinstance,unitcostforschoolsinruralareastendstobehigherthanforthoseinurbanareassinceitemssuchasbooksandstationaryareoftenmoreexpensiveinruralareas.Similarly,students with a disability or special learning needs often require additional learning andstaffingresources.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pre‐Primary Primary Secondary Post‐Secondary Tertiary
11
Table2:DeterminationofCoreRecurrentSchoolFundingItemsfromtheLevelofGovernmentwithPrimaryFundingResponsibility,SelectedCountries11
Country
Factorstaken intoaccountintheformulaSocio‐economicstatusofthestudent/school
Loca‐tion
Size Levelofschooling(i.e.primary/secondary)
Subjects/curri‐culumoffered
Languageback‐groundofstudents
Addi‐tionalneedsofstudentswithspecialneeds
Otherstudentcharac‐teristics(i.e.ethnicity,culture)
Malaysia Australia*,# ^RepublicofKorea VietNam Notes:*thefundingformulaecandifferbetweenstatesandterritories(Australia)–theseare
thereforesummaries;#theAustralianGovernmentiscurrentlyundertakingareviewofthefundingarrangementsforschooling,includingfundingformulae;^indigenous,refugeeandcertainmigrantstudentsattractadditionalfunding.
Sources:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
Withoutappropriateadjustment,standardizedformulaecanfailtocapturesuchdifferencesand result in unequal and ineffective distribution of funds. Most of the schools havesupplementary programmes to address specific issues (e.g., students from poor families,schoolslocatedinveryremoteareas),buttheytendtobeapplication‐basedandtheamountcanfluctuate.Thiscanmakemedium‐andlong‐termplanningandmanagementattheschoolleveldifficultandmayresultinanegativeimpactonequityofaccesstoqualitylearning.
2.1.3 Startingageanddurationofcompulsoryeducation
Inthemajorityofcountrieswithdataavailable(12of16countries),formaleducationofficiallystartsattheageof6,whileintwocountries(MyanmarandNewZealand),childrenstartformaleducationattheageof5andinChinaandIndonesia,atage7(Figure5).ItshouldbenotedthatinNewZealand,5year‐oldsareenrolledinYear0,focusingonreadinessforacademiccurriculum.
11 Only ASEAN+6 countries with relevant available data are included in this table and in all subsequent tables and figures.
12
Figure5:OfficialStartingAgeofFormalEducation(NumberofASEAN+6Countries)
Source:IBE(2011),UNESCO(2007),andtheWorldBank(2012).
ManyoftheASEAN+6countrieshave12yearsofformaleducationdividedintoprimary,lowersecondaryanduppersecondarylevelswhilesomehave11yearsofeducation(Table3).
Table3:EducationSectorStructureandYearsofPrimaryandSecondaryEducation
Structure Totalyears
Countries
6+3+3 12 Cambodia, China*, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea,Thailand
6+4+2 12 Australia(or7+3+2)5+3+2+2 12 India5+4+3 12 LaoPDR,VietNam6+4+2 12 Philippines,Singapore**8+4 12 NewZealand6+3+2 11 Malaysia6+5 11 BruneiDarussalam5+4+2 11 Myanmar
Notes: * in China, some provinces apply a 5+4+3 structure; ** Singapore’s education structure iscommonlydescribedas6+4+2.Otherpathwaysconsistof6yearsofprimaryeducation,4or5yearsoflowersecondaryeducation,and1,2,or3yearsofuppersecondaryeducation.
Source:IBE(2011).
Thedetailedstructureofeducationvariesamongcountriesbutmostcountrieshave5or6yearsofprimaryeducation,followedby3or4yearsoflowersecondary,and2or3yearsofupper secondary education. 6+3+3 is themost common education structure in the region,followed by 6+4+2 system. This represents 8 of 15 countries reviewed. More years ofsecondaryeducationmayalsomeanadditionalcosts,includingforsubjectteachers,labsandequipment although funding required depends on a number of factors including teachingcurriculumandteacher‐studentratio.
In recent years, several countries have introduced structural reform to their educationsystems, amove requiring significant investment andpreparation. LaoPDR is oneof suchexampleintheASEAN+6grouping.LaoPDRintroduced5+4+3schoolsystemin2009/2010byaddingoneyeartothelowersecondarylevel.Asaresult,thenumberofstudentsatlowersecondarylevelincreasedby38percentbetween2008/2009and2009/2010.Thenumberof
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
5 Years Old 6 Years Old 7 Years Old
Number of ASEAN+6
Countries
Starting Age
13
teachingpostsandclassroomsrequiredforthe lowersecondarylevelalso increasedby36percentand18percentrespectivelybetweenthesetwoyears.Inaddition,additionalteachertraining,curriculumdevelopment,textbookrevision,schoolfacilitieswereneeded.Asaresult,theshareofgovernmentrecurrentexpenditureforlowersecondaryeducationjumpedfrom11.9percentin2008/2009to14.8percentin2009/2010,andisexpectedtosteadilyincreaseto19.9percentby2015/2016.12
Countries that are considering structural reform to education systems therefore need toconsidercarefully thepotential implicationsofreformmeasures.Considerableconfusion ispossibleduringtheperiodofreformandmitigatingnegativeeffectonstudentlearningmustbeofcentralpriority.Carefullyplannedpreparation,whichmaytakeyears,isneededbeforeintroducingnewstructurestoexistingeducationalsystems.
2.1.4 Sectormanagement
Toensurethateducationsectorprioritiesandreformsareimplementedeffectively,countriesneedtoensurebothlongandmediumtermdevelopmentplansareunderpinnedbyrealisticandthoroughfinancialplanning.Tothisend,aligningnationaleducationplanswithamulti‐yearbudgetingandexpenditureplanningprocess is important.Inpractice,however,policymakersoftenfinditchallengingtolinkeducationplanswithpublicsectorfinancialplanningandbudgetingprocesses.Thisisduetothefactthateducationplanning,financialplanningandbudgetingprocessesareeachledbydifferententitieswithineducationministries.Oftencases,education plans are not prepared based on solid financial feasibility studies and fiscalframeworks.Consequently,attemptstoimplementandsustainreformsintheeducationsectoroften achieve only limited result as governments are unable to secure adequate publicresourcesfortheeducationsector.
Amedium term expenditure framework (MTEF) in the education sector is one importantinstrument that may help address this challenge. MTEFs have been introduced in someASEAN+6countriesatvariedstagesofimplementation(Table4).
Table4:OverviewofMTEFImplementationinSelectedASEAN+6Countries
CountryRepublicofKorea Singapore
VietNam Thailand Indonesia Cambodia
YearMTEFintroduced 2005 2004 2005 2006 2004 2008
MTEFmandatedinStateBudgetLaw
Yes No No No Yes Yes
Ceilingallocationtosub‐sectorlevel
Yes No No No No No
12 TheseprojectionsaremadepossibleusingasimulationmodelcustomizedforLaoPDR(LANPROmodel).During2009‐2010,UNESCOBangkokprovidedtechnicalsupportforthepreparationofLaoPDRSecondaryEducationSubsectorActionPlan2010‐2015.
14
CountryRepublicofKorea Singapore
VietNam Thailand Indonesia Cambodia
YearMTEFintroduced 2005 2004 2005 2006 2004 2008
EffectivelinkageofMTEFtoAnnualBudget
Yes.MTFFandMTEFceilingssethardannualbudgetconstraint
Yes. MTFFandMTEFceilingssethardannualbudgetconstraint
No Notopdownsectorceilingsproducedoratleastreleased
No ceilingsnorguidingbudgetallocations
Notfullyintegratedbecausecapitalisoutsideceiling
Source:Clarke(2010).
While it isnotpossibletodeterminewhichmodalityofMTEF ismostappropriate,countrycasestudiesconductedinninecountriesinAsia13indicatethattheeffectivenessofMTEFverymuchdependsonthefollowingkeyissues:
Capacityofpolicyandfinancialstaff; Strong coordination and leadership of Ministries of Education (MOE) when
educationserviceisalsoprovidedbyotherministriesand/orlocalgovernments; StrongcoordinationbetweenMOEandMinistriesofFinance(MOF);and EffectiveintegrationwiththeannualbudgetingprocessandrespectfortheMTEF
budgetceiling.
MTEF,whendevelopedandimplementedeffectively,canimprovetherobustness,feasibility,efficiencyandeffectivenessofeducationplans.
Decentralization
MostASEAN+6countrieshavedecentralizedsomekeyfunctionsandresponsibilitiestolowerlevelsofadministration.ManypatternsorarrangementsareobservedinASEAN+6countries.School‐based management, aimed at giving schools and communities more autonomy indecision‐making,isoneexample.Anotheristhegrowthofeducationalmodelsemphasizingthevirtuesofchoiceandcompetition,eitherwithinthestatesectororthroughanexpandedrolefortheprivatesector.Inmanydevelopingcountries,low‐feeprivateschoolsareemergingasanothersourceofchoiceandcompetition,oftenoutsidegovernmentregulation.
Table5:DistributionofKeyResponsibilities Standard
‐settingPrimaryfundingsource
Budgetallocation
Teacherrecruitment
Australia Central State State StateIndonesia Central Central Central CentralJapan Central Prefecture/
MunicipalityPrefecture/Municipality
Prefecture/Municipality
RepublicofKorea
Central Central Metropolitancity/Province
Metropolitancity/Province
Myanmar Central Central Central CentralVietnam Central Central Province/District Province/District
13 ThesecasestudieswerecommissionedbyUNESCOBangkokduring2008‐2010undertheframeworkofaregionalprogrammeoneducationfinancialplanning.
15
Sources:IBE(2011)anddatacollectedbyUNESCOstaff.
Althoughdecentralizationisnotapanaceaforbettereducationsectormanagement,countrieswithcentralizededucationsystemscouldpotentiallylearnfromtheexperiencesofcountriesthathavedecentralized.Hopingtolessenthefinancialburdenonthegovernmentandimproverelevance, efficiency and effectiveness of education,many governments in the regionhaveembarkedoneducationdecentralizationreform(Table6).
Table6:KeyMilestonesofEducationDecentralizationReforminSelectedEducationSystems
China Majorfiscalreformin1994toshifttheintergovernmentalfiscalsystemfromadhoc,negotiatedtransferstoarule‐basedtaxassignment.
India 73th constitutional amendment in 1992 to put in place a localgovernment systemcalledpanchayati as the country’s third level ofgovernanceafterthecentralandstategovernments.
Indonesia Twolawswereenactedin1999:law22/1999onregionalgovernanceandlaw25/1999onthefinancialbalancebetweencentralgovernmentandtheregions
Philippines Revisedlocalgovernmentcodewasenactedin1991toconsolidateallexisting legislation on local government affairs, providing the legalframeworkforthedecentralizationprogramme
Thailand The1997ConstitutionofthecountryembraceddecentralizationCambodia Firstintroducedschool‐basedmanagement(SBM)in1998HongKong,SAR FirstintroducedSBMin1991Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOstaff.
Intheabsenceofadefinitemeasurethatpermitsonetoeasilyconcludewhetherornotthedeliveryofpubliceducationiscentralizedordecentralized,aproxymeasurecanbeusedbasedontherecruitment,employmentandpaymentofteachers.Researchonthedeterminantsofgoodqualitylearningconsistentlyshowsthatteachersarethemostimportantschoolinput(Hanushek&Rivkin,2012). Inaddition, teachersalariesareby far the largestexpenditurecategory in the basic education budget, often comprising 70 percent ormore of recurrenteducation spending. Thus, asking which level of government selects, manages and paysteachers is perhaps the best and simplest indicator of the extent to which education isdecentralized.Table7presentsanoverviewofthelevelandscopeofdecentralizationwithregardtoteachermanagementinselectedASEAN+6countries.
16
Table7:TheLocusofTeacherEmployment (Selection,Management,andPaymentofTeachers)
Notes:*onlyaccreditedschools.Source:UNESCOBangkok(2012b).
While decentralization seems to bring improved access and increased financial resourceallocatedtoeducation,insomecasestheimpactsaremixedandsomecountriesfacechallengesinimplementingdecentralization.(Table8)Withoutappropriategovernmentinterventions,decentralizationcancausemoreharmthangood.UNESCOBangkok(2012b)identifiesthreekey areas that are crucial for successful decentralization: (1) ensuringequity; (2) buildingaccountability;and(3)buildinglocalcapacity.
Table8:ChallengesinDecentralizationofBasicEducationFinancingandDeliveryfromSelectedAsianCountries
CountryUnder‐funding
Limitedlocalfiscal
capacity
Regionaldisparityinfunding
Privatefinancialburden
Rolesandresponsibilities Accountability
Localcapacity
Cambodia China Indonesia LaoPDR Nepal Pakistan Vietnam Source:UNESCOBangkok(2012b).
Publicandprivatesectorrolesinprovisionandfinancingofeducation
Havinganappropriatemixofpublicandprivatesector14involvementineducationcanbekeytoequitable,efficientandeffectiveeducationsystemmanagement.Asfaraseducationsectormanagementisconcerned,mostcountrieshaveinvolvedtheprivatesectorinthefinancingandprovisionofeducation.Privatesectorinvolvementineducationcanbefoundinavarietyofformsincluding:full‐feeprivateschools,publiclysupportedandprivatelymanagedschools(e.g., voucher programmes), community schools, private funding (fees and donations) to14The “private sector” refers in this context to non‐state or non‐public actors in education including companies, non‐governmental organizations (NGOs), faith‐based organizations, and community and philanthropic associations. It is not just the companies or firms.
Country/Government
Centralgovernment
Regionalgovernment
Localgovernment
School
Cambodia China (County)India Indonesia (District) Japan LaoPDR Malaysia Philippines Singapore *Thailand
17
publicschools,andprivatetutoring.InASEAN+6countries,mostbasiceducationispubliclyprovidedthroughgovernmentorpublicschools(Table9).However,thisdoesnotmeanthattheprivatesector(includingfamiliesandcommunities)hasnorole;infact,theprivatesectorplaysasignificantroleinmanycountries.
Table9:PercentageofStudentsEnrolledinPrivatelyManagedSchools, SelectedASEAN+6Countries
Country Primary Lowersecondary UppersecondaryCambodia 1.2 2.8 4.9China 4.2 7.2 11.5Indonesia 16.1 37.2 51.4Japan 1.1 7.1 30.8RepublicofKorea 1.3 18.3 46.5LaoPDR 2.9 2.3 1.3Malaysia 1.2 4.1 3.9Philippines 8.2 19.3 25.4Thailand 18.0 12.4 24.3VietNam … 1.2 29.7Source:UNESCOBangkok(2012b).
Inmost countries, private (household) expenditureon education is substantial and stable.Privateexpenditureoneducationincludes:schooltuition,textbooks,uniform,schoolrunningfees,andprivate tutoring.Accuratedataonprivateexpenditureoneducation isdifficult tocollectandisnotreadilyavailable.However,existinginformationsuggeststhathouseholdsbearasignificantshareofeducationcosts(Table10).Households inmostof theASEAN+6countrieswhere comparable data is available spend as high as 3 percent of their GDP oneducation.
Table10:TotalExpenditureonEducationasaPercentageofGDP,PrivateSources,AllLevels
Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Australia 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 …Japan 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 … 1.7LaoPDR … … … … 1.1 1.2 … … … … …NewZealand … … … … 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.3Philippines 2.5 2.1 2.0 1.9 … … … … … … …RepublicofKorea
… 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.7 3.1 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.2
Thailand 0.2 0.2 … … 1.9 … … … … … …India 0.2 1.6 … 1.3 1.2 1.2 … … … … …Source:UIS(2012).
Whiletheshareofprivateexpendituretendstobeloweratthebasicandsecondaryeducationlevelcomparedtothetertiaryeducationlevel,thereisanupwardtrendinprivateexpenditureatthebasicandsecondaryeducationlevel.Ontheotherhand,privateexpenditureisthemajorsourceoffundingfortertiaryeducationinmanycountries(Table11),whichhascontributedtoconsiderableexpansionoftertiaryeducation.
18
Table11:PrivateEducationExpenditureasaPercentageofTotalEducationExpenditureinSelectedAsianCountries
Country2000 2001 2002 2003
Prim&Sec
TertiaryPrim&Sec
TertiaryPrim&Sec
TertiaryPrim&Sec
Tertiary
Australia 15.2 48.1 15.6 48.7 16.1 51.3 16.3 52.0India 6.4 … 6.3 … 29.3 22.2 … …Indonesia 23.5 56.2 23.7 56.2 23.8 56.2 … …Japan 8.3 55.1 8.5 56.9 8.3 58.5 8.7 60.3RepublicofKorea
18.3 75.6 22.8 84.1 … 85.1 … 76.8
Philippines 32.1 65.6 33.2 66.9 … … … …Thailand … 19.6 … 17.5 … … … …Source:TheWorldBank(2012).
Private tutoring, while providing students with additional academic support, may also becostlytohouseholdsandmayalsowidenacademicandsocioeconomicdividebetweenfamiliesandcommunities.Privatetutoring,particularlyprevalentinEastAsiancountries,hasbecomeaglobalissue.BrayandLykins(2012)provideacomprehensiveliteraturereviewofwhatistermed“shadoweducation”(Bray,2009)inAsia,mappingthecurrentstatusoftheissueintheregion.Despite the differences in foci andmethodologies of the studies cited, the findingssuggestthatenrolmentinprivatetutoringisincreasingandsoisthefamilies’financialburden.ThistrendextendstomostofASEAN+6countries.
Thereasonsforreceivingprivatetutoringvary,butthecompetitivenatureoftheeducationprocessanda lackof trust inqualityof formaleducationareundeniablyrootcauses.Bray(2009) recommends that an appropriate diagnosis (both quantitative and qualitative) iscrucial for developing effective policy responses to shadow education. Once evidence iscollected, the governments can focus their interventions on supply issues (e.g., teachersprovidingprivatetutoring),demandissues(e.g.,competitivenatureofexaminations,limitedtransitiontohigher levelsofeducation),aswellasharnessing theexistingprivatetutoringmarket(e.g.,professionalizationofprivatetutors).
2.1.5 Teachermanagementpolicy
Teacherqualificationsandlengthofpre‐servicetraining
Attheprimaryandsecondaryeducationlevels,entrancetoteachertrainingcollegesrequiresgraduation from the 12th grade inmost ASEAN+6 countries, except in Brunei Darussalam,India,LaoPDRandMyanmar,wherestudentsarequalifiedupongraduationfromthe10thor11thgrade(Figure6).
19
Figure6:TotalNumberofYearsofSchoolingRequiredforEntrytoTeacherTraining
Source:DatacollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
Thislowerlevelrequirementcoupledwiththeshorterdurationoftheteacher‐trainingcourse(twoyearsforprimaryschoolteachersandthreetofouryearsforsecondaryschoolteachers)inthesecountriescouldnegativelyimpactuponthequalityofteaching.
In some countries, the duration of pre‐service training is four years and the entrancerequirement is completion of Grade 12,whichmeans that these teachers are likely betterqualifiedtoteachandtoachievebetterlearningoutcomesfortheirstudents.Thesecountriesinclude Singapore, Japan and the Republic of Korea, which consistently rank significantlyabovetheOECDaverageinPISArankings(OECD,2009).
Teacherstandards
Atthepointofdatacollectionforthisreport,informationonteacherstandardswaslackinginCambodia,LaoPDR,Myanmar,VietNamandIndia.Amongtheremainingelevencountries,onlyfourcountries(China,Indonesia,JapanandtheRepublicofKorea)holdnationalentranceexaminationsforteachers,whilefivecountries(Australia,Indonesia,NewZealand,PhilippinesandThailand)makeitmandatoryforteacherlicensestoberenewed.Itisalsonotedthatmostcountries have a minimum teacher standard enforced either through teacher entranceexaminations or regular licensure renewal. In the majority of ASEAN+6 countries, aprobationaryperiodofonetothreeyearshasalsobeenimplemented.
Teacherprofessionalsupport
On‐goingprofessionalsupportismostimportantfornewteachersintheirfirstfewyearsofserviceandisimportantforteacherretentionintheeducationsystem.Professionalsupportmay include studyopportunities for teachers, trainingworkshops, support from in‐serviceadvisors and inspectors, inter‐school visits, and peer consultation in teacher clusters. At arecentKEDI‐UNESCO regional policy seminar15, Cambodia, Lao PDR,Malaysia, Republic of
15 The jointKEDI‐UNESCOBangkokregionalpolicyseminar“TowardsQualityLearningforAllinAsiaandthePacific”(Seoul,28‐30July2011)isviewablehere:http://www.unescobkk.org/education/epr/epr‐partnerships/unesco‐kedi‐seminar‐2011/
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Preschool Qualification Primary Qualification Secondary Qualification
20
KoreaandVietNamreported implementingclassroomobservationaspartoftheir teacherdevelopment and management policies. According to practitioners, teacher training andsupportwithinthefirstfiveyearsofteachingintheteachers’ownclassroomenvironmentisoneofthemoreeffectivestrategiestofosterprofessionalgrowth.Moreover,intheirfirstfiveyearsofteaching,teachersbenefitfromeachyearofadditionalpracticeasthereseemstobeacorrelationbetweenyearsofexperienceandimprovedstudentlearningoutcomes.
As indicated in Table 12, policies for in‐service training and continuous professionaldevelopmentofteachersexist inmostASEAN+6countriesatall levels,except forLaoPDR,wheretrainingsessionsforsecondaryschoolteachersareorganizedonanad‐hocbasisinthecontext of donor projects. In‐service teacher upgrading centres are located in differentprovinces,butcurrentlyinstitutionalizedonlyforprimaryschoolteachers(IBE,2011).
In Australia, since most teachers are college graduates, professional developmentopportunities occur through postgraduate courses, and are usually taken part‐time. InSingapore, a Staff Training Branch was established specifically to facilitate teachers'professional development through the sharing of best practices, learning circles, actionresearchandpublications.Anetworkofteachershasalsobeensetuptoplanandorganizeteacher‐ledworkshops,seminars,conferencesandlearningcirclesaswellasdevelopingandmanagingon‐lineprogrammes inaddition to teacherwelfareprogrammesandservices. InMalaysia, in‐service programmes aremainly ‘refresher’ courses. They range from two‐ tothree‐daycoursestosixweeks,tenweeksandfourteenweeks.
While professional development opportunities have been institutionalized in the high‐performingeducationsystems,andwhiletheyarecarriedoutinarelativelyconsistentfashion,otherstakeplaceunderlessformalarrangements.
InCambodia,forexample,communityteachershavein‐servicetrainingfor16daysprovidedbytheDepartmentofEarlyChildhoodEducationintheprovinces,andliteracyteachersforparentingprogrammesreceivein‐servicetrainingforthreedaystwiceayear.InVietNam,in‐servicetrainingforsecondaryteachersfollowsthecascade‐trainingmode.Here,teachersarerequired to participate in in‐service training 30 days out of the year.Some countries have also established systems for the training of untrained teachers. InMalaysia,thethree‐yearDiplomainteachingin‐servicecourseisconductedduringtheschoolholidays.Thiscourseisspeciallydesignedtocatertothemanyuntrainedteacherswhohavebeen teaching inMalaysian schools for several years and havemissed out onmainstreamteacher training. Based on a SEAMEO‐Innotech study (2010) on teacher rewards andincentives in Southeast Asia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar and Singapore are the onlyremainingcountriesinSoutheastAsiathatdonotprovidescholarshipsasaformoftrainingdevelopmentforteachers(Table12below).
21
Table12:OverviewofTeacherManagementPolicies
Country
Qualifications (Minimum years ofstudy)/Years in School + Years in TeacherTraining
TeacherStandards
Inservicetraining
TeacherSalaryandOtherBenefits
EntranceExamination/Test
ProbationaryPeriod
LicensureRenewal/Sustaining
Pay/SalaryIncrease
Evaluationand
Rewards(i)
Preschool
Primary Secondary
Australia 12+4 No Yes Yes;5years Yes ‐ No
BruneiDarussalam ‐ 10+3 12+4 No No No Yes No ‐
Cambodia ‐ 12+1LS:12+2US:12+4 ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes ‐
China 12 12LS:12+2US:12+4 Yes No No Yes No Yes
India 10+110+1or12+1(ii) 12+4 ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes ‐
Indonesia 12+2 12+2 12+2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Japan 12+1 12+4 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
RepublicofKorea
12+2 12+4 Yes No No Yes ‐ Yes
LaoPDR ‐5(+4);8(+3);11(+1)
LS:11(+3)US:11+4
‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes ‐
Malaysia 12+3or4 No Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Myanmar ‐ 11+2 11+3 ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes ‐
NewZealand 13+3 13+4 No Yes Yes;2years Yes Yes Yes
Philippines 12+4 No No Yes;1year Yes Yes ‐
Singapore 10+2 12+2 No Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Thailand ‐ 12+2 LS:12+2US:12+4 No Yes Yes;5years Yes Yes ‐
VietNam 12LS:12+3US:12+4 ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes ‐
Notes:i:measuresforevaluationandrewardsinplace;ii:variesacrossstatesdependingonthedegreeofteachershortage.Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
22
Teachersalary,incentives,andbenefits
Almostallcountrieshaveinplaceasystemforsalaryincreases.Forsomecountries,thesalaryincreaseisbasedontheevaluationofateacher’sperformance,whileinsomeothersitisbasedon a teacher’s qualifications. In Singapore, New Zealand and China, salary increments aredetermined,tovaryingextents,byperformanceandwhetherornotestablishedprofessionalstandardsaremet.InSingapore,formalandinformalevaluationison‐goingatallschoollevelsandsalaryincreaseisrewardedthroughtheMinistryofEducation’sEnhancedPerformanceManagementSystem(EPMS)(IBE2011)
Table13:TeacherRewardsandIncentivesinSoutheastAsia
Source:AdaptedfromSEAMEO‐Innotech(2010).
TheSEAMEO‐InnotechstudyrevealsthatallASEANcountriesaredoingwellinrecognizingthe efforts of teachers and rewarding high‐performing teachers.However, fewer countriesimplement theuseof incentives such as scholarships and training for furtherprofessionaldevelopment.
2.1.6 Qualitydeterminants
Frequencyofcurriculumreform
Table14presentsasummaryof thenumberofcurriculumreformscarriedout inselectedASEAN+6countriessince1950.ExceptfortheRepublicofKoreaandIndonesia,mostcountrieshaveonlycarriedoutcurriculumreformssincethe1980s.Ofthe13countriesforwhichdataisavailable,curriculumreformsmostlyoccurredinthetwoperiodsof1995‐99and2005‐09.Theaveragenumberofcurriculumreformsinthesecountriesis3.5forthesameperiod.
Rewards/Incentives SalaryIncrease
CertificateofRecognition
Scholarships/Training
Promotion
BruneiDarussalam Yes Yes Yes YesCambodia Yes Yes Yes YesIndonesia Yes Yes Yes YesLaoPDR Yes Yes No YesMalaysia Yes Yes No YesMyanmar Yes Yes No NoPhilippines Yes Yes Yes YesSingapore Yes Yes No YesThailand Yes Yes Yes YesVietNam Yes Yes Yes Yes
23
Table14:FrequencyofCurriculumReform
TimePeriod
50‐'54
55‐'59
60‐'64
65‐'69
70‐'74
75‐'79
80‐'84
85‐'89
90‐'94
95‐'99
00‐'04
05‐'09
10‐current
Numberofreforms
Australia 4BruneiDarussalam 1
China 4
India 3
Indonesia 5
Japan 5
RepublicofKorea 8
LaoPDR 1
Malaysia 3
Myanmar 1
NewZealand 2
Philippines 3
Singapore 5Source:DatacollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
ProblemsofeducationalqualityandrelevancemanifestthemselvesindifferentwaysintheASEAN+6countries.Ingeneral,educationsystemshavebeentryingtoaddresssuchproblemsby means of introducing changes in the curriculum and its delivery. This in part can beobservedwhenonelooksatthepurposeofcurriculumreforminselectedASEAN+6countries(Table15)which tendstoreflectchanges ineducationalviewsandorientations;curricularcontent, teaching approaches and pedagogies; as well as other necessary changes incurriculum planning and implementation processes and in educational management andadministration.Itisclearthatthetaskofpursuingmeaningfulcurriculumreformisacomplexundertakingmadeevenmoresobytoday’srapidlychangingenvironment,context,aspirationsandexpectations.
Table15:EducationCurriculumReformMilestones
Country Milestones
China 1993: syllabi and twenty‐four curricula for nine‐year compulsoryprogramme1998: adjustment of primary and secondary school curriculumcontents;reducingtheoverloadandsubjectdifficulty;enablinglocallyrelevantselectionofteachingmaterials2001: implementationof curriculumstandards forbasic education;emphasizinginnovationandcreativethinking
India 1988:NationalCurriculumFrameworkforElementaryandSecondaryEducation2000:NationalCurriculumFramework;emphasizingminimumlevelsof learning,values, ICT,managementandaccountability, continuouscomprehensiveevaluationincognitive,socialandvaluedimensions.
24
Country Milestones
2005: shift in examination system from content‐based testing toproblem‐solving and competency based assessment; statesencouraged to renew their own curriculum in light of the nationalcurriculumframework
Indonesia Curriculumreform:1960s,1975,1984,1999,20061999: development of a national competency based curriculumallowing both unity and diversity; addressing overload and overlyrigidcurricula2006:applicationofschoolbasedcurriculum
LaoPDR 2007:inresponsetoexpandeddurationoflowersecondaryeducationbyoneyear
Malaysia 1983,1995,1999: content and outcome based curriculum; use ofactivitybasedandstudentcentredpedagogyapproaches;promotingcriticalandcreativethinkingskills2008:trialimplementationofnewmodularandthematiccurriculumandschoolbasedassessment2011:implementationofthestandardcurriculumforprimaryschool(SSR) in Stage/Phase I (grades 1‐3) building on the IntegratedCurriculumforPrimarySchool(KBSR)introducedinthelate1990s.
NewZealand 1992:Outcomesfocusedcurriculum2007:NewZealandCurriculum(NZC)consistingofa frameworkofkey competencies integrating essential skills, knowledge, attitudes,andvalues.
RepublicofKorea Main curriculum revisions: 1954‐1995, 1963, 1973‐1974, 1981,1987‐1988,1992‐1995,and1997‐1998Partial revisions:2006,2007and2009 (introduced fromOctober2003torespondtorapidsocialchanges).
Philippines 1982:ImplementationofNewElementarySchoolCurriculum1999: Decongesting the curriculum, leading to separate curriculumforelementaryandsecondarylevels2005/6: Implementation of Standard Curriculum for ElementaryPublicSchoolsandPrivateMadaris
Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
Qualityassurancesystem
There are generally three primary modes of quality assurance: assessment, audit andaccreditation. Their distinctions are not always clear and when used concurrently, theirfunctionsmaysometimesoverlap.Further,withinthesemodes,additionalqualityassuranceactivitiesarepracticedsuchasranking,benchmarking,theuseofperformanceindicatorsandtesting/examinations.
25
Assessment, audit and accreditation are all seen operating in theASEAN+6 countries. Thebodiesoverseeingthesetasksvarygreatly,however,dependingonthecountrycontext(Table16).Somecountries(forexampleAustralia,India,NewZealand)havedifferentagenciesfordifferentlevelsofeducationwhileothershaveacentralagencyoverseeingallofthesetasks(LaoPRD,Thailand,VietNam).
Table16:OverviewofNationalAccreditingandQualityAssuranceBodyinASEAN+6Countries
Country NameofAccreditingBody bySectorAustralia NationalQualityFrameworkforEarlyChildhoodEducationandCare ‐ ECCE
AustralianCurriculum,AssessmentandReportingAuthority‐K12AustralianUniversitiesQualityAgency‐HETertiaryEducationQualityandStandardsAgency‐HE
BruneiDarussalam
NationalAccreditationCouncil ‐ AllTechnicalandVocationalEducationCouncil‐TVET
Cambodia AccreditationCommitteeofCambodia ‐ HEChina CentralizedandDecentralizedQualityAssuranceBodies‐HEIndia NationalCouncilofTeacherEducation ‐ ECCE
NationalBoardofAccreditation‐TVETNationalAccreditationAssessmentCouncil‐HE
Indonesia NationalBoardofSchoolAccreditation(BAN) ‐ Formal,non‐formal,HENationalAccreditationBoardforHigherEducation(BAN‐PT)‐HE
Japan EmploymentandHumanResourceDevelopment‐ TVETNational Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation(Governmental)‐HEJapanUniversityAccreditationAssociation(Non‐governmental)‐HE
RepublicofKorea
Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Republic of Korea(ABEEK)‐TVETTheRepublicofKoreanCouncilforUniversityEducation‐HE
LaoPDR EducationalStandardsandQualityAssuranceCenter‐AllMalaysia StandardforQualityEducationinMalaysia(SQEMS) ‐All
NationalAccreditationBoard(LAN)‐AllMyanmar DepartmentofTechnicalandVocationalEducation(MOST)‐TVETNewZealand
Education(Playgroups)Regulations ‐ ECCENewZealandQualificationsAuthority‐AllEducationReviewOffice‐ECCE,BE
Philippines NationalEducationalTestingandResearchCentre ‐ AllTechnicalEducation‐TVETFederationofAccreditingAgenciesofthePhilippines‐HEAccreditingAgencyofCharteredCollegesandUniversitiesinthePhilippines‐HEPhilippinesAccreditingAssociationofSchools,CollegesandUniversities ‐HE
Singapore PreschoolAccreditationFramework(SPARK) ‐ ECCEInstituteofTechnicalEducation‐TVET
Thailand OfficefortheNationalStandardsandQualityAssessment‐AllVietNam GeneralDepartment forEducationalTestingandAccreditation(GDETA) ‐
AllSource:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
26
Learning/teachinghours
Thestrongassociationbetweenlearningtimeandstudentacademicperformanceiswidelyacknowledged in academic literature (OECD, 2011a).While learningmay occur inmyriadways,theamountoftimestudentsspentonactivitiesspecificallygearedtoward“deliberativelearning”isimportanttoexamine.Thisincludestheamountoftime,perweek,thatstudentsspendinregularschoolclasses,out‐of‐school‐timelessonsandindividualstudyorhomework.AstudybytheOECDontherelationshipbetweentimespentindeliberatelearningactivitiesandstudentperformanceinschool(OECD,2011)showsthatthenumberofhoursspentonlearningonlypartlyinfluencesstudentacademicperformancebutthequalityoflearningtimeisjustas,ifnotmore,importantthanthequantity.ThisisshowninTable17below.
WhilethePISAscoresforJapan,theRepublicofKoreaandHongKongSARarenot,relativelyspeaking,toodissimilar,thetotallearningtimeofstudentsintheRepublicofKoreaandHongKongSAR is5hoursmore thanthatof Japanwhereastherelative learningtime inregularlessons in Japan ishighestamong those threecountriesat74.5percent.Thissuggests thatstudentsinJapanhavereceivedbetterqualityoflearninginregularschoollessonsandthus,have arguably learntmore efficiently and effectively. This also suggests that thequalityofregularschoollessonsplayamoresignificantrolethanout‐of‐schoollearningtimeandevenindividualstudy.OftheASEAN+6countriesforwhichdataisavailable,relativelearningtimespentonregularschoollessonsappearstobehigherincountrieswithhigherstudentlearningachievementsuchasJapan,NewZealand,AustraliaandRepublicofKorea.
Table17:StudentLearningTime*,SelectedEducationSystems
Country
Regularlessons
Out‐of‐school‐timelessons
Individualstudy
Totallearning
Relativelearningtimeinregularschoollessons
(hoursper week)
Australia 11.40 1.76 4.67 17.83 66.5%
HongKongSAR 13.57 3.08 5.33 21.98 64.1%
Indonesia 10.98 3.66 5.58 20.22 56.0%
Japan 10.75 1.40 3.11 15.25 74.5%
NewZealand 12.84 1.74 4.42 19.00 69.7%
RepublicofKorea
12.76 4.74 4.93 22.43 61.4%
Thailand 10.69 2.40 5.31 18.40 62.3%
Notes:*Learningtimeiscalculatedastheaveragenumberofhoursastudentspentperweekinregularlessonsofscience,mathematicsandlanguagesubjects.
Source:OECD(2011a).
27
The lengthof learning timespenton regular school lessonsalso reflects the time teachersspend on teaching in the classroom. Not surprisingly, themore effectively teachers spendteaching time, the greater the quality of teaching. Table 18 shows the average number ofteachinghoursperweekinselectedASEAN+6countries.InShanghai,teachersteachlarger,butfewerclassescomparedtomostothersystemsforwhichdataisavailable.16TeachersinShanghaispendasignificantamountofnon‐teachingtimeonotheractivitiesknowntohavealarge impact on student learning including preparing for lessons, teacher cooperation,classroom observation and providing feedback (Grattan Institute, 2012). By contrast,Australianteachershaveonlyhalfasmuchtimeforsuchactivities.
Table18:AverageTeachingTime(HoursperWeek)
Country Average teachinghours(a)
Classsize(b)
Australia 20 23HongKong,SARChina 17† 36†RepublicofKorea 15 35Shanghai,China 10‐12* 40*Singapore ‐ 35OECDAverage 18 24Notes: (a)Publicschoolsonly. ‘Teachinghours’arehoursthata teacher teachesagrouporclassof
students;(b)Publicschoolsonly,lowersecondaryeducation*Grattan Institute interviewwith ShanghaiMunicipal Education Commission, 2011; †HongKongEducationBureau(secondary)
Source:OECD.(2011b)andGrattanInstitute(2012).
Languageineducationpolicies
TheroleofEnglishasaninternationallanguageandtheofficiallanguageofASEAN,influencessignificantlylanguagepolicyandlanguageeducationinASEAN+6countries.Thisincludesinthe relationship between English and the respective national languages of ASEAN and thechoiceof languagefor instruction.Table19providesanoverviewof language ineducationpoliciesinrelationtoofficial/nationallanguagesandstipulationoflanguagesineducationinlegaldocuments.Asshown,mostASEAN+6countriesstipulatelanguagesineducationintheirrespectiveeducationlawsandallowtheuseofnationaldominantlanguagesasthemediumofinstruction. While the colonial histories of Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Myanmar andSingaporehaveledtotheinheritedandinstitutionalroleofEnglishinschoolcurriculum,othercountries (such as Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam) also placeimportanceontheacquisitionofEnglishthroughthecurriculum.
16InShanghai,teachersteachclassesofupto40studentsfor10‐12hourseachweek.
28
Table19:LanguagePolicies
Country
Official/National
language(s)(OL/NL)
OL/NLstipulatedinthe
Constitution(Yearofadoption)
UseofNDLsstipulatedintheConstitution
Language(s)ineducation UseofNDLsas
mediaofinstruction
allowed/legal?
StipulatedintheConstitutionorLanguageAct
StipulatedinEducationLaws/Acts
Stipulatedinotherimportant
educationdocuments
Australia English No No English,Languages(OtherThan
English)
Yes Yes
BruneiDarussalam
StandardMalay,English
Malay(1959C)English(1985EA)
No ‐ Malay,English(1984EP);Arabic(EP)
‐ No
Cambodia Khmer Yes(1983) No ‐ Khmer,LLs(2007EL) ‐ YesIndonesia Indonesian Yes(1945);
(amended1999,2000,2001,2002)
Yes,(LL,Article32)
Yes,LAinprogress
Indonesian,LLs,FLs(1954EL12;1989EL2;2003EL20)
Yes Yes
Japan Japanese No No No No Yes YesROK Korean No No No No Yes YesLaoPDR Lao Yes(1991) No No Lao(2000EL) ‐ YesMalaysia Malay Yes(1957,article
152)Yes, No Malay,Chinese,Tamil,ILs
(1996EA)No Yes
Myanmar Myanmar/Burmese
Yes(1974)Yes(2008,Ch.XV‐
2)
Yes(1974)Yes(LL,2008)
Yes(1974)Burmese,LLsNo
(2008)
‐ ‐ Yes
NewZealand English No Yes(Treaty) Yes(Maori,1987) Yes ‐ YesPhilippines Filipino,English Filipino(1987) Yes(LL) Yes(1987),
English,Filipino(OL)
English,Filipino(OL),Arabic(1987)
English,Filipino(OL),Arabic,otherLLs
Yes
Singapore Malay(NL)English,Chinese,
Tamil
Yes(1965,PartXIII,Section153A)
Yes Yes(C,1965) N.A English(asworking
language),otherOLs
Yes
Thailand Thai No(1997)No(2007)
No(1997)No(2007)
No No Yes Yes
VietNam Vietnamese No(1992)* Yes(1992) Yes,Vietnamese,LLs
Vietnamese,LLs(2005,EL,Article7)
Vietnamese,LLs(several
documents)
Yes
Notes:LL:Locallanguage;NDL:Nondominantlanguage;RL:Regionallanguage;FL:Foreignlanguage;IL:Indigenouslanguage;NL:nationallanguage;OL:Officiallanguage;LoI:LanguageofInstruction;Aux:Auxiliarylanguage;C:Constitution;EA:EducationAct;EL:EducationLaw;EP:EducationPolicy;LA:LanguageAct*:EarlierConstitution,however,stipulateVietnameseastheofficiallanguage
Source:SEAMEO(2009);additionaldataiscollectedbyUNESCOstafffromdifferentsources.
29
2.1.7 Conclusion
Reflectingonthegreatdiversityof theAsia‐Pacificregionandthe legislations,policiesandeducationmanagementsystemsinplace,itisclearthatgreatvariationoccursacrossASEAN+6countries.Despitethis,somecommontrendscanalsobeidentified:
(i) ExpansionofcompulsoryeducationtoincludeatleastlowersecondaryeducationMany of the ASEAN+6 countries have achieved or have almost achieved universalprimaryeducationwhilecompulsoryeducationnowalsocommonlycoverssecondaryeducation, at least at the lower secondary level. This is the case for all high‐incomecountriesandmostmiddle‐incomecountries.Andasaccesstoeducationcontinuestoimproveinlower‐incomecountries,thistrendissettocontinue.Thisofcourserequirescarefulplanningofresourcessoastoensurecountriescanexpandaccesstoeducationwithoutcompromisingthequalityoftheeducationprovided.
(ii) ShifttomoredecentralizedmanagementMostcountriesreviewedaremovingtowardamoredecentralizedsystemofeducationmanagement.This includestransferenceofsomeofthekeyeducationresponsibilities(e.g., teachermanagement, curriculumdevelopment,and financing) to lower levelsofadministration.Responsibilityforstandardsettingiscentralizedinallcountries,whilehighperformingeducationsystemstendtogivemoremanagementresponsibilitiestothe subnational level. Teacher management also seems rather centralized in mostcountries, regardless of howadvanced the education systemmaybe. Some countriesapplyflexibilityat localorevenschool level,yetwithcentralgovernmentcontrolandregulations.Giventhevariedimpactsofdecentralization,carefulconsiderationofsystemcapacityisneededbeforeembarkingupondecentralizationreform.
(iii) Considerableprivateexpenditureoneducation,includingshadoweducationStrongcommitmenttoeducationiscommonacrossASEAN+6countries,includingfromfamilies willing their children succeed academically.While governments can rely onhouseholdstocontributefinanciallywheregovernmentfundingfallsshort,thismayalsohaveserious implicationsforequity.It is importantthatgovernmentsworktoensurethatstudentsfrompoorhouseholdscanalsoenjoythesamelearningopportunitiesastheirpeersfrommoreaffluentfamilies.Experiencesofbothsuccessfulandunsuccessfultargetedpro‐poorpoliciesprovideusefullessonsthatmayhelpinformpolicymakinginthefuture.
(iv) Financingisimportant,butnottheonlyfactorbehindeducationalperformanceGovernment expenditure on education varies significantly across countries underreview: 8.5 percent in Brunei Darussalam vs. 22.3 percent in Thailand (2010) as apercentageoftotalbudgetand2.7percentinCambodiavs.7.6percentinNewZealandasapercentageofGNP.HighperformingsystemsappeartospendmoreoneducationasapercentageofGNP(ratherthanasapercentageofgovernmenttotalexpenditure),butalso have sound policies in place concerning teacher quality and remuneration, thefrequency of curriculum updates/reform, quality assurance systems, quantity andqualityofteachingandlearningtimeandlanguageofinstruction.
30
(v) Largerclasssizewithteachersteachinglesshoursinhigh‐performingcountriesWhile large class sizes may have traditionally been an indicator of poor qualityeducation, largeclasssizes inAsiancountriesperformingwell inPISAmayleadustoquestionthisassumption.Instead,theirexamplesdemonstratethatitisperhapsmoreimportant that teachers spend sufficient time on preparation, collaboration, andreflection,areaswhichhaveaprovenimpactonlearning.Thesefindingsarerelativelynew and are not conclusive. Further research is needed to support countries todeterminethebestbalancebetweenclasssizeandteachingloads.
(vi) Curriculumreformspromotingnon‐cognitiveandhigher‐orderskills,asmuchasacademiccontentsOverloadedcurriculumandaheavyfocusonacademicknowledgehavebeenfeaturesofmany ASEAN+6 countries and various curriculum reforms have been carried out topromote the acquisition of non‐cognitive and higher‐order skills or transversalcompetenciessuchasinnovation,creativityandcommunication.Thisisparticularlythecaseforhighincomeandhigh‐performingPISAcountriesbutisalsothecaseformiddle‐income countries. While this trend is expected to continue, some countries facechallenges in integrating what may be termed ‘transversal competencies’ or ‘non‐cognitiveskills’incurriculumpedagogyandassessment.Tothisend,itwillbenecessarytocompilecountryexperiencesanddrawlessons.
(vii) Improvingteacherperformancethroughresult‐basedevaluationforteachersEffortstoimproveteacherperformancehavebeenmadeinsomeASEAN+6countries.One particular trend involves linking teacher salaries to performance vis‐à‐vis pre‐determinedstandards.Aspublicfundingcontinuestocomeunderpressureinatimeofeconomicdownturn,thistrendisexpectedtonotonlycontinuebutalsoexpandtoothercountriesintheregion.Furtherresearchontheimplementationofexistingpolicieswillbeusefulforthosecountriesplanningtointroducesimilarreforms.
(viii)ThecentralityofEnglishpresentsimportantimplicationsforlanguagepolicyGivenitsstatusastheofficiallanguageofASEAN,EnglishintheclassroomhasbeenontheincreaseinmanyASEANmembercountries.Thispresentsimportantimplicationsforlanguagepolicyandlanguageeducation,includingthechoiceofEnglishasaforeignorsecond language, the choice of language for instruction, teaching curriculum and thestipulationthroughpolicyoflanguagesineducation.NearlyallcountriesreviewedallowtheuseofNon‐DominantLanguages (NDL)asmediumsof instruction (exceptBruneiDarussalam),howevernotallcountriesexplicitlymentionNDLsintheirConstitution.
2.2 SecondaryEducation
2.2.1 Introduction
Asmanycountrieshaveachievedorareachievinguniversalizationofprimaryeducation,theexpansion of secondary education has naturally become a policy priority. Yet secondaryeducation across countries is both uniform and diverse, it is terminal and preparatory,compulsoryinsomecasesandpost‐compulsory.Itisthusunderstandablyanareaof“policyparadox” (WB, 2005, p.14). Many countries are facing challenges in designing andimplementingneededpolicies forsecondaryeducation inanumberofkeyareas.Themostpertinentareasandthosewhichhavesparkedthegreatestfocusinclude:1)differentsystems
31
in terms of pathways to secondary education (including both formal and non‐formal/alternativepathways),2)relevanceandcontentofcurriculaatbothloweranduppersecondary levels,3) teachers, including theirqualifications, recruitmentandremuneration,and4) issuessurrounding learningassessment.The followingsectionoffersacomparativeanalysisofthesecentralissues.
2.2.2 Formalpathwaystoeducation
AcrossASEAN+6 countries, there are various pathways to secondary education offered. InSingapore,students in the top10percentof theprimaryschool leavingexamcanattendaspecialcourseforsecondaryschool.Otherstudentstakeeithertheexpresscourseornormalcoursedependingontheiracademicachievement.Similarly,inBruneiDarussalam,differenttracks exist for more‐academically and less‐academically inclined students. In Japan,secondary school students can choose to attend full‐time, part‐time, or correspondencecourses.InMalaysia,studentsfromChinese‐andTamil‐mediumprimaryschoolswhodonotdemonstratesufficientmasteryoftheBahasaMelayulanguagearerequiredtotakeoneextrayear in a transition class before entering lower secondary school in order to acquireproficiency,sincethisisthemediumofinstructioninsecondaryschools(IBE,2011).
Inadditiontogeneraleducation,manyASEAN+6countriesalsoofferstudentstheoptionofattending technical and/or vocational schools. However, each country has differentrequirementsdeterminingadmissiontotheseschools.Inthemajorityofcountries,studentsarerequiredtocompletelowersecondaryschoolingbeforeenrollingintechnicalorvocationalprogrammes.Asmallernumberofcountriesallowstudentstoenrolintechnicalorvocationalprogrammesdirectlyafter completingprimary school. In IndonesiaandMalaysia, studentswho wish to enrol at the upper secondary level have the option of enrolling in religious(Islamic)schoolsinadditiontogeneralortechnical/vocationalschools(IBE,2011).
Table20:CountryRequirementsforEnteringaTechnicalorVocationalProgrammeCompletionofPrimarySchool China,LaoPDR,Philippines,Singapore
CompletionofLowerSecondarySchool Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia,India, Indonesia, Japan, Myanmar, NewZealand, Philippines, Republic of Korea,Thailand,VietNam
Source:IBE(2011).
Alternative(non‐formal)pathwaystoeducation
Inordertoextendeducationtoallchildren,manycountriesintheASEAN+6grouphavemadeattemptstoimproveandexpandthealternativeeducationsystem.Alternativeeducation,ornon‐formaleducation,providesotheravenuesforthosewhomaybeexcludedfromtheformalschoolsystemonthebasisofgender,ethnicity,poverty,geographical location,or forotherreasons.Alternativeeducationhasbeenrecognizedasanimportantstepinprovidingaccesstoeducationforall,assistingintheeffortstoreachtheEFAgoalsby2015.Varioustypesofalternative education exist in the ASEAN+6 countries, including Equivalency Programmes(EPs)andCommunityLearningCentres(CLCs)(Table21).
32
Table21:AlternativePathwaystoEducation,SelectedCountries Duration Coresubjects Certification
Formal Alter‐native
Cambodia(AcceleratedLearningProgramme)
6 3 Nationalcurriculum NA
India(OpenBasicEducationProgramme)
5 Upto5 Academicandvocationalsubjects
CompletionofexaminationbyNationalInstituteofOpenSchooling(NIOS)(2times/year)CertificateequivalenttoFormalEducation
Indonesia(PacketA)
6 2 1.Morale‐buildingandacademicallyorientedsubjects,2.Lifeskillsorientedsubjects
ExaminationCertificateissuedbytheGovernment
Myanmar(Non‐FormalPrimaryEducation)
5 2 Burmese,English,Mathematics,andGeneralStudies
AssessattendanceandachievementtestsCertificateissuedbyMOE
Philippines(ALS)
6 10monthsor800hours
1.Communicationskills,2.Problem‐solvingandcriticalthinking3.Sustainableuseofresources/productivity4.Developmentofselfandasenseofcommunity5.Expandingone'sworldvision
Nationalaccreditation
Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
33
Table22:KeyMilestonesinAlternativeSecondaryEducationinSelectedCountriesIndia Since 2002, the Government has recognized theOpen Basic Programme
(OBE). OBE graduates qualify for entry into higher education andemployment.
Indonesia In1970,governmentbeganpromotingequivalencyeducation.TheActoftheRepublicofIndonesiaNo.20in2003supportedreforminnon‐formaleducation.
Myanmar TheEducationforAllNationalActionPlan,adoptedin2003,highlightstheneedtoexpandnon‐formaleducationprogrammestoachievebasicqualityeducationforallcitizens.
Philippines In1977,theGovernmentinstitutionalizednon‐formaleducation.Thailand Equivalency programmes began in 1940. The National Education Act,
Article10in1999,statedthatallpeopleshallhaveequalrightstoeducation,re‐confirmingthecountry’scommitmenttoalternativeeducation.
Sources:UNESCO (2006),UNESCO (2010a),UNESCO(2012c), andMyanmarMinistryofEducation(2012).
Table23illustratesvariouschallengestoimprovingalternativeeducationintheregion.Table23:MajorChallengestoAlternativeEducationinSelectedCountries
CountryLimitedstaffcapacity
Under‐funding
Lowpublicawareness
Shortageofclassmaterials
Problemsinmonitoring/evaluation
Lackofrelevant/qualitylearning
Notreachingmarginalizedcommunities
Cambodia India Indonesia LaoPDR Myanmar Philippines Thailand VietNam Sources:PhilippinesMinistryofEducation(2008),UNESCO(2006),UNESCO(2010a),andUNESCO
(2011a).
2.2.3 Curriculumatthesecondarylevel
Relevanceofcurriculum
Arelevantcurriculumisanecessarypre‐requisitefortheprovisionofqualityeducationatanylevel of education.Many governments, in their national curricula for secondary education,explicitly state that the curriculum should have relevance for students entering highereducationorthe labourmarket,byequippingtheirstudentswithsufficientknowledge, lifeskills and/or practical skills. Table 24 below provides examples of curricular aims fromselectedcountries.Whilegovernmentsgenerallyaimtodevelopacurriculumthatmeetstheneedsofthecountryanditspeople,manydonothavesufficienthumanandfinancialresourcestomakethisareality.
34
Table24:ExamplesofCurricularAimsfromSelectedCountriesAustralia The Australian Curriculum will equip all young Australians with the
essential skills, knowledge and capabilities to thrive and compete in aglobalisedworldandinformationrichworkplacesofthecurrentcentury.
BruneiDarussalam
The new SPN 21 education plan takes into consideration key aspects ofquality education for nation building andhuman capital development. Itaims to achieve quality education through the provision of a balancedcurriculum benchmarked against creditable quality assurance orassessmentsystemsofinternationalstandards.
Cambodia The aim of the school curriculum is to develop fully the talents andcapacities of all students in order that they become able people, withparallelandbalancedintellectual,spiritual,mentalandphysicalgrowthanddevelopment.
China Theschool curriculum serves the aims of basic education, as defined inthe2001 State CouncilResolutionon the Reform andDevelopmentofBasicEducation:
Enablingthedevelopmentofanew,well‐educated,idealistic,moralandpatrioticgenerationwith alovefor socialism, andwhowillinheritfinetraditionsoftheChinesenation
Developan awareness of socialist democracy andlawas well asrespectforstatelawsandsocialnorms
Developappropriateworldoutlook,lifeoutlookandvalues Developasenseofsocialresponsibility Developaninnovativespirit, practical skills, aknowledgebasein
sciences andhumanities, andan awareness of environmentalprotectionissues
Develop good physical health and psychological qualities, healthyaestheticaltastesandlifestyles.
Japan In Japan, the standard nationwide curriculum known as the ‘Course ofStudy’,aimstostrengthentheteachingofbasicandfundamentalcontentsand to develop education considering individual student needs andabilities.
NewZealand TheNewZealandCurriculumaims to contribute toall studentshavingastrong foundation for learning,high levelsofachievement, anda lifelongengagementinlearning.
ThePhilippines
Thesecondaryeducationcurriculumaims to raise thequalityofFilipinostudents andempower them for lifelong learningbyattaining functionalliteracy.
Singapore Singapore’s national curriculum aims to nurture each child to his fullpotential,todiscoverhistalentsandtodevelopinhimapassionforlife‐longlearning.Studentsgothroughabroadrangeofexperiencestodeveloptheskillsandvaluesthattheywillneedforlife.
Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
Regular reviewprocesses ensure that the national curriculum remains relevant in light ofchangessuchaslocaldevelopmentsandglobaltrends.CountriesthathavescheduledreviewcyclesincludeJapan,SingaporeandVietNam.InJapan,‘CoursesofStudy’arereviewedeverytenyearsorso.InSingapore,thecurriculumplanningandreviewprocessissixyears,witha
35
mid‐termreviewattheendofthethirdyear,whileinVietNam,theGovernmenthasplanstoreviewthecurriculumregularlyevery5‐10years.Forothercountries,curriculumreviewsappeartotakeplaceonanadhocbasis,usuallydrivenbyexternalfactorsoremergingissues.Whiletheperceptionofwhatarelevantcurriculumactuallyentailsmaydiffer,feedbackfrominstitutesofhighereducationoremployerswhotakeinworkerswithsecondaryeducationqualificationscanproveuseful.Forexample,employersinCambodiareportthatitisdifficulttofindprofessionalstaffwithstronganalyticalanddecision‐makingskills,whileemployersinMalaysia say that secondary graduates lack many "21st century skills” includingcommunicationskills,teamworkandEnglishlanguageskills.
Contentofcurriculum
Whilemostcountrieshaveadetailednationalcurriculumframeworkspecifyingsubjectstobestudied,othersonlyhaveabroadframeworkwithgenerallearningareasfordistricts/statesto implement based on local needs and priorities. Of the countries with detailed nationalcurriculumframeworks,onlyafewincludeacomponentfor‘localcontent’.Theinclusionof‘local content’ within an otherwise structured framework allows for flexibility andcustomizationfortheteachingofrelevantlocalknowledge/skills.Theserespectivecategories,andthecountriesthatfallwithinthem,areseeninTable25below.
Table25:ContentsofNationalCurriculumFrameworkCountrieswithdetailednationalcurriculumframework,withouta‘localcontent’component
BruneiDarussalamJapanLaoPDRMalaysiaMyanmarRepublicofKoreaSingaporeThailandVietNam
Countrieswithdetailednationalcurriculum,includinga‘localcontent’component
CambodiaChinaIndonesiaPhilippines
Countrieswithbroadnationalcurriculumframeworks*
AustraliaIndiaNewZealand
Notes:*Districts/StatesarefreetoimplementattheirdiscretionbasedonguidelinesSource:IBE(2011).
Ingeneral, lowersecondaryeducationcurriculumconsolidateswhathasbeenlearntattheprimarylevelwhilealsointroducingfoundationalcontentinpreparationforuppersecondaryeducation.Assuch,mostcountrieswithdetailednationalcurriculahaveasetofprescribedsubjectsforstudentsatthislevel.Uppersecondaryeducationthenfocusesmoreheavilyonpreparingstudentsforeitherthenextlevelofeducationorfortheworkplace.Atthisstage,there is variation between countries regarding student choice in areas of study. ThisinformationispresentedinTable26below.
36
Table26:AvailabilityofOptiontoChooseSubjectsforStudyatLowerandSecondaryLevelsCountry LowerSecondary UpperSecondary
BruneiDarussalam Optionsavailable OptionsavailableCambodia Prescribedsubjectsonly OptionsavailableChina Prescribedsubjectsonly PrescribedsubjectsonlyIndonesia Prescribedsubjectsonly OptionsavailableJapan Prescribedsubjectsonly OptionsavailableLaoPDR Prescribedsubjectsonly PrescribedsubjectsonlyMalaysia Prescribedsubjectsonly OptionsavailableMyanmar Prescribedsubjectsonly OptionsavailablePhilippines Prescribedsubjectsonly PrescribedsubjectsonlyRepublicofKorea Optionsavailable OptionsavailableSingapore Prescribedsubjectsonly OptionsavailableThailand Prescribedsubjectsonly OptionsavailableVietNam Prescribedsubjectsonly PrescribedsubjectsonlySource:IBE(2011).
Thesubjects taughtat lowersecondary inthecountriesstudiedarerathersimilar,withallcountriescoveringat leasttwolanguages,mathematics,science,socialscienceandphysicaleducation.Mostcountrieshaveart/music,civics/moraleducationandtechnology,whileonlysomeincludereligiousstudiesintheirlowersecondarycurriculum.Table27belowshowsthegeneralsubjectareastaughtatthelowersecondarylevelacrossthevariouscountries.
Table27:MappingofContentAreasTaughtatLowerSecondaryLevel
Country 1stLanguage
2ndLang
Math
Science
Social
Science
PhysicalEd
Art/Music
Civics/
Moral
Technology
Religion
Australia English BruneiDarussalam Malay Cambodia Khmer China Chinese India Various Indonesia BahasaIndonesian Japan Japanese LaoPDR Lao Malaysia Malay Myanmar Myanmar NewZealand English Philippines Tagalog RepublicofKorea Korean Singapore English Thailand Thai VietNam Vietnamese
Source:IBE(2011).
Forupper secondary, the contentof the curriculumdiffers greatlybothamongandwithincountriesdependingontheeducationaltrackandchoicesofstudents.Somecountriesstreamtheir students according to academic ability (i.e. BruneiDarussalamandSingapore),whileothersprovideelectivestosuittheirstudents’needs.China,JapanandRepublicofKoreahave
37
acredit/unitsystemthatallowsgreaterflexibilityforstudentswhocanexercisechoicebasedontheirstrengthsandinterests.
2.2.4 Secondaryteachers
Teacherqualifications
Concern about the quality of secondary teaching is common across all education systems,includinghighperformingsystems.Butjustasconcernforqualityteachingisnatural,sotooistheroleofteachersundeniablycritical.Whatremainsdifficultisdefiningandmeasuringthecharacteristicsandcontributionsofa‘qualityteacher’(Gannicott,2009).
From a comparative perspective, it is interesting to examine the minimum qualificationsrequiredtobecomeeitheraloweroruppersecondaryteacherintheselectedcountries.Eightcountries in the ASEAN+6 group require only an ISCED17level 4 qualification in order tobecomealowersecondaryteacher,asillustratedinTable12ofthisreport.Eightcountries,includingOECDcountriesoftheregion,requireatertiary‐level(ISCED5)qualification,whichinmostcasesisobtainedthroughafour‐yeardegree.TheonlyexceptionisLaoPDR,whichrequiresthesamequalificationfor lowersecondaryteachers(11yearsof formalschoolingplus3yearsofpre‐serviceteachertraining).
Inadditiontoformalschoolingrequirementsandpre‐serviceteachertrainingqualifications,it is interesting tonoteadditional requirementsneededbeforeasecondary teachercanbeconsidered qualified. This is all the more important given that teacher educationalqualificationsalonedonotleadtoimprovedstudentlearning,despitetheattemptsofmanycountries in the region to increase educational requirements. For example, research byMcKinsey and Co. (2007) highlights the importance of attracting the right applicants intoteaching,includingattractingthetopcohortofsecondarygraduatesintoteachingand/orbylimitingenrolmentinteachertrainingtothosewithgenuineaptitudeormotivationtoteach.TheexperiencesofJapan,theRepublicofKoreaandSingaporearehighlyrelevant.(SeeTable28.)
Table28:AdditionalAspectsofTeacherQualificationinSelectedCountriesJapan Prefectural education boards conduct a teacher appointment
examination for certified teacher candidates every year. Thisexamination includes written tests in general education subjects,professional subjects and teaching subjects as well as interviews,essaytestsandpracticaltestsinphysicaleducation,finearts,foreignlanguages,etc.Theboardsappointnewteachersonthebasisoftheirresultsinexaminationsaswellastheirperformanceatuniversityandtheirsocialexperience(Maruyama,H.,2011)
RepublicofKorea Candidates for secondary teaching positions must pass anemploymentexamination(Kim,E.,Kim,J.andHan,Y.,2009)
17TheInternationalStandardClassificationofEducationisdevelopedandupdatedbyUNESCOtoserveasaninstrumentforassembling,compilingandpresentingstatisticsineducationbothwithinindividualcountriesandinternationally.
38
Singapore Beforebeingallowedtoenrol inteachers’college,applicantsmustbeinthetop30percentoftheiragecohortacademically(McKinseyandCo., 2007). Upon completion of the teacher training course,candidatesforsecondarylevelteachingpositionsareshortlistedforinterview. Interviewersseek to learnmoreabout theirpassion forteaching,theirabilitytocommunicatewellwithothers,theircreativeand innovative spirit, confidence, leadership qualities and theirpotentialtobeagoodrolemodel(TanandWong,2007).
Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
Teacherrecruitment
Whiletherearemanyissuestoconsiderinregardtotherecruitmentofsecondaryteachers,one key concern regards the level at which responsibility for recruitment is given. Mostcountriesintheregionhavedelegatedthisresponsibilitytothelocal(e.g.provincial,districtormunicipal)level,whilesome,includingthePhilippineshavegonesofarastomakethisafunctionofschools.Therearestillafewcountriesintheregion(Cambodia,China,Malaysia,Myanmar and Singapore) thatmaintainmanagement of teacher recruitment at the centrallevel. While there is no ‘right’ approach in the institutional arrangements for secondaryteacher recruitment, governmentsmaywish tonote the trend towardsdecentralization inteacherrecruitmentandmay learn fromtheexperiencesofothercountries.AsummaryofwhereresponsibilityforsecondaryteacherrecruitmentliesintheregionisgiveninTable29below.
Table29:LevelofResponsibilityforRecruitmentofSecondaryTeachersCentral/nationallevel
Cambodia (Department of Teacher Training within the Ministry ofEducation,YouthandSports’DirectorateGeneralofHigherEducation)
Malaysia (Human Resources Department within the Ministry ofEducation)
Myanmar(DepartmentofEducationPlanningandTrainingwithin theMinistryofEducation)
Singapore (Human Resource Solutions and Capabilities Division,MinistryofEducation)
Central/nationalorlocallevel
China(StateEducationCommissionatthenationallevel.Teachersrecruitedthiswayareconsideredcivilservants.However,thereisalsoaprocessoflocalrecruitmentforteacherspaidbythelocalcommunity.)
Local(e.g.provincial/district)level
Indonesia(EducationalDistrictOffices) Japan (Prefectural Boards of Education and Municipal EducationCommittees)
LaoPDR(ProvincialEducationServices) RepublicofKorea(ProvincialandMunicipalOfficesofEducation) Thailand(EducationServiceAreas’Sub‐commissionsforTeachersandEducationalPersonnel)
Viet Nam (Personnel Divisions at district level for lower secondaryeducationandprovinciallevelforuppersecondaryeducation)
39
Schoollevel Philippines (Schoolselectioncommitteesmust forwardapplicationstothe Schools Division Offices’ Selection Committees for preliminaryevaluation of applications. Schools Division Offices also managedeploymentandmanagement.)
Localand/orschoollevel
Australia(viaIndependentPublicSchools/SchoolSelectedpolicy)
Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
Teacherremuneration
While a good salary is not necessarily the main motivation for prospective teachers,remunerationisanimportantfactorinrecruitingandretainingskilledpersonnel.Despitethedifficulty in accurately estimating average teacher remunerationwithin countries and thechallengeofmakingcomparisonsbetweencountries,onesuitable(thoughimperfect)measureinvolvesexpressingaverageteachersalariesasaproportionofGDPpercapita.Suchameasureallowsustocompareteacherremunerationwithaverage incomesinthecountry.Table30illustratessecondaryteachers’averageannualsalariesatthedifferentpointsintheircareerasaproportionofGDPpercapitainselectedASEAN+6countries.
Table30:SecondaryTeachers’AverageAnnualSalariesinPublicInstitutionsinSelectAsia‐PacificCountriesasaPercentageofGDPPerCapita
Country Year
Lowersecondaryteachers Uppersecondaryteachers
StartingAfter15yearsof
experience
Topofscale
StartingAfter15yearsof
experience
Topofscale
Australia 2009 97 135 135 97 135 135Cambodia 2003 64 77 86 91 77 123Indonesia 2009 38 52 56 45 58 63Japan 2009 80 140 178 80 140 182LaoPDR 2002 53 58 65 54 59 …Malaysia 2006 105 184 279 105 164 279NewZealand
2009 70 135 135 70 135 135
Philippines 2009 157 173 186 157 173 186RepublicofKorea
2009 122 211 338 122 211 338
Thailand 2006 91 177 299 91 177 299Source:UIS(2011),andUNESCOBangkok(2009).
Thesefiguresshowthatthereareanumberofcountriesinwhichthesalaryofbothlowerandupper secondary teachers is considerably lower thanGDPper capita, including Cambodia,IndonesiaandLaoPDR.Attheotherendofthespectrum,therearecountriesinwhichteaching(atbothloweranduppersecondarylevels)isarelativelywell‐paidprofession,withaveragesalaries in public institutions being considerably higher than GDP per capita, such as inAustralia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea and Thailand. It is alsointerestingtoanalyseannualsalarygrowth,asshownforlowersecondaryteachersinFigure7.
40
Figure7:LowerSecondaryTeachers’AnnualSalariesinPublicInstitutionsasaPercentageofGDPPerCapita
Source:UISGlobalEducationDigest(2011).
Thisshowsthatrelativelylow‐payingcountriessuchasCambodia,IndonesiaandLaoPDRdonotoffermuchbywayofsalaryincreaseandprogressionforlowersecondaryteachers.Ontheotherhand,thetrajectoryofsalaryprogressionisquitesteepincountriessuchastheMalaysia,Republic ofKorea andThailand. In theRepublic ofKorea, for example, a lower secondaryteacheratthetopofthesalaryscalemayearn177percentmorethanonejuststartingintheprofession.WhilethestartingsalarymightactuallybesomewhatlowerthanGDPpercapitainAustralia,Japan,NewZealandandThailandtheprofessionbecomesrelativelywellpaidafter15yearsofserviceandcertainlyattheupperendofthepayscale.18Figure8showssimilarpatternswhenitcomestouppersecondaryteachersintheregion.Itmaybeofinterestforcountriestotakestockofthevarianceintheremunerationofbothloweranduppersecondaryteachersacrosstheregionandthedifferentpatternsofsalaryprogression.
Figure8:UpperSecondaryTeachers’AnnualSalariesinPublicInstitutionsasaPercentageofGDPPerCapita
Source:UISGlobalEducationDigest(2011).
18 Itisnotclear,however,howmanyyearsitmaytaketomakeittothetopendinseveralcountries.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Starting After 15 years of experience Top of scale
Australia Cambodia Indonesia JapanLao PDR Malaysia NZ PhilippinesRep. of Korea Thailand
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Starting After 15 years of experience Top of scale
Australia Cambodia Indonesia Japan Lao PDR
Malaysia NZ Philippines Rep. of Korea Thailand
41
2.2.5 Studentassessmentatthesecondarylevel
Policiesandmechanismsforstudentassessment
Studentassessmentisanintegralpartoftheeducationprocessasitprovidesinformationonthequalityofthelearningprocess.Althoughtherearemanymodalitiestocarryoutstudentassessment, only examinations feature prominently in the education policy documents ofASEAN+6 countries. According toHill (2010), the purposes of examinations are threefold:selection,certificationandaccountability.
Withregardstoselectionandcertification,thereisamixofexaminationapproachesforentrytolowersecondaryanduppersecondaryaswellasforcompletionoflowersecondary.Somecountries use the same exam for both the purposes of certification and selection (such asMalaysia),whileseparateexamsservedifferingpurposesinothercountries(suchasJapan).All countrieshaveexaminations for either completionofupper secondaryand/or entry toinstitutes of higher education. Table 31 showswhether examinations are required in theASEAN+6 countries for: 1) entry into lower secondary, 2) completion of lowersecondary/entry to upper secondary, and 3) completion of upper secondary/entry to aninstituteofhighereducation.
Table31:TheUseofExaminationsforthePurposesofSelectionandCertificationinASEAN+6Countries
Country EntrytoLowerSec
CompletionofLowerSec/EntrytoUpperSec
CompletionofUpperSec/EntrytoHigherEd
Australia BruneiDarussalam
Cambodia China India Indonesia Japan Some LaoPDR Malaysia Myanmar NewZealand Philippines RepublicofKorea Singapore Thailand VietNam Some
Source:DatacollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
With regard to accountability, all countries that administer national examinations couldarguablyusedatacollected fromtheseexaminations to informpolicymakinganddecisionmakinginanumberofareas.Yet,itisdifficulttoestablishclearevidencethatexamsareusedeffectively for this purpose within education systems. Other than national examinations,countries may also carry out other forms of assessment specifically designed to provideinformation about the quality of their education system. Of the countries involved in this
42
analysis,Australia,JapanandtheRepublicofKoreahaveestablishednation‐widesystemsofassessment.DetailsoftheseassessmentsaregiveninTable32.
Table32:DetailsofAssessmentsUsedforAccountabilityAustralia The National Assessment Programme – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN)
testsareconductedforallstudentsinYears3,5,7and9.Allstudentsinthesameyearlevelareassessedonthesametestitemsintheassessmentdomainsofreading,writinglanguageconventionsandnumeracy.
Japan TheNationalAssessmentofAcademicAbilityforgrade6elementarystudentsandgrade3juniorhighstudentswascarriedoutfrom2007forthepurposeofmeasuringstudents’learningoutcomes.Itanalysestheacademicabilitiesandlearning patterns of schoolchildren throughout Japan and investigates theoutcomesofeducationalpoliciesandprogrammes,identifiesissuesrequiringattention,andachievesimprovementstherein.
RepublicofKorea The National Assessment of Educational Achievement (NAEA) wasimplementedin2000toassessKoreanlanguage,mathematics,science,socialstudies, English communication skills, and information technology skills.Startingfrom2008,theNAEAwascarriedoutnationwide.ThepurposesoftheNAEA are to diagnose educational achievements at all levels of schooling,analyse student educational achievement trends, and gather fundamentalreferencedatatoimprovetheNationalCurriculum.Inaddition,theNAEAaimsto improve teaching and learning methods by providing schools withexemplary assessment methods and disseminating knowledge regardingcurrentresearchdesignandmethods.
Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
Asforprocessofconductingexaminations,somecountrieshaveexaminationunitswithintheMinistryofEducation tooverseeallmatters related tonational examinations.OthershaveestablishedexternalexaminationbodieswithlinkstotheMinistryofEducationtoadministerexaminations.Of thecountries included in thisanalysis,nonehave independentexaminingbodiesforsecondaryeducation.Table33providesfurtherinformationonexaminingbodiesinASEAN+6countries.
Table33:ExaminingBodiesofASEAN+6CountriesCountrieswithexaminationunitswithintheMinistryofEducation
BruneiDarussalam(DepartmentofExamination)Cambodia (Examination Office of the General Secondary EducationDepartment)China(NationalEducationExaminationsAuthority)LaoPDR(EducationStandardsandQualityAssuranceCentre))Malaysia(MalaysianExaminationSyndicate)Myanmar(MyanmarBoardofExaminations)Philippines(NationalEducationalTestingandResearchCenter)VietNam(MinistryofEducationandTraining)
CountrieswithMinistry‐affiliatedexaminationbodies
Australia(VariousStateexamboards)India (Central Board of Secondary Education; Council for Indian SchoolCertificateExamination)Indonesia(NationalEducationStandardsAgency)NewZealand(NewZealandQualificationsAuthority)Republic of Korea (Republic of Korea Institute for Curriculum andEvaluation)Singapore(SingaporeExaminationsandAssessmentBoard)Thailand(NationalInstituteofEducationalTestingService)
Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
43
Forcountriesinvolvedinthisanalysis,thefocusseemstobeonassessmentoflearning,mostcommonly in the formof examinationsdesigned to checkwhether studentshaveachievedspecifiedlearningoutcomes.Althoughsomecountriesmentionpoliciesforcarryingouton‐goingformativeassessmentintheclassroom,itisnotclearhowthisisimplementedinschools.OnesuchcountryisAustralia,whereoneofthepurposesofassessmentison‐goingformativeassessment within the classroom for the purposes of monitoring learning and providingfeedback.Suchfeedbackisdesignedtosupportteachersintheirteachingandsupportstudentsintheirlearning.AnotherexampleisBruneiDarussalam,wherethenationalexaminationattheendoflowersecondaryisbeingreplacedbytheStudentProgressAssessment(SPA).Suchpoliciesrepresentashiftfromasummativeassessmentorientationtoasystemofformativeassessmentcharacterizedbythemeasurementofstudentprogressandachievement.
Another increasing trend in assessment practice is the inclusion of non‐cognitive skillsassessmentintheevaluationofstudentlearning.IntheRepublicofKorea,forexample,theevaluation system (Student School Record/School Activities Record) was introduced toprovidenotonly summative informationbut alsodiagnostic and formative informationonstudent academic achievement and social development. In Myanmar, the level of studentparticipationinschoolandcommunityactivitiesiscapturedinone’sComprehensivePersonalRecord (CPR), and together with examination results, is taken into consideration forpromotionpurposes.
Inrecentyears,therehasalsobeenanincreaseininterestandcommitmentofgovernmentsinmany of the ASEAN+6 countries tomonitor and assess student learning. This growingconcerncanbeseeninthenumberofcountriesfromtheregionparticipatinginlarge‐scaleinternational assessments such as the Programme for International Student Assessment(PISA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress inInternationalReadingLiteracyStudy(PIRLS)(Table34).
Table34:ParticipationinMajorInternationalAssessmentsbyASEAN+6CountriesCountry PISA TIMSS PIRLS
2003 2006 2009/10 2012 2003 2007 2011 2001 2006 2011Australia BruneiDarussalam Cambodia China India Indonesia Japan LaoPDR Malaysia Myanmar NewZealand Philippines RepublicofKorea Singapore Thailand VietNam Total 6 6 9 9 7 8 8 2 3 4Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
44
Alignmentbetweencurriculumandassessment
In general, examinations administered for the purpose of certification create alignmentbetween curriculum and assessment. For these examinations, there are usually clearlyspecified learning outcomes in the curriculum upon which assessment is based. In somecountries including Malaysia and Singapore certification examinations are also used forselection and/or streaming purposes. Examinations administered for the sole purpose ofselection,ontheotherhand,oftenassessaptitudeandgeneralabilitiesratherthanspecificcurriculargoals.Mostoftheseexaminationsaredesignedforentryintoinstitutionsofhighereducation.
Accreditation
Studentsinallcountriesinvolvedinthisanalysisreceiveeitheradiplomaoracertificateuponmeetingtherequirementsforcompletionofuppersecondaryeducation.Bycontrast,studentsinonlyeightcountriesreceiveadiplomaorcertificateuponcompletionoflowersecondaryeducation,asshowninTable35below.
Table35:AccreditationforCompletionofLowerandUpperSecondaryEducationCountry Accreditationforcompletion
oflowersecondaryeducationAccreditationforcompletionofuppersecondaryeducation
Australia BruneiDarussalam
Cambodia China India Indonesia Japan LaoPDR Malaysia Myanmar NewZealand Philippines RepublicofKorea Singapore Thailand VietNam Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
Mostofthesediplomasandcertificatesareissuedatthenationallevel,withonlyahandfulofcountries including Australia, India and Viet Nam, issuing accreditation at thestate/provincial/districtlevel.
2.2.6 Conclusion
Years spent in secondary education are critical to youth at the cusp of life beyond formalschoolingandassuch,secondaryeducationinallcountriesrequiresimportantattentionatthepolicy level. Identification of and support in professional pathways for students, school
45
curricula, teachers and learning assessment are all important considerations. ASEAN+6countrieshave responded to these considerations indiverseways.Reviewing thesevariedapproacheshas shed some lights on trends aswell as possiblepolicy implications for anycountrywishingtoundertakereformofthissub‐sector.Thefindingsaresummarisedbelow:
(i) ImprovingandexpandingsecondaryeducationpathwaysManycountriesintheASEAN+6grouphavemadeattemptstoimproveandexpandtheiralternative education system through various means, including EquivalencyProgrammes and Community Learning Centres. Current non‐formal educationprogrammesfocuslargelyonchildrenandyouthwhohavemissedoutonprimarybutnotsecondaryschool.
(ii) RelevanceofcurriculumatthesecondarylevelStrengthening the relevance of curriculum at the secondary level is a critical issue,particularly in regard to its compatibility with higher levels of education and itsrelevance to the job market. High performing education systems tend to undertakefrequentcurriculumreformstorespondtochangingneedsandmakeeducationmorerelevant.Anup‐to‐dateandrelevantcurriculumimpliesregularprocessesofcurricularreview.
(iii) HigherminimumqualificationsrequiredforsecondaryeducationteachersWhile some countries only require an ISCED level 4 qualification as a minimumqualificationforsecondaryteachers,manyothercountriesincludingtheOECDcountriesoftheregionrequirelowersecondaryteacherstohaveatertiarylevelqualification.Butqualificationsalonedonotequalqualityteaching.Theimportanceofhigherminimumqualificationsmayrequirefurtherreviewandanalysis,aswouldotherimportantfactorsin the recruitment of teachers including motivation, interpersonal skills andremunerationincomparisonwithGDPpercapita.
(iv) TheimportanceoflearningoutcomeassessmentofsecondarystudentsAnumber of countries in the region have abolished examinations for entry to lowersecondary education but some continue with these exams. Some countries, such asMyanmar,donotadministeranynationalassessmentsforthepurposeofmonitoringthequalityofeducationat thesecondary level(as is thecase forAustralia, JapanandtheRepublic of Korea) nor participate in any international assessments of secondarystudents, such as PISA. Such national and international assessments are seen asincreasingly important in the region as countries attempt to monitor the quality ofsecondaryeducationprovidedtostudents.
2.3 TechnicalandVocationalEducationandTraining(TVET)
2.3.1 Introduction
In view of rapid and increasing globalization brought about by significant advances intechnology, increased mobility and the development of increasingly knowledge‐basedeconomies,theimportanceofTVETinASEAN+6countriesiswellunderstood.CountrieshavesimilaroverallaspirationsregardingTVET,asourceofeducationthatcanhelpensurecitizensareequippedwiththerequisiteskillstolivemeaningfulandproductiveliveswithinsociety.
46
Yetforcountriesatdifferentstagesofdevelopment,19immediategoalsforTVET,TVETscopeandmeansofdeliverydifferinaccordancewitheconomicchallenges.SomecountriesintheASEAN+6groupingsufferfromashortageofskillsinparticularareas,whileothersstruggletogenerate enough jobs to accommodate labour market entrants. This section provides anoverview of the different legal, institutional and policy frameworks for TVET, financingmechanismsinplace,TVETstructuresanddeliverysystems,andaspectsofTVETqualityandrelevancetolabourmarketneedsintheASEAN+6countries.
2.3.2 Legislativeandinstitutionalpolicyframeworks
TVET‐specificpolicies
Solid and relevant legislative and policy frameworks underpin most TVET systems inASEAN+6countries(Table36).Somecountries,however, lacknationalTVETqualificationsframeworks.Theabsenceofanationalqualificationsframeworkdoesnotnecessarilysignifya critical shortcoming; some countries, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, haveachievedsolideconomicdevelopmentsupportedbythedevelopmentofTVETevenwithoutsuchaframeworkinplace.
Table36:LegislativeandPolicyFrameworksforTVET(SelectedCountries)
Country Legislation,LegislativeDecisions/Decrees,Acts
Policy/Plans/Strategies
Australia NationalVocationalEducationandTrainingRegulatorAct(2011),NationalAgreementforSkillsandWorkforceDevelopment2012,NationalPartnershipAgreementonSkillsReform2012
NationalSkillsFramework(NSF):Threecomponents1.VETQualityFramework2.AustralianQualificationsFramework3.TrainingPackages
China VocationalEducationLaw (1996)StateCouncilDecisiononVigorouslyPromotingtheReformandDevelopmentofVET(2002)
StateCouncilDecisiononAcceleratingtheGrowthofVET(2005)
TheNationalMediumandLong‐TermPlanforEducationReformandDevelopment(2010‐2020)
SecondaryVocationalEducationReformandInnovationActionPlan(2010)
India TheIndustrialTrainingInstitutesAct(1961)TheApprenticesAct(1961)TheArchitectsAct(1972)TheAllIndiaCouncilforTechnicalEducationActNo.2(1987)TheNationalInstitutesofTechnologyAct(2007)
NationalPolicyonSkillDevelopment(2009)
Japan HumanResourceDevelopmentPromotionAct(1969),OrdinanceoftheMinistryofLabour
YoungPeopleImprovementProgram(2012)
19According to the Asia‐Pacific regional background paper for the Third International Congress on TVET (UNESCO 2011), there are four major stages of economic development in the region. On the Global Competitiveness Index 2010‐2011, countries of the region are positioned from 3rd (Singapore) to 133rd (Timor‐Leste) among 136 countries globally.
47
Country Legislation,LegislativeDecisions/Decrees,Acts Policy/Plans/Strategies
RepublicofKorea
VocationalEducationandTrainingPromotionAct(MEST)EnforcementDecreeofThePromotionofIndustrialEducationandIndustry‐AcademicCooperationAct(MEST)WorkersVocationalSkillsDevelopmentAct(MOEL)FrameworkActonQualifications
Policyformodernizingvocationaleducation(MEST,2010),SecondBasicPlanforLifelongVocationalSkillsDevelopment(MOEL,2012‐2017),VISION2020:VocationalEducationforAll
LaoPDR PrimeMinister’sDecreeonTVETandSkillsDevelopment(2010)
TVETPolicy,MasterPlanfortheDevelopmentofTVETfor2008–2015,ComponentonTVETinthe7thFiveyearEducationSectorDevelopmentPlan(2011‐2015),TVETStrategy2006‐2020
Myanmar EmploymentandSkillsDevelopmentLaw(2013)
TVETpolicy(1973)
Philippines ‐
TheNationalTechnicalEducationandSkillsDevelopmentPlan(NTESDP)2011–2016
Singapore ‐ Manpower21Plan(1998)VietNam LawonVocationalTraining(2006)
MasterPlanonDevelopmentofVietNam'sHumanResources2011‐2020,2011‐2020Socio‐EconomicDevelopmentStrategy,StrategyonDevelopmentofVietNam'sHumanResources2011‐2020
Source:InformationcollectedfromnationalgovernmentandeducationdepartmentwebsitesbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
Most ASEAN+6 countries have TVET policies that align with educational, economic andindustrialpolicies.Forexample,oneofthekeyobjectivesofIndia’sNationalPolicyonSkillDevelopment is “to create a workforce empowered with improved skills, knowledge andinternationally recognized qualifications to gain access to decent employment and ensureIndia’scompetitivenessinthedynamicgloballabourmarket.”20Thenationalpolicyonhumancapital development in Singapore is rooted in the Manpower 21 Report (Ministry ofManpower,2003).Itenvisagestheretrainingoftheworkforceandproposesprogrammestoattract intellectualcapital(MinistryofManpower,2003a).VietNam’sTVETsystemaimstobecome“morerelevanttoneedsoflocalandcentralindustriesaswellastoamulti‐sectoranddynamic economy” (Ministry of Education and Training, 2006). The new PhilippinesDevelopmentPlan2011‐2016includesastrategytoimprovetheeffectivenessofthedemand‐supplymatchforcriticalskillsandhigh‐levelprofessionsthroughtighterindustry‐academiclinks, better dissemination of labour market information, and career guidance (NationalEconomicDevelopmentAuthority,2011).
LimitedlinkagesbetweenTVETandeconomicpolicythroughlegislationorotherlegaltextsdoesnotnecessarilyindicatethatthealignmentofTVETpolicywiththatofindustryisweak.Forexample,whiletherearenolegaldocumentsexplicitlystatingsynergiesbetweenJapanese
20 http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/skilldev/rep_skilldev7.pdf
48
national policies onTVETwith those of economyor industry, the country’s private sectorstronglyinfluencestheTVETsystem,suggestingaproductiverelationshipbetweentrainingprovidersandemployersexists.InstitutionalresponsibilityforTVET
Asmanywould argue, the primary responsibility of TVET is tomeet the productive skillsdemandofnationaleconomies.Assuch,itiscommonformorethanoneministryoragencytobe involved inthedevelopmentandgovernanceofTVETsystems.WhilegovernmentsmayhavetheprincipalresponsibilityofprovidingTVETinitsearlyphasesofdevelopment,thereisanincreasinginvolvementofenterprisesandothersocialpartnersintheprovisionofTVET,especially in work‐based training and skills needs surveying. Table 37 e provides a briefoverview of institutional arrangements for TVET provision and administration in selectedASEAN+6countries.Asshown,somecountrieshaveasingleagencyorministryoverseeingtheTVETsubsector(forexampleAustralia,Philippines)whilemostothershaveoneortwomainministriestakingchargeofTVETwithotherministriesprovidingTVETprogrammes.
Table37:MinistriesResponsibleforTVETProvision(SelectedCountries)Country MinistriesresponsibleforTVETprovisionAustralia DepartmentofEducation,EmploymentandWorkplaceRelations(DEEWR)Cambodia Mainresponsibleministry:MinistryofLabourandVocationalTraining(MLVT)and
its Directorate General of TVET (DGTVE). Other ministries also operate TVETprogrammes, inparticular theMinistry of Education, Youth and Sports (MOEYS),Ministry of Women’s Affairs (MOWA), Ministry of Health and the Ministry ofAgriculture.
China Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Human Resources and SocialSecurity(MOHRSS)
India Atcentral level:MinistryofLabourandEmployment (MOLE),MinistryofHumanResourceDevelopment (MHRD), Department of Education and Training. At statelevel:severalministriesareresponsibleforTVETprovision.
Indonesia Ministry of Education and Culture, Directorate for SMK, Ministry for HumanResources and Transmigration, Directorate General of Training and ProductivityDevelopment
Japan Ministry of Health, Labour andWelfare (MHLW),Ministry of Education, Culture,Sports,ScienceandTechnology(MEXT)
LaoPDR MinistryofEducationandSports(MOES)andMinistryofLabourandSocialWelfare(MOLSW)
Malaysia MinistryofEducation(MOE),responsibleforsecondarylevelvocationaleducation.Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE): responsible mainly for universities,polytechnics and community colleges (TVET). Ministry of Human Resources;Ministry of Entrepreneurship; Ministry of Science and Technology; Ministry ofWomen, Family and Community Development as well as others: responsible forskillstraininginspecificareasinbothformalandnon‐formallearningsettings.
Myanmar Main responsible ministry: Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST). Otherministries:MinistryofEducation,MinistryofLabour,MinistryofIndustry,MinistryofAgricultureandIrrigation,MinistryofEnvironmentalConversationandForestry,MinistryofTransport,MinistryofHotelsandTourism,MinistryofHealth,Ministryof Defense, Ministry of Boarder Areas, Ministry of Cooperatives, Ministry ofRailways,MinistryofSocialWelfare,ReliefandResettlement.
Philippines TechnicalEducationandSkillsDevelopmentAuthority(TESDA)
49
Country MinistriesresponsibleforTVETprovisionRepublicofKorea
MinistryofEducation,ScienceandTechnology(MEST),MinistryofEmploymentandLabour(MOEL).
Singapore MinistryofEducation(MOE),MinistryofManpower(MOM)VietNam Mainresponsibleministry:MinistryofLabour,InvalidsandSocialAffairs(MOLISA).
Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) and its Secondary Technical andVocational Education Department (STVED) are responsible for secondaryprofessionaleducation.OtherministriesprovidingTVETprogrammes:MinistryofIndustry and Trade,Ministry of Agricultural andRural Development,Ministry ofHealth.
Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.Coordinationbetweenministriesandotherstakeholders
Coordinationcanbeexaminedfromtwoangles:horizontal(acrossministriesandagenciesandacrossgovernmentandprivateproviders)andvertical (betweencentralanddecentralizedlevels).ThefollowingexamplesandpracticesfromselectedASEAN+6countriesareprovidedtoillustratethesetwotypesofcoordination.
In Singapore, the policy infrastructure for macro level human capital development ischaracterized by twodistinct features: a tripartite approach, based on cooperation amongemployers,unions,andgovernmentandamulti‐departmentalapproachinvolvingallrelevantgovernment agencies. The tripartite relationship ensures that there is agreement overstrategies andnecessary steps required fornationalHumanResourceDevelopment (HRD)strategies. Another important tripartite institution is the Skills Development Fund (SDF),foundedbytheGovernmentandguidedbyatripartitecouncil.Thefundisbothamechanismforfinancingtheemployeetrainingandamotivationforemployerstoupgradetheskillsoftheir employees. The SDF was created because employers in Singapore are not normallyinclinedto fundstaff trainingunlessthere isaschemetoenticethemtodoso(MinistryofManpower,2003;SkillsDevelopmentFund,2003).
Australia’svocationaleducationandtraining(VET)sectorisbasedonapartnershipbetweenregional governments and industries. Governments provide funding, develop policies andcontributetoregulationandqualityassuranceofthesector. Industryandemployergroupscontributetotrainingpoliciesandpriorities,andindevelopingqualificationsthatcandeliverskillstotheworkforce(AEI,n.d).
In Lao PDR, several ministries are involved in TVET provision. In terms of horizontalcoordination,thePrimeMinister’sDecreeonTVETandSkillsDevelopmentclearlymandatescooperationamongthekeyTVETministries:theMOESandtheMOLSW.Thisdecreeidentifiessynergiesandcomplementaritiesbetweenbothministriesandprovidesthebasisforstrongercooperation.Asawiderpolicycoordinationmechanism,theNationalTrainingCouncil(NTC)hasbeenfunctionalsince2002.Itiscomprisedof24representativesfromrelevantministriesandischairedbytheDeputyMinisterofEducation.Withregardto‘vertical’coordination,thenationalTVETsystemismanagedbytheDepartmentofTechnicalandVocationalEducation(TVED) under the MOES and the Provincial Education Service (PES) under provincialgovernments(UNESCO,2012d).
50
In countries such as Cambodia where TVET is managed by other ministries outside theMinistry of Education, some challenges in coordinating TVET policy in line with othereducation policies can be observed. For instance, while the MOE is exploring ways ofexpanding vocational education at the secondary level through the reform of secondaryeducationcurricularandsystem,theMOLVTresponsibleforTVETisitselfconcernedwiththeexpansion of TVET at the post‐secondary level and there appears limited dialogue andcooperationontheseissuesacrossbothministries(UNESCO,2012e).
Public‐privatepartnerships
Public‐privatepartnerships(PPP)inthedevelopmentofTVETcantakeplaceatvariouslevelsand in various forms. At national level, this may occur through official institutionalizedroundtablesonissuessuchastheencouragementofemployerinvestment,oratthelevelofindividualschoolsthroughdiscussionaroundwaystoprovideworkplaceexperiencestoTVETstudents. Table 38 summarizes various forms of PPP mainly focusing on the issue ofinformationexchangebetweengovernment,educationserviceproviderandemployerwhichconstitutes the basis for policy level dialogue. Here, councils and boards are officiallyinstitutionalizedroundtablesusuallytakingplaceatthenationallevelandcomprisingofficialrepresentatives of stakeholder groups. Consultation may present a less formal or lessinstitutionalizedprocessthroughwhichemployersandeducationserviceprovidersexchangeopinionsorideas.
Among ASEAN+6 countries, Cambodia, India, Indonesia and the Philippines have specificlegislation and regulations to enable the relevant boards and councils to specify themembership, responsibility, activitiesandmandates foremployerengagement.Theboardsandcouncilsoftenhavestrongdecision‐makingpoweronkeyTVETissues.Somecountrieshaveshownmoreprogressthanothersintheestablishmentoflegislationforcouncilsandtheoperation of councils by government, thus accelerating employer engagement in thosecountries.
Table38:SummaryofEmployerEngagementTypes,byCountry
Country Council/Board Consultation Others
Cambodia ● X X
India ● X X
Indonesia ● X X
LaoPDR ● ▲ X
Philippines ● ● X
VietNam X X ▲
Notes:●:conductedregularly;▲:conductedirregularly(ad‐hocbasis);X:notimplementedSource:UNESCOBangkok(2012f).
The benefits and motivation for the development of public‐private partnerships and thespecificexperienceofselectedASEAN+6countriesislistedinTable39.
51
Table39:PublicPrivatePartnershipsinSelectedASEAN+6Countries
CountryCharacteristics
ofPPP Benefits/Motivation Examples
Australia Strong,betweengovernmentandindustry
ImprovethequalityandrelevanceofVETtrainingpackages;improvefundingforindustry
IndustrySkillsCouncils(ISCs)
Japan Stronglyencouraged
PromoteskillstraininginJapan
OverseasVocationalTrainingAssociation(OVTA)
LaoPDR Stronglyencouraged
ImproveTVETpolicyandserviceprovision
Throughtwomodalities:participationofemployersinTVETpolicyandimplementationandthroughprivateTVETproviders.
Philippines Increasinginvolvementofprivatesector(employersandindustryassociations)inTVETpolicies
ImproveTVETpolicyformulation
TechnicalEducationandSkillsDevelopmentAuthority(TESDA)Board
Singapore Strong Leveragingknowledge,expertiseandskillsoftechnologyindustryleaders;establishedlinkageswithprivateindustry
Industry‐BasedTraining(IBT)schemes;boardrepresentationofInstituteofTechnicalEducation(ITE),curriculumdevelopmentcommittee;collegeadvisorycommittees;JointCentresofTechnologies
Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
Decentralization
Decentralization has been awidely adoptedpolicy reformmeasure in education, howeverthereislittleagreementastohowmuchdecentralizationisnecessarytoimproveorganisationandmanagementofTVET.Table40demonstratesthestatusofdecentralizationofTVETinselectedASEAN+6countries.
Table40:DecentralizationinTVETCountry Featuresofdecentralization
Cambodia ‐DecentralisedmanagementsystemincludingaNationalTrainingBoard,AdvisoryIndustryTechnicalCommitteeandProvincialTrainingBoard;‐DecentralisationoftrainingprogrammeimplementationtodifferentprovidersincludingprivateproviderssuchasNGOs,throughNationalTrainingFundandpilotvouchertrainingprogramme.
52
Country FeaturesofdecentralizationIndia Sharedresponsibilityforvocationaltrainingbetweencentraland
stategovernments.Atthenationallevel,theNationalCouncilforVocationalTraining,theCentralApprenticeshipCouncilandtheNationalCouncilofVocationalTrainingassumetheadvisoryroleonTVETissueswhiletheadministrativeresponsibilityisheldbytheDirectorateGeneralofEmploymentandTraining(DGET).Industrialtraininginstitutes(ITIs)andindustrialtrainingcentres(ITCs)whichoperateundertheguidanceofDGETformulatepoliciesanddeterminestandardsandtechnicalrequirementssuchasdevelopingcurricula,instructortraining,andskillstesting.Atthestatelevel,StateCouncilsforVocationalTraining(SCVTs)andTradeCommitteesbothadvisestategovernmentsontrainingpolicyandco‐ordinatevocationaltrainingineachstate.
LaoPDR FinancingandmanagementresponsibilitiesforTVETdecentralizedtotheProvincialEducationService(PES)underprovincialgovernments
Philippines TVETspecificplansdevelopedfornationalandsub‐nationallevelswithclearlydefinedinputsandoutputs.
Thailand DecentralizedTVETcurriculumisspecificallydesignedbythelocalcommunitytomeettheiruniquesocial,economic,environmentalandculturalneeds.
Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
2.3.3 Financing
It is difficult to provide an overview of financing mechanisms in the TVET sub‐sector aspracticesvarywidelyacrosscountries.Thissaid,TVETinstitutionsinASEAN+6countries,arelargelyunderfinancedasreflectedintherelativelylowlevelofdirectbudgetallocationsmadebygovernments.Manycountrieshavesoughttodiversifyfundingsourcesaswellasimprovefunding mechanisms so as to achieve increased efficiency and effectiveness. To this end,funding forTVET isoften complementedbyprivate sources through tuition feesand fromtrainingleviespaidbyfirms.SomeexamplesinASEAN+6economiesarepresentedbelow.
GovernmentfundingforTVET
InChina,centralandlocalgovernmentspendingforspecializedsecondaryschools,technicalschoolsandvocationalschoolshastraditionallybeenrelativelylow.Tuitionfeesaccountfor22to33percentoftotalspending(CopenhagenDevelopmentConsultA/S2005,p.43).Overthepastfiveyears,however,governmentcontributiontoTVEThasincreasedthroughtuitionfeesfordifferentcategoriesofstudents.Atthesametime,theGovernmenthasputinplaceexemption schemes for needy rural students enrolled in government funded vocationalschools.Since2007,theGovernmenthasprovidedannualindividualsubsidiesof1,500yuan(USD220)forvocationalschoolstudentsfromruralareas(UNESCO,2011b).
VETinAustraliareceivesaboutonethirdofitsfundingfromtheAustralianGovernmentwiththe other two thirds coming from state and territory governments. This is based on theNationalAgreementforSkillsandWorkforceDevelopment.AustralianGovernmentfundsareusedtosupportnationalpriorities.Stateandterritorygovernmentscanalsoallocatefundingdependingonthespecificneedsintheirstateorterritory(AEI,n.d.).
53
Singapore’sSkillsDevelopmentFund(SDF)aimstomotivateemployerstotrainworkersbyreimbursingpartoralltrainingexpenses,asallemployersarerequiredtopayalevyonthewagesofemployeeswhoearnoveracertainamount.Grantscanbeusedfordirecttrainingcosts(suchasfeesforexternaltraining)orforestablishingtraininginfrastructure,includingthecostoftrainers.Thepresentpolicyistoincreasetrainingforservicesectors,small‐andmedium‐sized enterprises, less educated and less skilled workers and for older workers.Trainingforcertifiableskillsisalsoemphasized(UNESCO,2011b).
IntheRepublicofKorea,formalTVETisfundedbytheMOESregularbudget.Non‐formalskillstrainingismainlyfundedbyatraininglevycollectedbytheMOEL.Atraininglevyiscollectedfromeveryemployerwhoemploysatleastoneemployee.Thelevyrateissetintofourlevelsaccordingtothenumberofemployeesundereachemployer.Moneyspentbyemployersonemployee training activities is reimbursed by the MOEL using the training levy funds. Atpresent,thetraininglevyisthemostimportantfundingsourceforalmosteverykindofnon‐formalskillstrainingprogramme,includingtrainingforunemployed,self‐directedtrainingofemployedandemployer‐ledtrainingprogrammes.TheGovernmentisalsoconsideringtheuseofthesefundsforformalTVET.
InVietNam,onlypublicTVET institutionsreceivesubstantialpublic funding tocoverbothrecurrentandcapitalcosts.However,actualallocationsperstudentappeartobedeclining.Forlong‐term programmes regulated under the General Department of Vocational Training(GDVT),institutionsreceivepublicfundingallocatedthroughapercapitaquotasystem.Thebudgetnormpertrainingplaceis4.3millionVNDperannum,whileactualallocationsareoftenlower.Private trainingproviders,whichhavebeengrowing innumber inrecentyears,areusually fully self‐financing. They do not receive any regular state funding but tuition feesconstitutetheirmainsourceoffunding.
TVETspecificnon‐publicfundingschemes
Anumberofcountrieshaveimplementednon‐publicfundingschemesspecificallydesignedtofinanceTVET.Insomecases,forinstanceintheRepublicofKorea,Malaysia,andSingapore,traininglevieshavebeeneffectivelycollectedfromformalsectorstosupporttraininginsmallandmediumenterprises(SMEs)andfirmsintheinformalsector(UNESCO,2011b).Toagreatextent, their effectiveness relies on the existence of significant formal sectorswithin theireconomies,whichprovidealargetaxbase.Taxincentivesarealsowidelyused.Forexample,Mongoliaadoptedataxlawamendmentin2008toprovidetaxincentivesforTVETrelatedactivities.AssuchthefollowingactivitiesareexemptedfromtaxinMongolia:expenditureforimproving TVET schools facilities, TVET school teachers’ training, inviting people fromindustrytoteachatschoolsanddonationsfortheSupportingFundforVocationalEducationandTraining(UNESCO,2011b).
Trainingfundsfinancedbyleviesonenterprises,publiccontributions,andexternalsourcesareanothercommonlyusedscheme.Theoverallaimofthetrainingfundsistoraiseenterpriseproductivityandindividualincome.Equitytrainingfundsareusedinlow‐incomecountriesand for disadvantaged groups in middle‐income countries. In Singapore, the SkillsDevelopmentFund(SDF)establishedin1979aimstomotivateemployerstotrainworkersbyreimbursingpartoralltrainingexpenses.UndertheMalaysianHumanResourceDevelopmentFund (HRDF), employers provide a payroll contribution equivalent to 1 percent, and areeligibletoclaimaportionoftrainingexpenditureallowanceuptothelimitoftheirtotallevyforanygivenyear.
54
Outcome‐orientedfinancingofTVET
ToincreasetheeffectivenessofpublicfinancingofTVET,anumberofinitiativesareunderwayintheregionwithanemphasisoneducationaloutcomes.Typically,fundsareallocatedtotheeducation service providers based on a contract applying the principle of ‘selection andconcentration’. For example, theMinistry of Education, Science andTechnology (MEST) inRepublic of Korea has selected a number of vocational secondary schools as strategicallyimportant.TheseMeisterHighSchoolsareprovidedspecialfundingtoteachstudentsthemostup‐to‐date and advanced competencies in certain trades. This practice is similarlyimplemented ingovernment funding forcollegesanduniversitiesrunningspecific targetedvocationaleducationprogrammes.Usually,theselectionprocessisbasedonanevaluationofa programme’s economic and industrial importance in selected industrial fields and itsconsiderationoflabourmarketneeds.Centralministriesthenmakefundingdecisions.
2.3.4 TVETdeliverysystem
OverviewofTVETdeliverysystem
Thedevelopmentoftechnicalandvocationalskillsintheregioncanbebroadlydividedintotwocategoriesofinitialvocationaleducationandtraining(IVET)andcontinuousvocationaleducationandtraining(CVET),especiallyinthecontextoflifelonglearning.Skillsacquisitioncantakeplaceatinstitutions(schools,TVETcolleges,trainingcentres)andthroughon‐the‐jobtraininginbothformalandinformalways.TVETcanalsobepartofsecondaryeducation,post‐secondaryorhighereducation.Itcanbeprovidedbytheformaleducationsystemordeliveredinformally in the workplace, or through non‐formal means outside the workplace. ThestructureofTVETproposedbyAdiviso(2010)hascapturedthisdiversity.
Figure9:InstitutionalStructureofTVET
Source:Adiviso,B.(2010).
DifferentdeliverymodesandlevelsoftechnicalandvocationaleducationaresummarizedinTable41below.
55
Table41:TVETDeliveryModesClassification Description
Formaleducation
Coversprogrammesorcoursesatthesecondary,highersecondary,juniorcolleges,first‐degreelevel,andjob‐orientedandapplicationorientedfirstdegreeprogrammes.
AUppersecondarylevel
Aimstoprepareyouth fortheworldofwork.Majorareasofstudyincludeagriculture,businessandcommerce,engineeringandtechnology,healthandparamedics,homeeconomicsandhumanities.
Post‐secondarylevel Emphasizespracticaleducationaimedatproducingmiddle‐leveltechnicians.Notnecessarilyaterminalpointofschoolingbecauseitisopenforstudentsinterestedinpursuingauniversityeducation.
Polytechniceducation
Referstodiplomasofferedbypolytechnics.Categorizedwithinoroutsidethemainstreamofformaleducationbutrecognizedbytheuniversitysystem.Diplomasinclude:engineering,informationtechnology,electronics,machineryandmetal,textileandcrafts,jewellerymaking,fashiondesign,beautyculture,garmentsandtrades,foods,officemanagementandmanyothers.
Lifelonglearning Referstoalternativeformsofformaleducationsuchaspara‐professionaleducation,correspondenceeducation,creditbanksystemtrainingandothers.Trainstheindustrialworkforceandprovidesworkerswhohavepreviouslymissedopportunitiesforhighereducation.
Source:Park(2005).
TVETproviders
TVET can be offered by a variety of providers including public sector institutions, privatesector providers and international organizations and NGOs. Table 42 presents someinterestingcountryexamplesdemonstratinghowdifferentserviceprovidersdeliverTVET.
Table42:TVETServiceProviders,SelectedCountriesCountry Typesofproviders Size
Australia PubliclyfundedInstitutesofTechnicalandFurtherEducation(TAFE);combinedTAFEanduniversitybodies;adultandcommunityeducationorganizations;individualenterprisesandschools.ManyRegisteredTrainingOrganizations(RTOs)alsoofferprogrammesinadditiontorecognizedVETsuchasadultandcommunityeducationandfullycommercialnon‐accreditedtraining
Over4,000RTOs
India Thereare1,400polytechnicsandmostofferthree‐yeardiplomacoursesindisciplineslikeCivil,ElectricalandMechanicalEngineering.ManyalsonowprovideprogrammesinElectronics,ComputerScience,MedicalLabtechnology,HospitalEngineering,andArchitecturalAssistantship.SomearespecializedandoffercoursesinareaslikeLeatherTechnology,SugarTechnologyandPrintingTechnology.Whiletherearenoformaltrainingprogrammesfortheinformalsector,anumberofinstitutionsareinvolvedinprovidingtraininggearedtothe
7,500IndustrialTrainingInstituteswithanoverallcapacityof750,000placesaroundthecountry
56
Country Typesofproviders Sizeneedsofinformalsectoremployees.Theseincludecommunitypolytechnics,adulteducationprogrammesandtheNationalInstituteofOpenSchooling(NIOS).Anumberofagenciesalsoprovidesmallerprogrammesfortheinformalsector.
Philippines TVETisdeliveredbyanetworkofpublicandprivateinstitutionsthroughthefollowingchannels:school,centre,enterprise,andcommunity‐basedtechnologytrainingprogrammes.TVETprogrammesarethereforeschoolbased,centre‐based,enterprise‐basedorcommunity‐based.
4,041publicandprivateTVETinstitutionsnationwide(asofDecember2009)
Malaysia PublicandprivateproviderswithprivateinvestmentinTVETareencouragedthroughthecreationofPrivateVocationalCollegesusingthePrivateFinanceInitiative(PFI)
‐
LaoPDR PublicandprivateprovidersofferTVETprogrammesinclericaloccupationsandservicesector‐relatedareas.ThenumberofprivateTVETprovidershasrapidlyincreasedinrecentyears.PrivateprovidersmustbeaccreditedbytheMOESiftheywishtoawardofficiallyrecognizedTVETcertificatesanddiplomas.
57newprivatevocationaltrainingcentresand88newcollegessince1995
RepublicofKorea
FormalTVETisofferedatthefollowinglevels:upper‐secondaryvocationalschools,technicalcolleges(underMEST),KoreaPolytechnics(regularprogrammes,underMOEL).Non‐formalskillstrainingisprovidedthroughprivatetraininginstitutions(underMOESandMOEL),vocationalacademies(private,underMOEL),KoreaPolytechnics(short‐termnon‐formalprogrammes,underMOEL)andtheHumanResourceDevelopmentInstitutesoftheKoreaChamberofCommerce(underMOEL).Increasingly,someuniversitiesareprovidingshort‐termnon‐formaleducationandtrainingprogrammesonspecifictradesandareasusingfundsfromseveralministriesofthecentralgovernmentandprovincialgovernments.
‐
VietNam FormalTVETisofferedatthesecondaryeducationlevelandisregulatedbytheGeneralDepartmentofVocationalTraining(GDVT)undertheMinistryofLabour,InvalidsandSocialAffairs(MOLISA)orbytheMinistryofEducationandTraining(MOET).Varioustypesoftraininginstitutionsareownedandfinancedbyavarietyofdifferentactors,includingprovincialanddistrictgovernments,differentcentralministries,tradeunions,companiesandprivateinstitutions.
Around30percentofallinstitutionsunderGDVTand20percentofalltechnicalschoolsmanagedbyMOETareprivate.TheVietnameseTVETenvironmentfurtherincludesmorethan800otherproviders(forexampleemploymentserviceoffices)offeringshorttermtrainingcourses
Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
57
OverviewofInitialVocationalEducationandTraining(IVET)
TVETatthesecondarylevel
ThedemandforTVETisgrowingintheAsia‐Pacific,particularlyindevelopingcountries.Thisisalsoreflectedintheincreasingenrolmentsinupper‐secondaryTVET,particularlyinEastAsiaandthePacificsub‐region.DuetothegreateremphasismanycountriesplaceonTVET,targetsforenrolmentsinsecondaryvocationalprogrammesaresethigh.ForIndonesiaandChina in 2005, these targets were 70 percent and 60 percent respectively (CopenhagenDevelopment Consult A/S 2005, p.7 cited in UNESCO 2011b)while India (12.6 percent in1999)targeted25percent21(WorldBank2006acitedinUNESCO2011b;WorldBank2007b,p.12 cited inUNESCO2011b). Implementation needs to be carefully planned to overcomechallengesassociatedwithexpandingsecondaryvocationalprogrammes.
TVETatthepost‐secondarylevel
Atpost‐secondarylevel,qualificationsatISCEDLevels4(non‐tertiary,post‐secondary)andLevel5b(firststageoftertiary‘practicallyoriented/occupationallyspecific’)aredesignedforemployment in technical, managerial and professional occupations. UIS‐UNEVOC (2006)indicatethatonehalformoreofallcountriesintheAsiahavenoenrolments invocationalprogrammesatlevel4,althoughatlevel5b,Asiahasthethirdhighestmediancomparedtootherregions(UIS‐UNEVOC,2006).AsthereisastrongcorrelationbetweentheproportionofTVET students at thepost‐secondary level (tertiary, non‐degree, ISCED5b) andper capitaincome in the region, many countries have taken steps to improve the articulation ofsecondaryvocationaleducationwithhighereducationtocreatefurtheroptionsforstudentsandtomeettheever‐increasingdemandfornewskillsandknowledge(Figure10).
Figure10:PercentageofTertiary,Non‐degreeEnrolment(ISCED5B)inTVETProgrammesinSelectedCountriesbyGDPPerCapita,2002
Source:ADB(2009).
Insomecountries,theshareofvocationalhighschoolgraduatesadvancingtohighereducationisveryhigh.IntheRepublicofKorea,forexample,therategrewfrom8.3percentin1990to
21 Percentageofallsecondarystudentstobeenrolledinthevocational/technicalsecondarystream.
58
72.9percent in2008.22Suchhighnumbersadvancing tohighereducationposeaquestionaboutwhetherthemaingoalofsecondaryTVETistopreparestudentsforthelabourmarketorcontinuepursuinghighereducationaftergraduation.
EnrolmentfiguresinformalTVETacrosscountriescanbeobservedinTable43.In2008,Chinaand Thailand had the highest share of upper secondary TVET students among all uppersecondary students (40 percent), whereas countries with the lowest numbers of uppersecondaryTVETenrolmentswereLaoPDR(1percent)andIndia(2percent).Atthetertiarylevel,countrieswiththehighestshareofLevel5b23enrolmentswereLaoPDR(61percent),followed by China (45 percent) and Malaysia (43 percent). Thailand and the Philippinesrecorded the lowest number of Level 5b TVET enrolments at 15.5, and 9.6 percentrespectively.
Table43:TVETEnrolmentsatSecondaryandTertiaryLevelsUpperSecondary Tertiary
HighestEnrolments LowestEnrolments HighestEnrolments LowestEnrolmentsChina 42.6 LaoPDR 1.1 LaoPDR 60.9 Philippines 9.6Thailand 39.9 India 1.8 China 44.6 Thailand 15.5Indonesia 37.2
Malaysia 43.3
Singapore 42.3VietNam 33.5
Source:UNESCO‐UISDatabase(2011).
InanalysingtheevolvingsocialimportanceofformalTVET,Table44presentsthechangesinenrolmentratesforselectedcountriesinuppersecondaryandtertiaryeducationfrom2001to 2008. Viet Nam shows the highest increase in secondary TVET (8 percent increase).Meanwhile,theRepublicofKoreaandLaoPDRregisterednegativeenrolmentgrowth.Atthetertiary level, VietNam (7 percent), Lao PDR (1 percent) were the most successful inincreasing enrolments, while the Republic of Korea (‐17 percent), Brunei Darussalam (‐9percent) and Thailand (‐6 percent) experienced the greatest decrease in tertiary TVETenrolments.
Table44:ShareofTVETStudentsamongTotalStudents
CountryUpperSecondary Tertiary
EnrolmentRate2008(%)
ChangeinEnrolmentRate
2001‐2008(%)
EnrolmentRate2008(%)
ChangeinEnrolmentRate
2001‐2008(%)VietNam 16.7 8.3 33.5 6.9RepublicofKorea 25.5 ‐8.6 24.1 ‐17.0LaoPDR 1.1 ‐3.1 60.9 1.2Philippines 9.6 0.1BruneiDarussalam 33.1 ‐9.2Thailand 15.5 ‐6.3Malaysia 43.3 ‐4.0Notes:GrowthratescalculatedbyUNESCOBangkok.Source:UISDatabase(2011).
22 Source: Ministry of Education, Science, Technology, Basic Educational Statistics Survey, 2008 23First stage of tertiary practically oriented/occupationally specific
59
ThechangesinTVETenrolmentsmayreflecttheevolvingskillsdemandsineachcountry.IntheRepublicofKorea,forexample,therehasbeenadramaticdecreaseintheshareofTVET,whichmay reflect the rapid expansion of the technology and knowledge intensive sectorsresulting in a lower demand for traditional TVET graduates. Japan experienced a similarsituation,whichalsoresultedinalowershareofTVETattheuppersecondaryandtertiarylevels.InVietNam,theincreaseinTVETenrolmentsmaybeattributedinparttotherapidindustrializationofVietNam’seconomy.
InanefforttoexpandsecondarylevelTVET,somelessdevelopedcountriessuchasLaoPDRandCambodiaareconsideringreformingtheirsecondaryeducationsystemstoalsoincludetheintroductionofthevocationalstreamintogeneralsecondaryschools.Anumberofmiddle‐incomecountriesarealreadyactive in thisarea.Forexample,Malaysiahasamulti streamdeliverysystematthesecondarylevelofferingTVETatbothgeneraleducationschoolsandseparateTVETschools.Malaysia’smultistreamsystemultimatelyallowsformorediversity,focusesonstudentinterestsandaimstosupplythecountrywithskillsandknowledgeneededforthelabourmarket.AnumberofothercountriesareusingnewapproachestoincreaseTVETenrolmentand the relevanceof thecurriculumto labourmarketandcommunityneeds. InVictoria, Australia, the education system permits students to easily transfer credits fromgeneral education to TVET and vice‐versa should a student wish to switch streams. Thispractice allowsgreater flexibility for students and thuspotentially attracts students to theTVETstream.
Vocationalizationofsecondaryeducation
Vocationalizedsecondaryeducationmayrefertoacurriculumlargelygeneralor‘academic’innature, but including vocational or practical subjects as a minor portion of the students’timetable during the course of secondary schooling. Closely related terms are ‘diversifiedcurriculum’, ‘workorientation’, ‘practicalsubjects’ insecondaryschoolsand‘pre‐vocationaleducation’.Thepurposeofthisapproachistoexposemorestudentstovocationaleducation.VocationalizedsecondaryeducationcanalsoincludeseveralotherwaysofprovidingTVETvianon‐dedicated,non‐separatededucationalstreamsandinstitutions.Oneexampleisintegratedschoolsprovidingbothgeneralandvocationalstreamsinthesameschoolpremises,allowingstudentstoeasilyswitchstreamswithoutthenecessityoftransferringtoanotherschool.
TVETatthesecondarylevelhasbeenofparticularinteresttomanycountriesintheregion.Atthis level, TVET provide pupils who choose direct entry into the labour force with thenecessary skills and knowledge required by the labour market. In increasing numbers,especially across industrialised countries, many graduates from secondary level TVETprogrammesarecontinuingeducationafterthecompletionofsuchstudies.However,givenanumberoffactorsincludingtherelativelyhighunitcostofTVET(i.e.,settingupspecialisedtechnology/vocationalclassrooms,establishingitsmaterialbase,hiring,trainingandretainingtechnical and vocational teachers), some developing countries are experiencing difficultyexpandingTVETatthesecondarylevel.Asasolution,theychoosetoofferTVETprogrammesthrough various channels at the general secondary level instead of having it delivered indedicatedvocationalschoolsorcentres.
ThecaseofJapan:InJapan,thosewhohavecompletednine‐yearcompulsoryeducationinelementaryandlowersecondaryschoolmaygoontouppersecondaryschool.Uponenteringhighschool,almostallJapanese15‐year‐oldstakeentranceexaminationsthat
60
determinetheirplacementinacademic,vocational,orcomprehensivehighschools,allofwhicharepubliclyoffered.24
ThecaseofSingapore:InSingapore,secondaryeducationplacesstudentsintheSpecial,Express,Normal(Academic)CourseortheNormal(Technical)CourseaccordingtotheirperformanceinthePrimarySchoolLeavingExamination(PSLE).Thedifferentcurricularemphasesaredesignedtomatchpupils’learningabilitiesandinterests.
ThecaseofMalaysiacase(priortoreform):InMalaysia,technicalandvocationaleducation(TVE)beginsattheuppersecondarylevel(age15).Until2011,dedicatedTVEprogrammeswereprovidedthroughSecondaryTechnical/VocationalSchools(STSs).STSsundertheMOESofferedtechnical,vocationalandskillsstreamstostudentswhohavebeenstreamedintoTVEbasedontheresultsoftheLowerSecondaryAssessment(PMR),atesttakenpriortolowersecondaryschoolgraduation.
Figure11:DiagramofMalaysia’sEducationSystem
Source:MalaysianMinistryofEducation(2011).
ThecaseofMalaysia(followingreform):In2011,theMalaysianMinistryofEducationissued a plan to reform the TVET system in Malaysia under the Transformation ofTechnicalandVocationalEducationPlan.Thefocusofthereformsinclude:- CreationofVocationalColleges (VCs):By2020,274VCswill be established (182
publicVCsundertheMinistryofEducation)- Current STSs underMOES and vocational institutions under otherMinistries for
uppersecondaryTVETwillbetransformedintoVocationalCollegeswhichprovidetwokindsofTVETprogrammes: certificateprogrammesatupper secondaryanddiplomaatpost‐secondary.
24 FurtherinformationisavailableattheUS‐JapanCentreofComparativeSocialStudies:http://www.usjp.org/jpeducation_en/jpEdSystem_en.html
61
- Creation of Junior Vocational Education (JVE): For youth leaving the educationsystemwithonlyprimarycertificatesofferingopportunitiestoacquirepracticallifeskills.
In short, the current approach clearly targets the expansion of dedicated TVET throughcombinedVCprogrammesforupperandpost‐secondary,whileabolishinguppersecondarypre‐orsemi‐vocationalprogrammesthathavenotbeeneffectiveinTVETprovision.
2.3.5 ContentofTVETatthesecondarylevel
GeneralsubjectswithinTVETcurricula
Trainingfora‘lifelongcareer’isnolongerconsideredasimportantastrainingfor‘life‐timejobsecurity’inmanycountriesacrosstheregion.Dependingontheirstageofdevelopment,countriesareencouragingthedevelopmentofbothgeneralandspecificskillstoensurethatstudentscanadapttothechanginglabourmarket.Greateremphasisonthegeneralcomponentof education,particularly indevelopedcountries, has contributed to effectiveperformancewithin the high productivity sectors. In some secondary schools in the Republic of Korea,academicandvocational studentssharealmost75percentof thecurriculum. Indoing, theGovernmentisopeningnewpathwaysforTVETstudentstohighereducation(UNESCO,2005).Increasingconvergencebetweenacademicandvocationaleducationattheupper‐secondaryschoolsandTVETcollegesworkswellforcountriesattheinnovation‐drivenstageofeconomicdevelopment.
Lifeskillsandcoreworkingskills
AnotheraspectofgeneralTVETsubjectsistheinclusionof‘lifeskills’andcoreworkingskillsinTVET,bothformalandnon‐formal.Incorporationofwhatiscommonlytermedcoreskills,employabilityskills,generic,keyorlifeskills/competenciesintothecurriculumhelpsensurethatyoungpeoplehavethenecessaryskillsorcorecompetencies(ASEM,2013)toenterandparticipate in the workforce. In 2006, the Singapore Workforce Development Agencyidentified ten foundational skills25 that are applicable across all industries.26 Courses areofferedintheseareasparticularlyforthosewhodonothaveanyformalqualificationsinorderto provide an alternative entrance requirement for National Innovation and TechnologyCertificate(NITEC)courses.Since2001,qualificationsinthePhilippineshavebeenbasedonthreetypesofcompetencies:basic(genericworkskills),common(industryspecific)andcore(occupation specific). Some examples of basic competencies are: leading workplacecommunication, leading small teams, developing and practicing negotiation skills, solvingproblemsrelatedtoworkactivities.InthePhilippines,lifeskillswereintegratedintotheStartandImproveYourBusiness(SIYB)competencystandards.
25UNESCO.2011b.Asia‐PacificRegionalBackgroundPaperfortheThirdInternationalCongressonTVET.Bangkok,UNESCO26Workplaceliteracyandnumeracy;informationandcommunicationtechnologies;problemsolvinganddecision‐making;initiativeandenterprise;communicationsandrelationshipmanagement;lifelonglearning;globalmindset;self‐management;work‐relatedlifeskills;healthandworkplacesafety.
62
RecentdevelopmentsinContinuousVocationalEducationandTraining(CVET)
Therelativeweightplacedon formal,non‐formal, andenterprise‐based trainingvary fromcountrytocountry.However,itiscommontofindthatformal,school‐basedtrainingenrolsfewertraineesthaneithernon‐formaltrainingorenterprise‐basedtraining(ADB,2009).IdeasandeffortstoexpandthescopeforCVEThavethereforebeenmadeandobservedrecently.
Enterprise‐basedvocationaltraining
InadditiontoTVETofferedinsecondaryschools,TVETinstitutionsorpolytechnicsprovideanother important pathway to vocational skills development through various forms ofenterprise‐based vocational training. Employer‐led training brings the benefits of self‐regulationandself‐financing;however,itisusuallynotprovidedonthegroundsofequityandthereforerequiresgovernmentinterventionstoensureuniversalityofaccess.
Theconceptof‘learningorganisation’or‘learningcompany’hasalsoemergedinrecentyears.Theessenceofthisconceptistouseeconomiesofscaleinskillsdevelopmentbymultinationalcompanies.Typically,aleadingfirminavaluechaindevelopsstandardsandprogrammesforskillsdevelopmentandsometimesevenprovidesfacilitiesandpersonneltodelivertraining.InChina forexample,according to the statistics from theCASS InstituteofPopulationandLabor Economics, manufacturing productivity improves by 17 percent when workers’educationincreasesfortheequivalentofoneyear.In2006,theChineseSocietyofEducationDevelopment Strategy conducted research in eight technological companies with highinternationalcompetitiveness.Thecommon featureof thesecompanies is theemphasisonstafftrainingandlifelonglearning.Investinginhumancapital,especiallyinlifelonglearning,has become themost fundamental investment in these companies (China PICC,HuaHongGroupCo.,LtdShanghai,HuaweiTechnologies,ZTE)(UNESCO,2011b).
Apprenticeshipsanddualsystem
Apprenticeshipshavelongbeenatooltoprovideopportunitytolearnonthejobandopenpathways for employment. Two types of apprenticeships can be observed in ASEAN+6countries: structured, under the direction of employers and labour organisations, andtraditional,whichmainlycatersforyoungpeopleoutofschoolwhowillbetrainedbymastercraftspeopleintheinformaleconomy.
StructuredapprenticeshipstakeavarietyofformsacrossASEAN+6countries.Inmanycases,studentstakepartintrainingforoneortwodaysaweekandaresupervisedfortherestoftheweek.Alternatively,trainingoccursinblocksandfortheremainderofthetimestudentsaresupervisedatwork.Formalcontractsbetweenemployers,trainingorganizationsandstudentsarecommon.InAustralia,NewZealandandSingapore,thisformofapprenticeshipisadvanced.‘Creative Industry’ (CI) Apprenticeships in Singapore, are available in the performing arts,design, public relations, publishing andmusic and consist of two components: on‐the‐jobtraining and the compulsory CI Workforce Skills Qualification training programme. Here,apprenticeshipslastbetween3to12months.
In Japan,dualsystemtrainingprogrammesare implementedmainlybyeducation/traininginstitutions that have been entrusted to do so by the Employment and Human ResourcesDevelopment Organization of Japan or a prefectural government. Meanwhile, on‐the‐jobtrainingisofferedonafixed‐term.Arecipiententerpriseemploysanuntrainedpersonand
63
providesacombinationofpracticaltrainingataworkplace(practicaltrainingconductedinanemploymentrelationshipwithenterprises,whichisreferredtoas“OJT”)andclassroomstudyateducation/traininginstitutions(referredtoas“Off‐JT”).Theaimistofacilitateparticipantsinacquiringtheskillsrequiredforstableemploymentthenobtainregularemploymentattherecipientorotherenterprise.Anyrecipiententerpriseimplementingvocationaltrainingcanreceiveagranttooffsetpartof the trainingcosts incurredduringthe training(MinistryofHealth,LabourandWelfareofJapan,2009).
Table45belowliststhedifferentformsofapprenticeship/dualsystemprogrammescurrentlyinplaceinASEAN+6countries.
Table45:ExistingApprenticeship/DualSystemProgrammesinASEAN+6CountriesCountry Apprenticeship/dualsystemprogrammes
Australia AustralianapprenticeshipCambodia NominalexistenceChina UnofficialapprenticeshipIndia ApprenticeshipundertheStatutoryApprenticeshipTraining
SchemeIndonesia ApprenticeshipindualformMalaysia ApprenticeshipprogrammesimplementedbytheMinistryof
HumanResources(MOHR)inskillstraininginstitutionsPhilippines Learnership programme,dualtrainingsystem,apprenticeship
programme
Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
2.3.6 QualityandrelevanceofTVET
Demand‐drivenTVETsystems
Thecharacteristicsofacountry’seconomyinfluenceworkforcerequirements,whichinturn,shouldinfluenceTVETprovision.Ademandresponsivetrainingsystemshouldaddresstheemployerdemand.Thisrequiresknowledgeof labourmarketneeds, incentivesfortrainingproviders,aswellasflexibletrainingdelivery.InvolvementofemployersatallstagesofTVETdelivery and in the governance structures is equally important to ensure demand‐drivenTVET.
ManyachievementsareobservedintheareaofpolicydevelopmentaddressingrelevanceandefficiencyofTVET.TheGovernmentofIndia,forexample,hasdevelopedandadoptednationalskills policies along these lines. Its national policy, developed in 2009, focuses on therestructuringofTVETintoademand‐drivensystemguidedbytheneedsofthelabourmarket.InVietNam,theTVETsystemisdirectedbylabourmarketinformationandwithmulti‐entry‐exit points and flexible delivery.With the aim of innovating the VTE system, the GeneralDepartment of Vocational Training (GDVT) undertook the development of a new nationalcompetency‐basedcurriculumrelevanttoindustryrequirements(MinistryofEducationandTraining,2006).
Asanotherexample,Australiahasplacedemphasisongreaterengagementwithindustryandemployers.ItsNationalQualificationFramework(NQF)bringstogethermajorplayersinTVET– industry,unions,governments,equitygroupsandpractitioners– tooverseeandsupport
64
quality assurance and to ensure national consistency of TVET across Australia. The newPhilippineDevelopmentPlan(2011‐2016)includesastrategytoimprovetheeffectivenessofthe demand‐supply match for critical skills and high‐level professions through tighterindustry‐academic links and better dissemination of labourmarket information aswell ascareerguidance(NationalEconomicandDevelopmentAuthority,2011).
Implementationofcompetency‐basedlearning
Structural economic changes, and in particular the pace of technological change, providespowerfulstimulusformanycountriesintheASEAN+6grouptoundertakeTVETcurriculumreforms.Inthisrespect,manycountriesinthisreviewhaveintroducedacompetency‐basedcurriculum in TVET to ensure appropriate adaptation to the quickly changing needs ofenterprise. Competency based training (CBT) can be seen as training that focuses on theoutcome,orinotherwords,theattainedcompetencies.ItusesindustrycompetencystandardsasthebasisforTVETcurriculumdevelopment.Curriculumisoftenmodularinstructure,toprovidemoreflexibility,andincludesbothon‐andoff‐the‐jobcomponents.Thisreformhasbeengearedtowardsdevelopingskillstocomparablestandardsthatemployerswillrecognize.AmongASEAN+6countries,Australia,Indonesia,Japan,LaoPDR,RepublicofKorea,SingaporeandVietNamhaveintroducedcompetency‐basedtrainingstandards.
Qualityassurancesystemsandpolicies
MostASEAN+6countrieshavesystemsforqualityassuranceandaqualificationframeworkinplace(Table46).Moreandmorecountrieshaveintroducedqualificationsthatarerelatedtocompetencystandards.ARegionalModelofCompetencyStandardshasbeendevelopedandimplemented in Indonesia, Lao PDR and Thailand. These standards foster the mutualrecognitionofskillsandqualificationswithintheregioninkeysectorssuchasmanufacturing,tourism,constructionandagriculture(ILO,2011).
Table46:OverviewofStandards,QualityAssurance,QualificationsandRecognitionCountry Qualifications
FrameworkQualityAssurance VocationalCertification
Australia AustralianQualificationsFramework(AQF)
AustralianSkillsQualityAuthority(ASQA)VocationalEducationandTraining(VET)Framework,AustralianQualityTrainingFramework
VETqualificationunderAQF
Cambodia Nationalqualificationsframeworkunderdevelopment
China Nationalqualificationsframeworkunderdevelopment
NationalOccupationalQualificationCertificate
India NationalVocationalEducationQualificationFramework(NVEQF)
AllIndiaCouncilforTechnicalEducation,(AICTE),TechnicalEducationQualityImprovementProgramme(TEQIP)
65
Country QualificationsFramework
QualityAssurance VocationalCertification
Indonesia CompetencyStandards(SKKNI)
NationalAgencyofProfessionalCertification(NAPC)
Training/CompetenceCertificate
Japan TechnicalAssociate,entitledtouniversityentrance
LaoPDR Nationalqualificationsframeworkunderdevelopment
EducationalStandardsandQualityAssuranceCentre(ESQAC)
VocationalEducationCertificateuptopost‐secondarylevel
Malaysia MalaysianQualificationsAgency(MQA)
MQAinchargeofqualityassuranceofpost‐secondaryTVETandskillstraininginstitutions
FromJuniorVocationalto4typesofDiplomaCertification
Myanmar SkillsstandardsunderdevelopmentbyNationalSkillsStandardsAuthority(NSSA)
HighSchoolCertification,HigherEducationCertification
Philippines Nationalqualificationsframeworkapprovedin2005
TESDACertificationformiddle‐levelmanpower,ProfessionalRegulatoryCommission(PRC)Certificationforprofessionals
VietNam Occupationalskillsstandards
Nationalskillsstandardssystem
Nationalaccreditationsystemforschools,VocationalCertificationandDiploma
Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
ThedevelopmentoftheNationalQualificationSystem27FrameworkintheregionhasbeenledbyAustraliaandNewZealandsincethe1990s.ThestatusofnationalqualificationframeworksintheASEAN+6countriesispresentedinTable47.
Table47:StatusofNationalQualificationFramework(NQF)inASEAN+6CountriesCountrieswithNQF
Australia Allsectors,butVETandhighereducationsomewhatseparateMalaysia Allsectors,basedonlearningoutcomes,butearlystageof
implementationNewZealand Allsectors,butdifferencesforVETandhighereducationPhilippines Allsectorsincluded,butsectorsmanagedseparatelySingapore VETonlyThailand Highereducationonly
NQFindevelopmentBruneiDarussalam Underdevelopment
Cambodia UnderdevelopmentLaoPDR Underdevelopment
27 The term ‘qualification system’ encompasses all activities a country undertakes in recognition of learning while the national qualification system is said to be an “instrument that classifies qualifications according to a set of criteria” for the levels of learning outcomes achieved (OECD, 2008).
66
Myanmar Skillscompetencyframeworkuptolevel4,aimingatdevelopinghigherlevels
RepublicofKorea UnderdevelopmentNoNQF
China NoneIndonesia None,butsupportfortheconceptJapan None,butlikelyVietNam NoneSource:UNESCO(2011b),anddataforMyanmarwascollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff.
Some initiatives have been put in place to improve the TVET quality assurance andqualification frameworks. Most notable are the establishment of comparable nationalqualificationframeworksbytheASEAN‐Australia‐NewZealandFreeTradeArea(AANZFTA)EconomicCooperationWorkProgramme(ECWP)andtheTVETqualityassuranceframeworkby the East Asia Summit (EAS). Both are aimed at harmonizing regulatory arrangements,principlesandstandardsrelatedtoTVETqualityandqualification.
AccreditationofTVETprovidersandcertificationofTVETprogrammes
As part of TVET quality assurance, many countries have introduced an accreditation andcertificationsystemforTVET.Accreditationreferstotheprocess forensuringthattrainingproviders have the capacity to deliver training programs and adequatelymanage quality.Certificationreferstothedocumentaryevidencethataqualificationhasbeenawardedastheoutcomeofatrainingprogramme.Thebodiesoverseeingthesetaskshowevervarygreatlydepending on the country context. 28 Some countries (for example Australia, India, NewZealand)havedifferentagenciesfordifferentlevelsofeducationwhileothershaveacentralagencyoverseeingallthesetasks(forexample,LaoPRD,Thailand,VietNam).
Monitoringandevaluation
MonitoringandevaluatingTVETperformanceandidentifyingpossibilitiesforimprovingitsqualityandcoveragerequireanunderstandingofthenatureofTVET,itsfunctions,goalsandkey characteristics. One common but simple tool designed to monitor and evaluate therelevanceoftechnicalandvocationaltrainingisatracerstudyorsurvey.Tracerstudiesarecommonlyconductedbyeducationalinstitutionswithaccesstograduatecontactinformation.Thefrequencyandcoverageofthesesurveysvarybetweeninstitutionsandcountriesbutveryfewcountriescollectinformationonthelabourmarketsituationofstudentsthroughschooladministrative processes. The status of selected ASEAN+6 countries in conducting tracerstudiesispresentedinTable48.
28 ForanoverviewofnationalaccreditingandqualityassurancebodyinASEAN+6countries,seeTable16onpage33ofthisreport.
67
Table48:SurveysofLabourMarketbyTypeCountry TracerStudy Others
Cambodia ▲ ●
India ▲ ●
Indonesia ▲ ▲
LaoPDR ▲ X
Philippines ▲ X
VietNam X XNotes:●:conductedregularly;▲:conductedirregularly,ad‐hocbasis;X:notimplementedSource:UNESCO(2012f).
2.3.7 Conclusion
Improvingeducationisnotonlyaboutmakingsureallchildrencanattendschool.Educationisalsoaboutensuringyoungpeoplearepreparedfortheworldbeyondtheirtextbooksandbeyondtheschoolgrounds.Educationisaboutprovidingyouthwiththeopportunitiestofinddecentwork,earnaliving,contributetotheircommunitiesandsocietiesandfulfiltheirownuniquepotential.Whiletheapproachescountriestaketohelpyouthreachthistruepotentialmayvary,anumberofemergingtrendsineducationsystemsacrossASEAN+6countrieshavealsobeenidentifiedthroughoutthisreportandcanalsobesummarisedasfollows:
(i) TVETcontinuestobe“unpopular” TrendsinTVETenrolmentratesvaryacrosstheASEAN+6countries.Inmostcountries,
the share of TVET has tended to decrease over the past decade. TVET continues toreceive relatively low government investment and retains low status within mostsocieties.
(ii) Thereisneedforstrengthenedpolicyguidance,regulatoryframeworks,andpublic‐privatepartnerships
TVETisviewedasatoolforproductivityenhancementandpovertyreduction.Inthisregard,governmentsareputtinginplacemeasurestostrengthenpolicyguidanceandregulatory frameworks for TVET including expanding partnershipswith the privatesector.FurtherimprovementsareneededtostrengthenthealignmentofTVETpolicywithnationaleconomicdevelopmentstrategies.
(iii) Amovetowardmorecomprehensiveandcoherentqualificationsystemsisvisible Agrowingnumberofgovernmentsareacknowledgingtheimportanceofqualifications
frameworks to ensure that all academic degrees and vocational qualifications andstandards are consistent at a regional level. This, in turn, has created the need forgovernments to develop common and transparent standards as an important steptowards enhancing student and labour mobility and facilitating the integration ofnationalandinternationallabourmarkets.
(iv) TheisgrowingmomentumforthegreaterdevelopmentofTVETqualityassurancesystems Qualityassuranceinitiatives,notonlyforTVETinstitutionsbutalsoforteachingstaff
through accreditation processes are increasing across ASEAN+6. Different agencies,bothnationalandregional,havebeenestablishedforaccreditationpurposes.
68
(v) ThedemarcationbetweenTVETandgeneraleducationisincreasinglyblurred Atrendmovingbothtowardsthe“vocationalisation”ofgeneraleducationandtowards
the “generalisation” of vocational education can be noted in some countries. AsASEAN+6economiesbecomeincreasinglyknowledge‐based,vocationalstudentsneedageneralall‐roundgroundingtoaccompanytheirspecificvocationaleducation.Genericskills seem increasingly important, given the ever‐changing skills requirements thatmodernsocietydemands.Atthesametime,generaleducationisbecomingincreasinglyvocationalised.
(vi) Thereislimitedopportunityforworkplacetraining Manyemployers,especiallyinlessdevelopedcountries,failtoinvestintrainingtheir
staff.Limitedprovisionofemployeedevelopmentopportunitiesmayserveasalimitingfactor to national growth and economic development. There is strong need forworkplacetraininggivenitspracticalroleinstrengtheningworkskills.
(vii) TVETinformationsystemsandinformationandguidanceservicesarelimited Soundlabourmarketinformation(LMI)andanalysisareamongtherequirementsfor
theintroductionofademand‐drivenTVET.LMIandanalysisareessentialtoolsforskillsneedsmonitoring.DatausedshouldbereliableanduptodateifitistoprovidethebasisforTVETpolicyevaluationandprogrammedevelopment.Household‐basedlabourforcesurveysarethemainsourcesofinformation.
(viii) Alackofskillsgapsstudiesexists Inmostcountries,nationwideemployersurveysonspecificskillsneeds,suchasvacancy
surveys, are rare, tend to be conducted irregularly, or are only conducted in certainprovinces or sectors. There is limited awareness among national policy makers ofcollectingmoredetailedskillsneedsdata.Thehistoryofnationalleveldatacollectioninthe region is relatively short and some countries have yet to conduct labour forcesurveysonaregularbasis.
(ix) ThereisalackofeffectivemonitoringandevaluationinTVET The carrying out of graduate tracer studies is still not widely practiced in most
developingcountries.Thereisalackofawarenessamongsomegovernmentsoftheneedfordataandthereforelackofcommitmenttocollectingdata.
69
3.WhatLessonscanbeLearnt?
ThisreporthasexploredmajortrendsintheASEAN+6educationsystems,leavingspaceforpolicy makers and education ministry staff to draw lessons based on their own nationaldevelopmentcontextandneeds.Indeed,furtherin‐depthanalysismayberequiredtosupportinthisprocess.Whileaone‐size‐fits‐allmodelforimprovingeducationsystemsisnotfeasibleandisbynomeanstheobjectiveofthisreview,thisreportprovidesageneralindicationofwhat measures may strengthen education systems in the region based on the collectivesuccessesandexperiencesofcountriesunderreview.Thesemeasuresaresummarisedbelow.
Clearvisionandcommitmenttoimplementation
Clearpolicyvisioniscriticaltoanysuccessfuldevelopmentstrategy.Thisvisionneedsto be founded on broad‐based consensus among stakeholders and must facilitatecoordinationacrosssectorstoaccomplishsharedgoals.
Thetranslationofvisionintorealisticactionsandtargetssoastoattainandmonitorshort,medium,andlongtermobjectivesisalsocritical.
Investmentoftimeandefforttocreateaclearvisionandamechanismfortranslatingthat vision into achievable actions at the national or sectoral level will have hugeoperationalpaybacks.
Alignmentandconsistencyofpolicies
Policiesshouldreflectacommonvisionforsectordevelopmentandfitgenerallywithintheoverarchingframeworkfornationaldevelopment.Successfulpoliciesandplansareinvariablyconsistentinscope,goalsandactions;plansandbudgetsshouldalignsoastosupportbotheffectiveimplementationandmonitoringofeducationreform.
Alleducationalpoliciesandprogrammesneedtobecoordinatedwithintheeducationsector and with other concerned ministries such as those dealing with economicdevelopment, human resource development, labour, science and technology,agriculture,etc.
A national, cross‐ministerial coordinating agency or committee can facilitate thisprocess, harmonize the programme, and promote the sharing of knowledge andresources. This is very much the case for technical and vocational education andtrainingasthesubsectorofteninvolvesmanyagenciesinbothregulationanddeliveryofservices.Amorestreamlinedgovernmentbodytomanage,coordinateandmonitortheeducationsectormaybeanalternativewherebyonlyoneoralimitednumberofministriesexist.
Focusonequity,qualityandrelevance
Inmanycountries, thereisstillgreatneedtoimprovethequalityofeducationatalllevels in line with national and international standards, while ensuring access toeducation for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. Strengtheningmanagement systems, including targeted support to the disadvantaged groups,equitableandsustainablepublicfinancing,andasufficientsupplyofqualifiedschoolleadershipandprofessionalstaff,iscriticaltoensuringequityandqualityineducation.
70
Thereisalsoaneedtoimprovethevocationalandhighereducationsysteminmanycountries.Buildingonprogressachievedinbasiceducation,countrieswillbenefitfromstrengtheningotherlevelsofeducationiftheyaretohaveawell‐educatedandskilledpopulationwiththecapacitytocontributeeffectivelytothecountry’sdevelopment.
Appropriateskillsareessentialforaneconomyintransitionbeittothenextlevelofdevelopmentor inaneffort to increase itsknowledge‐based sectors.The skills thatneedtobenurturedaretorespondnotonlytothecurrentneedsbutalsotocurrentlynon‐existentneedsinthecontextofrapidchange,whichrequireprovidingarightmixoftransferableandspecificskillsandcompetencies.
Robustpolicyresponsestocaterfordiverselearningneeds
ThedemographicprofileofASEAN+6countriesischangingasaresultofbulgingyouthpopulations, ageing populations and increased intra‐regional mobility. Educationsystemsneedtoprovidehighquality,relevanteducationandtrainingwhichcanhelppeoplemakegoodlifechoicesastheytransitionthroughdifferentstagesoflife.
Educationsystemshavetocaterforthemultiplelearningneedsandcircumstancesofyoung people by promoting flexibility and respect for diversity so as to achieveessentialcorestandardsofqualityandamaximumlevelofinclusiveness.
Theymustalsocaterforolderpeoplewhonowtendtolivelongerandwillthusneedtolivehealthierandmoreself‐sustainablelives.
Partnerships
Successful implementation of education policies and reforms rely greatly onpartnershipswithanumberofdifferentstakeholders:governments,theprivatesector,civilsocietyandbilateralandmultilateralorganizations.
Moreover,cooperationatnationalandregionallevelsinacollaborative,constructiveandmutuallysupportivemannerleadstomoreresponsive,enablingandparticipatoryplanning,implementationandexecutionofpolicies.
Government leadership iskeytosuccessfulpartnershipandownershipofeducationreform and development, which calls for priority attention to strengthening thecapacityofnationalorganizationsandinstitutions.
Benchmarkingandmonitoringofoutcomes
National education data is crucial to evidence‐based policy making and successfulmonitoringandevaluationofeducationsystemperformance.
Theestablishmentofbenchmarksagainstwhichtheprogressofaprogrammeortheperformance of an education system can be monitored and compared can be animportantsteptoimproveeducationpolicyandpractice.
71
References
Abella,M.2005.ComplexityanddiversityofAsianmigration.Bangkok,InternationalLabourOrganization(ILO).
ADB.2009.EducationandSkills:StrategiesforAcceleratedDevelopmentinAsiaandthePacific.Manila,ADB.
_____.2011.PolicyDialogueonClimate‐inducedMigrationinAsiaandthePacific.Discussionpaper.Manila,ADB.
Adiviso,B.2010.EmergingTrendsandChallengesofTVETintheAsia‐PacificRegion.InMajumdar,S.(ed.)2011.EmergingChallengesandTrendsinTVETintheAsia‐PacificRegion.Rotterdam,SensePublishers.
ASEAN‐Australia‐NewZealandFreeTradeArea(AANZFTA).2012.EducationandTrainingGovernance:CapacityBuildingforNationalQualificationsFrameworksFinalReportExecutiveSummary.Jakarta,ASEANSecretariat.
ASEMEducationandResearchHubforLifelongLearning.2013.LifelongLearningandEmployability.http://www.dpu.dk/asem/researchnetworks/corecompetences/(Accessed16December2013)
AustralianEducationInternational(AEI).n.d.CountryEducationProfiles:Australia.https://aei.gov.au/Services‐And‐Resources/Services/Country‐Education‐Profiles/About‐CEP/Documents/Australia.pdf(Accessed11October2012)
Bray,M.2009.Confrontingtheshadoweducationsystem:Whatgovernmentpoliciesforwhatprivatetutoring?Paris,IIEP.
Bray,M.andLykins,C.2012.Shadoweducation:PrivatesupplementarytutoringanditsimplicationsforpolicymakersinAsia.Manila,ADB.
Clerk,G.2010.EducationMTEF:Approaches,ExperiencesandLessonsfromnineCountriesinAsia.Asia‐PacificEducationSystemReviewSeriesNo.3.Bangkok,UNESCOBangkok.
Cohen,D.andHill,H.2001.Learningandpolicy:Whenstateeducationreformworks.NewHaven,YaleUniversityPress.
CommonwealthofAustralia.2010.ReviewofFundingforSchooling:DiscussionPaperandDraftTermsofReference.http://isca.edu.au/wp‐content/uploads/2011/07/FundingDiscussPaper.pdf(Accessed9February2012.)
Elmore,R.1995.StructuralReformandEducationalPractice.EducationalResearcher,Vol.24,No.9,pp.23‐26.
EM‐DAT.2009.InternationalDisasterDatabase.http://www.emdat.be(Accessed10September2012).
72
Gannicott,K.2009.SecondaryTeacherPolicyResearchinAsia:TeacherNumbers,TeacherQuality:LessonsfromSecondaryEducationandAsia.Bangkok,UNESCOBangkok.
Hanushek,E.A.,andRivkin,S.G.2012.Thedistributionofteacherqualityandimplicationsforeducation.http://hanushek.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Hanushek%2BRivkin%202012%20AnnRevEcon%204.pdf(Accessed12December2012)
Hill,P.2010.ExaminationSystems.Asia‐PacificSecondaryEducationSystemReviewSeries,Booklet1.Bangkok,UNESCOBangkok.
HIVandAidsDataHubforAsia‐Pacific.2013.KeyFactsonHIVinAsiaandthePacific.http://www.aidsdatahub.org/(Accessed30November2013.)
InternationalBureauofEducation.2011.WorldDataonEducationSeventhEdition2010/11.http://www.ibe.unesco.org/en/services/online‐materials/world‐data‐on‐education/seventh‐edition‐2010‐11.html(Accessed24September2012).
ILO.2006.“LabourandsocialtrendsinAsiaandthePacific2006–Progresstowardsdecentwork”Bangkok,ILO.
_____.2011.BuildingasustainablefuturewithdecentworkinAsiaandthePacific.ReportoftheDirector‐General,15thAsiaandthePacificregionalmeeting,Kyoto,Japan,April2011.
Jensen,B.,Hunter,A.,Sonnemann,J.,andBurns,T.2012.Catchingup:learningfromthebestschoolsystemsinEastAsia,GrattanInstitute.
Kim,E.,Kim,J.andHan,Y.2009.SecondaryTeacherPolicyResearchinAsia:SecondaryEducationandTeacherQualityintheRepublicofKorea.Bangkok,UNESCOBangkok.
KoreaResearchInstituteforVocationalEducation&Training(KRIVET).2010.TVETPolicyReviewsof8AsianCountries.Seoul,KRIVET.
Law,SongSeng.2011.PapercommissionedfortheEFAGlobalMonitoringReport2012:CaseStudyonNationalPoliciesLinkingTVETwithEconomicExpansion:LessonsfromSingapore.Singapore,LawSongSeng.
Maruyama,H.2011.TeacherTrainingandCertificateSystem.EducationinJapan,NationalInstituteforEducationalPolicyResearch.http://www.nier.go.jp/English/EducationInJapan/Education_in_Japan/Education_in_Japan.html(Accessed30October,2012).
MinistryofEducation,Culture,Sports,ScienceandTechnologyinJapan(MEXT).2012.StructureofNationalandLocalGovernmentsConcerningEducation,Culture,Sports,ScienceandTechnology.http://www.mext.go.jp/english/organization/1303050.htm(Accessed21September,2012).
MinistryofEducationandTrainingVietnam(MOET).2006.TechnicalandVocationalEducationandTraining(TVET)inVietNam.http://en.moet.gov.vn/?page=6.7&view=4403(Accessed15October,2012).
73
MinistryofEducationNewZealand.2008.TechnicalandVocationalEducationandTraininginIndia:ASnapshotofTodayandChangesUnderwayforTomorrow.Wellington,MinistryofEducationNewZealand.
MinistryofHealth,LabourandWelfareofJapan.2009.The“Job‐Card”SysteminJapan.http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/policy/affairs/dl/job_card_eng.pdf(Accessed16December,2013)
Mourshed,M.,Chijioke,C.,&Barber,M.2007.Howtheworld’sbestperformingschoolsystemscomeoutontop.London,McKinsey&Company.
MyanmarMinistryofEducation.2012.EducationforAll:AccesstoandQualityofEducationinMyanmar.http://unic.un.org/imucms/userfiles/yangon/file/Education%20for%20All%20in%20Myanmar%20%28Final%202012%20FEB%202%29.pdf(Accessed26October,2012).
NationalEconomicandDevelopmentAuthority.2011.PhilippineDevelopmentPlan2011‐2016.http://www.neda.gov.ph/PDP/2011‐2016/default.asp(Accessed15October,2012).
NewZealandQualificationsAuthority(NZQA).2012.http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications‐standards/qualifications/ncea/ncea‐exams‐and‐portfolios/(Accessed12October,2012).
OECD.2009.PISA2009Results:WhatStudentsKnowandCanDo.
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46643496.pdf(Accessed1December,2012).
_____.2011a.QualityTimeforStudents:LearningInandOutofSchool.Paris,OECD.
_____.2011b.EducationataGlance2011:OECDindicators.Paris,OECD.
Park,M.G.2005.BuildingHumanResourceHighwaysthroughVocationalTrainingin:VocationalContentinMassHigherEducation?ResponsestotheChallengesoftheLabourMarketandtheWork‐Place.Bonn,8‐10September2005.UNESCO‐UNEVOC
PhilippinesMinistryofEducation.2008.ThePhilippinesEducationforAll2015–ImplementationandChallenges.http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Philippines/Philippines_EFA_MDA.pdf(Accessed12October,2012).
SEAMEO.2009.Mothertongueasbridgelanguageofinstruction:PoliciesandexperiencesinSoutheastAsia.Bangkok,SEAMEO.
SEAMEO‐INNOTECH.2010.TeachingCompetencyStandardsinSoutheastAsianCountries:11thCountryAudit.SEAMEOINNOTECH.
Tan,S.K.SandWong,A.F.L.2007.TheQualificationsoftheTeachingForce:DatafromSingapore.InIngersoll,R.M.(ed).Philadelphia,TheConsortiumforPolicyResearchinEducation.
74
TechnicalEducationandSkillsDevelopmentAuthority(TESDA).2011.http://www.tesda.gov.ph/uploads/File/LMIR2011/july2012/NTESDP%20Final%20asofSept12.pdf(Accessed15October2012).
TheFoundationforAIDSResearch(amfAR).2013.StatisticsWorldwide:TheRegionalPicture.http://www.amfar.org/about‐hiv‐and‐aids/facts‐and‐stats/statistics‐‐worldwide/(Accessed30November,2013)
UIS‐UNEVOC.2006.Participationinformaltechnicalandvocationaleducationandtrainingprogrammesworldwide:Aninitialstatisticalstudy.Bonn,UNEVOC.
UIS.2011.GlobalEducationDigest2011:ComparingEducationStatisticsAcrosstheWorld—FocusonSecondaryEducation.Montreal,UNESCOInstituteforStatistics.
UISDataCentre.2012.http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=143&IF_Language=eng(Accessed26September,2012).
UNEconomicandSocialCommissionforAsiaandthePacific.2011.StatisticalYearbookforAsiaandthePacific2011,Bangkok,UNESCAP.
UnitedNationsDepartmentofEconomicandSocialAffairs(UNDESA).2012.WorldPopulationsProspects:The2012Revision.http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel‐Data/population.htm(Accessed30October2012).
UnitedNationsYouth,2013.RegionalOverview:YouthinAsiaandthePacific.http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/youth/fact‐sheets/youth‐regional‐escap.pdf Accessed31December,2013 .
UNESCO.2005.EducationTodayNewsletter,April‐June.Paris,UNESCO.
_____.2006.EquivalencyProgrammes(EPs)forPromotingLifelongLearning.Bangkok,UNESCOBangkok.
_____.2007.SecondaryEducationRegionalInformationBase:CountryProfiles,Vietnam.Bangkok,UNESCOBangkok.
_____.2009.SecondaryEducationRegionalInformationBase:CountryProfiles,Philippines.Bangkok,UNESCOBangkok.
_____.2010a.AchievingEFAThroughEquivalencyProgrammesinAsia‐Pacific:ARegionalOverviewWithHighlightsfromIndia,Indonesia,ThailandandthePhilippines.Bangkok,UNESCOBangkok.
_____.2011a.EducationSystemProfiles.EducationResources,UNESCOBangkok.http://www.unescobkk.org/education/resources/education‐system‐profiles/(Accessed12October2012).
_____.2011b.Asia‐PacificRegionalBackgroundPaperfortheThirdInternationalCongressonTVET.Bangkok,UNESCO.
75
UNESCO.2012a.ConventionagainstDiscriminationinEducation.http://www.unesco.org/eri/la/convention.asp?KO=12949&language=E&order=alpha(Accessed24September2012).
_____.2012b.DecentralizedFinanceandProvisionofBasicEducation.Asia‐PacificEducationSystemReviewSeriesNo.4.Bangkok,UNESCOBangkok.
_____.2012c.CommunityLearningCentres:Asia‐PacificRegionalConferenceReport.Bangkok,UNESCOBangkok.
_____.2012d.LaoPDRTVETPolicyReviewReport.Bangkok,UNESCOBangkok.
_____.2012e.CambodiaTVETPolicyReviewReport.Bangkok,UNESCOBangkok.
_____.2012f.School‐to‐WorkTransitionInformationBases.Bangkok,UNESCOBangkok.
_____.2012g.Asia‐PacificEndofDecadeNotesonEducationforAll:Goal4–YouthandAdultLiteracy.http://www.unescobkk.org/resources/e‐library/publications/article/efa‐goal‐4‐youth‐and‐adult‐literacy‐asia‐pacific‐end‐of‐decade‐notes‐on‐education‐for‐all/(Accessed16December 2013).
_____.2012h.TowardsEFAandBeyond:ShapingaNewVisionofEducation.RegionalHigh‐LevelExpertMeetingOutcomeDocument.http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/epr/Images/Summary_Outcomes‐Post_2015_FINAL.pdf(Accessed12December2013).
VietnamMinistryofEducation.2006.SecondaryEducationinVietnam.http://en.moet.gov.vn/?page=6.11&view=4402(Accessed13September2012).
Vinovskis,M.1996.Ananalysisoftheconceptandusesofsystemiceducationalreform.AmericanEducationalResearchJournal,Vol.33,pp.53‐85.
WorldBank.2008.SkillDevelopmentinIndia:TheVocationalEducationandTrainingSystem.HumanDevelopmentUnit,SouthAsiaRegion.Washington,D.C,WorldBank.
_____.2012.PrivateEducationExpenditurehttp://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/EXTDATASTATISTICS/EXTEDSTATS/0,,contentMDK:21217413~menuPK:4324086~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:3232764,00.html(Accessed16December 2013).
76
Mom Luang Pin Malakul Centenary Building920 Sukhumvit Road, Prakanong, Klongtoey Bangkok 10110, Thailand Email: epr.bgk@unesco.org Website: www.unesco.org/bangkok Tel: +66‐2‐3910577 Fax: +66‐2‐3910866