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