EducationPolicyResearchSeries DiscussionDocumentNo.5 EducationSystemsin ASEAN+6Countries: AComparativeAnalysisof SelectedEducationalIssues EducationPolicyResearchSeries DiscussionDocumentNo.5 EducationSystemsinASEAN+6Countries: AComparativeAnalysisofSelected EducationalIssues EducationPolicyandReformUnit UNESCOBangkok Publishedin2014bytheUnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization 7,placedeFontenoy,75352Paris07SP,France and UNESCOBangkokOffice ©UNESCO2014 ThispublicationisavailableinOpenAccessundertheAttribution‐ShareAlike3.0IGO(CC‐BY‐ SA 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐sa/3.0/igo/). By using the contentofthispublication,theusersaccepttobeboundbythetermsofuseoftheUNESCO OpenAccessRepository(http://www.unesco.org/open‐access/terms‐use‐ccbysa‐en). Thedesignationsemployedandthepresentationofmaterialthroughoutthispublicationdo notimplytheexpressionofanyopinionwhatsoeveronthepartofUNESCOconcerningthe legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitationofitsfrontiersorboundaries. Theideasandopinionsexpressedinthispublicationarethoseoftheauthors;theyarenot necessarilythoseofUNESCOanddonotcommittheOrganization. Design/Layout:JinAHwang THA/DOC/14/004‐E Preface This comparative report reviews and analyses a range of selected educational issues in Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)+6 countries, which include 10 ASEAN membercountriesplusAustralia,China,India,Japan,NewZealand,andtheRepublicofKorea. Inparticular,ithighlightsthekeyissues,challengesandopportunitiesforimprovingsystem performanceandreducingeducationaldisparitiesacrossASEAN+6countries.Itthusprovides useful inputs for informing policy options for education development in these and other countries. The issues reviewed are grouped into three policy areas: 1) sector policy and managementframeworks,2)secondaryeducation,and3)technicalandvocationaleducation andtraining(TVET),allofwhichareofcriticalimportanceinthecontextofformulatingand operationalizingeducationreformagendasinthesecountries. AcomparativereviewofthecurrenteducationalcontextinASEAN+6countriesindicatesthat: AllASEAN+6countrieshavealegalprovisionforfreeandcompulsoryeducationforat leastsomelevelsofbasiceducation. Educationsystemstructuresvary,however6+3+3isthemostcommonintheregion, followedbya6+4+2system. Most ASEAN+6 countries have decentralized some functions and responsibilities to lowerlevelsofadministrationbutremainrathercentralized,especiallywithregardto standardsettingandteachermanagement. Many ASEAN+6 countries have promoted alternative education and the use of equivalency programmes, however the ways alternative learning programmes are organized,deliveredandcertifieddiffer. There is an increasing recognition of the association between quality of learning outcomes and enabling factors for quality education such as curriculum and assessment, quality assurance, teaching and learning time, language in education policiesandteacherquality. TrendsinTVETenrolmentratesvaryacrosstheregion;inmostcountries,theshareof TVEThastendedtodecreaseoverthepastdecade.AllASEAN+6countriesrecognize the importance of TVET and many include it in their national socio‐economic developmentplans,howeverTVETcontinuestobe“unpopular”andthedemarcation betweengeneralandvocationaleducationisincreasinglyblurred. Therearewidevariancesinthewayscountriespreparetheirworkforceandperform educationallyinTVETbutmosthaveattemptedtoputinplacesystemsforTVETquality assuranceandqualificationsframeworks. Reviewingtheseissuesandthediverseapproachesthatcountrieshavechosentorespondwith has shed some lights on the possible policy choices for a country wishing to undertake education reform in these areas. Evidence reveals that high performing education systems appearto: Commitstrongly,bothlegallyandfinancially,toeducation Spendmoreandspendwiselyoneducation Devolvemoremanagementresponsibilitiestosub‐nationallevels Produceandusemoredata Undertake frequent curriculum reforms to respond to changing needs and make educationmorerelevant i Trainandutilizebetterteachers Provide alternativepathways to education on the basis of gender,ethnicity, poverty andgeographicallocation. Theanalysisofcountryexperiencesinimplementingeducationpolicyreformalsoprovides valuable lessons for any successful education policy development. Education policy, in particularreformpolicy,ismostlikelytobesuccessfulifitisdevelopedwith: Visionaryandconsistentpolicy Focusonequityandlearning Monitoringofprogressandoutcomes Partnershipsundergovernmentleadership ThepaperisDiscussionDocumentNo.5intheEducationPolicyResearchSeries,publishedby UNESCOBangkok.Thisseriesofdocumentsaimstocontributetothedebatearoundthemost pressingeducationpolicyissuesin theAsia‐Pacificregion,with theobjectiveofsupporting educationpolicyreforminMemberStates.Thedocumentsinthisseriesalsocontributetothe UNESCOBangkokknowledgebaseoneducationpolicyandreformissues. ii Acknowledgements Thisreportwasinitiallypreparedasabackgroundpaperprovidingcomparativeanalysison educationsectorpolicy,planningandmanagementacrosscountriesoftheAsia‐Pacific.The idea of a comparative report on ASEAN+6 education systems was initially conceived when UNESCO was called upon by the Malaysian Ministry of Education to conduct an Education PolicyReviewinNovember2011andlaterbyMyanmarMinistryofEducationinthecontext oftheComprehensiveEducationSectorReview(CESR)inMyanmarinJune2012. Thereportisbasedonfact‐findingmissionsfromvariousUNESCOstaffaswellasanalytical workbyUNESCOBangkoksuchastheAsia–PacificEducationSystemReviewSeries,theonline EducationSystemProfiles(ESPs),secondaryeducationcountryprofiles,andselectedcountry casestudyreports.Differentsourcesofinformationarenotalwayscitedexplicitlybuthave beenverifiedtotheextentpossiblebyUNESCOBangkok. The report also builds on a brief literature review of academic articles, policy reports, government documents and international agency reports examining the various topics covered in the report. As such, the report does not provide an exhaustive analysis of the education systems but focuses on those areas that are closer to the mandate, comparative advantageandcountryexperienceofUNESCOintheregion. AteamfromUNESCOBangkok’sEducationPolicyandReform(EPR)Unit,comprisingLeThu Huong, Satoko Yano, Ramya Vivekanandan, Margarete Sachs‐Israel, Mary Anne Therese Manuson, Stella Yu, Barbara Trzmiel, William Federer, Diana Kartika, Karlee Johnson and AkinaUeno.Peer‐reviewandcommentswereprovidedbyGwang‐CholChangandYoungSup Choi.ThereporthasbeenfurtherreviewedandeditedbyRachelMcCarthy,AyakaSuzukiand Jin‐AHwang. Comments or questions on the report are most welcome and should be sent to [email protected] iii ListofAcronyms ADB ASEAN ASEAN+6 ASEM CBT CESR CVET EFA ESPs GDP GDVT GNP HRD HRDF IBE ILO ISCED IVET LMI MEST MOE MOEL MOET MOHR MOLISA MOLSW MOLVT MTEF NQF OECD OJT PES PISA PPP SDF SEAMEO AsianDevelopmentBank AssociationofSouthEastAsianNations AssociationofSouthEastAsianNations+sixcountries Asia‐EuropeMeeting Competencybasedtraining ComprehensiveEducationSectorReview(Myanmar) ContinuousVocationalEducationandTraining EducationforAll EducationSystemProfiles GrossDomesticProduct GeneralDepartmentofVocationalTraining(VietNam) GrossNationalProduct HumanResourceDevelopment(Singapore) HumanResourceDevelopmentFund(Malaysia) UNESCOInternationalBureauof Education InternationalLabourOrganization InternationalStandardClassificationofEducation InitialVocationalEducationandTraining LabourMarketInformation MinistryofEducation,ScienceandTechnology(RepublicofKorea) MinistryofEducation MinistryofEmploymentandLabour(RepublicofKorea) MinistryofEducationandTraining(VietNam) MinistryofHumanResources(Malaysia) MinistryofLabour,InvalidsandSocialAffairs(VietNam) MinistryofLabourandSocialWelfare(LaoPDR) MinistryofLabourandVocationalTraining(Cambodia) Medium‐TermExpenditureFramework NationalQualificationFramework OrganisationforEconomicCo‐operationandDevelopment OntheJobTraining ProvincialEducationService(LaoPDR) ProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessment Public‐PrivatePartnerships SkillsDevelopmentFund(Singapore) SoutheastAsianMinistersofEducationOrganization iv TVED TVET UIS UN UNESCAP UNESCO UNEVOC VCs VET TechnicalandVocationalEducationDepartment(LaoPDR) TechnicalandVocationalEducationandTraining UNESCOInstituteforStatistics UnitedNations UnitedNationsEconomicandSocialCommissionforAsiaandthePacific UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization UNESCOInternationalCentreforTechnicalandVocationalEducationand Training VocationalColleges VocationalEducationandTraining(Australia) v Contents Preface............................................................................................................................................................................i Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................iii ListofAcronyms......................................................................................................................................................iv ListofTablesandFigures...................................................................................................................................vii Introduction.........................................................................................................................................1 1.ARegionalPerspectiveonEducation......................................................................................3 1.1 TheGreatDiversityoftheAsia‐PacificRegion.............................................................................3 1.2 MacroTrendsShapingEducationDevelopmentintheRegion.............................................5 2.EducationSystemsinASEAN+6Countries.............................................................................7 2.1 EducationPolicyandManagementFrameworks........................................................................7 2.1.1 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.............................................................................................................................30 2.2.1 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)..................................................45 2.3.1 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 vi ListofTablesandFigures Table1:CountriesthatRatified/AcceptedtheConventionagainstDiscriminationin Education(CADE,1960).....................................................................................................................8 Table2:DeterminationofCoreRecurrentSchoolFundingItemsfromtheLevelof GovernmentwithPrimaryFundingResponsibility,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 vii Table30:SecondaryTeachers’AverageAnnualSalariesinPublicInstitutionsinSelectAsia‐ PacificCountriesasaPercentageofGDPPerCapita..........................................................39 Table31:TheUseofExaminationsforthePurposesofSelectionandCertificationin ASEAN+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 viii Introduction Countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) 1 , despite differences in political systems, ideologies, historical background, development priorities and education structures,shareacommonvisionforanASEANcommunity.ForASEANcountries,education iscoretodevelopmentandcontributestotheenhancementofASEANcompetitiveness.Infact, theASEANCharter,launchedin2007,clearlyemphasizesthestrategicimportanceofcloser cooperationineducationandhumanresourcedevelopmentamongASEANmembercountries. ThecriticalroleofeducationinpromotingASEANsocialandeconomicdevelopmentandthe building of a strong ASEAN community has also been widely recognized and repeatedly confirmedatvarioushigh‐levelpolicydialogues2andinpolicydocuments.3Inthisregard,one notableregional initiative isthemove towardsasharedregional qualificationsframework, whichaimstopromotetherecognitionofqualificationsandqualityassuranceintheprovision ofeducation. ASEAN+6,whichincludestheadditionofAustralia,China,India,Japan,NewZealandandthe RepublicofKoreatotheASEANmix,isaregionalcooperationframeworkaimingtoaccelerate economic growth in East Asia and promote cooperation in areas vital to this growth. This cooperationisbeneficialnotonlytoitsmembersbutalsoothercountriesoftheAsia–Pacific region. Examination of education systems in ASEAN+6 countries reveals a combination of generallyhighperformingsystems(e.g.Australia,Japan,theRepublicofKorea,Singapore)and systemswheresubstantialimprovementmaybeneeded(e.g.Cambodia,LaoPDR,Myanmar). Bycomparison,analysisprovidesgreaterscopeforunderstandingwhyaneducationsystem performsbetterinonecountrythaninanother.Atthesametime,comparisonalsoprovides solidevidenceandthuspracticallessonstohelpimproveeducationsystemperformance.To help inform this reflection, it is important to examine the policies in any given education system, the ways in which they interact and impact upon system performance and other underlyingfactorsthatmayinhibitorstrengthenestablishedpolicies. Againstthisbackdrop,UNESCOBangkok’sEducationPolicyandReformUnithasundertaken adeskstudyofeducationsystemsinASEAN+6countries.Thereportoutlinesthefeaturesof ASEAN+6countryeducationsystemsinthecontextofon‐goingdiscussiononpolicyoptions foreducationdevelopmentandreforminthesecountries.Inparticular,ithighlightsthekey issues, challenges and opportunities for improving system performance and reducing disparities across ASEAN+6 countries with a focus on sector planning and management, secondary education and technical and vocational education and training (TVET), areas of criticalimportanceinformulatingandoperationalizingtheeducationreformagendainmost ofthesecountries.Thisreportistheproductofthatstudy. Thereportprovidesasourceofcomparativedataforresearchers,policyanalysts,education system managers and policy makers in areas where UNESCO believes policy dialogue and reformiscriticalforimprovingeducationsystemperformance.Datahasbeencollectedand comparisons 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). 1 ASEANcountriesbutarealsorelevanttomanycountriesintheregionwishingtoparticipate in,andfullybenefitfrom,theregionalcooperationand/orintegrationprocess. Thisreporthasbeencompiledforrapidassessmentandthushasemployedasimpleapproach todatacollectionandanalysis.Eachpolicyareaisbrieflyintroduced,andadescriptionofthe policydimensionsunderreviewispresented.Conclusionsarethendrawnprimarilybasedon thecomparativeanalysisoftheeducationalissues.Theyarealsoinformedbytheexperience of UNESCO in the Asia‐Pacific region, working closely with government counterparts, civil societyanddevelopmentpartnerstosupporttheeducationaldevelopmentneedsofmember countriesandtheiraspirationsineducation. Constraintsencounteredinthecompilingofthiscomparativereportincludedalackofreliable dataaswellassomewhatinconsistentandincomparabledatafromacrossvarioussources. Whereverpossible,thereporthasreliedonexistingresearchorstudyreportsavailablefrom international development organizations as well as internationally comparable and official governmentdatasources.Insomecases,however,thedataavailable,particularlyfromonline sources,isdifferentfromdataprovidedbygovernmentsourcesorcollectedbyUNESCOstaff. Insuchcases,internationallycomparabledatahasbeenused,complementedorverifiedby findingsfromfurtherresearchorUNESCOin‐houseexpertknowledge.Developmentbanks, academic and UN data sources have also been used extensively in order to provide a triangulatedanalysisoftheissues.Inaddition,onlycountrieswithrelevantdatahavebeen includedinthetablesandfiguresthroughoutthisreportandthus,notallASEAN+6countries arealwaysincludedintheanalysis. The report is presented in three chapters. Chapter 1 provides a regional perspective on educationdevelopmentintheAsia‐Pacific,including:thegreatdiversityoftheAsia‐Pacificand themacrotrendsshapingeducationdevelopmentintheregion. ChapterTwocomprisesadetailedaccountofASEAN+6countries’statusonselectededucation system issues from a comparative perspective. Section 2.1 presents analyses on the legislation, planning and management of the education system. Section 2.2 comprises the analysis of secondary education focusing on issues of pathways, curriculum, teachers and assessment at the secondary level. Section 2.3 provides a brief overview of technical and vocationaleducationandtraining(TVET)withsubtopicsfocusingonlegal,institutionaland policyframeworks,financingTVETdeliverysystemsandtherelevanceandqualityofTVET. ChapterThreeidentifiessomemajorpointsforreflectionbasedontheanalysisoftrendsand keyissuesintheASEAN+6educationsystems,pointsofrelevanceforASEAN+6countriesand othersoutsidethisgroupingintheirreviewofeducationpolicyandinthecraftingofeducation developmentstrategies. 2 1. ARegionalPerspectiveonEducation At the outset, it is important to provide perspective on the broader development context withintheAsia‐Pacificregion,theregiontowhichASEAN+6countriesbelong.Thefollowing chapterthuspresentsaregionaloverviewoftheAsia‐Pacificincludingthegreatdiversityof theregionandmacrotrendsshapingeducationdevelopment. 1.1 TheGreatDiversityoftheAsia‐PacificRegion TheAsia‐Pacificregion4spansalargegeographicalarea,stretchingnorthwardtoMongolia, southwardtoNewZealand,eastwardtotheislandstatesofOceania,andwestwardtoIran. Countriesrangeinareaandpopulationfromamongthebiggestandmostpopulouscountries intheworld,includingChinaandIndia,tosmallislandcountriessuchasNauruandTuvaluin the Pacific Ocean. The region is home to more than 4.2 billion people or 61 percent of the world’spopulation(UNESCAP,2011)andhence,developmentgainsintheAsia‐Pacificwill continuetohaveasignificantimpactontheglobaleducationoutlook. Inadditiontoitsimmensephysicalexpanse,theregionischaracterizedbydiversityinterms of landscape, societies, history, culture, religion, and ethnicity. Countries also demonstrate varyingdegreesofpolitical,socialandeconomicdevelopment.Broaddemographic,cultural and economic characteristics of the region can help provide context to the concomitant strengths,issuesandchallengessurroundingeducationdevelopmentintheregion. Demographiccharacteristics Over the last half century, the Asia‐Pacific region has experienced a significant population boomwithmanycountriesdoublinginsizeinthistime.Becauseofthis,theAsia‐Pacificregion holdsalargeshareoftheworld’syouthpopulation,estimatedat60percent(UNYouth,2013, p.1).Oftheregion’stotalpopulation,17.9percentareyouth.Thisisbothachallengeandan asset.Youngpeopleareoneofthemostvaluableresourcestoanygivencountryastheycan contributesignificantlytodevelopmentandgrowth.Atthesametime,youthoftheAsia‐Pacific areconfrontedwithahostofsignificantchallengesthatinmanycaseshindertheircapacityto contribute to development. Some of these de‐capacitating challenges include insufficient and/orinadequateeducation,unemploymentandHIVandAIDs. Insufficientand inadequate education Unemployment Thereare69millionilliterateyouthintheAsia‐Pacificregion alone.(UNESCO,2012g) Therearemorethan700millionyoungpeopleinAsia‐Pacific,but only20percentoftheregion’sworkersareagedbetween15and 24,theseyoungpeopleaccountforalmosthalftheAsia‐Pacific's jobless.5 4TheAsia‐PacificregionfollowsthespecificUNESCOdefinition.Thisdefinitiondoesnotforciblyreflectgeography,but rathertheexecutionofregionalactivitiesoftheOrganization.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 3 HIVandAIDs Nearly5millionpeoplearelivingwithHIVintheAsia‐Pacific region.(HIVandAidsDataHubforAsia‐Pacific,2013).Nearly351, 000peoplebecamenewlyinfectedin2012,asignificantproportion ofwhichareyoungpeople. TheAsia‐Pacificregionisalsohighlymobileasmigrationtoandfromtheregionaswellas withintheregionandwithincountriescontinuestoincrease.Theregionishometomorethan 53 million immigrants (UNESCO, 2012f). Important intra‐regional migration reflects both demographictrendsandtheincreasingintegrationoftheeconomiesoftheAsia‐Pacificregion. The pattern of rural‐to‐urban migration is also evident as countries move from largely agricultural economies to manufacturing and service‐based economies in their path to industrializationandpost‐industrialisation. Because of this increase in migration, cross‐border movement of labour has grown significantlyatarateovertwotimesfasterthanthegrowthofthelabourforceoftheorigin countries (Abella, 2005). Over 50 percent ofmigrants in the Asia‐Pacific region come from South Asia (primarily from India,Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka), andtherest mainly originatefromSouth‐EastAsiaandthePacific(IndonesiaandthePhilippines)(ILO,2006).The growingmobilityoflabouracrossbordershasbenefitedbothsendingandreceivingcountries as well as the migrants themselves, although the extent of these benefits varies; indeed, migration also brings about negative consequences such as “brain drain”, the migration of highly skilled workers, “brain waste”, or educated and skilled migrants from developing countries being only able to find unskilled jobs in developed countries, and the risk of dependencyonforeignlabour.Inaddition,protectingthebasicrightsofmigrantworkersand theiraccompanyingchildreninreceivingcountrieshasbecomeamajorconcern.Theswelling numbers of irregular migrants signal the immense problem of managing migration in a positive and protective way as the children of migrants in irregular and informal work arrangements often do not have adequate access to education services. Ultimately, this increaseinmigrationrequirescarefulplanningandpolicyactiontocaterforthesocialand educationalneedsofmigrantsandtheirfamilies. Culturalcharacteristics TheAsia–Pacificregionishometoagreatdiversityofethnic,linguisticandreligiousgroups. Infact,thereareover3,500languagesspokenacrossregion.Atthesametime,manylanguages shareacommonrootorfamily,forexampleinthelandsbetweenIndiaandtheislandofBali, Indonesia, the ancient Hindu epic "Ramayana" permeates the daily lives of the people. Languages spoken in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines belong to the same language family.ThesearealllinkedwiththosespokeninthePacific,thusthetermMalayo‐Polynesian language.IndigenouspeoplesofAustraliaandNewZealandalsohavedeeplinguistictieswith thislanguagefamily. Economiccharacteristics Overthepasttwodecades,theAsia‐Pacificregionhascontinuedtomaintainhigheconomic growth rates exceeding that of other regions, and has consequently become known as the "growth centre" of the global economy (UNESCO, 2012f). The Asia‐Pacific’s combined 4 economy accounted for 35.36 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009 6 , making it one of the world’s largest aggregate economies. The region’s middle‐income economiesregisteredthehighestgrowth,withsomegraduatingtohigherincomestatus.East AsiaandthePacificledtheglobalrecoveryfromtheeconomiccrisisin2009/10withChina driving most of the economic expansion. Over the coming years, the region is expected to continuetoenjoythehighestgrowthratesintheworldandtoserveastheengineoftheworld economy. CountriesoftheAsia‐Pacificregiondemonstratevaryinglevelsofeconomicdevelopmentand ratesofgrowth.WhileAustralia,Japan,NewZealand,theRepublicofKorea,andSingaporeare categorized as highly industrialized countries, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Nepal, Papua New Guineaarestillinthelow‐incomecategory.ChinaandIndia,meanwhile,representtheworld’s twomostsignificantemergingeconomieswithanincreasingshareintheworld’swealth.Other economies,suchasIndonesia,Malaysia,thePhilippines,ThailandandVietNambelongtothe middle‐incomecategory. 1.2 MacroTrendsShapingEducationDevelopmentintheRegion The21stcenturypresentssignificant,multi‐faceted,rapidandinterdependentchallengesand opportunities for all countries of the world, including the Asia‐Pacific. These range from increasing economic interdependency, technological development, growing pressure on naturalresourcesandenvironmentaldegradation,rapidlychanginglabourmarkets,shifting geo‐politics, older, highly mobile and more urbanized populations amid growing unemploymentandwideninginequalities.Theseemergingchallengesandopportunitieshave importantimplicationsforeducationpolicy‐makinganddelivery,andneedtobereflectedin theshapingofbothnationalandinternationaleffortineducationaldevelopment.Thecurrent thinkingonmacrotrendsshapingeducationdevelopmentintheregionwerewelldocumented in“TowardEFA2015andBeyond–ShapingaNewVisionforEducation”conferencepapers andpresentationsaspartofaregionalhighlevelmeetingorganizedbyUNESCOBangkokon thefutureofeducation(9‐11May2012).7Thesetrendsarehighlightedbelow: Demographicchangeandmigration Rapidlyageingpopulations,youthbulgesandlargemigrantpopulationsraisequestionsabout howeducationpolicyshouldadaptforthefuture.Issuesofglobalizationversustheneedto maintainregionalandlocalidentitiesarealsoimportantissuestoaddress. Socio‐economictrends The region continues to function as an engine of global growth, but performance across countries remains mixed; there are vast disparities between and within countries and the highestprevalenceofextremepovertyintheworldisfoundinthisregion.Aselsewhereacross theglobe,theregion’sdramaticeconomicdevelopmenthasoftenledtoawideningratherthan narrowingofdisparitiesinlivingstandardsandsocialandeconomicopportunities. 6BasedontheGDPshareofWorldTotal(PPP)DataforYear2009fortheAsia‐Pacificcountries,aspertheUNESCO definition.MoredetailsontheGDPshareofworldtotalforspecificcountriescanbefoundat http://www.economywatch.com/economic‐statistics/economic‐indicators/GDP_Share_of_World_Total_PPP/2009/ 7Seethefullpapersandreportsathttp://www.unescobkk.org/education/epr/erf/ 5 In addition, as countries move to knowledge‐based, creative economies, innovation now becomescentraltonationalcompetitiveadvantagewithsignificantimplicationsforthekinds ofworkandjobspeoplewilldo,andtheskillsthateducationshouldprovideforinthefuture. Technologicaladvancement The ubiquitous spread of information and communication technology has raised questions abouttheroletechnologyshouldplaywithineducationsystems.Inparticular,thereisagreat interestinhoweducationcanbothbenefitfromandcontributetothedigital(andlearning) societyinwhichwelive. Climatechangeandenvironmentaldegradation TheAsia‐Pacificregionhasbeensignificantlyaffectedbynaturaldisasters.Infact,between 1974and2003,abouthalfofalldisastersworldwidetookplaceinAsiaandthePacific(EM‐ DAT, 2009). In the decade 2000‐2009, 85 percent of global fatalities related to natural disasters occurred in the Asia‐Pacific (ADB, 2011), making it one of the most vulnerable regions to natural disaster and other environmental changes. This has highlighted the importance of education in supporting knowledge‐based practices on prevention, preparedness and mitigation in response to the deleterious impacts of climate change and environmentaldegradation. Enhancedintegrationandinterconnection Bydefaultandbydesign,countriesaremoreconnectednowthaneverbeforetechnologically, environmentally,economicallyandsocially.Atthesametime,intensifyingglobalcompetition hassparkednewconversationonhoweducationcannotonlyprovidetherequiredknowledge and skills in a more interconnected world, but also reconcile and resolve conflicts. In this regard,educationisincreasinglyseenashavingacriticalroleinstrengtheningdevelopment andleadingsocialandeconomictransformation. 6 2. EducationSystemsinASEAN+6Countries This chapter analyses education policy and management frameworks, secondary education and TVET, three education policy areas that constitute important reform domains in most educationsystemsoftheAsia‐Pacificregion.Totheextentpossible,eachofthesepolicyareas isanalysedfromacomparativeperspectiveandasetofconclusionsaredrawnasreflection pointsforpolicymakersandpractitioners.Itishopedthatthesereflectionpointsmayguide education policy makers in their discussion on possible areas forand approachesto policy reform. 2.1 EducationPolicyandManagementFrameworks 2.1.1 Introduction Education policies can play a critical role in transforming the education landscape and outcomes of learning. A prominent feature of the successful educational transformation in manycountries isthatpolicyreformeffortsandprogrammes areguidedbyaclear goalor vision,andimplementedthroughacoherentplanning,managementandmonitoringprocess. Policiesandprogrammesneedtoaddressallofthecomponentsofthesysteminacoordinated and coherent way so that changes, in turn, become mutually reinforcing and promote continuousimprovement.8 In this section, selected aspects of education policy and management frameworks are comparedacrosstheeducationsystemsofASEAN+6countriesandsomeemergingtrendsare identified.Theseaspectsinclude:levelofcommitmenttoeducationdevelopment,educational structure,sectormanagement,teacherpoliciesaswellassomeotherqualitydeterminants. 2.1.2 LegalandFinancialCommitmenttoEducation Legalcommitment AllASEAN+6countrieshaveratifiedtheConventionoftheRightsoftheChild,internationally committingthemselvestoprovidefreeprimaryeducationtoallchildren.Theserightshave been built into most national legislation, 9 which then serves as an important regulatory instrumentoutliningwhat,howandwhencitizensofacountryshouldexercisetheirrightsto education.Whilethiscommitmentissignificantachievement,fewerASEAN+6countrieshave either ratified or accepted the Convention against Discrimination in Education (Error! Referencesourcenotfound.). 8 SeealsoCohen&Hill(2001);Elmore(1995);Vinovskis(1996). 9Anestimated90percentofallcountriesintheworldhavelegallybindingregulationsrequiringchildrentoattendschool (UNESCOInstituteforStatistics,2010). 7 Table1:CountriesthatRatified/AcceptedtheConventionagainstDiscriminationin Education(CADE,1960) Ratified Countries Yes Australia,BruneiDarussalam,China,Indonesia,NewZealand,Philippines No Cambodia, India, Japan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Republic of Korea, Singapore,Thailand,VietNam Source:UNESCO(2012a). AllASEAN+6countrieshavealegalprovisionforfreeandcompulsoryeducationforatleast somelevelsofbasiceducation,mostlyforprimaryeducation(Figure1).Theaverageduration of free and compulsory education for the ASEAN+6 countries is 7.7 years. Among those countries having only free and compulsory primary education, it should be noted that the durationforprimaryeducationinLaoPDR,MyanmarandVietNamis 5yearswhileitis6 yearsinthePhilippines,theRepublicofKorea10andSingapore.Itshouldalsobenotedthatin somecountries,uppersecondaryeducationisprovidedfreeofcharge,eventhoughitisnot compulsory(e.g.,Malaysia,Japan).Ontheotherhand,althoughlowersecondaryeducationis compulsoryinVietNamandtheRepublicofKorea,onlyprimaryeducationisfree. Figure1:YearsofFreeandCompulsoryEducation 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Source:CompiledbyUNESCOstaffbasedonIBEdata(2011). Financialcommitment Financial allocation to the education sector provides a clear indicator of government commitment to education. On average, ASEAN+6 countries allocate 14.7 percent of their government expenditure on education. The share of education in the total government expenditure varies across the countries (from 8.54 percent in Brunei Darussalam to 22.3 percent in Thailand in 2010), but on average (among 13 countries with data available), countriesspendaconsiderableamountoftheirpublicresourcesoneducation(Figure2). 10 Secondaryeducationiscompulsoryandpartiallyfree. 8 Figure2:PublicExpenditureonEducationasaPercentageofTotalGovernment Expenditure,SelectedYears,2007–2010 25 20 15 10 5 0 Note:Themostrecentyearisselectedduringtheperiod2007‐2010forwhichdataisavailable.Data forMyanmaristakenfromUNESCO(2011). Source:UIS(2012). Relative government spending on education is clearer when the share of education expenditureasapercentageofGDPiscompared(Figure3).ASEAN+6countriesallocatean averageof4percentoftheirGDPtoeducation. Figure3:PublicExpenditureonEducationasaPercentageofGDP,SelectedYears, 2007–2010 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Note:Themostrecentyearisselectedduringtheperiod2007‐2010forwhichdataisavailable.Data forMyanmaristakenfromUNESCO(2011). Source:UIS(2012). Allocation of financial resources to education sub‐sectors reflects the relative priorities countriesgivetocorrespondingeducationlevels(Figure4).Forinstance,Thailandspends6.8 percentofitseducationbudgetonpre‐primaryeducation(UIS,2009),whichismuchhigher thanothercountriesintheregion.Indeedinmanyothercountries,privateproviderslargely fund pre‐primary education. High‐income countries tend to spend more on secondary and 9 highereducation,whilealargeshareoftheeducationbudgetisallocatedtoprimaryeducation indevelopingcountries,possiblyduetolimitedresourcesavailableforeducation. Figure4:ShareofEducationExpendituresbySub‐Sector(%),SelectedYears(2007‐ 2010) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Pre‐Primary Primary Secondary Post‐Secondary Tertiary Note:Themostrecentyearisselectedduringtheperiod2007‐2010forwhichdataisavailable.Data forMyanmaristakenfromUNESCO(2011) Source:UIS(2012). Formulafundingisacommonfundingmechanismineducation.Whenusedappropriately,it canbeaneffectivemeanstoensureequityandefficiencyofresourceallocation.Manyofthe ASEAN+6countriesapplyformulafunding,atleastpartially,intheallocationoffundswhile factors and weights used in the formulae vary considerably among countries (Error! Referencesourcenotfound.).CountriessuchasAustraliaandRepublicofKoreaintegrate different student and school characteristics and needs into the formulae. This enables “disadvantaged schools” to receive more financial support in a more systematic way. For instance,unitcostforschoolsinruralareastendstobehigherthanforthoseinurbanareas sinceitemssuchasbooksandstationaryareoftenmoreexpensiveinruralareas.Similarly, students with a disability or special learning needs often require additional learning and staffingresources. 10 Table2:DeterminationofCoreRecurrentSchoolFundingItemsfromtheLevelof GovernmentwithPrimaryFundingResponsibility,SelectedCountries11 Factorstaken intoaccountintheformula Country Socio‐ economic statusofthe student/ school Loca‐ tion Size Levelof schooling (i.e. primary/ secondary) Subjects / curri‐ culum offered Language back‐ ground of students Addi‐ tional needsof students with special needs Other student charac‐ teristics(i.e. ethnicity, culture) Malaysia Australia ^ *,# Republic ofKorea VietNam Notes:*thefundingformulaecandifferbetweenstatesandterritories(Australia)–theseare thereforesummaries;#theAustralianGovernmentiscurrentlyundertakingareviewofthe fundingarrangementsforschooling,includingfundingformulae;^indigenous,refugeeand certainmigrantstudentsattractadditionalfunding. Sources:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. Withoutappropriateadjustment,standardizedformulaecanfailtocapturesuchdifferences and result in unequal and ineffective distribution of funds. Most of the schools have supplementary programmes to address specific issues (e.g., students from poor families, schoolslocatedinveryremoteareas),buttheytendtobeapplication‐basedandtheamount canfluctuate.Thiscanmakemedium‐andlong‐termplanningandmanagementattheschool leveldifficultandmayresultinanegativeimpactonequityofaccesstoqualitylearning. 2.1.3 Startingageanddurationofcompulsoryeducation Inthemajorityofcountrieswithdataavailable(12of16countries),formaleducationofficially startsattheageof6,whileintwocountries(MyanmarandNewZealand),childrenstartformal educationattheageof5andinChinaandIndonesia,atage7(Figure5).Itshouldbenoted thatinNewZealand,5year‐oldsareenrolledinYear0,focusingonreadinessforacademic curriculum. 11 Only ASEAN+6 countries with relevant available data are included in this table and in all subsequent tables and figures. 11 Figure5:OfficialStartingAgeofFormalEducation(NumberofASEAN+6Countries) 12 Number of ASEAN+6 Countries 10 8 6 4 2 0 5 Years Old 6 Years Old 7 Years Old Starting Age Source:IBE(2011),UNESCO(2007),andtheWorldBank(2012). ManyoftheASEAN+6countrieshave12yearsofformaleducationdividedintoprimary,lower secondaryanduppersecondarylevelswhilesomehave11yearsofeducation(Table3). Table3:EducationSectorStructureandYearsofPrimaryandSecondaryEducation Total Structure Countries years 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 India 5+4+3 12 LaoPDR,VietNam 6+4+2 12 Philippines,Singapore** 8+4 12 NewZealand 6+3+2 11 Malaysia 6+5 11 BruneiDarussalam 5+4+2 11 Myanmar Notes: * in China, some provinces apply a 5+4+3 structure; ** Singapore’s education structure is commonlydescribedas6+4+2.Otherpathwaysconsistof6yearsofprimaryeducation,4or5 yearsoflowersecondaryeducation,and1,2,or3yearsofuppersecondaryeducation. Source:IBE(2011). Thedetailedstructureofeducationvariesamongcountriesbutmostcountrieshave5or6 yearsofprimaryeducation,followedby3or4yearsoflowersecondary,and2or3yearsof upper secondary education. 6+3+3 is the most common education structure in the region, followed by 6+4+2 system. This represents 8 of 15 countries reviewed. More years of secondaryeducationmayalsomeanadditionalcosts,includingforsubjectteachers,labsand equipment although funding required depends on a number of factors including teaching curriculumandteacher‐studentratio. In recent years, several countries have introduced structural reform to their education systems, a move requiring significant investment and preparation. Lao PDR is one of such exampleintheASEAN+6grouping.LaoPDRintroduced5+4+3schoolsystemin2009/2010 byaddingoneyeartothelowersecondarylevel.Asaresult,thenumberofstudentsatlower secondarylevelincreasedby38percentbetween2008/2009and2009/2010.Thenumberof 12 teachingpostsand classroomsrequiredforthelowersecondarylevel also increased by36 percentand18percentrespectivelybetweenthesetwoyears.Inaddition,additionalteacher training,curriculumdevelopment,textbookrevision,schoolfacilitieswereneeded.Asaresult, theshareofgovernmentrecurrentexpenditureforlowersecondaryeducationjumpedfrom 11.9percentin2008/2009to14.8percentin2009/2010,andisexpectedtosteadilyincrease to19.9percentby2015/2016.12 Countries that are considering structural reform to education systems therefore need to consider carefully thepotentialimplicationsofreformmeasures.Considerableconfusionis possibleduringtheperiodofreformandmitigatingnegativeeffectonstudentlearningmust beofcentralpriority.Carefullyplannedpreparation,whichmaytakeyears,isneededbefore introducingnewstructurestoexistingeducationalsystems. 2.1.4 Sectormanagement Toensurethateducationsectorprioritiesandreformsareimplementedeffectively,countries needtoensurebothlongandmediumtermdevelopmentplansareunderpinnedbyrealistic andthoroughfinancialplanning.Tothisend,aligningnationaleducationplanswithamulti‐ yearbudgetingandexpenditureplanningprocessisimportant.Inpractice,however,policy makersoftenfinditchallengingtolinkeducationplanswithpublicsectorfinancialplanning andbudgetingprocesses.Thisisduetothefactthateducationplanning,financialplanningand budgetingprocessesareeachledbydifferententitieswithineducationministries.Oftencases, education plans are not prepared based on solid financial feasibility studies and fiscal frameworks.Consequently,attemptstoimplementandsustainreformsintheeducationsector often achieve only limited result as governments are unable to secure adequate public resourcesfortheeducationsector. A medium term expenditure framework (MTEF) in the education sector is one important instrument that may help address this challenge. MTEFs have been introduced in some ASEAN+6countriesatvariedstagesofimplementation(Table4). Table4:OverviewofMTEFImplementationinSelectedASEAN+6Countries Republic Viet Country Singapore Thailand Indonesia Cambodia ofKorea Nam YearMTEF 2005 2004 2005 2006 2004 2008 introduced MTEF mandatedin StateBudget Law Ceiling allocationto sub‐sectorlevel Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No 12 TheseprojectionsaremadepossibleusingasimulationmodelcustomizedforLaoPDR(LANPROmodel).During2009‐ 2010,UNESCOBangkokprovidedtechnicalsupportforthepreparationofLaoPDRSecondaryEducationSubsectorAction Plan2010‐2015. 13 Country Republic ofKorea Singapore Viet Nam Thailand Indonesia Cambodia YearMTEF introduced 2005 2004 2005 2006 2004 2008 Yes.MTFF andMTEF ceilingsset hardannual budget constraint Yes. MTFF andMTEF ceilingsset hardannual budget constraint No Effective linkageof MTEFtoAnnual Budget Source:Clarke(2010). Notop down sector ceilings produced oratleast released No ceilings norguiding budget allocations Notfully integrated because capitalis outside ceiling WhileitisnotpossibletodeterminewhichmodalityofMTEF is mostappropriate,country casestudiesconductedinninecountriesinAsia13indicatethattheeffectivenessofMTEFvery muchdependsonthefollowingkeyissues: 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+6countrieshavedecentralizedsomekeyfunctionsandresponsibilitiestolower levelsofadministration.ManypatternsorarrangementsareobservedinASEAN+6countries. School‐based management, aimed at giving schools and communities more autonomy in decision‐making,isoneexample.Anotheristhegrowthofeducationalmodelsemphasizing thevirtuesofchoiceandcompetition,eitherwithinthestatesectororthroughanexpanded rolefortheprivatesector.Inmanydevelopingcountries,low‐feeprivateschoolsareemerging asanothersourceofchoiceandcompetition,oftenoutsidegovernmentregulation. Table5:DistributionofKeyResponsibilities Standard Primary ‐setting fundingsource Australia Central State Indonesia Central Central Japan Central Prefecture/ Municipality Republicof Central Central Korea Myanmar Central Central Vietnam Central Central Budget allocation State Central Prefecture/ Municipality Metropolitan city/Province Central Province/District Teacher recruitment State Central Prefecture/ Municipality Metropolitan city/Province Central Province/District 13 ThesecasestudieswerecommissionedbyUNESCOBangkokduring2008‐2010undertheframeworkofaregional programmeoneducationfinancialplanning. 14 Sources:IBE(2011)anddatacollectedbyUNESCOstaff. Althoughdecentralizationisnotapanaceaforbettereducationsectormanagement,countries withcentralizededucationsystemscouldpotentiallylearnfromtheexperiencesofcountries thathavedecentralized.Hopingtolessenthefinancialburdenonthegovernmentandimprove relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of education, many governments in the region have embarkedoneducationdecentralizationreform(Table6). Table6:KeyMilestonesofEducationDecentralizationReforminSelectedEducation Systems China Majorfiscalreformin1994toshifttheintergovernmentalfiscalsystem fromadhoc,negotiatedtransferstoarule‐basedtaxassignment. India 73th constitutional amendment in 1992 to put in place a local government system called panchayati as the country’s third level of governanceafterthecentralandstategovernments. Indonesia Twolawswereenactedin1999:law22/1999onregionalgovernance andlaw25/1999onthefinancialbalancebetweencentralgovernment andtheregions Philippines Revisedlocalgovernmentcodewasenactedin1991toconsolidateall existing legislation on local government affairs, providing the legal frameworkforthedecentralizationprogramme Thailand The1997Constitutionofthecountryembraceddecentralization Cambodia Firstintroducedschool‐basedmanagement(SBM)in1998 HongKong,SAR FirstintroducedSBMin1991 Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOstaff. Intheabsenceofadefinitemeasurethatpermitsonetoeasilyconcludewhetherornotthe deliveryofpubliceducationiscentralizedordecentralized,aproxymeasurecanbeusedbased ontherecruitment,employmentandpaymentofteachers.Researchonthedeterminantsof goodqualitylearningconsistentlyshowsthatteachersarethemostimportantschoolinput (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2012). In addition, teacher salaries are by far the largest expenditure category in the basic education budget, often comprising 70 percent or more of recurrent education spending. Thus, asking which level of government selects, manages and pays teachers is perhaps the best and simplest indicator of the extent to which education is decentralized.Table7presentsanoverviewofthelevelandscopeofdecentralizationwith regardtoteachermanagementinselectedASEAN+6countries. 15 Table7:TheLocusofTeacherEmployment (Selection,Management,andPaymentof Teachers) Country/ Central Regional Local School Government government government government Cambodia China (County) India Indonesia (District) Japan LaoPDR Malaysia Philippines Singapore * Thailand Notes:*onlyaccreditedschools. Source:UNESCOBangkok(2012b). While decentralization seems to bring improved access and increased financial resource allocatedtoeducation,insomecasestheimpactsaremixedandsomecountriesfacechallenges inimplementingdecentralization.(Table8)Withoutappropriategovernmentinterventions, decentralizationcancausemoreharmthangood.UNESCOBangkok(2012b)identifiesthree key areas that are crucial for successful decentralization: (1) ensuring equity; (2) building accountability;and(3)buildinglocalcapacity. Table8:ChallengesinDecentralizationofBasicEducationFinancingandDelivery fromSelectedAsianCountries Country Under‐ funding Limited local fiscal capacity Cambodia China Indonesia LaoPDR Nepal Pakistan Vietnam Source:UNESCOBangkok(2012b). Regional disparity infunding Private financial burden Rolesand responsibilities Accountability Local capacity Publicandprivatesectorrolesinprovisionandfinancingofeducation Havinganappropriatemixofpublicandprivatesector14involvementineducationcanbekey toequitable,efficientandeffectiveeducationsystemmanagement.Asfaraseducationsector managementisconcerned,mostcountrieshaveinvolvedtheprivatesectorinthefinancing andprovisionofeducation.Privatesectorinvolvementineducationcanbefoundinavariety offormsincluding:full‐feeprivateschools,publiclysupportedandprivatelymanagedschools (e.g., voucher programmes), community schools, private funding (fees and donations) to 14The “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. 16 publicschools,andprivatetutoring.InASEAN+6countries,mostbasiceducationispublicly providedthroughgovernmentorpublicschools(Table9).However,thisdoesnotmeanthat theprivatesector(includingfamiliesandcommunities)hasnorole;infact,theprivatesector playsasignificantroleinmanycountries. Table9:PercentageofStudentsEnrolledinPrivatelyManagedSchools, Selected ASEAN+6Countries Country Primary Lowersecondary Uppersecondary Cambodia 1.2 2.8 4.9 China 4.2 7.2 11.5 Indonesia 16.1 37.2 51.4 Japan 1.1 7.1 30.8 RepublicofKorea 1.3 18.3 46.5 LaoPDR 2.9 2.3 1.3 Malaysia 1.2 4.1 3.9 Philippines 8.2 19.3 25.4 Thailand 18.0 12.4 24.3 VietNam … 1.2 29.7 Source:UNESCOBangkok(2012b). In most countries, private (household) expenditure on education is substantial and stable. Privateexpenditureoneducationincludes:schooltuition,textbooks,uniform,schoolrunning fees, and private tutoring. Accurate data onprivate expenditure on education is difficult to collectandisnotreadilyavailable.However,existinginformationsuggeststhathouseholds beara significantshareofeducationcosts(Table10).Households inmostoftheASEAN+6 countries where comparable data is available spend as high as 3 percent of their GDP on education. Table10:TotalExpenditureonEducationasaPercentageofGDP,PrivateSources,All Levels Country Australia Japan LaoPDR NewZealand Philippines Republicof Korea Thailand India Source:UIS(2012). 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1.4 1.2 … … 2.5 … 1.4 1.2 … … 2.1 3.0 1.5 1.2 … … 2.0 2.8 1.5 1.3 … … 1.9 2.8 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.1 … 2.7 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.3 … 3.1 1.6 1.7 … 1.4 … 2.8 2007 2008 2009 1.6 1.7 … 1.3 … 3.0 1.6 1.7 … 1.1 … 3.1 1.6 … … 1.1 … 3.2 2010 … 1.7 … 1.3 … 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.6 … … … 1.3 1.9 1.2 … 1.2 … … … … … … … … … … Whiletheshareofprivateexpendituretendstobeloweratthebasicandsecondaryeducation levelcomparedtothetertiaryeducationlevel,thereisanupwardtrendinprivateexpenditure atthebasicandsecondaryeducationlevel.Ontheotherhand,privateexpenditureisthemajor sourceoffundingfortertiaryeducationinmanycountries(Table11),whichhascontributed toconsiderableexpansionoftertiaryeducation. 17 Table11:PrivateEducationExpenditureasaPercentageofTotalEducation ExpenditureinSelectedAsianCountries 2000 2001 2002 2003 Prim Prim Prim Prim Country & Tertiary & Tertiary & Tertiary & Tertiary Sec Australia India Indonesia Japan Republicof Korea Philippines Thailand Sec Sec Sec 15.2 6.4 23.5 8.3 18.3 48.1 … 56.2 55.1 75.6 15.6 6.3 23.7 8.5 22.8 48.7 … 56.2 56.9 84.1 16.1 29.3 23.8 8.3 … 51.3 22.2 56.2 58.5 85.1 16.3 … … 8.7 … 52.0 … … 60.3 76.8 32.1 … 65.6 19.6 33.2 … 66.9 17.5 … … … … … … … … Source:TheWorldBank(2012). Private tutoring, while providing students with additional academic support, may also be costlytohouseholdsandmayalsowidenacademicandsocioeconomicdividebetweenfamilies andcommunities.Privatetutoring,particularlyprevalentinEastAsiancountries,hasbecome aglobalissue.BrayandLykins(2012)provideacomprehensiveliteraturereviewofwhatis termed“shadoweducation”(Bray,2009)inAsia,mappingthecurrentstatusoftheissueinthe region. Despite the differences in foci and methodologies of the studies cited, the findings suggestthatenrolmentinprivatetutoringisincreasingandsoisthefamilies’financialburden. ThistrendextendstomostofASEAN+6countries. Thereasonsforreceivingprivatetutoringvary,butthecompetitivenatureoftheeducation process and a lack of trust in quality of formal education are undeniably root causes. Bray (2009) recommends that an appropriate diagnosis (both quantitative and qualitative) is crucial for developing effective policy responses to shadow education. Once evidence is collected, the governments can focus their interventions on supply issues (e.g., teachers providingprivatetutoring),demandissues(e.g.,competitivenatureofexaminations,limited transitiontohigher levelsofeducation),aswell asharnessing theexistingprivatetutoring market(e.g.,professionalizationofprivatetutors). 2.1.5 Teachermanagementpolicy Teacherqualificationsandlengthofpre‐servicetraining Attheprimaryandsecondaryeducationlevels,entrancetoteachertrainingcollegesrequires graduation from the 12th grade in most ASEAN+6 countries, except in Brunei Darussalam, India,LaoPDRandMyanmar,wherestudentsarequalifiedupongraduationfromthe10thor 11thgrade(Figure6). 18 Figure6:TotalNumberofYearsofSchoolingRequiredforEntrytoTeacherTraining 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Preschool Qualification Primary Qualification Secondary Qualification Source:DatacollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. Thislowerlevelrequirementcoupledwiththeshorterdurationoftheteacher‐trainingcourse (twoyearsforprimaryschoolteachersandthreetofouryearsforsecondaryschoolteachers) inthesecountriescouldnegativelyimpactuponthequalityofteaching. In some countries, the duration of pre‐service training is four years and the entrance requirement is completion of Grade 12, which means that these teachers are likely better qualifiedtoteachandtoachievebetterlearningoutcomesfortheirstudents.Thesecountries include Singapore, Japan and the Republic of Korea, which consistently rank significantly abovetheOECDaverageinPISArankings(OECD,2009). Teacherstandards Atthepointofdatacollectionforthisreport,informationonteacherstandardswaslackingin Cambodia,LaoPDR,Myanmar,VietNamandIndia.Amongtheremainingelevencountries, onlyfourcountries(China,Indonesia,JapanandtheRepublicofKorea)holdnationalentrance examinationsforteachers,whilefivecountries(Australia,Indonesia,NewZealand,Philippines andThailand)makeitmandatoryforteacherlicensestoberenewed.Itisalsonotedthatmost countries have a minimum teacher standard enforced either through teacher entrance examinations or regular licensure renewal. In the majority of ASEAN+6 countries, a probationaryperiodofonetothreeyearshasalsobeenimplemented. Teacherprofessionalsupport On‐goingprofessionalsupportismostimportantfornewteachersintheirfirstfewyearsof serviceandisimportantforteacherretentionintheeducationsystem.Professionalsupport may include study opportunities for teachers, training workshops, support from in‐service advisors and inspectors, inter‐school visits, and peer consultation in teacher clusters. At a recent KEDI‐UNESCO regional policy seminar 15 , 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/ 19 KoreaandVietNamreportedimplementingclassroom observationaspartoftheirteacher development and management policies. According to practitioners, teacher training and supportwithinthefirstfiveyearsofteachingintheteachers’ownclassroomenvironmentis oneofthemoreeffectivestrategiestofosterprofessionalgrowth.Moreover,intheirfirstfive yearsofteaching,teachersbenefitfromeachyearofadditionalpracticeasthereseemstobea correlationbetweenyearsofexperienceandimprovedstudentlearningoutcomes. As indicated in Table 12, policies for in‐service training and continuous professional developmentofteachersexistinmostASEAN+6countriesatalllevels,exceptforLaoPDR, wheretrainingsessionsforsecondaryschoolteachersareorganizedonanad‐hocbasisinthe context of donor projects. In‐service teacher upgrading centres are located in different provinces,butcurrentlyinstitutionalizedonlyforprimaryschoolteachers(IBE,2011). In Australia, since most teachers are college graduates, professional development opportunities occur through postgraduate courses, and are usually taken part‐time. In Singapore, a Staff Training Branch was established specifically to facilitate teachers' professional development through the sharing of best practices, learning circles, action researchandpublications.Anetworkofteachershasalsobeensetuptoplanandorganize teacher‐ledworkshops,seminars,conferencesandlearningcirclesaswellasdevelopingand managing on‐line programmes in addition to teacher welfare programmes and services. In Malaysia, in‐service programmes are mainly ‘refresher’ courses. They range from two‐ to three‐daycoursestosixweeks,tenweeksandfourteenweeks. While professional development opportunities have been institutionalized in the high‐ performingeducationsystems,andwhiletheyarecarriedoutinarelativelyconsistentfashion, otherstakeplaceunderlessformalarrangements. InCambodia,forexample,communityteachershavein‐servicetrainingfor16daysprovided bytheDepartmentofEarlyChildhoodEducationintheprovinces,andliteracyteachersfor parentingprogrammesreceivein‐servicetrainingforthreedaystwiceayear.InVietNam,in‐ servicetrainingforsecondaryteachersfollowsthecascade‐trainingmode.Here,teachersare required to participate in in‐service training 30 days out of the year. Some countries have also established systems for the training of untrained teachers. In Malaysia,thethree‐yearDiplomainteachingin‐servicecourseisconductedduringtheschool holidays.Thiscourseisspeciallydesignedtocatertothemanyuntrainedteacherswhohave been teaching in Malaysian schools for several years and have missed out on mainstream teacher training. Based on a SEAMEO‐Innotech study (2010) on teacher rewards and incentives in Southeast Asia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar and Singapore are the only remainingcountriesinSoutheastAsiathatdonotprovidescholarshipsasaformoftraining developmentforteachers(Table12below). 20 Table12:OverviewofTeacherManagementPolicies Country Qualifications (Minimum years of study)/ Years in School + Years in Teacher Training Preschool Australia Brunei Darussalam Cambodia China Primary Secondary 12+4 ‐ 10+3 ‐ 12+4 LS:12+2 US:12+4 LS:12+2 US:12+4 12+1 TeacherSalaryandOther Benefits TeacherStandards Entrance Examination/Test Probationary Period Licensure Renewal/ Sustaining Inservice training Pay/ Salary Increase Evaluation and Rewards(i) No Yes Yes;5years Yes ‐ No No No No Yes No ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes ‐ Yes No No Yes No Yes 12 12 India 10+1 10+1or12 +1(ii) 12+4 ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes ‐ Indonesia 12+2 12+2 12+2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 12+4 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes ‐ Yes ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes ‐ No Yes No Yes Yes Yes 11+3 ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes ‐ 13+4 No Yes Yes;2years Yes Yes Yes No No Yes;1year Yes Yes ‐ No Yes No Yes Yes Yes LS:12+2 US:12+4 No Yes Yes;5years Yes Yes ‐ LS:12+3 US:12+4 ‐ ‐ ‐ Yes Yes ‐ Japan Republicof Korea LaoPDR 12+1 12+2 12+4 5(+4); 8(+3); 11(+1) ‐ Malaysia Myanmar 12+3or4 ‐ NewZealand 11+2 13+3 Philippines 12+4 Singapore 10+2 Thailand ‐ VietNam LS:11(+3) US:11+4 12+2 12+2 12 Notes:i:measuresforevaluationandrewardsinplace;ii:variesacrossstatesdependingonthedegreeofteachershortage. Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. 21 Teachersalary,incentives,andbenefits Almostallcountrieshaveinplaceasystemforsalaryincreases.Forsomecountries,thesalary increaseisbasedontheevaluationofateacher’sperformance,whileinsomeothersitisbased on a teacher’s qualifications. In Singapore, New Zealand and China, salary increments are determined,tovaryingextents,byperformanceandwhetherornotestablishedprofessional standardsaremet.InSingapore,formalandinformalevaluationison‐goingatallschoollevels andsalaryincreaseisrewardedthroughtheMinistryofEducation’sEnhancedPerformance ManagementSystem(EPMS)(IBE2011) Table13:TeacherRewardsandIncentivesinSoutheastAsia Rewards/Incentives BruneiDarussalam Cambodia Indonesia LaoPDR Malaysia Myanmar Philippines Singapore Thailand VietNam Salary Increase Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Certificateof Recognition Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Scholarships/ Training Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Promotion Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Source:AdaptedfromSEAMEO‐Innotech(2010). TheSEAMEO‐InnotechstudyrevealsthatallASEANcountriesaredoingwellinrecognizing the efforts of teachers and rewarding high‐performing teachers. However, fewer countries implement the use of incentives such as scholarships and training for further professional development. 2.1.6 Qualitydeterminants Frequencyofcurriculumreform Table 14 presents a summary of the number of curriculum reforms carried out in selected ASEAN+6countriessince1950.ExceptfortheRepublicofKoreaandIndonesia,mostcountries haveonlycarriedoutcurriculumreformssincethe1980s.Ofthe13countriesforwhichdata isavailable,curriculumreformsmostlyoccurredinthetwoperiodsof1995‐99and2005‐09. Theaveragenumberofcurriculumreformsinthesecountriesis3.5forthesameperiod. 22 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 Table14:FrequencyofCurriculumReform Australia Brunei Darussalam 4 1 China 4 India 3 Indonesia 5 Japan 5 TimePeriod RepublicofKorea Numberof reforms 8 LaoPDR 1 Malaysia 3 Myanmar 1 NewZealand 2 Philippines 3 Singapore 5 Source:DatacollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. Problemsofeducationalqualityandrelevancemanifestthemselvesindifferentwaysinthe ASEAN+6countries.Ingeneral,educationsystemshavebeentryingtoaddresssuchproblems by means of introducing changes in the curriculum and its delivery. This in part can be observedwhenonelooksatthepurposeofcurriculumreforminselectedASEAN+6countries (Table15)which tendstoreflectchangesineducationalviews andorientations;curricular content, teaching approaches and pedagogies; as well as other necessary changes in curriculum planning and implementation processes and in educational management and administration.Itisclearthatthetaskofpursuingmeaningfulcurriculumreformisacomplex undertakingmadeevenmoresobytoday’srapidlychangingenvironment,context,aspirations andexpectations. Table15:EducationCurriculumReformMilestones Country China India Milestones 1993: syllabi and twenty‐four curricula for nine‐year compulsory programme 1998: adjustment of primary and secondary school curriculum contents;reducingtheoverloadandsubjectdifficulty;enablinglocally relevantselectionofteachingmaterials 2001: implementation of curriculum standards for basic education; emphasizinginnovationandcreativethinking 1988:NationalCurriculumFrameworkforElementaryandSecondary Education 2000:NationalCurriculumFramework;emphasizingminimumlevels of learning, values, ICT, managementand accountability, continuous comprehensiveevaluationincognitive,socialandvaluedimensions. 23 Country Milestones 2005: shift in examination system from content‐based testing to problem‐solving and competency based assessment; states encouraged to renew their own curriculum in light of the national curriculumframework Indonesia Curriculumreform:1960s,1975,1984,1999,2006 1999: development of a national competency based curriculum allowing both unity and diversity; addressing overload and overly rigidcurricula 2006:applicationofschoolbasedcurriculum LaoPDR 2007:inresponsetoexpandeddurationoflowersecondaryeducation byoneyear Malaysia 1983, 1995, 1999: content and outcome based curriculum; use of activitybasedandstudentcentredpedagogyapproaches;promoting criticalandcreativethinkingskills 2008:trialimplementationofnewmodularandthematiccurriculum andschoolbasedassessment 2011:implementationofthestandardcurriculumforprimaryschool (SSR) in Stage/Phase I (grades 1‐3) building on the Integrated CurriculumforPrimarySchool(KBSR)introducedinthelate1990s. NewZealand 1992:Outcomesfocusedcurriculum 2007: New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) consisting of a framework of key competencies integrating essential skills, knowledge, attitudes, andvalues. RepublicofKorea Main curriculum revisions: 1954‐1995, 1963, 1973‐1974, 1981, 1987‐1988,1992‐1995,and1997‐1998 Partial revisions: 2006, 2007 and 2009 (introduced from October 2003torespondtorapidsocialchanges). Philippines 1982:ImplementationofNewElementarySchoolCurriculum 1999: Decongesting the curriculum, leading to separate curriculum forelementaryandsecondarylevels 2005/6: Implementation of Standard Curriculum for Elementary PublicSchoolsandPrivateMadaris Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. Qualityassurancesystem There are generally three primary modes of quality assurance: assessment, audit and accreditation. Their distinctions are not always clear and when used concurrently, their functionsmaysometimesoverlap.Further,withinthesemodes,additionalqualityassurance activitiesarepracticedsuchasranking,benchmarking,theuseofperformanceindicatorsand testing/examinations. 24 Assessment, audit and accreditation are all seen operating in the ASEAN+6 countries. The bodiesoverseeingthesetasksvarygreatly,however,dependingonthecountrycontext(Table 16).Somecountries(forexampleAustralia,India,NewZealand)havedifferentagenciesfor differentlevelsofeducationwhileothershaveacentralagencyoverseeingallofthesetasks (LaoPRD,Thailand,VietNam). Table16:OverviewofNationalAccreditingandQualityAssuranceBodyinASEAN+6 Countries Country NameofAccreditingBody bySector Australia NationalQualityFrameworkforEarlyChildhoodEducationandCare ‐ ECCE AustralianCurriculum,AssessmentandReportingAuthority‐K12 AustralianUniversitiesQualityAgency‐HE TertiaryEducationQualityandStandardsAgency‐HE Brunei NationalAccreditationCouncil ‐ All Darussalam TechnicalandVocationalEducationCouncil‐TVET Cambodia AccreditationCommitteeofCambodia ‐ HE China CentralizedandDecentralizedQualityAssuranceBodies‐HE India NationalCouncilofTeacherEducation ‐ ECCE NationalBoardofAccreditation‐TVET NationalAccreditationAssessmentCouncil‐HE Indonesia NationalBoardofSchoolAccreditation(BAN) ‐ Formal,non‐formal,HE NationalAccreditationBoardforHigherEducation(BAN‐PT)‐HE Japan EmploymentandHumanResourceDevelopment‐ TVET National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (Governmental)‐HE JapanUniversityAccreditationAssociation(Non‐governmental)‐HE Republicof Accreditation Board for Engineering Education of Republic of Korea Korea (ABEEK)‐TVET TheRepublicofKoreanCouncilforUniversityEducation‐HE LaoPDR EducationalStandardsandQualityAssuranceCenter‐All Malaysia StandardforQualityEducationinMalaysia(SQEMS) ‐All NationalAccreditationBoard(LAN)‐All Myanmar DepartmentofTechnicalandVocationalEducation(MOST)‐TVET New Education(Playgroups)Regulations ‐ ECCE Zealand NewZealandQualificationsAuthority‐All EducationReviewOffice‐ECCE,BE Philippines NationalEducationalTestingandResearchCentre ‐ All TechnicalEducation‐TVET FederationofAccreditingAgenciesofthePhilippines‐HE AccreditingAgencyofCharteredCollegesandUniversitiesinthePhilippines ‐HE PhilippinesAccreditingAssociationof Schools,Collegesand Universities‐ HE Singapore PreschoolAccreditationFramework(SPARK) ‐ ECCE InstituteofTechnicalEducation‐TVET Thailand OfficefortheNationalStandardsandQualityAssessment‐All VietNam GeneralDepartmentforEducationalTestingandAccreditation(GDETA) ‐ All Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. 25 Learning/teachinghours Thestrongassociationbetweenlearningtimeandstudentacademicperformanceiswidely acknowledged in academic literature (OECD, 2011a). While learning may occur in myriad ways,theamountoftimestudentsspentonactivitiesspecificallygearedtoward“deliberative learning”isimportanttoexamine.Thisincludestheamountoftime,perweek,thatstudents spendinregularschoolclasses,out‐of‐school‐timelessonsandindividualstudyorhomework. AstudybytheOECDontherelationshipbetweentimespentindeliberatelearningactivities andstudentperformanceinschool(OECD,2011)showsthatthenumberofhoursspenton learningonlypartlyinfluencesstudentacademicperformancebutthequalityoflearningtime isjustas,ifnotmore,importantthanthequantity.ThisisshowninTable17below. WhilethePISAscoresforJapan,theRepublicofKoreaandHongKongSARarenot,relatively speaking,toodissimilar,thetotallearningtimeofstudentsintheRepublicofKoreaandHong Kong SAR is 5 hoursmore thanthat of Japan whereastherelative learningtime in regular lessons in Japan is highest among those three countries at 74.5 percent. This suggests that studentsinJapanhavereceivedbetterqualityoflearninginregularschoollessonsandthus, have arguably learnt more efficiently and effectively. This also suggests that the quality of regularschoollessonsplayamoresignificantrolethanout‐of‐schoollearningtimeandeven individualstudy.OftheASEAN+6countriesforwhichdataisavailable,relativelearningtime spentonregularschoollessonsappearstobehigherincountrieswithhigherstudentlearning achievementsuchasJapan,NewZealand,AustraliaandRepublicofKorea. Table17:StudentLearningTime*,SelectedEducationSystems Country Regular lessons Out‐of‐ school‐time lessons Individual study (hoursper week) Relativelearning timeinregular schoollessons Total learning 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% Republicof Korea 12.76 4.74 4.93 22.43 61.4% Thailand 10.69 2.40 5.31 18.40 62.3% Notes:*Learningtimeiscalculatedastheaveragenumberofhoursastudentspentperweekinregular lessonsofscience,mathematicsandlanguagesubjects. Source:OECD(2011a). 26 The length of learning time spent on regular school lessons also reflects the time teachers spend on teaching in the classroom. Not surprisingly, the more effectively teachers spend teaching time, the greater the quality of teaching. Table 18 shows the average number of teachinghoursperweekinselectedASEAN+6countries.InShanghai,teachersteachlarger, butfewerclassescomparedtomostothersystemsforwhichdataisavailable.16Teachersin Shanghaispendasignificantamountofnon‐teachingtimeonotheractivitiesknowntohavea large impact on student learning including preparing for lessons, teacher cooperation, classroom observation and providing feedback (Grattan Institute, 2012). By contrast, Australianteachershaveonlyhalfasmuchtimeforsuchactivities. Table18:AverageTeachingTime(HoursperWeek) Average Country teachinghours(a) Australia 20 HongKong,SARChina 17† RepublicofKorea 15 Shanghai,China 10‐12* Singapore ‐ OECDAverage 18 Classsize(b) 23 36† 35 40* 35 24 Notes: (a)Publicschoolsonly.‘Teachinghours’arehoursthatateacher teachesagrouporclass of students;(b)Publicschoolsonly,lowersecondaryeducation *Grattan Institute interview with Shanghai Municipal Education Commission, 2011; † Hong KongEducationBureau(secondary) Source:OECD.(2011b)andGrattanInstitute(2012). Languageineducationpolicies TheroleofEnglishasaninternationallanguageandtheofficiallanguageofASEAN,influences significantlylanguagepolicyandlanguageeducationinASEAN+6countries.Thisincludesin the relationship between English and the respective national languages of ASEAN and the choiceoflanguageforinstruction. Table 19 providesanoverviewoflanguagein education policiesinrelationtoofficial/nationallanguagesandstipulationoflanguagesineducationin legaldocuments.Asshown,mostASEAN+6countriesstipulatelanguagesineducationintheir respectiveeducationlawsandallowtheuseofnationaldominantlanguagesasthemediumof instruction. While the colonial histories of Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Myanmar and SingaporehaveledtotheinheritedandinstitutionalroleofEnglishinschoolcurriculum,other countries (such as Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Viet Nam) also place importanceontheacquisitionofEnglishthroughthecurriculum. 16InShanghai,teachersteachclassesofupto40studentsfor10‐12hourseachweek. 27 Table19:LanguagePolicies Country Australia Brunei Darussalam Cambodia Indonesia Official/ National language(s) (OL/NL) OL/NLstipulated inthe Constitution (Yearof adoption) English StandardMalay, English Khmer Indonesian Japan ROK LaoPDR Malaysia Japanese Korean Lao Malay Myanmar Myanmar/ Burmese Malay(1959C) English(1985EA) Yes(1983) Yes(1945); (amended1999, 2000,2001,2002) No No Yes(1991) Yes(1957,article 152) Language(s)ineducation UseofNDLs stipulatedinthe Constitution Stipulatedinthe Constitutionor LanguageAct No No No ‐ No Yes,(LL,Article 32) ‐ Yes,LAin progress No No No Yes, Yes(1974) Yes(LL,2008) NewZealand Philippines English Filipino,English Yes(1974) Yes(2008,Ch.XV‐ 2) No Filipino(1987) Singapore Malay(NL) English,Chinese, Tamil Yes(1965,Part XIII,Section 153A) Yes Thailand Thai VietNam Vietnamese No(1997) No(2007) No(1992)* No(1997) No(2007) Yes(1992) Yes(Treaty) Yes(LL) StipulatedinEducation Laws/Acts Stipulatedin otherimportant education documents UseofNDLsas mediaof instruction allowed/legal? English, Languages(OtherThan English) Malay,English(1984EP); Arabic(EP) Khmer,LLs(2007EL) Indonesian,LLs,FLs(1954EL 12;1989EL2;2003EL20) Yes Yes ‐ No ‐ Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Lao(2000EL) Malay,Chinese,Tamil,ILs (1996EA) Yes Yes ‐ No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes(1974) Burmese,LLsNo (2008) Yes(Maori,1987) Yes(1987), English,Filipino (OL) Yes(C,1965) ‐ ‐ Yes Yes English,Filipino(OL),Arabic (1987) ‐ English,Filipino (OL),Arabic, otherLLs English(as working language),other OLs Yes Yes Yes Vietnamese,LLs (several documents) Yes N.A No No Yes,Vietnamese, LLs Vietnamese,LLs(2005,EL, Article7) Yes Yes Notes:LL:Locallanguage;NDL:Nondominantlanguage;RL:Regionallanguage;FL:Foreignlanguage;IL:Indigenouslanguage;NL:nationallanguage;OL:Official language;LoI:LanguageofInstruction;Aux:Auxiliarylanguage;C:Constitution;EA:EducationAct;EL:EducationLaw;EP:EducationPolicy;LA:LanguageAct *:EarlierConstitution,however,stipulateVietnameseastheofficiallanguage Source:SEAMEO(2009);additionaldataiscollectedbyUNESCOstafffromdifferentsources. 28 2.1.7 Conclusion ReflectingonthegreatdiversityoftheAsia‐Pacificregion andthelegislations,policies and educationmanagementsystemsinplace,itisclearthatgreatvariationoccursacrossASEAN+6 countries.Despitethis,somecommontrendscanalsobeidentified: (i) Expansionofcompulsoryeducationtoincludeatleastlowersecondaryeducation Many of the ASEAN+6 countries have achieved or have almost achieved universal primaryeducationwhilecompulsoryeducationnowalsocommonlycoverssecondary education, at least at the lower secondary level. This is the case for all high‐income countriesandmostmiddle‐incomecountries.Andasaccesstoeducationcontinuesto improveinlower‐incomecountries,thistrendissettocontinue.Thisofcourserequires carefulplanningofresourcessoastoensurecountriescanexpandaccesstoeducation withoutcompromisingthequalityoftheeducationprovided. (ii) Shifttomoredecentralizedmanagement Mostcountriesreviewedaremovingtowardamoredecentralizedsystemofeducation management.Thisincludestransferenceofsomeofthekeyeducationresponsibilities (e.g., teacher management, curriculum development, and financing) to lower levels of administration.Responsibilityforstandardsettingiscentralizedinallcountries,while highperformingeducationsystemstendtogivemoremanagementresponsibilitiesto the subnational level. Teacher management also seems rather centralized in most countries, regardless of how advanced the education system may be. Some countries applyflexibilityatlocalorevenschoollevel,yetwithcentralgovernmentcontroland regulations.Giventhevariedimpactsofdecentralization,carefulconsiderationofsystem capacityisneededbeforeembarkingupondecentralizationreform. (iii) Considerableprivateexpenditureoneducation,includingshadoweducation StrongcommitmenttoeducationiscommonacrossASEAN+6countries,includingfrom families willing their children succeed academically. While governments can rely on householdstocontributefinanciallywheregovernmentfundingfallsshort,thismayalso haveseriousimplicationsforequity.Itisimportantthatgovernmentsworktoensure thatstudentsfrompoorhouseholdscanalsoenjoythesamelearningopportunitiesas theirpeersfrommoreaffluentfamilies.Experiencesofbothsuccessfulandunsuccessful targetedpro‐poorpoliciesprovideusefullessonsthatmayhelpinformpolicymakingin thefuture. (iv) Financingisimportant,butnottheonlyfactorbehindeducationalperformance Government expenditure on education varies significantly across countries under review: 8.5 percent in Brunei Darussalam vs. 22.3 percent in Thailand (2010) as a percentageoftotalbudgetand2.7percentinCambodiavs.7.6percentinNewZealand asapercentageofGNP.Highperformingsystemsappeartospendmoreoneducationas apercentageofGNP(ratherthanasapercentageofgovernmenttotalexpenditure),but also have sound policies in place concerning teacher quality and remuneration, the frequency of curriculum updates/reform, quality assurance systems, quantity and qualityofteachingandlearningtimeandlanguageofinstruction. 29 (v) Largerclasssizewithteachersteachinglesshoursinhigh‐performingcountries While large class sizes may have traditionally been an indicator of poor quality education,largeclasssizesinAsiancountriesperformingwellinPISA mayleadusto questionthisassumption.Instead,theirexamplesdemonstratethatitisperhapsmore important that teachers spend sufficient time on preparation, collaboration, and reflection,areaswhichhaveaprovenimpactonlearning.Thesefindingsarerelatively new and are not conclusive. Further research is needed to support countries to determinethebestbalancebetweenclasssizeandteachingloads. (vi) Curriculumreformspromotingnon‐cognitiveandhigher‐orderskills,asmuchasacademic contents Overloadedcurriculumandaheavyfocusonacademicknowledgehavebeenfeaturesof many ASEAN+6 countries and various curriculum reforms have been carried out to promote the acquisition of non‐cognitive and higher‐order skills or transversal competenciessuchasinnovation,creativityandcommunication.Thisisparticularlythe caseforhighincomeandhigh‐performingPISAcountriesbutisalsothecaseformiddle‐ income countries. While this trend is expected to continue, some countries face challenges in integrating what may be termed ‘transversal competencies’ or ‘non‐ cognitiveskills’incurriculumpedagogyandassessment.Tothisend,itwillbenecessary tocompilecountryexperiencesanddrawlessons. (vii) Improvingteacherperformancethroughresult‐basedevaluationforteachers EffortstoimproveteacherperformancehavebeenmadeinsomeASEAN+6countries. One particular trend involves linking teacher salaries to performance vis‐à‐vis pre‐ determinedstandards.Aspublicfundingcontinuestocomeunderpressureinatimeof economicdownturn,thistrendisexpectedtonotonlycontinuebutalsoexpandtoother countriesintheregion.Furtherresearchontheimplementationofexistingpolicieswill beusefulforthosecountriesplanningtointroducesimilarreforms. (viii)ThecentralityofEnglishpresentsimportantimplicationsforlanguagepolicy GivenitsstatusastheofficiallanguageofASEAN,Englishintheclassroomhasbeenon theincreaseinmanyASEANmembercountries.Thispresentsimportantimplicationsfor languagepolicyandlanguageeducation,includingthechoiceofEnglishasaforeignor second language, the choice of language for instruction, teaching curriculum and the stipulationthroughpolicyoflanguagesineducation.Nearlyallcountriesreviewedallow the use of Non‐Dominant Languages (NDL) as mediums of instruction (except Brunei Darussalam),howevernotallcountriesexplicitlymentionNDLsintheirConstitution. 2.2 SecondaryEducation 2.2.1 Introduction Asmanycountrieshaveachievedorareachievinguniversalizationofprimaryeducation,the expansion of secondary education has naturally become a policy priority. Yet secondary education across countries is both uniform and diverse, it is terminal and preparatory, compulsoryinsomecasesandpost‐compulsory.Itisthusunderstandablyanareaof“policy paradox” (WB, 2005, p.14). Many countries are facing challenges in designing and implementing neededpoliciesfor secondaryeducationina number ofkeyareas.The most pertinentareasandthosewhichhavesparkedthegreatestfocusinclude:1)differentsystems 30 in terms of pathways to secondary education (including both formal and non‐ formal/alternativepathways),2)relevanceandcontentofcurriculaatbothlowerandupper secondary levels, 3) teachers, including their qualifications, recruitment and remuneration, and 4) issues surrounding learning assessment. The following section offers a comparative analysisofthesecentralissues. 2.2.2 Formalpathwaystoeducation Across ASEAN+6 countries, there are various pathways to secondary education offered. In Singapore, students in the top 10 percent of the primary school leaving exam can attend a specialcourseforsecondaryschool.Otherstudentstakeeithertheexpresscourseornormal coursedependingontheiracademicachievement.Similarly,inBruneiDarussalam,different tracks exist for more‐academically and less‐academically inclined students. In Japan, secondary school students can choose to attend full‐time, part‐time, or correspondence courses.InMalaysia,studentsfromChinese‐andTamil‐mediumprimaryschoolswhodonot demonstratesufficientmasteryoftheBahasaMelayulanguagearerequiredtotakeoneextra year in a transition class before entering lower secondary school in order to acquire proficiency,sincethisisthemediumofinstructioninsecondaryschools(IBE,2011). Inadditiontogeneraleducation,manyASEAN+6countriesalsoofferstudentstheoptionof attending technical and/or vocational schools. However, each country has different requirementsdeterminingadmissiontotheseschools.Inthemajorityofcountries,students arerequiredtocompletelowersecondaryschoolingbeforeenrollingintechnicalorvocational programmes.Asmallernumberofcountriesallowstudentstoenrolintechnicalorvocational programmes directly after completing primary school. In Indonesia and Malaysia, students who wish to enrol at the upper secondary level have the option of enrolling in religious (Islamic)schoolsinadditiontogeneralortechnical/vocationalschools(IBE,2011). Table20:CountryRequirementsforEnteringaTechnicalorVocationalProgramme CompletionofPrimarySchool China,LaoPDR,Philippines,Singapore CompletionofLowerSecondarySchool Source:IBE(2011). Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Myanmar, New Zealand, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Thailand,VietNam Alternative(non‐formal)pathwaystoeducation Inordertoextendeducationtoallchildren,manycountriesintheASEAN+6grouphavemade attemptstoimproveandexpandthealternativeeducationsystem.Alternativeeducation,or non‐formaleducation,providesotheravenuesforthosewhomaybeexcludedfromtheformal school systemonthebasisofgender,ethnicity,poverty,geographicallocation,orforother reasons.Alternativeeducationhasbeenrecognizedasanimportantstepinprovidingaccess toeducationforall,assistingintheeffortstoreachtheEFAgoalsby2015.Varioustypesof alternative education exist in the ASEAN+6 countries, including Equivalency Programmes (EPs)andCommunityLearningCentres(CLCs)(Table21). 31 Table21:AlternativePathwaystoEducation,SelectedCountries Duration Formal Alter‐ native Cambodia (Accelerated Learning Programme) India (OpenBasic Education Programme) 6 3 5 Upto5 Indonesia (PacketA) 6 2 Myanmar (Non‐Formal Primary Education) 5 2 Philippines (ALS) 6 10 months or800 hours Coresubjects Nationalcurriculum NA Academicandvocational subjects Completionofexamination byNationalInstituteof OpenSchooling(NIOS)(2 times/year) Certificateequivalentto FormalEducation Examination Certificateissuedbythe Government 1.Morale‐buildingand academicallyoriented subjects, 2.Lifeskillsoriented subjects Burmese,English, Mathematics,and GeneralStudies Assessattendanceand achievementtests CertificateissuedbyMOE 1.Communicationskills, Nationalaccreditation 2.Problem‐solvingand criticalthinking 3.Sustainableuseof resources/productivity 4.Developmentofselfand asenseofcommunity 5.Expandingone'sworld vision Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. Certification 32 Table22:KeyMilestonesinAlternativeSecondaryEducationinSelectedCountries India Since 2002, the Government has recognized the Open Basic Programme (OBE). OBE graduates qualify for entry into higher education and employment. Indonesia In1970,governmentbeganpromotingequivalencyeducation.TheActof theRepublicofIndonesiaNo.20in2003supportedreforminnon‐formal education. Myanmar TheEducationforAllNationalActionPlan,adoptedin2003,highlightsthe needtoexpandnon‐formaleducationprogrammestoachievebasicquality educationforallcitizens. 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), and Myanmar Ministry of Education (2012). Table23illustratesvariouschallengestoimprovingalternativeeducationintheregion. Table23:MajorChallengestoAlternativeEducationinSelectedCountries Country Cambodia India Indonesia LaoPDR Myanmar Philippines Thailand VietNam Limited Low Under‐ staff public funding capacity awareness Shortage ofclass materials Problemsin monitoring/ evaluation Lackof Notreaching relevant/ marginalized quality communities learning Sources:PhilippinesMinistryofEducation(2008),UNESCO(2006),UNESCO(2010a),andUNESCO (2011a). 2.2.3 Curriculumatthesecondarylevel Relevanceofcurriculum Arelevantcurriculumisanecessarypre‐requisitefortheprovisionofqualityeducationatany level of education. Many governments, in their national curricula for secondary education, explicitly state that the curriculum should have relevance for students entering higher educationorthelabourmarket,byequippingtheirstudents withsufficientknowledge,life skills and/or practical skills. Table 24 below provides examples of curricular aims from selectedcountries.Whilegovernmentsgenerallyaimtodevelopacurriculumthatmeetsthe needsofthecountryanditspeople,manydonothavesufficienthumanandfinancialresources tomakethisareality. 33 Table24:ExamplesofCurricularAimsfromSelectedCountries Australia The Australian Curriculum will equip all young Australians with the essential skills, knowledge and capabilities to thrive and compete in a globalisedworldandinformationrichworkplacesofthecurrentcentury. Brunei The new SPN 21 education plan takes into consideration key aspects of Darussalam quality education for nation building and human capital development. It aims to achieve quality education through the provision of a balanced curriculum benchmarked against creditable quality assurance or assessmentsystemsofinternationalstandards. Cambodia The aim of the school curriculum is to develop fully the talents and capacities of all students in order that they become able people, with parallelandbalancedintellectual,spiritual,mentalandphysicalgrowthand development. China Theschool curriculum serves the aims of basic education, as defined in the2001 State CouncilResolutionon the Reform andDevelopment ofBasicEducation: Enablingthedevelopmentofanew,well‐educated,idealistic,moral andpatrioticgenerationwith alovefor socialism, andwho willinheritfinetraditionsoftheChinesenation Developan awareness of socialist democracy andlawas well as respectforstatelawsandsocialnorms Developappropriateworldoutlook,lifeoutlookandvalues Developasenseofsocialresponsibility Developaninnovativespirit, practical skills, aknowledgebasein sciences andhumanities, andan awareness of environmental protectionissues Develop good physical health and psychological qualities, healthy aestheticaltastesandlifestyles. Japan In Japan, the standard nationwide curriculum known as the ‘Course of Study’,aimstostrengthentheteachingofbasicandfundamentalcontents and to develop education considering individual student needs and abilities. NewZealand The New Zealand Curriculum aims to contribute to all students having a strong foundation for learning, high levels of achievement, and a lifelong engagementinlearning. The The secondary education curriculum aims to raise the quality of Filipino Philippines students and empower them for lifelong learning by attaining functional literacy. Singapore Singapore’s national curriculum aims to nurture each child to his full potential,todiscoverhistalentsandtodevelopinhimapassionforlife‐long learning.Studentsgothroughabroadrangeofexperiencestodevelopthe skillsandvaluesthattheywillneedforlife. Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. Regular review processes ensure that the national curriculum remains relevant in light of changessuchaslocaldevelopmentsandglobaltrends.Countriesthathavescheduledreview cyclesincludeJapan,SingaporeandVietNam.InJapan,‘CoursesofStudy’arereviewedevery tenyearsorso.InSingapore,thecurriculumplanningandreviewprocessissixyears,witha 34 mid‐termreviewattheendofthethirdyear,whileinVietNam,theGovernmenthasplansto reviewthecurriculumregularlyevery5‐10years.Forothercountries,curriculumreviews appeartotakeplaceonanadhocbasis,usuallydrivenbyexternalfactorsoremergingissues. Whiletheperceptionofwhatarelevantcurriculumactuallyentailsmaydiffer,feedbackfrom institutesofhighereducationoremployerswhotakeinworkerswithsecondaryeducation qualificationscanproveuseful.Forexample,employersinCambodiareportthatitisdifficult tofindprofessionalstaffwithstronganalyticalanddecision‐makingskills,whileemployersin Malaysia say that secondary graduates lack many "21st century skills” including communicationskills,teamworkandEnglishlanguageskills. Contentofcurriculum Whilemostcountrieshaveadetailednationalcurriculumframeworkspecifyingsubjectstobe studied,othersonlyhaveabroadframeworkwithgenerallearningareasfordistricts/states to implement based on local needs and priorities. Of the countries with detailed national curriculumframeworks,onlyafewincludeacomponentfor‘localcontent’.Theinclusionof ‘local content’ within an otherwise structured framework allows for flexibility and customizationfortheteachingofrelevantlocalknowledge/skills.Theserespectivecategories, andthecountriesthatfallwithinthem,areseeninTable25below. Table25:ContentsofNationalCurriculumFramework Countrieswithdetailednationalcurriculum BruneiDarussalam framework,withouta‘localcontent’component Japan LaoPDR Malaysia Myanmar RepublicofKorea Singapore Thailand VietNam Countrieswithdetailednationalcurriculum, Cambodia includinga‘localcontent’component China Indonesia Philippines Countrieswithbroadnationalcurriculum Australia frameworks* India NewZealand Notes:*Districts/Statesarefreetoimplementattheirdiscretionbasedonguidelines Source:IBE(2011). Ingeneral,lowersecondaryeducationcurriculumconsolidateswhathasbeenlearntatthe primarylevelwhilealsointroducingfoundationalcontentinpreparationforuppersecondary education.Assuch,mostcountrieswithdetailednationalcurriculahaveasetofprescribed subjectsforstudentsatthislevel.Uppersecondaryeducationthenfocusesmoreheavilyon preparingstudentsforeitherthenextlevelofeducationorfortheworkplace.Atthisstage, there is variation between countries regarding student choice in areas of study. This informationispresentedinTable26below. 35 Table26:AvailabilityofOptiontoChooseSubjectsforStudyatLowerandSecondary Levels Country BruneiDarussalam Cambodia China Indonesia Japan LaoPDR Malaysia Myanmar Philippines RepublicofKorea Singapore Thailand VietNam Source:IBE(2011). LowerSecondary Optionsavailable Prescribedsubjectsonly Prescribedsubjectsonly Prescribedsubjectsonly Prescribedsubjectsonly Prescribedsubjectsonly Prescribedsubjectsonly Prescribedsubjectsonly Prescribedsubjectsonly Optionsavailable Prescribedsubjectsonly Prescribedsubjectsonly Prescribedsubjectsonly UpperSecondary Optionsavailable Optionsavailable Prescribedsubjectsonly Optionsavailable Optionsavailable Prescribedsubjectsonly Optionsavailable Optionsavailable Prescribedsubjectsonly Optionsavailable Optionsavailable Optionsavailable Prescribedsubjectsonly Thesubjectstaughtatlower secondary inthecountries studiedare rathersimilar, withall countriescoveringatleasttwolanguages,mathematics,science,socialscienceandphysical education.Mostcountrieshaveart/music,civics/moraleducationandtechnology,whileonly someincludereligiousstudiesintheirlowersecondarycurriculum.Table27belowshowsthe generalsubjectareastaughtatthelowersecondarylevelacrossthevariouscountries. PhysicalEd Art/Music Civics/ Moral Technology Religion Social Science English Malay Khmer Chinese Various BahasaIndonesian Japanese Lao Malay Myanmar English Tagalog Korean English Thai Vietnamese Science Australia BruneiDarussalam Cambodia China India Indonesia Japan LaoPDR Malaysia Myanmar NewZealand Philippines RepublicofKorea Singapore Thailand VietNam 1stLanguage Math Country 2ndLang Table27:MappingofContentAreasTaughtatLowerSecondaryLevel Source:IBE(2011). For upper secondary, the content of the curriculum differs greatly both among and within countriesdependingontheeducationaltrackandchoicesofstudents.Somecountriesstream their students according to academic ability (i.e. Brunei Darussalam and Singapore), while othersprovideelectivestosuittheirstudents’needs.China,JapanandRepublicofKoreahave 36 acredit/unitsystemthatallowsgreaterflexibilityforstudentswhocanexercisechoicebased ontheirstrengthsandinterests. 2.2.4 Secondaryteachers Teacherqualifications Concern about the quality of secondary teaching is common across all education systems, includinghighperformingsystems.Butjustasconcernforqualityteachingisnatural,sotoois theroleofteachersundeniablycritical.Whatremainsdifficultisdefiningandmeasuringthe characteristicsandcontributionsofa‘qualityteacher’(Gannicott,2009). From a comparative perspective, it is interesting to examine the minimum qualifications requiredtobecomeeitheraloweroruppersecondaryteacherintheselectedcountries.Eight countries in the ASEAN+6 group require only an ISCED 17 level 4 qualification in order to becomealowersecondaryteacher,asillustratedinTable12ofthisreport.Eightcountries, includingOECDcountriesoftheregion,requireatertiary‐level(ISCED5)qualification,which inmostcasesisobtainedthroughafour‐yeardegree.TheonlyexceptionisLaoPDR,which requiresthesamequalificationforlowersecondaryteachers(11yearsofformalschooling plus3yearsofpre‐serviceteachertraining). Inadditiontoformalschoolingrequirementsandpre‐serviceteachertrainingqualifications, it is interesting to note additional requirements needed before a secondary teacher can be considered qualified. This is all the more important given that teacher educational qualificationsalonedonotleadtoimprovedstudentlearning,despitetheattemptsofmany countries in the region to increase educational requirements. For example, research by McKinsey and Co. (2007) highlights the importance of attracting the right applicants into teaching,includingattractingthetopcohortofsecondarygraduatesintoteachingand/orby limitingenrolmentinteachertrainingtothosewithgenuineaptitudeormotivationtoteach. TheexperiencesofJapan,theRepublicofKoreaandSingaporearehighlyrelevant.(SeeTable 28.) Table28:AdditionalAspectsofTeacherQualificationinSelectedCountries Japan Prefectural education boards conduct a teacher appointment examination for certified teacher candidates every year. This examination includes written tests in general education subjects, professional subjects and teaching subjects as well as interviews, essaytestsandpracticaltestsinphysicaleducation,finearts,foreign languages,etc.Theboardsappointnewteachersonthebasisoftheir resultsinexaminationsaswellastheirperformanceatuniversityand theirsocialexperience(Maruyama,H.,2011) RepublicofKorea Candidates for secondary teaching positions must pass an employmentexamination(Kim,E.,Kim,J.andHan,Y.,2009) TheInternationalStandardClassificationofEducationisdevelopedandupdatedbyUNESCOtoserveasaninstrumentfor assembling,compilingandpresentingstatisticsineducationbothwithinindividualcountriesandinternationally. 17 37 Singapore Beforebeingallowedtoenrol inteachers’college,applicantsmustbe inthetop30percentoftheiragecohortacademically(McKinseyand Co., 2007). Upon completion of the teacher training course, candidatesforsecondarylevelteachingpositionsareshortlistedfor interview. Interviewers seek to learn more about theirpassion for teaching,theirabilitytocommunicatewellwithothers,theircreative and innovative spirit, confidence, leadership qualities and their potentialtobeagoodrolemodel(TanandWong,2007). Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. Teacherrecruitment Whiletherearemanyissuestoconsiderinregardtotherecruitmentofsecondaryteachers, one key concern regards the level at which responsibility for recruitment is given. Most countriesintheregionhavedelegatedthisresponsibilitytothelocal(e.g.provincial,district ormunicipal)level,whilesome,includingthePhilippineshavegonesofarastomakethisa functionofschools.Therearestillafewcountriesintheregion(Cambodia,China,Malaysia, Myanmar and Singapore) that maintain management of teacher recruitment at the central level. While there is no ‘right’ approach in the institutional arrangements for secondary teacher recruitment, governments may wish to note the trend towards decentralization in teacher recruitment and may learn from the experiences of other countries. A summary of whereresponsibilityforsecondaryteacherrecruitmentliesintheregionisgiveninTable29 below. Table29:LevelofResponsibilityforRecruitmentofSecondaryTeachers Central/ Cambodia (Department of Teacher Training within the Ministry of national Education,YouthandSports’DirectorateGeneralofHigherEducation) level Malaysia (Human Resources Department within the Ministry of Education) Myanmar (Department of Education Planning and Training within the MinistryofEducation) Singapore (Human Resource Solutions and Capabilities Division, MinistryofEducation) Central/ China(StateEducationCommissionatthenationallevel.Teachers nationalor recruitedthiswayareconsideredcivilservants.However,thereisalso locallevel aprocessoflocalrecruitmentforteacherspaidbythelocal community.) Local(e.g. Indonesia(EducationalDistrictOffices) provincial/ Japan (Prefectural Boards of Education and Municipal Education district) Committees) level LaoPDR(ProvincialEducationServices) RepublicofKorea(ProvincialandMunicipalOfficesofEducation) Thailand(EducationServiceAreas’Sub‐commissionsforTeachersand EducationalPersonnel) Viet Nam (Personnel Divisions at district level for lower secondary educationandprovinciallevelforuppersecondaryeducation) 38 Schoollevel Philippines(Schoolselectioncommitteesmustforwardapplicationsto the Schools Division Offices’ Selection Committees for preliminary evaluation of applications. Schools Division Offices also manage deploymentandmanagement.) Localand/or Australia(viaIndependentPublicSchools/SchoolSelectedpolicy) schoollevel Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. Teacherremuneration While a good salary is not necessarily the main motivation for prospective teachers, remunerationisanimportantfactorinrecruitingandretainingskilledpersonnel.Despitethe difficulty in accurately estimating average teacher remuneration within countries and the challengeofmakingcomparisonsbetweencountries,onesuitable(thoughimperfect)measure involvesexpressingaverageteachersalariesasaproportionofGDPpercapita.Suchameasure allows ustocompareteacherremunerationwithaverageincomesinthecountry. Table30 illustratessecondaryteachers’averageannualsalariesatthedifferentpointsintheircareer asaproportionofGDPpercapitainselectedASEAN+6countries. Table30:SecondaryTeachers’AverageAnnualSalariesinPublicInstitutionsinSelect Asia‐PacificCountriesasaPercentageofGDPPerCapita Lowersecondaryteachers Uppersecondaryteachers After15 Topof After15 Topof Country Year Starting yearsof scale Starting yearsof scale experience experience Australia 2009 97 135 135 97 135 135 Cambodia 2003 64 77 86 91 77 123 Indonesia 2009 38 52 56 45 58 63 Japan 2009 80 140 178 80 140 182 LaoPDR 2002 53 58 65 54 59 … Malaysia 2006 105 184 279 105 164 279 New 2009 70 135 135 70 135 135 Zealand Philippines 2009 157 173 186 157 173 186 Republicof 2009 122 211 338 122 211 338 Korea Thailand 2006 91 177 299 91 177 299 Source:UIS(2011),andUNESCOBangkok(2009). Thesefiguresshowthatthereareanumberofcountriesinwhichthesalaryofbothlowerand upper secondary teachers is considerably lower than GDP per capita, including Cambodia, IndonesiaandLaoPDR.Attheotherendofthespectrum,therearecountriesinwhichteaching (atbothloweranduppersecondarylevels)isarelativelywell‐paidprofession,withaverage salaries in public institutions being considerably higher than GDP per capita, such as in Australia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea and Thailand. It is also interestingtoanalyseannualsalarygrowth,asshownforlowersecondaryteachersinFigure 7. 39 Figure7:LowerSecondaryTeachers’AnnualSalariesinPublicInstitutionsasa PercentageofGDPPerCapita 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Starting After 15 years of experience Australia Lao PDR Rep. of Korea Cambodia Malaysia Thailand Indonesia NZ Top of scale Japan Philippines Source:UISGlobalEducationDigest(2011). Thisshowsthatrelativelylow‐payingcountriessuchasCambodia,IndonesiaandLaoPDRdo notoffermuchbywayofsalaryincreaseandprogressionforlowersecondaryteachers.Onthe otherhand,thetrajectoryofsalaryprogressionisquitesteepincountriessuchastheMalaysia, Republic of Korea and Thailand. In the Republic of Korea, for example, a lower secondary teacheratthetopofthesalaryscalemayearn177percentmorethanonejuststartinginthe profession.WhilethestartingsalarymightactuallybesomewhatlowerthanGDPpercapitain Australia,Japan,NewZealandandThailandtheprofessionbecomesrelativelywellpaidafter 15yearsofserviceandcertainlyattheupperendofthepayscale.18Figure8showssimilar patternswhenitcomestouppersecondaryteachersintheregion.Itmaybeofinterestfor countriestotakestockofthevarianceintheremunerationofbothloweranduppersecondary teachersacrosstheregionandthedifferentpatternsofsalaryprogression. Figure8:UpperSecondaryTeachers’AnnualSalariesinPublicInstitutionsasa PercentageofGDPPerCapita 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Starting After 15 years of experience Top of scale Australia Cambodia Indonesia Japan Lao PDR Malaysia NZ Philippines Rep. of Korea Thailand Source:UISGlobalEducationDigest(2011). 18 Itisnotclear,however,howmanyyearsitmaytaketomakeittothetopendinseveralcountries. 40 2.2.5 Studentassessmentatthesecondarylevel Policiesandmechanismsforstudentassessment Studentassessmentisanintegralpartoftheeducationprocessasitprovidesinformationon thequalityofthelearningprocess.Althoughtherearemanymodalitiestocarryoutstudent assessment, only examinations feature prominently in the education policy documents of ASEAN+6 countries. According to Hill (2010), the purposes of examinations are threefold: selection,certificationandaccountability. Withregardstoselectionandcertification,thereisamixofexaminationapproachesforentry tolowersecondaryanduppersecondaryaswellasforcompletionoflowersecondary.Some countries use the same exam for both the purposes of certification and selection (such as Malaysia),whileseparateexamsservedifferingpurposesinothercountries(suchasJapan). All countries have examinations for either completion of upper secondary and/or entry to institutes of higher education. Table 31 shows whether examinations are required in the ASEAN+6 countries for: 1) entry into lower secondary, 2) completion of lower secondary/entry to upper secondary, and 3) completion of upper secondary/entry to an instituteofhighereducation. Table31:TheUseofExaminationsforthePurposesofSelectionandCertificationin ASEAN+6Countries Country Entryto LowerSec CompletionofLowerSec/ EntrytoUpperSec Australia Brunei Darussalam Cambodia China India Indonesia Japan Some LaoPDR Malaysia Myanmar NewZealand Philippines RepublicofKorea Singapore Thailand VietNam Some Source:DatacollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. CompletionofUpperSec/ EntrytoHigherEd With regard to accountability, all countries that administer national examinations could arguably use data collected from these examinations to inform policy making and decision makinginanumberofareas.Yet,itisdifficulttoestablishclearevidencethatexamsareused effectively for this purpose within education systems. Other than national examinations, countries may also carry out other forms of assessment specifically designed to provide information about the quality of their education system. Of the countries involved in this 41 analysis,Australia,JapanandtheRepublicofKoreahaveestablishednation‐widesystemsof assessment.DetailsoftheseassessmentsaregiveninTable32. Table32:DetailsofAssessmentsUsedforAccountability Australia The National Assessment Programme – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) testsareconductedforallstudentsinYears3,5,7and9.Allstudentsinthe sameyearlevelareassessedonthesametestitemsintheassessmentdomains ofreading,writinglanguageconventionsandnumeracy. Japan TheNationalAssessmentofAcademicAbilityforgrade6elementarystudents andgrade3juniorhighstudentswascarriedoutfrom2007forthepurposeof measuringstudents’learningoutcomes.Itanalysestheacademicabilitiesand learning patterns of schoolchildren throughout Japan and investigates the outcomesofeducationalpoliciesandprogrammes,identifiesissuesrequiring attention,andachievesimprovementstherein. RepublicofKorea The National Assessment of Educational Achievement (NAEA) was implementedin2000toassessKoreanlanguage,mathematics,science,social studies, English communication skills, and information technology skills. Startingfrom2008,theNAEAwascarriedoutnationwide.Thepurposesofthe NAEA are to diagnose educational achievements at all levels of schooling, analyse student educational achievement trends, and gather fundamental referencedatatoimprovetheNationalCurriculum.Inaddition,theNAEAaims to improve teaching and learning methods by providing schools with exemplary assessment methods and disseminating knowledge regarding currentresearchdesignandmethods. Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. Asforprocessofconductingexaminations,somecountrieshaveexaminationunitswithinthe Ministry of Education to oversee all matters related to national examinations. Others have establishedexternalexaminationbodieswithlinkstotheMinistryofEducationtoadminister examinations. Of the countries included in this analysis, none have independent examining bodiesforsecondaryeducation.Table33providesfurtherinformationonexaminingbodies inASEAN+6countries. Table33:ExaminingBodiesofASEAN+6Countries Countrieswith examinationunits withintheMinistry ofEducation BruneiDarussalam(DepartmentofExamination) Cambodia (Examination Office of the General Secondary Education Department) China(NationalEducationExaminationsAuthority) LaoPDR(EducationStandardsandQualityAssuranceCentre)) Malaysia(MalaysianExaminationSyndicate) Myanmar(MyanmarBoardofExaminations) Philippines(NationalEducationalTestingandResearchCenter) VietNam(MinistryofEducationandTraining) Countrieswith Australia(VariousStateexamboards) Ministry‐affiliated India (Central Board of Secondary Education; Council for Indian School examinationbodies CertificateExamination) Indonesia(NationalEducationStandardsAgency) NewZealand(NewZealandQualificationsAuthority) Republic of Korea (Republic of Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation) Singapore(SingaporeExaminationsandAssessmentBoard) Thailand(NationalInstituteofEducationalTestingService) Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. 42 Forcountriesinvolvedinthisanalysis,thefocusseemstobeonassessmentoflearning,most commonly in the form of examinations designed to check whether students have achieved specifiedlearningoutcomes.Althoughsomecountriesmentionpoliciesforcarryingouton‐ goingformativeassessmentintheclassroom,itisnotclearhowthisisimplementedinschools. OnesuchcountryisAustralia,whereoneofthepurposesofassessmentison‐goingformative assessment within the classroom for the purposes of monitoring learning and providing feedback.Suchfeedbackisdesignedtosupportteachersintheirteachingandsupportstudents intheirlearning.AnotherexampleisBruneiDarussalam,wherethenationalexaminationat theendoflowersecondaryisbeingreplacedbytheStudentProgressAssessment(SPA).Such policiesrepresentashiftfromasummativeassessmentorientationtoasystemofformative assessmentcharacterizedbythemeasurementofstudentprogressandachievement. Another increasing trend in assessment practice is the inclusion of non‐cognitive skills assessmentintheevaluationofstudentlearning.IntheRepublicofKorea,forexample,the evaluation system (Student School Record/School Activities Record) was introduced to provide not only summative information but also diagnostic and formative information on student academic achievement and social development. In Myanmar, the level of student participationinschoolandcommunityactivitiesiscapturedinone’sComprehensivePersonal Record (CPR), and together with examination results, is taken into consideration for promotionpurposes. Inrecentyears,therehasalsobeenanincreaseininterestandcommitmentofgovernments in many of the ASEAN+6 countries to monitor and assess student learning. This growing concerncanbeseeninthenumberofcountriesfromtheregionparticipatinginlarge‐scale international assessments such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Progress in InternationalReadingLiteracyStudy(PIRLS)(Table34). Table34:ParticipationinMajorInternationalAssessmentsbyASEAN+6Countries Country Australia BruneiDarussalam Cambodia China India Indonesia Japan LaoPDR Malaysia Myanmar NewZealand Philippines RepublicofKorea Singapore Thailand VietNam Total 2003 2006 6 6 PISA 2009/10 2012 2003 9 9 Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. 43 7 TIMSS PIRLS 2007 2011 2001 2006 2011 8 8 2 3 4 Alignmentbetweencurriculumandassessment In general, examinations administered for the purpose of certification create alignment between curriculum and assessment. For these examinations, there are usually clearly specified learning outcomes in the curriculum upon which assessment is based. In some countries including Malaysia and Singapore certification examinations are also used for selection and/or streaming purposes. Examinations administered for the sole purpose of selection,ontheotherhand,oftenassessaptitudeandgeneralabilitiesratherthanspecific curriculargoals.Mostoftheseexaminationsaredesignedforentryintoinstitutionsofhigher education. Accreditation Studentsinallcountriesinvolvedinthisanalysisreceiveeitheradiplomaoracertificateupon meetingtherequirementsforcompletionofuppersecondaryeducation.Bycontrast,students inonlyeightcountriesreceiveadiplomaorcertificateuponcompletionoflowersecondary education,asshowninTable35below. Table35:AccreditationforCompletionofLowerandUpperSecondaryEducation Country Accreditationforcompletion Accreditationforcompletionof oflowersecondaryeducation uppersecondaryeducation Australia Brunei Darussalam Cambodia China India Indonesia Japan LaoPDR Malaysia Myanmar NewZealand Philippines RepublicofKorea Singapore Thailand VietNam Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. Mostofthesediplomasandcertificatesareissuedatthenationallevel,withonlyahandfulof countries including Australia, India and Viet Nam, issuing accreditation at the state/provincial/districtlevel. 2.2.6 Conclusion Years spent in secondary education are critical to youth at the cusp of life beyond formal schoolingandassuch,secondaryeducationinallcountriesrequiresimportantattentionatthe policy level. Identification of and support in professional pathways for students, school 44 curricula, teachers and learning assessment are all important considerations. ASEAN+6 countries have responded to these considerations in diverse ways. Reviewing these varied approaches has shed some lights on trends as well as possible policy implications for any countrywishingtoundertakereformofthissub‐sector.Thefindingsaresummarisedbelow: (i) Improvingandexpandingsecondaryeducationpathways ManycountriesintheASEAN+6grouphavemadeattemptstoimproveandexpandtheir alternative education system through various means, including Equivalency Programmes and Community Learning Centres. Current non‐formal education programmesfocuslargelyonchildrenandyouthwhohavemissedoutonprimarybut notsecondaryschool. (ii) Relevanceofcurriculumatthesecondarylevel Strengthening the relevance of curriculum at the secondary level is a critical issue, particularly in regard to its compatibility with higher levels of education and its relevance to the job market. High performing education systems tend to undertake frequentcurriculumreformstorespondtochangingneedsandmakeeducationmore relevant.Anup‐to‐dateandrelevantcurriculumimpliesregularprocessesofcurricular review. (iii) Higherminimumqualificationsrequiredforsecondaryeducationteachers While some countries only require an ISCED level 4 qualification as a minimum qualificationforsecondaryteachers,manyothercountriesincludingtheOECDcountries oftheregionrequirelowersecondaryteacherstohaveatertiarylevelqualification.But qualificationsalonedonotequalqualityteaching.Theimportanceofhigherminimum qualificationsmayrequirefurtherreviewandanalysis,aswouldotherimportantfactors in the recruitment of teachers including motivation, interpersonal skills and remunerationincomparisonwithGDPpercapita. (iv) Theimportanceoflearningoutcomeassessmentofsecondarystudents A number of countries in the region have abolished examinations for entry to lower secondary education but some continue with these exams. Some countries, such as Myanmar,donotadministeranynationalassessmentsforthepurposeofmonitoringthe qualityofeducation atthesecondarylevel(asisthecaseforAustralia, Japanandthe Republic of Korea) nor participate in any international assessments of secondary students, such as PISA. Such national and international assessments are seen as increasingly important in the region as countries attempt to monitor the quality of secondaryeducationprovidedtostudents. 2.3 TechnicalandVocationalEducationandTraining(TVET) 2.3.1 Introduction In view of rapid and increasing globalization brought about by significant advances in technology, increased mobility and the development of increasingly knowledge‐based economies,theimportanceofTVETinASEAN+6countriesiswellunderstood.Countrieshave similaroverallaspirationsregardingTVET,asourceofeducationthatcanhelpensurecitizens areequippedwiththerequisiteskillstolivemeaningfulandproductiveliveswithinsociety. 45 Yetforcountriesatdifferentstagesofdevelopment,19immediategoalsforTVET,TVETscope andmeansofdeliverydifferinaccordancewitheconomicchallenges.Somecountriesinthe ASEAN+6groupingsufferfromashortageofskillsinparticularareas,whileothersstruggleto generate enough jobs to accommodate labour market entrants. This section provides an overview of the different legal, institutional and policy frameworks for TVET, financing mechanismsinplace,TVETstructuresanddeliverysystems,andaspectsofTVETqualityand relevancetolabourmarketneedsintheASEAN+6countries. 2.3.2 Legislativeandinstitutionalpolicyframeworks TVET‐specificpolicies Solid and relevant legislative and policy frameworks underpin most TVET systems in ASEAN+6 countries(Table 36). Some countries, however, lack national TVET qualifications frameworks.Theabsenceofanationalqualificationsframeworkdoesnotnecessarilysignify a critical shortcoming; some countries, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, have achievedsolideconomicdevelopmentsupportedbythedevelopmentofTVETevenwithout suchaframeworkinplace. Table36:LegislativeandPolicyFrameworksforTVET(SelectedCountries) Legislation,LegislativeDecisions/ Country Policy/Plans/Strategies Decrees,Acts NationalSkillsFramework(NSF): NationalVocationalEducationand Australia Threecomponents 1.VETQualityFramework 2.AustralianQualifications Framework 3.TrainingPackages TheNationalMediumandLong‐Term VocationalEducationLaw (1996) StateCouncilDecisiononVigorously PlanforEducationReformand PromotingtheReformandDevelopmentof Development(2010‐2020) VET(2002) SecondaryVocationalEducation StateCouncilDecisiononAcceleratingthe ReformandInnovationActionPlan GrowthofVET(2005) (2010) NationalPolicyonSkillDevelopment TheIndustrialTrainingInstitutesAct (2009) (1961) TheApprenticesAct(1961) TheArchitectsAct(1972) TheAllIndiaCouncilforTechnical EducationActNo.2(1987) TheNationalInstitutesofTechnologyAct (2007) HumanResourceDevelopmentPromotion YoungPeopleImprovementProgram (2012) Act(1969),OrdinanceoftheMinistryof Labour TrainingRegulatorAct(2011),National AgreementforSkillsandWorkforce Development2012,NationalPartnership AgreementonSkillsReform2012 China India Japan 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. 46 Country Legislation,LegislativeDecisions/ Decrees,Acts Policy/Plans/Strategies Republicof VocationalEducationandTraining PromotionAct(MEST) Korea Policyformodernizingvocational education(MEST,2010),SecondBasic PlanforLifelongVocationalSkills Development(MOEL,2012‐2017), VISION2020:VocationalEducation forAll LaoPDR TVETPolicy,MasterPlanforthe DevelopmentofTVETfor2008–2015, ComponentonTVETinthe7thFive yearEducationSectorDevelopment Plan(2011‐2015),TVETStrategy 2006‐2020 TVETpolicy(1973) EnforcementDecreeofThePromotionof IndustrialEducationandIndustry‐ AcademicCooperationAct(MEST) WorkersVocationalSkillsDevelopment Act(MOEL) FrameworkActonQualifications PrimeMinister’sDecreeonTVETand SkillsDevelopment(2010) Myanmar EmploymentandSkillsDevelopmentLaw (2013) Philippines ‐ TheNationalTechnicalEducationand SkillsDevelopmentPlan(NTESDP) 2011–2016 Manpower21Plan(1998) ‐ Singapore MasterPlanonDevelopmentofViet LawonVocationalTraining(2006) VietNam Nam'sHumanResources2011‐2020, 2011‐2020Socio‐Economic DevelopmentStrategy,Strategyon DevelopmentofVietNam'sHuman Resources2011‐2020 Source:Informationcollectedfromnationalgovernmentandeducationdepartmentwebsitesby UNESCOBangkokstaff. Most ASEAN+6 countries have TVET policies that align with educational, economic and industrialpolicies.Forexample,oneofthekeyobjectivesofIndia’sNationalPolicyonSkill Development is “to create a workforce empowered with improved skills, knowledge and internationally recognized qualifications to gain access to decent employment and ensure India’scompetitivenessinthedynamicgloballabourmarket.”20Thenationalpolicyonhuman capital development in Singapore is rooted in the Manpower 21 Report (Ministry of Manpower,2003).Itenvisagestheretrainingoftheworkforceandproposesprogrammesto attractintellectualcapital(MinistryofManpower,2003a).VietNam’sTVETsystemaimsto become“morerelevanttoneedsoflocalandcentralindustriesaswellastoamulti‐sectorand dynamic economy” (Ministry of Education and Training, 2006). The new Philippines DevelopmentPlan2011‐2016includesastrategytoimprovetheeffectivenessofthedemand‐ supplymatchforcriticalskillsandhigh‐levelprofessionsthroughtighterindustry‐academic links, better dissemination of labour market information, and career guidance (National EconomicDevelopmentAuthority,2011). LimitedlinkagesbetweenTVETandeconomicpolicythroughlegislationorotherlegaltexts doesnotnecessarilyindicatethatthealignmentofTVETpolicywiththatofindustryisweak. Forexample,whiletherearenolegaldocumentsexplicitlystatingsynergiesbetweenJapanese 20 http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/skilldev/rep_skilldev7.pdf 47 national policies on TVET with those of economy or industry, the country’s private sector stronglyinfluencestheTVETsystem,suggestingaproductiverelationshipbetweentraining providersandemployersexists. InstitutionalresponsibilityforTVET As many would argue, the primary responsibility of TVET is to meet the productive skills demandofnationaleconomies.Assuch,itiscommonformorethanoneministryoragencyto beinvolved inthedevelopment andgovernanceofTVETsystems.While governmentsmay havetheprincipalresponsibilityofprovidingTVETinitsearlyphasesofdevelopment,there isanincreasinginvolvementofenterprisesandothersocialpartnersintheprovisionofTVET, especially in work‐based training and skills needs surveying. Table 37 e provides a brief overview of institutional arrangements for TVET provision and administration in selected ASEAN+6countries.Asshown,somecountrieshaveasingleagencyorministryoverseeingthe TVETsubsector(forexampleAustralia,Philippines)whilemostothershaveoneortwomain ministriestakingchargeofTVETwithotherministriesprovidingTVETprogrammes. Table37:MinistriesResponsibleforTVETProvision(SelectedCountries) Country MinistriesresponsibleforTVETprovision DepartmentofEducation,EmploymentandWorkplaceRelations(DEEWR) Australia Cambodia Mainresponsibleministry:MinistryofLabourandVocationalTraining(MLVT)and its Directorate General of TVET (DGTVE). Other ministries also operate TVET programmes, in particular the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MOEYS), Ministry of Women’s Affairs (MOWA), Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture. Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Human Resources and Social China Security(MOHRSS) At central level: Ministry of Labour and Employment (MOLE), Ministry of Human India Resource Development (MHRD), Department of Education and Training. At state level:severalministriesareresponsibleforTVETprovision. Indonesia Ministry of Education and Culture, Directorate for SMK, Ministry for Human Resources and Transmigration, Directorate General of Training and Productivity Development Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), Ministry of Education, Culture, Japan Sports,ScienceandTechnology(MEXT) MinistryofEducationandSports(MOES)andMinistryofLabourandSocialWelfare LaoPDR (MOLSW) MinistryofEducation(MOE),responsibleforsecondarylevelvocationaleducation. Malaysia 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 of Women, Family and Community Development as well as others: responsible for skillstraininginspecificareasinbothformalandnon‐formallearningsettings. Main responsible ministry: Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST). Other Myanmar ministries:MinistryofEducation,MinistryofLabour,MinistryofIndustry,Ministry ofAgricultureandIrrigation,MinistryofEnvironmentalConversationandForestry, MinistryofTransport,MinistryofHotelsandTourism,MinistryofHealth,Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Boarder Areas, Ministry of Cooperatives, Ministry of Railways,MinistryofSocialWelfare,ReliefandResettlement. Philippines TechnicalEducationandSkillsDevelopmentAuthority(TESDA) 48 Country Republicof Korea Singapore VietNam MinistriesresponsibleforTVETprovision MinistryofEducation,ScienceandTechnology(MEST),MinistryofEmploymentand Labour(MOEL). MinistryofEducation(MOE),MinistryofManpower(MOM) Mainresponsibleministry:MinistryofLabour,InvalidsandSocialAffairs(MOLISA). Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) and its Secondary Technical and Vocational Education Department (STVED) are responsible for secondary professionaleducation.OtherministriesprovidingTVETprogrammes:Ministryof Industry and Trade, Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development, Ministry of Health. Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. Coordinationbetweenministriesandotherstakeholders Coordinationcanbeexaminedfromtwoangles:horizontal(acrossministriesandagenciesand across government and private providers) and vertical (between central and decentralized levels).ThefollowingexamplesandpracticesfromselectedASEAN+6countriesareprovided toillustratethesetwotypesofcoordination. In Singapore, the policy infrastructure for macro level human capital development is characterized by two distinct features: a tripartite approach, based on cooperation among employers,unions,andgovernmentandamulti‐departmentalapproachinvolvingallrelevant government agencies. The tripartite relationship ensures that there is agreement over strategies and necessary steps required for national Human Resource Development (HRD) strategies. Another important tripartite institution is the Skills Development Fund (SDF), foundedbytheGovernmentandguidedbyatripartitecouncil.Thefundisbothamechanism forfinancingtheemployeetrainingandamotivationforemployerstoupgradetheskillsof their employees. The SDF was created because employers in Singapore are not normally inclinedto fundstafftrainingunlessthereisaschemetoenticethemtodoso(Ministryof Manpower,2003;SkillsDevelopmentFund,2003). Australia’svocationaleducationandtraining(VET)sectorisbasedonapartnershipbetween regional governments and industries. Governments provide funding, develop policies and contributetoregulationandqualityassuranceofthesector.Industryandemployergroups contributetotrainingpoliciesandpriorities,andindevelopingqualificationsthatcandeliver skillstotheworkforce(AEI,n.d). In Lao PDR, several ministries are involved in TVET provision. In terms of horizontal coordination,thePrimeMinister’sDecreeonTVETandSkillsDevelopmentclearlymandates cooperationamongthekeyTVETministries:theMOESandtheMOLSW.Thisdecreeidentifies synergiesandcomplementaritiesbetweenbothministriesandprovidesthebasisforstronger cooperation.Asawiderpolicycoordinationmechanism,theNationalTrainingCouncil(NTC) hasbeenfunctionalsince2002.Itiscomprisedof24representativesfromrelevantministries andischairedbytheDeputyMinisterofEducation.Withregardto‘vertical’coordination,the nationalTVETsystemismanagedbytheDepartmentofTechnicalandVocationalEducation (TVED) under the MOES and the Provincial Education Service (PES) under provincial governments(UNESCO,2012d). 49 In countries such as Cambodia where TVET is managed by other ministries outside the Ministry of Education, some challenges in coordinating TVET policy in line with other education policies can be observed. For instance, while the MOE is exploring ways of expanding vocational education at the secondary level through the reform of secondary educationcurricularandsystem,theMOLVTresponsibleforTVETisitselfconcernedwiththe expansion of TVET at the post‐secondary level and there appears limited dialogue and cooperationontheseissuesacrossbothministries(UNESCO,2012e). Public‐privatepartnerships Public‐privatepartnerships(PPP)inthedevelopmentofTVETcantakeplaceatvariouslevels and in various forms. At national level, this may occur through official institutionalized roundtablesonissuessuchastheencouragementofemployerinvestment,oratthelevelof individualschoolsthroughdiscussionaroundwaystoprovideworkplaceexperiencestoTVET students. Table 38 summarizes various forms of PPP mainly focusing on the issue of informationexchangebetweengovernment,educationserviceproviderandemployerwhich constitutes the basis for policy level dialogue. Here, councils and boards are officially institutionalizedroundtablesusuallytakingplaceatthenationallevelandcomprisingofficial representatives of stakeholder groups. Consultation may present a less formal or less institutionalizedprocessthroughwhichemployersandeducationserviceprovidersexchange opinionsorideas. Among ASEAN+6 countries, Cambodia, India, Indonesia and the Philippines have specific legislation and regulations to enable the relevant boards and councils to specify the membership, responsibility, activities and mandates for employer engagement. The boards andcouncilsoftenhavestrongdecision‐makingpoweronkeyTVETissues.Somecountries haveshownmoreprogressthanothersintheestablishmentoflegislationforcouncilsandthe operation of councils by government, thus accelerating employer engagement in those countries. 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:notimplemented Source:UNESCOBangkok(2012f). The benefits and motivation for the development of public‐private partnerships and the specificexperienceofselectedASEAN+6countriesislistedinTable39. 50 Table39:PublicPrivatePartnershipsinSelectedASEAN+6Countries Characteristics Country Benefits/Motivation Examples ofPPP Australia Strong,between Improvethequalityand IndustrySkillsCouncils governmentand relevanceofVETtraining (ISCs) industry packages;improve fundingforindustry Japan Strongly Promoteskillstrainingin OverseasVocational encouraged Japan TrainingAssociation (OVTA) LaoPDR Strongly ImproveTVETpolicyand Throughtwomodalities: encouraged serviceprovision participationofemployers inTVETpolicyand implementationand throughprivateTVET providers. Philippines Increasing ImproveTVETpolicy TechnicalEducationand involvementof formulation SkillsDevelopment privatesector Authority(TESDA)Board (employersand industry associations)in TVETpolicies Singapore Strong Leveragingknowledge, Industry‐BasedTraining expertiseandskillsof (IBT)schemes;board technologyindustry representationofInstitute leaders;established ofTechnicalEducation linkageswithprivate (ITE),curriculum industry developmentcommittee; collegeadvisory committees;JointCentresof Technologies Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. Decentralization Decentralization has been a widely adopted policy reform measure in education, however thereislittleagreementastohowmuchdecentralizationisnecessarytoimproveorganisation andmanagementofTVET.Table40demonstratesthestatusofdecentralizationofTVETin selectedASEAN+6countries. Table40:DecentralizationinTVET Country Featuresofdecentralization Cambodia ‐DecentralisedmanagementsystemincludingaNationalTraining Board,AdvisoryIndustryTechnicalCommitteeandProvincial TrainingBoard; ‐Decentralisationoftrainingprogrammeimplementationtodifferent providersincludingprivateproviderssuchasNGOs,throughNational TrainingFundandpilotvouchertrainingprogramme. 51 Country India Featuresofdecentralization Sharedresponsibilityforvocationaltrainingbetweencentraland stategovernments.Atthenationallevel,theNationalCouncilfor VocationalTraining,theCentralApprenticeshipCouncilandthe NationalCouncilofVocationalTrainingassumetheadvisoryroleon TVETissueswhiletheadministrativeresponsibilityisheldbythe DirectorateGeneralofEmploymentandTraining(DGET).Industrial traininginstitutes(ITIs)andindustrialtrainingcentres(ITCs)which operateundertheguidanceofDGETformulatepoliciesand determinestandardsandtechnicalrequirementssuchasdeveloping curricula,instructortraining,andskillstesting.Atthestatelevel, StateCouncilsforVocationalTraining(SCVTs)andTradeCommittees bothadvisestategovernmentsontrainingpolicyandco‐ordinate vocationaltrainingineachstate. LaoPDR FinancingandmanagementresponsibilitiesforTVETdecentralizedto theProvincialEducationService(PES)underprovincialgovernments Philippines TVETspecificplansdevelopedfornationalandsub‐nationallevels withclearlydefinedinputsandoutputs. Thailand DecentralizedTVETcurriculumisspecificallydesignedbythelocal communitytomeettheiruniquesocial,economic,environmentaland culturalneeds. Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. 2.3.3 Financing It is difficult to provide an overview of financing mechanisms in the TVET sub‐sector as practicesvarywidelyacrosscountries.Thissaid,TVETinstitutionsinASEAN+6countries,are largelyunderfinancedasreflectedintherelativelylowlevelofdirectbudgetallocationsmade bygovernments.Manycountrieshavesoughttodiversifyfundingsourcesaswellasimprove funding mechanisms so as to achieve increased efficiency and effectiveness. To this end, funding for TVET is often complemented by private sources through tuition fees and from trainingleviespaidbyfirms.SomeexamplesinASEAN+6economiesarepresentedbelow. GovernmentfundingforTVET InChina,centralandlocalgovernmentspendingforspecializedsecondaryschools,technical schoolsandvocationalschoolshastraditionallybeenrelativelylow.Tuitionfeesaccountfor 22to33percentoftotalspending(CopenhagenDevelopmentConsultA/S2005,p.43).Over thepastfiveyears,however,governmentcontributiontoTVEThasincreasedthroughtuition feesfordifferentcategoriesofstudents.Atthesametime,theGovernmenthasputinplace exemption schemes for needy rural students enrolled in government funded vocational schools.Since2007,theGovernmenthasprovidedannualindividualsubsidiesof1,500yuan (USD220)forvocationalschoolstudentsfromruralareas(UNESCO,2011b). VETinAustraliareceivesaboutonethirdofitsfundingfromtheAustralianGovernmentwith the other two thirds coming from state and territory governments. This is based on the NationalAgreementforSkillsandWorkforceDevelopment.AustralianGovernmentfundsare usedtosupportnationalpriorities.Stateandterritorygovernmentscanalsoallocatefunding dependingonthespecificneedsintheirstateorterritory(AEI,n.d.). 52 Singapore’sSkillsDevelopmentFund(SDF)aimstomotivateemployerstotrainworkersby reimbursingpartoralltrainingexpenses,asallemployersarerequiredtopayalevyonthe wagesofemployeeswhoearnoveracertainamount.Grantscanbeusedfordirecttraining costs(suchasfeesforexternaltraining)orforestablishingtraininginfrastructure,including thecostoftrainers.Thepresentpolicyistoincreasetrainingforservicesectors,small‐and medium‐sized enterprises, less educated and less skilled workers and for older workers. Trainingforcertifiableskillsisalsoemphasized(UNESCO,2011b). IntheRepublicofKorea,formalTVETisfundedbytheMOESregularbudget.Non‐formalskills trainingismainlyfundedbyatraininglevycollectedbytheMOEL.Atraininglevyiscollected fromeveryemployerwhoemploysatleastoneemployee.Thelevyrateissetintofourlevels accordingtothenumberofemployeesundereachemployer.Moneyspentbyemployerson employee training activities is reimbursed by the MOEL using the training levy funds. At present,thetraininglevyisthemostimportantfundingsourceforalmosteverykindofnon‐ formalskillstrainingprogramme,includingtrainingforunemployed,self‐directedtrainingof employedandemployer‐ledtrainingprogrammes.TheGovernmentisalsoconsideringtheuse ofthesefundsforformalTVET. In Viet Nam, only public TVET institutionsreceive substantial public funding to coverboth recurrentandcapitalcosts.However,actualallocationsperstudentappeartobedeclining.For long‐term programmes regulated under the General Department of Vocational Training (GDVT),institutionsreceivepublicfundingallocatedthroughapercapitaquotasystem.The budgetnormpertrainingplaceis4.3millionVNDperannum,whileactualallocationsareoften lower. Private training providers, which have been growing in number in recent years, are usually fully self‐financing. They do not receive any regular state funding but tuition fees constitutetheirmainsourceoffunding. TVETspecificnon‐publicfundingschemes Anumberofcountrieshaveimplementednon‐publicfundingschemesspecificallydesignedto financeTVET.Insomecases,forinstanceintheRepublicofKorea,Malaysia,andSingapore, traininglevieshavebeeneffectivelycollectedfromformalsectorstosupporttraininginsmall andmediumenterprises(SMEs)andfirmsintheinformalsector(UNESCO,2011b).Toagreat extent, their effectiveness relies on the existence of significant formal sectors within their economies,whichprovidealargetaxbase.Taxincentivesarealsowidelyused.Forexample, Mongoliaadoptedataxlawamendmentin2008toprovidetaxincentivesforTVETrelated activities.AssuchthefollowingactivitiesareexemptedfromtaxinMongolia:expenditurefor improving TVET schools facilities, TVET school teachers’ training, inviting people from industrytoteachatschoolsanddonationsfortheSupportingFundforVocationalEducation andTraining(UNESCO,2011b). Trainingfundsfinancedbyleviesonenterprises,publiccontributions,andexternalsources areanothercommonlyusedscheme.Theoverallaimofthetrainingfundsistoraiseenterprise productivityandindividualincome.Equitytrainingfundsareusedinlow‐incomecountries and for disadvantaged groups in middle‐income countries. In Singapore, the Skills DevelopmentFund(SDF)establishedin1979aimstomotivateemployerstotrainworkersby reimbursingpartoralltrainingexpenses.UndertheMalaysianHumanResourceDevelopment Fund (HRDF), employers provide a payroll contribution equivalent to 1 percent, and are eligibletoclaimaportionoftrainingexpenditureallowanceuptothelimitoftheirtotallevy foranygivenyear. 53 Outcome‐orientedfinancingofTVET ToincreasetheeffectivenessofpublicfinancingofTVET,anumberofinitiativesareunderway intheregionwithanemphasisoneducationaloutcomes.Typically,fundsareallocatedtothe education service providers based on a contract applying the principle of ‘selection and concentration’. For example, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) in Republic of Korea has selected a number of vocational secondary schools as strategically important.TheseMeisterHighSchoolsareprovidedspecialfundingtoteachstudentsthemost up‐to‐date and advanced competencies in certain trades. This practice is similarly implementedingovernmentfundingfor collegesand universitiesrunningspecifictargeted vocationaleducationprogrammes.Usually,theselectionprocessisbasedonanevaluationof a programme’s economic and industrial importance in selected industrial fields and its considerationoflabourmarketneeds.Centralministriesthenmakefundingdecisions. 2.3.4 TVETdeliverysystem OverviewofTVETdeliverysystem Thedevelopmentoftechnicalandvocationalskillsintheregioncanbebroadlydividedinto twocategoriesofinitialvocationaleducationandtraining(IVET)andcontinuousvocational educationandtraining(CVET),especiallyinthecontextoflifelonglearning.Skillsacquisition cantakeplaceatinstitutions(schools,TVETcolleges,trainingcentres)andthroughon‐the‐job traininginbothformalandinformalways.TVETcanalsobepartofsecondaryeducation,post‐ secondaryorhighereducation.Itcanbeprovidedbytheformaleducationsystemordelivered informally in the workplace, or through non‐formal means outside the workplace. The structureofTVETproposedbyAdiviso(2010)hascapturedthisdiversity. Figure9:InstitutionalStructureofTVET Source:Adiviso,B.(2010). Differentdeliverymodesandlevelsoftechnicalandvocationaleducationaresummarizedin Table41below. 54 Table41:TVETDeliveryModes Classification Description Formaleducation Coversprogrammesorcoursesatthesecondary,higher secondary,juniorcolleges,first‐degreelevel,andjob‐orientedand applicationorientedfirstdegreeprogrammes. AUppersecondary Aimstoprepareyouth fortheworldofwork.Majorareasofstudy level includeagriculture,businessandcommerce,engineeringand technology,healthandparamedics,homeeconomicsand humanities. Post‐secondarylevel Emphasizespracticaleducationaimedatproducingmiddle‐level technicians.Notnecessarilyaterminalpointofschoolingbecause itisopenforstudentsinterestedinpursuingauniversity education. Polytechnic Referstodiplomasofferedbypolytechnics.Categorizedwithinor education outsidethemainstreamofformaleducationbutrecognizedbythe universitysystem.Diplomasinclude:engineering,information technology,electronics,machineryandmetal,textileandcrafts, jewellerymaking,fashiondesign,beautyculture,garmentsand trades,foods,officemanagementandmanyothers. Lifelonglearning Referstoalternativeformsofformaleducationsuchaspara‐ professionaleducation,correspondenceeducation,creditbank systemtrainingandothers.Trainstheindustrialworkforceand providesworkerswhohavepreviouslymissedopportunitiesfor highereducation. Source:Park(2005). TVETproviders TVET can be offered by a variety of providers including public sector institutions, private sector providers and international organizations and NGOs. Table 42 presents some interestingcountryexamplesdemonstratinghowdifferentserviceprovidersdeliverTVET. Table42:TVETServiceProviders,SelectedCountries Country Typesofproviders PubliclyfundedInstitutesofTechnicalandFurther Australia India Education(TAFE);combinedTAFEanduniversitybodies; adultandcommunityeducationorganizations;individual enterprisesandschools.ManyRegisteredTraining Organizations(RTOs)alsoofferprogrammesinadditionto recognizedVETsuchasadultandcommunityeducation andfullycommercialnon‐accreditedtraining Thereare1,400polytechnicsandmostofferthree‐year diplomacoursesindisciplineslikeCivil,Electricaland MechanicalEngineering.Manyalsonowprovide programmesinElectronics,ComputerScience,MedicalLab technology,HospitalEngineering,andArchitectural Assistantship.Somearespecializedandoffercoursesin areaslikeLeatherTechnology,SugarTechnologyand PrintingTechnology.Whiletherearenoformaltraining programmesfortheinformalsector,anumberof institutionsareinvolvedinprovidingtraininggearedtothe 55 Size Over4,000RTOs 7,500Industrial TrainingInstitutes withanoverall capacityof750,000 placesaroundthe country Country Typesofproviders needsofinformalsectoremployees.Theseinclude communitypolytechnics,adulteducationprogrammesand theNationalInstituteofOpenSchooling(NIOS).Anumber ofagenciesalsoprovidesmallerprogrammesforthe informalsector. Philippines TVETisdeliveredbyanetworkofpublicandprivate institutionsthroughthefollowingchannels:school,centre, enterprise,andcommunity‐basedtechnologytraining programmes.TVETprogrammesarethereforeschool based,centre‐based,enterprise‐basedorcommunity‐ based. Publicandprivateproviderswithprivateinvestmentin Malaysia TVETareencouragedthroughthecreationofPrivate VocationalCollegesusingthePrivateFinanceInitiative (PFI) PublicandprivateprovidersofferTVETprogrammesin LaoPDR clericaloccupationsandservicesector‐relatedareas.The numberofprivateTVETprovidershasrapidlyincreasedin recentyears.Privateprovidersmustbeaccreditedbythe MOESiftheywishtoawardofficiallyrecognizedTVET certificatesanddiplomas. Republicof FormalTVETisofferedatthefollowinglevels:upper‐ secondaryvocationalschools,technicalcolleges(under Korea MEST),KoreaPolytechnics(regularprogrammes,under MOEL).Non‐formalskillstrainingisprovidedthrough privatetraininginstitutions(underMOESandMOEL), vocationalacademies(private,underMOEL),Korea Polytechnics(short‐termnon‐formalprogrammes,under MOEL)andtheHumanResourceDevelopmentInstitutesof theKoreaChamberofCommerce(underMOEL). Increasingly,someuniversitiesareprovidingshort‐term non‐formaleducationandtrainingprogrammesonspecific tradesandareasusingfundsfromseveralministriesofthe centralgovernmentandprovincialgovernments. FormalTVETisofferedatthesecondaryeducationlevel VietNam andisregulatedbytheGeneralDepartmentofVocational Training(GDVT)undertheMinistryofLabour,Invalidsand SocialAffairs(MOLISA)orbytheMinistryofEducationand Training(MOET).Varioustypesoftraininginstitutionsare ownedandfinancedbyavarietyofdifferentactors, includingprovincialanddistrictgovernments,different centralministries,tradeunions,companiesandprivate institutions. Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. 56 Size 4,041publicand privateTVET institutions nationwide(asof December2009) ‐ 57newprivate vocationaltraining centresand88new collegessince1995 ‐ Around30percentof allinstitutionsunder GDVTand20percent ofalltechnical schoolsmanagedby MOETareprivate. TheVietnamese TVETenvironment furtherincludes morethan800other providers(for exampleemployment serviceoffices) offeringshortterm trainingcourses OverviewofInitialVocationalEducationandTraining(IVET) TVETatthesecondarylevel ThedemandforTVETisgrowingintheAsia‐Pacific,particularlyindevelopingcountries.This isalsoreflectedintheincreasingenrolmentsinupper‐secondaryTVET,particularlyinEast AsiaandthePacificsub‐region.DuetothegreateremphasismanycountriesplaceonTVET, targetsforenrolmentsinsecondaryvocationalprogrammesaresethigh.ForIndonesiaand China in 2005, these targets were 70 percent and 60 percent respectively (Copenhagen Development Consult A/S 2005, p.7 cited in UNESCO 2011b) while India (12.6 percent in 1999)targeted25percent21(WorldBank2006acitedinUNESCO2011b;WorldBank2007b, p.12 cited in UNESCO 2011b). Implementation needs to be carefully planned to overcome challengesassociatedwithexpandingsecondaryvocationalprogrammes. TVETatthepost‐secondarylevel Atpost‐secondarylevel,qualificationsatISCEDLevels4(non‐tertiary,post‐secondary)and Level5b(firststageoftertiary‘practicallyoriented/occupationallyspecific’)aredesignedfor employment in technical, managerial and professional occupations. UIS‐UNEVOC (2006) indicatethatonehalformoreofallcountriesintheAsiahavenoenrolmentsinvocational programmesatlevel4,althoughatlevel5b,Asiahasthethirdhighestmediancomparedto otherregions(UIS‐UNEVOC,2006).Asthereisastrongcorrelationbetweentheproportionof TVET students at the post‐secondary level (tertiary, non‐degree, ISCED 5b) and per capita income in the region, many countries have taken steps to improve the articulation of secondaryvocationaleducationwithhighereducationtocreatefurtheroptionsforstudents andtomeettheever‐increasingdemandfornewskillsandknowledge(Figure10). Figure10:PercentageofTertiary,Non‐degreeEnrolment(ISCED5B)inTVET ProgrammesinSelectedCountriesbyGDPPerCapita,2002 Source:ADB(2009). Insomecountries,theshareofvocationalhighschoolgraduatesadvancingtohighereducation isveryhigh.IntheRepublicofKorea,forexample,therategrewfrom8.3percentin1990to 21 Percentageofallsecondarystudentstobeenrolledinthevocational/technicalsecondarystream. 57 72.9 percent in 2008.22 Such high numbers advancing to higher education pose a question aboutwhetherthemaingoalofsecondaryTVETistopreparestudentsforthelabourmarket orcontinuepursuinghighereducationaftergraduation. EnrolmentfiguresinformalTVETacrosscountriescanbeobservedinTable43.In2008,China and Thailand had the highest share of upper secondary TVET students among all upper secondary students (40 percent), whereas countries with the lowest numbers of upper secondaryTVETenrolmentswereLaoPDR(1percent)andIndia(2percent).Atthetertiary level,countrieswiththehighestshareofLevel5b23enrolmentswereLaoPDR(61percent), followed by China (45 percent) and Malaysia (43 percent). Thailand and the Philippines recorded the lowest number of Level 5b TVET enrolments at 15.5, and 9.6 percent respectively. Table43:TVETEnrolmentsatSecondaryandTertiaryLevels UpperSecondary Tertiary HighestEnrolments LowestEnrolments HighestEnrolments LowestEnrolments China 42.6 LaoPDR 1.1 LaoPDR 60.9 Philippines 9.6 Thailand 39.9 India 1.8 China 44.6 Thailand 15.5 Indonesia 37.2 Malaysia 43.3 Singapore 42.3 VietNam 33.5 Source:UNESCO‐UISDatabase(2011). InanalysingtheevolvingsocialimportanceofformalTVET,Table44presentsthechangesin enrolmentratesforselectedcountriesinuppersecondaryandtertiaryeducationfrom2001 to 2008. Viet Nam shows the highest increase in secondary TVET (8 percent increase). Meanwhile,theRepublicofKoreaandLaoPDRregisterednegativeenrolmentgrowth.Atthe tertiary level, VietNam (7 percent), Lao PDR (1 percent) were the most successful in increasing enrolments, while the Republic of Korea (‐17 percent), Brunei Darussalam (‐9 percent) and Thailand (‐6 percent) experienced the greatest decrease in tertiary TVET enrolments. Table44:ShareofTVETStudentsamongTotalStudents UpperSecondary Country Enrolment Rate2008(%) ChangeinEnrolment Rate 2001‐2008(%) VietNam 16.7 8.3 RepublicofKorea 25.5 ‐8.6 LaoPDR 1.1 ‐3.1 Philippines BruneiDarussalam Thailand Malaysia Notes:GrowthratescalculatedbyUNESCOBangkok. Source:UISDatabase(2011). Tertiary EnrolmentRate 2008(%) 33.5 24.1 60.9 9.6 33.1 15.5 43.3 22 Source: Ministry of Education, Science, Technology, Basic Educational Statistics Survey, 2008 23First stage of tertiary practically oriented/occupationally specific 58 ChangeinEnrolment Rate 2001‐2008(%) 6.9 ‐17.0 1.2 0.1 ‐9.2 ‐6.3 ‐4.0 ThechangesinTVETenrolmentsmayreflecttheevolvingskillsdemandsineachcountry.In theRepublicofKorea,forexample,therehasbeenadramaticdecreaseintheshareofTVET, which may reflect the rapid expansion of the technology and knowledge intensive sectors resulting in a lower demand for traditional TVET graduates. Japan experienced a similar situation,whichalsoresultedinalowershareofTVETattheuppersecondaryandtertiary levels.InVietNam,theincreaseinTVETenrolmentsmaybeattributedinparttotherapid industrializationofVietNam’seconomy. InanefforttoexpandsecondarylevelTVET,somelessdevelopedcountriessuchasLaoPDR andCambodiaareconsideringreformingtheirsecondaryeducationsystemstoalsoinclude theintroductionofthevocationalstreamintogeneralsecondaryschools.Anumberofmiddle‐ income countries are already active in this area. For example, Malaysia has a multi stream deliverysystematthesecondarylevelofferingTVETatbothgeneraleducationschoolsand separateTVETschools.Malaysia’smultistreamsystemultimatelyallowsformorediversity, focusesonstudentinterestsandaimstosupplythecountrywithskillsandknowledgeneeded forthelabourmarket.AnumberofothercountriesareusingnewapproachestoincreaseTVET enrolment and the relevance of the curriculum to labour market and community needs. In Victoria, Australia, the education system permits students to easily transfer credits from general education to TVET and vice‐versa should a student wish to switch streams. This practice allows greater flexibility for students and thus potentially attracts students to the TVETstream. Vocationalizationofsecondaryeducation Vocationalizedsecondaryeducationmayrefertoacurriculumlargelygeneralor‘academic’in nature, but including vocational or practical subjects as a minor portion of the students’ timetable during the course of secondary schooling. Closely related terms are ‘diversified curriculum’,‘workorientation’,‘practicalsubjects’insecondaryschoolsand‘pre‐vocational education’.Thepurposeofthisapproachistoexposemorestudentstovocationaleducation. VocationalizedsecondaryeducationcanalsoincludeseveralotherwaysofprovidingTVETvia non‐dedicated,non‐separatededucationalstreamsandinstitutions.Oneexampleisintegrated schoolsprovidingbothgeneralandvocationalstreamsinthesameschoolpremises,allowing studentstoeasilyswitchstreamswithoutthenecessityoftransferringtoanotherschool. TVETatthesecondarylevelhasbeenofparticularinteresttomanycountriesintheregion.At this level, TVET provide pupils who choose direct entry into the labour force with the necessary skills and knowledge required by the labour market. In increasing numbers, especially across industrialised countries, many graduates from secondary level TVET programmesarecontinuingeducationafterthecompletionofsuchstudies.However,givena numberoffactorsincludingtherelativelyhighunitcostofTVET(i.e.,settingupspecialised technology/vocationalclassrooms,establishingitsmaterialbase,hiring,trainingandretaining technical and vocational teachers), some developing countries are experiencing difficulty expandingTVETatthesecondarylevel.Asasolution,theychoosetoofferTVETprogrammes through various channels at the general secondary level instead of having it delivered in dedicatedvocationalschoolsorcentres. ThecaseofJapan:InJapan,thosewhohavecompletednine‐yearcompulsoryeducation inelementaryandlowersecondaryschoolmaygoontouppersecondaryschool.Upon enteringhighschool,almostallJapanese15‐year‐oldstakeentranceexaminationsthat 59 determinetheirplacementinacademic,vocational,orcomprehensivehighschools,all ofwhicharepubliclyoffered.24 ThecaseofSingapore:InSingapore,secondaryeducationplacesstudentsinthe Special,Express,Normal(Academic)CourseortheNormal(Technical)Course accordingtotheirperformanceinthePrimarySchoolLeavingExamination(PSLE). Thedifferentcurricularemphasesaredesignedtomatchpupils’learningabilitiesand interests. ThecaseofMalaysiacase(priortoreform):InMalaysia,technicalandvocational education(TVE)beginsattheuppersecondarylevel(age15).Until2011,dedicated TVEprogrammeswereprovidedthroughSecondaryTechnical/VocationalSchools (STSs).STSsundertheMOESofferedtechnical,vocationalandskillsstreamsto studentswhohavebeenstreamedintoTVEbasedontheresultsoftheLower SecondaryAssessment(PMR),atesttakenpriortolowersecondaryschoolgraduation. Figure11:DiagramofMalaysia’sEducationSystem Source:MalaysianMinistryofEducation(2011). ThecaseofMalaysia(followingreform):In2011,theMalaysianMinistryofEducation issued a plan to reform the TVET system in Malaysia under the Transformation of TechnicalandVocationalEducationPlan.Thefocusofthereformsinclude: - Creation of Vocational Colleges (VCs): By 2020, 274 VCs will be established (182 publicVCsundertheMinistryofEducation) - Current STSs under MOES and vocational institutions under other Ministries for uppersecondaryTVETwillbetransformedintoVocationalCollegeswhichprovide two kinds of TVET programmes: certificate programmes at upper secondary and diplomaatpost‐secondary. 24 FurtherinformationisavailableattheUS‐JapanCentreofComparativeSocialStudies: http://www.usjp.org/jpeducation_en/jpEdSystem_en.html 60 - Creation of Junior Vocational Education (JVE): For youth leaving the education systemwithonlyprimarycertificatesofferingopportunitiestoacquirepracticallife skills. In short, the current approach clearly targets the expansion of dedicated TVET through combinedVCprogrammesforupperandpost‐secondary,whileabolishinguppersecondary pre‐orsemi‐vocationalprogrammesthathavenotbeeneffectiveinTVETprovision. 2.3.5 ContentofTVETatthesecondarylevel GeneralsubjectswithinTVETcurricula Trainingfora‘lifelongcareer’isnolongerconsideredasimportantastrainingfor‘life‐time jobsecurity’inmanycountriesacrosstheregion.Dependingontheirstageofdevelopment, countriesareencouragingthedevelopmentofbothgeneralandspecificskillstoensurethat studentscanadapttothechanginglabourmarket.Greateremphasisonthegeneralcomponent of education, particularly in developed countries, has contributed to effective performance within the high productivity sectors. In some secondary schools in the Republic of Korea, academic and vocational students share almost 75 percent of the curriculum. In doing, the GovernmentisopeningnewpathwaysforTVETstudentstohighereducation(UNESCO,2005). Increasingconvergencebetweenacademicandvocationaleducationattheupper‐secondary schoolsandTVETcollegesworkswellforcountriesattheinnovation‐drivenstageofeconomic development. Lifeskillsandcoreworkingskills AnotheraspectofgeneralTVETsubjectsistheinclusionof‘lifeskills’andcoreworkingskills inTVET,bothformalandnon‐formal.Incorporationofwhatiscommonlytermedcoreskills, employabilityskills,generic,keyorlifeskills/competenciesintothecurriculumhelpsensure thatyoungpeoplehavethenecessaryskillsorcorecompetencies(ASEM,2013)toenterand participate in the workforce. In 2006, the Singapore Workforce Development Agency identified ten foundational skills 25 that are applicable across all industries. 26 Courses are offeredintheseareasparticularlyforthosewhodonothaveanyformalqualificationsinorder to provide an alternative entrance requirement for National Innovation and Technology Certificate(NITEC)courses.Since2001,qualificationsinthePhilippineshavebeenbasedon threetypesofcompetencies:basic(genericworkskills),common(industryspecific)andcore (occupation specific). Some examples of basic competencies are: leading workplace communication, leading small teams, developing and practicing negotiation skills, solving problemsrelatedtoworkactivities.InthePhilippines,lifeskillswereintegratedintotheStart andImproveYourBusiness(SIYB)competencystandards. 25UNESCO.2011b.Asia‐PacificRegionalBackgroundPaperfortheThirdInternationalCongressonTVET.Bangkok, UNESCO 26Workplaceliteracyandnumeracy;informationandcommunicationtechnologies;problemsolvinganddecision‐making; initiativeandenterprise;communicationsandrelationshipmanagement;lifelonglearning;globalmindset;self‐ management;work‐relatedlifeskills;healthandworkplacesafety. 61 RecentdevelopmentsinContinuousVocationalEducationandTraining(CVET) The relative weight placed on formal, non‐formal, and enterprise‐based training vary from countrytocountry.However,itiscommontofindthatformal,school‐basedtrainingenrols fewertraineesthaneithernon‐formaltrainingorenterprise‐basedtraining(ADB,2009).Ideas andeffortstoexpandthescopeforCVEThavethereforebeenmadeandobservedrecently. Enterprise‐basedvocationaltraining InadditiontoTVETofferedinsecondaryschools,TVETinstitutionsorpolytechnicsprovide another important pathway to vocational skills development through various forms of enterprise‐based vocational training. Employer‐led training brings the benefits of self‐ regulationandself‐financing;however,itisusuallynotprovidedonthegroundsofequityand thereforerequiresgovernmentinterventionstoensureuniversalityofaccess. Theconceptof‘learningorganisation’or‘learningcompany’hasalsoemergedinrecentyears. Theessenceofthisconceptistouseeconomiesofscaleinskillsdevelopmentbymultinational companies.Typically,aleadingfirminavaluechaindevelopsstandardsandprogrammesfor skillsdevelopmentandsometimesevenprovidesfacilitiesandpersonneltodelivertraining. In China for example, according to the statistics from the CASS Institute of Population and Labor Economics, manufacturing productivity improves by 17 percent when workers’ educationincreasesfortheequivalentofoneyear.In2006,theChineseSocietyofEducation Development Strategy conducted research in eight technological companies with high international competitiveness. The common feature of these companies is the emphasis on stafftrainingandlifelonglearning.Investinginhumancapital,especiallyinlifelonglearning, has become the most fundamental investment in these companies (China PICC, Hua Hong GroupCo.,LtdShanghai,HuaweiTechnologies,ZTE)(UNESCO,2011b). Apprenticeshipsanddualsystem Apprenticeshipshavelongbeenatooltoprovideopportunitytolearnonthejobandopen pathways for employment. Two types of apprenticeships can be observed in ASEAN+6 countries: structured, under the direction of employers and labour organisations, and traditional,whichmainlycatersforyoungpeopleoutofschoolwhowillbetrainedbymaster craftspeopleintheinformaleconomy. StructuredapprenticeshipstakeavarietyofformsacrossASEAN+6countries.Inmanycases, studentstakepartintrainingforoneortwodaysaweekandaresupervisedfortherestofthe week.Alternatively,trainingoccursinblocksandfortheremainderofthetimestudentsare supervisedatwork.Formalcontractsbetweenemployers,trainingorganizationsandstudents arecommon.InAustralia,NewZealandandSingapore,thisformofapprenticeshipisadvanced. ‘Creative Industry’ (CI) Apprenticeships in Singapore, are available in the performing arts, design, public relations, publishing and music and consist of two components: on‐the‐job training and the compulsory CI Workforce Skills Qualification training programme. Here, apprenticeshipslastbetween3to12months. In Japan, dual system training programmes are implemented mainly by education/training institutions that have been entrusted to do so by the Employment and Human Resources Development Organization of Japan or a prefectural government. Meanwhile, on‐the‐job trainingisofferedonafixed‐term.Arecipiententerpriseemploysanuntrainedpersonand 62 providesacombinationofpracticaltrainingataworkplace(practicaltrainingconductedinan employmentrelationshipwithenterprises,whichisreferredtoas“OJT”)andclassroomstudy ateducation/traininginstitutions(referredtoas“Off‐JT”).Theaimistofacilitateparticipants inacquiringtheskillsrequiredforstableemploymentthenobtainregularemploymentatthe recipientorotherenterprise.Anyrecipiententerpriseimplementingvocationaltrainingcan receive agrantto offset part of the training costs incurred duringthe training (Ministryof Health,LabourandWelfareofJapan,2009). Table45belowliststhedifferentformsofapprenticeship/dualsystemprogrammescurrently inplaceinASEAN+6countries. Table45:ExistingApprenticeship/DualSystemProgrammesinASEAN+6Countries Country Apprenticeship/dualsystemprogrammes Australia Australianapprenticeship Cambodia Nominalexistence China Unofficialapprenticeship India ApprenticeshipundertheStatutoryApprenticeshipTraining Scheme Indonesia Apprenticeshipindualform Malaysia ApprenticeshipprogrammesimplementedbytheMinistryof HumanResources(MOHR)inskillstraininginstitutions Philippines Learnership programme,dualtrainingsystem,apprenticeship programme Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. 2.3.6 QualityandrelevanceofTVET Demand‐drivenTVETsystems Thecharacteristicsofacountry’seconomyinfluenceworkforcerequirements,whichinturn, shouldinfluenceTVETprovision.Ademandresponsivetrainingsystemshouldaddressthe employerdemand.Thisrequiresknowledgeoflabourmarketneeds,incentivesfortraining providers,aswellasflexibletrainingdelivery.InvolvementofemployersatallstagesofTVET delivery and in the governance structures is equally important to ensure demand‐driven TVET. Manyachievementsareobservedintheareaofpolicydevelopmentaddressingrelevanceand efficiencyofTVET.TheGovernmentofIndia,forexample,hasdevelopedandadoptednational skills policies along these lines. Its national policy, developed in 2009, focuses on the restructuringofTVETintoademand‐drivensystemguidedbytheneedsofthelabourmarket. InVietNam,theTVETsystemisdirectedbylabourmarketinformationandwithmulti‐entry‐ exit points and flexible delivery. With the aim of innovating the VTE system, the General Department of Vocational Training (GDVT) undertook the development of a new national competency‐basedcurriculumrelevanttoindustryrequirements(MinistryofEducationand Training,2006). Asanotherexample,Australiahasplacedemphasisongreaterengagementwithindustryand employers.ItsNationalQualificationFramework(NQF)bringstogethermajorplayersinTVET – industry, unions, governments, equity groups and practitioners – to oversee and support 63 quality assurance and to ensure national consistency of TVET across Australia. The new PhilippineDevelopmentPlan(2011‐2016)includesastrategytoimprovetheeffectivenessof the demand‐supply match for critical skills and high‐level professions through tighter industry‐academic links and better dissemination of labour market information as well as careerguidance(NationalEconomicandDevelopmentAuthority,2011). Implementationofcompetency‐basedlearning Structural economic changes, and in particular the pace of technological change, provides powerfulstimulusformanycountriesintheASEAN+6grouptoundertakeTVETcurriculum reforms.Inthisrespect,manycountriesinthisreviewhaveintroducedacompetency‐based curriculum in TVET to ensure appropriate adaptation to the quickly changing needs of enterprise. Competency based training (CBT) can be seen as training that focuses on the outcome,orinotherwords,theattainedcompetencies.Itusesindustrycompetencystandards asthebasisforTVETcurriculumdevelopment.Curriculumisoftenmodularinstructure,to providemoreflexibility,andincludesbothon‐andoff‐the‐jobcomponents.Thisreformhas beengearedtowardsdevelopingskillstocomparablestandardsthatemployerswillrecognize. AmongASEAN+6countries,Australia,Indonesia,Japan,LaoPDR,RepublicofKorea,Singapore andVietNamhaveintroducedcompetency‐basedtrainingstandards. Qualityassurancesystemsandpolicies MostASEAN+6countrieshavesystemsforqualityassuranceandaqualificationframeworkin place(Table46).Moreandmorecountrieshaveintroducedqualificationsthatarerelatedto competencystandards.ARegionalModelofCompetencyStandardshasbeendevelopedand implemented in Indonesia, Lao PDR and Thailand. These standards foster the mutual recognitionofskillsandqualificationswithintheregioninkeysectorssuchasmanufacturing, tourism,constructionandagriculture(ILO,2011). Table46:OverviewofStandards,QualityAssurance,QualificationsandRecognition Country Qualifications QualityAssurance VocationalCertification Framework VETqualificationunderAQF Australian AustralianSkillsQuality Australia Qualifications Framework(AQF) Cambodia China India Nationalqualifications frameworkunder development Nationalqualifications frameworkunder development NationalVocational Education Qualification Framework(NVEQF) Authority(ASQA) VocationalEducationand Training(VET) Framework,Australian QualityTraining Framework NationalOccupational QualificationCertificate AllIndiaCouncilfor TechnicalEducation, (AICTE),Technical EducationQuality Improvement Programme(TEQIP) 64 Country Qualifications Framework QualityAssurance VocationalCertification Indonesia Training/Competence CompetencyStandards NationalAgencyof (SKKNI) ProfessionalCertification Certificate (NAPC) TechnicalAssociate,entitled Japan touniversityentrance Nationalqualifications EducationalStandards VocationalEducation LaoPDR frameworkunder andQualityAssurance Certificateuptopost‐ development Centre(ESQAC) secondarylevel FromJuniorVocationalto4 MQAinchargeofquality Malaysian Malaysia typesofDiplomaCertification QualificationsAgency assuranceofpost‐ secondaryTVETand (MQA) skillstraininginstitutions Skillsstandardsunder HighSchoolCertification, Myanmar developmentby HigherEducation NationalSkills Certification StandardsAuthority (NSSA) TESDACertificationfor Philippines Nationalqualifications frameworkapproved middle‐levelmanpower, in2005 ProfessionalRegulatory Commission(PRC) Certificationforprofessionals Nationalskillsstandards Nationalaccreditationsystem VietNam Occupationalskills system forschools,Vocational standards CertificationandDiploma Source:InformationcollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. ThedevelopmentoftheNationalQualificationSystem27Frameworkintheregionhasbeenled byAustraliaandNewZealandsincethe1990s.Thestatusofnationalqualificationframeworks intheASEAN+6countriesispresentedinTable47. Table47:StatusofNationalQualificationFramework(NQF)inASEAN+6Countries CountrieswithNQF Australia Malaysia Allsectors,butVETandhighereducationsomewhatseparate Allsectors,basedonlearningoutcomes,butearlystageof implementation NewZealand Allsectors,butdifferencesforVETandhighereducation Philippines Allsectorsincluded,butsectorsmanagedseparately Singapore VETonly Thailand Highereducationonly NQFindevelopment BruneiDarussalam Underdevelopment Cambodia LaoPDR Underdevelopment 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). 65 Myanmar Skillscompetencyframeworkuptolevel4,aimingatdeveloping higherlevels RepublicofKorea Underdevelopment NoNQF China None Indonesia None,butsupportfortheconcept Japan None,butlikely VietNam None Source:UNESCO(2011b),anddataforMyanmarwascollectedbyUNESCOBangkokstaff. Some initiatives have been put in place to improve the TVET quality assurance and qualification frameworks. Most notable are the establishment of comparable national qualificationframeworksbytheASEAN‐Australia‐NewZealandFreeTradeArea(AANZFTA) EconomicCooperationWorkProgramme(ECWP)andtheTVETqualityassuranceframework by 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 and certificationsystemforTVET.Accreditationreferstotheprocessforensuringthattraining providers have the capacity to deliver training programs and adequately manage quality. Certificationreferstothedocumentaryevidencethataqualificationhasbeenawardedasthe outcomeofatrainingprogramme.Thebodiesoverseeingthesetaskshowevervarygreatly depending on the country context. 28 Some countries (for example Australia, India, New Zealand)havedifferentagenciesfordifferentlevelsofeducationwhileothershaveacentral agencyoverseeingallthesetasks(forexample,LaoPRD,Thailand,VietNam). Monitoringandevaluation MonitoringandevaluatingTVETperformanceandidentifyingpossibilitiesforimprovingits qualityandcoveragerequireanunderstandingofthenatureofTVET,itsfunctions,goalsand key characteristics. One common but simple tool designed to monitor and evaluate the relevanceoftechnicalandvocationaltrainingisatracerstudyorsurvey.Tracerstudiesare commonlyconductedbyeducationalinstitutionswithaccesstograduatecontactinformation. Thefrequencyandcoverageofthesesurveysvarybetweeninstitutionsandcountriesbutvery fewcountriescollectinformationonthelabourmarketsituationofstudentsthroughschool administrative processes. The status of selected ASEAN+6 countries in conducting tracer studiesispresentedinTable48. 28 ForanoverviewofnationalaccreditingandqualityassurancebodyinASEAN+6countries,seeTable16onpage33ofthis report. 66 Table48:SurveysofLabourMarketbyType Country TracerStudy ▲ Cambodia Others ● India ▲ ● Indonesia LaoPDR Philippines VietNam ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ X X X X Notes:●:conductedregularly;▲:conductedirregularly,ad‐hocbasis;X:notimplemented Source:UNESCO(2012f). 2.3.7 Conclusion Improvingeducationisnotonlyaboutmakingsureallchildrencanattendschool.Education isalsoaboutensuringyoungpeoplearepreparedfortheworldbeyondtheirtextbooksand beyondtheschoolgrounds.Educationisaboutprovidingyouthwiththeopportunitiestofind decentwork,earnaliving,contributetotheircommunitiesandsocietiesandfulfiltheirown uniquepotential.Whiletheapproachescountriestaketohelpyouthreachthistruepotential mayvary,anumberofemergingtrendsineducationsystemsacrossASEAN+6countrieshave alsobeenidentifiedthroughoutthisreportandcanalsobesummarisedasfollows: (i) TVETcontinuestobe“unpopular” TrendsinTVETenrolmentratesvaryacrosstheASEAN+6countries.Inmostcountries, the share of TVET has tended to decrease over the past decade. TVET continues to receive relatively low government investment and retains low status within most societies. (ii) Thereisneedforstrengthenedpolicyguidance,regulatoryframeworks,andpublic‐private partnerships TVETisviewedasatoolforproductivityenhancementandpovertyreduction.Inthis regard,governmentsareputtinginplacemeasurestostrengthenpolicyguidanceand regulatory frameworks for TVET including expanding partnerships with the private sector.FurtherimprovementsareneededtostrengthenthealignmentofTVETpolicy withnationaleconomicdevelopmentstrategies. (iii) Amovetowardmorecomprehensiveandcoherentqualificationsystemsisvisible Agrowingnumberofgovernmentsareacknowledgingtheimportanceofqualifications frameworks to ensure that all academic degrees and vocational qualifications and standards are consistent at a regional level. This, in turn, has created the need for governments to develop common and transparent standards as an important step towards enhancing student and labour mobility and facilitating the integration of nationalandinternationallabourmarkets. (iv) TheisgrowingmomentumforthegreaterdevelopmentofTVETqualityassurancesystems Qualityassuranceinitiatives,notonlyforTVETinstitutionsbutalsoforteachingstaff through accreditation processes are increasing across ASEAN+6. Different agencies, bothnationalandregional,havebeenestablishedforaccreditationpurposes. 67 (v) ThedemarcationbetweenTVETandgeneraleducationisincreasinglyblurred Atrendmovingbothtowardsthe“vocationalisation”ofgeneraleducationandtowards the “generalisation” of vocational education can be noted in some countries. As ASEAN+6economiesbecomeincreasinglyknowledge‐based,vocationalstudentsneed ageneralall‐roundgroundingtoaccompanytheirspecificvocationaleducation.Generic skills seem increasingly important, given the ever‐changing skills requirements that modernsocietydemands.Atthesametime,generaleducationisbecomingincreasingly vocationalised. (vi) Thereislimitedopportunityforworkplacetraining Manyemployers,especiallyinlessdevelopedcountries,failtoinvestintrainingtheir staff.Limitedprovisionofemployeedevelopmentopportunitiesmayserveasalimiting factor to national growth and economic development. There is strong need for workplacetraininggivenitspracticalroleinstrengtheningworkskills. (vii) TVETinformationsystemsandinformationandguidanceservicesarelimited Soundlabourmarketinformation(LMI)andanalysisareamongtherequirementsfor theintroductionofademand‐drivenTVET.LMIandanalysisareessentialtoolsforskills needsmonitoring.Datausedshouldbereliableanduptodateifitistoprovidethebasis forTVETpolicyevaluationandprogrammedevelopment.Household‐basedlabourforce surveysarethemainsourcesofinformation. (viii) Alackofskillsgapsstudiesexists Inmostcountries,nationwideemployersurveysonspecificskillsneeds,suchasvacancy surveys, are rare, tend to be conducted irregularly, or are only conducted in certain provinces or sectors. There is limited awareness among national policy makers of collectingmoredetailedskillsneedsdata.Thehistoryofnationalleveldatacollectionin the region is relatively short and some countries have yet to conduct labour force surveysonaregularbasis. (ix) ThereisalackofeffectivemonitoringandevaluationinTVET The carrying out of graduate tracer studies is still not widely practiced in most developingcountries.Thereisalackofawarenessamongsomegovernmentsoftheneed fordataandthereforelackofcommitmenttocollectingdata. 68 3.WhatLessonscanbeLearnt? ThisreporthasexploredmajortrendsintheASEAN+6educationsystems,leavingspacefor policy makers and education ministry staff to draw lessons based on their own national developmentcontextandneeds.Indeed,furtherin‐depthanalysismayberequiredtosupport inthisprocess.Whileaone‐size‐fits‐allmodelforimprovingeducationsystemsisnotfeasible andisbynomeanstheobjectiveofthisreview,thisreportprovidesageneralindicationof what measures may strengthen education systems in the region based on the collective successesandexperiencesofcountriesunderreview.Thesemeasuresaresummarisedbelow. Clearvisionandcommitmenttoimplementation Clearpolicyvisioniscriticaltoanysuccessfuldevelopmentstrategy.Thisvisionneeds to be founded on broad‐based consensus among stakeholders and must facilitate coordinationacrosssectorstoaccomplishsharedgoals. Thetranslationofvisionintorealisticactionsandtargetssoastoattainandmonitor short,medium,andlongtermobjectivesisalsocritical. Investmentoftimeandefforttocreateaclearvisionandamechanismfortranslating that vision into achievable actions at the national or sectoral level will have huge operationalpaybacks. Alignmentandconsistencyofpolicies Policiesshouldreflectacommonvisionforsectordevelopmentandfitgenerallywithin theoverarchingframeworkfornationaldevelopment.Successfulpoliciesandplansare invariablyconsistentinscope,goalsandactions;plansandbudgetsshouldalignsoas tosupportbotheffectiveimplementationandmonitoringofeducationreform. Alleducationalpoliciesandprogrammesneedtobecoordinatedwithintheeducation sector and with other concerned ministries such as those dealing with economic development, human resource development, labour, science and technology, agriculture,etc. A national, cross‐ministerial coordinating agency or committee can facilitate this process, harmonize the programme, and promote the sharing of knowledge and resources. This is very much the case for technical and vocational education and trainingasthesubsectorofteninvolvesmanyagenciesinbothregulationanddelivery ofservices.Amorestreamlinedgovernmentbodytomanage,coordinateandmonitor theeducationsectormaybeanalternativewherebyonlyoneoralimitednumberof ministriesexist. Focusonequity,qualityandrelevance Inmanycountries,thereisstillgreatneedtoimprovethequalityofeducationatall levels in line with national and international standards, while ensuring access to education for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. Strengthening management systems, including targeted support to the disadvantaged groups, equitableandsustainablepublicfinancing,andasufficientsupplyofqualifiedschool leadershipandprofessionalstaff,iscriticaltoensuringequityandqualityineducation. 69 Thereisalsoaneedtoimprovethevocationalandhighereducationsysteminmany countries.Buildingonprogressachievedinbasiceducation,countrieswillbenefitfrom strengtheningotherlevelsofeducationiftheyaretohaveawell‐educatedandskilled populationwiththecapacitytocontributeeffectivelytothecountry’sdevelopment. Appropriateskillsareessentialforaneconomyintransitionbeittothenextlevelof development or in an effort to increase its knowledge‐based sectors. The skills that needtobenurturedaretorespondnotonlytothecurrentneedsbutalsotocurrently non‐existentneedsinthecontextofrapidchange,whichrequireprovidingarightmix oftransferableandspecificskillsandcompetencies. Robustpolicyresponsestocaterfordiverselearningneeds ThedemographicprofileofASEAN+6countriesischangingasaresultofbulgingyouth populations, ageing populations and increased intra‐regional mobility. Education systemsneedtoprovidehighquality,relevanteducationandtrainingwhichcanhelp peoplemakegoodlifechoicesastheytransitionthroughdifferentstagesoflife. Educationsystemshavetocaterforthemultiplelearningneedsandcircumstancesof young people by promoting flexibility and respect for diversity so as to achieve essentialcorestandardsofqualityandamaximumlevelofinclusiveness. Theymustalsocaterforolderpeoplewhonowtendtolivelongerandwillthusneed tolivehealthierandmoreself‐sustainablelives. Partnerships Successful implementation of education policies and reforms rely greatly on partnershipswithanumberofdifferentstakeholders:governments,theprivatesector, civilsocietyandbilateralandmultilateralorganizations. Moreover,cooperationatnationalandregionallevelsinacollaborative,constructive andmutuallysupportivemannerleadstomoreresponsive,enablingandparticipatory planning,implementationandexecutionofpolicies. Governmentleadershipiskeyto successfulpartnershipandownershipofeducation reform and development, which calls for priority attention to strengthening the capacityofnationalorganizationsandinstitutions. Benchmarkingandmonitoringofoutcomes National education data is crucial to evidence‐based policy making and successful monitoringandevaluationofeducationsystemperformance. Theestablishmentofbenchmarksagainstwhichtheprogressofaprogrammeorthe performance of an education system can be monitored and compared can be an importantsteptoimproveeducationpolicyandpractice. 70 References Abella,M.2005.ComplexityanddiversityofAsianmigration.Bangkok,InternationalLabour Organization(ILO). ADB.2009.EducationandSkills:StrategiesforAcceleratedDevelopmentinAsiaandthe Pacific.Manila,ADB. _____.2011.PolicyDialogueonClimate‐inducedMigrationinAsiaandthePacific.Discussion paper.Manila,ADB. Adiviso,B.2010.EmergingTrendsandChallengesofTVETintheAsia‐PacificRegion.In Majumdar,S.(ed.)2011.EmergingChallengesandTrendsinTVETintheAsia‐Pacific Region.Rotterdam,SensePublishers. ASEAN‐Australia‐NewZealandFreeTradeArea(AANZFTA).2012.EducationandTraining Governance:CapacityBuildingforNationalQualificationsFrameworksFinalReport ExecutiveSummary.Jakarta,ASEANSecretariat. ASEMEducationandResearchHubforLifelongLearning.2013.LifelongLearningand Employability.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:Whatgovernmentpoliciesforwhat privatetutoring?Paris,IIEP. Bray,M.andLykins,C.2012.Shadoweducation:Privatesupplementarytutoringandits implicationsforpolicymakersinAsia.Manila,ADB. Clerk,G.2010.EducationMTEF:Approaches,ExperiencesandLessonsfromnineCountriesin Asia.Asia‐PacificEducationSystemReviewSeriesNo.3.Bangkok,UNESCOBangkok. Cohen,D.andHill,H.2001.Learningandpolicy:Whenstateeducationreformworks.New Haven,YaleUniversityPress. CommonwealthofAustralia.2010.ReviewofFundingforSchooling:DiscussionPaperand DraftTermsofReference.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(Accessed10 September2012). 71 Gannicott,K.2009.SecondaryTeacherPolicyResearchinAsia:TeacherNumbers,Teacher Quality:LessonsfromSecondaryEducationandAsia.Bangkok,UNESCOBangkok. Hanushek,E.A.,andRivkin,S.G.2012.Thedistributionofteacherqualityandimplicationsfor education. 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–Progresstowardsdecent work”Bangkok,ILO. _____.2011.BuildingasustainablefuturewithdecentworkinAsiaandthePacific.Reportof theDirector‐General,15thAsiaandthePacificregionalmeeting,Kyoto,Japan,April 2011. Jensen,B.,Hunter,A.,Sonnemann,J.,andBurns,T.2012.Catchingup:learningfromthebest schoolsystemsinEastAsia,GrattanInstitute. Kim,E.,Kim,J.andHan,Y.2009.SecondaryTeacherPolicyResearchinAsia:Secondary EducationandTeacherQualityintheRepublicofKorea.Bangkok,UNESCOBangkok. KoreaResearchInstituteforVocationalEducation&Training(KRIVET).2010.TVETPolicy Reviewsof8AsianCountries.Seoul,KRIVET. Law,SongSeng.2011.PapercommissionedfortheEFAGlobalMonitoringReport2012:Case StudyonNationalPoliciesLinkingTVETwithEconomicExpansion:Lessonsfrom Singapore.Singapore,LawSongSeng. Maruyama,H.2011.TeacherTrainingandCertificateSystem.EducationinJapan,National InstituteforEducationalPolicyResearch. http://www.nier.go.jp/English/EducationInJapan/Education_in_Japan/Education_in_J apan.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.TechnicalandVocational EducationandTraining(TVET)inVietNam. http://en.moet.gov.vn/?page=6.7&view=4403(Accessed15October,2012). 72 MinistryofEducationNewZealand.2008.TechnicalandVocationalEducationandTrainingin India:ASnapshotofTodayandChangesUnderwayforTomorrow.Wellington,Ministry ofEducationNewZealand. MinistryofHealth,LabourandWelfareofJapan.2009.The“Job‐Card”SysteminJapan. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/policy/affairs/dl/job_card_eng.pdf(Accessed16 December,2013) Mourshed,M.,Chijioke,C.,&Barber,M.2007.Howtheworld’sbestperformingschoolsystems comeoutontop.London,McKinsey&Company. MyanmarMinistryofEducation.2012.EducationforAll:AccesstoandQualityofEducationin Myanmar. http://unic.un.org/imucms/userfiles/yangon/file/Education%20for%20All%20in%2 0Myanmar%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?ResponsestotheChallengesofthe LabourMarketandtheWork‐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:Policiesandexperiencesin SoutheastAsia.Bangkok,SEAMEO. SEAMEO‐INNOTECH.2010.TeachingCompetencyStandardsinSoutheastAsianCountries: 11thCountryAudit.SEAMEOINNOTECH. Tan,S.K.SandWong,A.F.L.2007.TheQualificationsoftheTeachingForce:Datafrom Singapore.InIngersoll,R.M.(ed).Philadelphia,TheConsortiumforPolicyResearchin Education. 73 TechnicalEducationandSkillsDevelopmentAuthority(TESDA).2011. http://www.tesda.gov.ph/uploads/File/LMIR2011/july2012/NTESDP%20Final%20as ofSept12.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.Participationinformaltechnicalandvocationaleducationandtraining programmesworldwide:Aninitialstatisticalstudy.Bonn,UNEVOC. UIS.2011.GlobalEducationDigest2011:ComparingEducationStatisticsAcrosstheWorld— FocusonSecondaryEducation.Montreal,UNESCOInstituteforStatistics. UISDataCentre.2012. http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=143&IF_L anguage=eng(Accessed26September,2012). UNEconomicandSocialCommissionforAsiaandthePacific.2011.StatisticalYearbookfor AsiaandthePacific2011,Bangkok,UNESCAP. UnitedNationsDepartmentofEconomicandSocialAffairs(UNDESA).2012.World PopulationsProspects: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:ARegional OverviewWithHighlightsfromIndia,Indonesia,ThailandandthePhilippines.Bangkok, UNESCOBangkok. _____.2011a.EducationSystemProfiles.EducationResources,UNESCOBangkok. http://www.unescobkk.org/education/resources/education‐system‐profiles/ (Accessed12October2012). _____.2011b.Asia‐PacificRegionalBackgroundPaperfortheThirdInternationalCongresson TVET.Bangkok,UNESCO. 74 UNESCO.2012a.ConventionagainstDiscriminationinEducation. http://www.unesco.org/eri/la/convention.asp?KO=12949&language=E&order=alpha (Accessed24September2012). _____.2012b.DecentralizedFinanceandProvisionofBasicEducation.Asia‐PacificEducation SystemReviewSeriesNo.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–YouthandAdult Literacy.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.PrivateEducationExpenditure http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/EXTDATAS TATISTICS/EXTEDSTATS/0,,contentMDK:21217413~menuPK:4324086~pagePK:6416 8445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:3232764,00.html(Accessed16December 2013). 75 Mom Luang Pin Malakul Centenary Building 920 Sukhumvit Road, Prakanong, Klongtoey Bangkok 10110, Thailand Email: [email protected] Website: www.unesco.org/bangkok Tel: +66‐2‐3910577 Fax: +66‐2‐3910866 76
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz