See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261177717

Changes in Vietnam education governance in the context of international

Conference Paper · March 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 134

1 author:

Pham Do Nhat Tien

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pham Do Nhat Tien on 30 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

in the Context of International Integration

Pham Do Nhat Tien

National Institute of Educational Management

31 Phan Dinh Giot, Thanh Xuan, Hanoi, Vietnam

Email: [email protected]

This paper was presented as a keynote address and published in the Proceedings of the 7 th

International Conference on Educational Reform (ICER 2014) “Innovations and Good

Practices in Education: Global Perspectives”, held in Hue City, Vietnam on15-16 March,

2014.

Pham Do Nhat Tien, D.Sc., Scientific Council, National Institute of Education

Management, Hanoi, Vietnam; research fields: educational policy, education

administration, teacher development, international cooperation in education, trade in

education services, comparative education.

1
 Abstract

The process of international integration in education is creating new realities

in education with the emergence of education market on the one hand and the

building of common education spaces/areas on the other hand. This necessitates the

corresponding evolution of legal documents in education with some trends such as

adaptation of new public management, development of regulatory frameworks in

cross-border education, institutionalization towards common education spaces/areas,

democratization of education, and educational measurement. It is shown in this paper

that with the emergence of new educational realities in Vietnam, the educational legal

system is moving seemingly along the same trends, however in a patchy and

misaligned way, in favor of market mechanisms. The innovation process of Vietnam

education governance is still in a vicious circle due to the scarcity of resources and

weaknesses of the research staff. Therefore it is recommended to enhance cooperation

and collaboration in view of shaping a common space of educational research in the

region, capable of finding reliable and appropriate solutions for common issues of

education governance which countries in the region are facing.

Key words: international integration, education governance, education market,

common education space, new public management.

2
 1. Introduction

In this paper, education governance means policy, mechanism and legal

framework for the organization and operation of education. It is subject to the rules of

the political and economical institutions of the country. Therefore, before Doi moi1,

Vietnam education governance was characterized by a state monopoly in education

provision and a high centralization in management, with administrative orders

playing the major role in educational organization and activities. Entering the Doi

moi period, there was a paradigm shift in education governance. That is the shift from

an administrative order-based model to a rule of law-based model, according to which

the fundamental element of education governance is the legal system of education.

However the process of building a legal system of education in Vietnam is

hesitant and slow. Until now, after 27 years of innovation, Vietnam education is still

in the period of transition from an administrative order-based model of governance to

a law-based one, wherein legal provisions were gradually established from an

experimental and incremental approach, searching step-by-step for solutions to

education’s issues through lessons learnt from practice and experiences drawn from

other countries.

That leads to the undesired situation where administrative orders are still

playing a dominant role in almost every level of administration, and the innovation

process seems to be fallen in a vicious circle. It has been even recognized at the

highest level that education governance in general, the legal system of education in

1
This Vietnamese term is used to designate the overall process of renovation in Vietnam,

initiated from 1986 and developed continuously until now.

3
particular, is lagging far behind the pace of innovation in other sectors of socio-

economic development (Vietnam Communist Party [VNCP], 2009).

The lag does not only negatively affect education development but also

becomes a concern and/or obstacle when the country has moved to a new stage of

integration and development, which is requiring a breakthrough in human resources

development. In many official documents, such as the Education Development

Strategic Plan 2011-2020 (The Government, 2011) and the Draft of the Scheme on

Radically and Comprehensively Innovating Education (The Government, 2013), it

has been warned that weaknesses in education governance should be considered as

the root cause of many other weaknesses in education.

Thus, the reform of education governance is urgent and imperative. According

to the above mentioned official documents, among policy tasks and measures for

radically and comprehensively innovating education, governance reform was

considered as a key task. And this task should be implemented towards

standardization, modernization, socialization, democratization, and international

integration (VNCP, 2011).

Obviously, this reform orientation raises a broad range of important research

questions which Vietnamese researchers, managers and educators should soon give

the answers. This paper is only referring to one aspect of the problem, that of

international integration, and will be limited in analyzing the implications of

international integration for education governance in Vietnam.

With this in mind, section 2 will identify the emergence of new realities in

education under the impacts of international integration. This entails in section 3 the

4
recognition of some international trends in innovation of education governance in

response to those new realities. On that basis, the current status of Vietnam education

governance is analyzed in section 4, which is complemented by some concluding

remarks in section 5.

2. International Integration in Education and the Emergence of New Realities in

Education

International cooperation in education has moved to a new stage of

development, more and more complex. That is international integration of education

with two contradictory and complimentary components. One is the traditional

international cooperation in education, according to which education is considered as

a public good and mutual assistance in education development is based on a non-

profit mechanism. The other new one is trade in educational services, according to

which education is a tradable service and investment in education development is

based on a for-profit mechanism.

Challenges and opportunities of international integration on education have

been analyzed in many forums, workshops, seminars and research papers,

international as well as domestic. These analyzes indicate that a new educational

thinking and new educational realities were emerging with many implications which

were difficult to foresee.

First and most important is the mindset change in the concept of education.

The concept of education as a public good, which is the cornerstone for the

development of education throughout the 20th century, has been shaken. The sharp

division between public good and private good, in accordance with two values 0 and

5
1 in classical logic, is being reviewed. Governments in the world increasingly tend to

approach the public and private good issue in education under a fuzzy logic with a

range of values from 0 to 1. Thus education might be considered as a pure public

good in compulsory education, as a pure private good in education services provided

by for-profit educational institutions, and as a mixture of public and private good

with different public-private proportions related to different levels of education,

training courses, learning disciplines, modes of learning, educational institutions, and

education providers.

This fact leads to a new educational reality, which is the emergence of an

education market. This market has taken shape in the late 1980s in countries like UK,

Australia, USA, New Zealand, Chile, when these countries undertook market-driven

education reforms (Walford, 1996). Since 1995, with the WTO approval of the

General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), education market was officially

recognized and GATS became a supranational text paving the way for the formation

of a global education market. Private education has become an explosive

phenomenon around the world in the last decade. Multinational education

corporations also developed in all continents with the ambition to conquer the

education market. Of course, the degrees of market penetration in education systems

are different. Where education is a pure public good, such as in compulsory

education, there is no market. Where education is a pure private good, such as

education provided under GATS provisions, there is a market like any other services

market. Usually, it is a quasi-market, where educational institutions, public and

private, are allowed to mobilize private and social resources, have more autonomy in

6
their organization and operation, and are authorized to use competition mechanism to

attract more students, but they do not engage in for-profit activities.

However, in the general picture of today's education system, when the

government still plays a patron role in education provision and development,

education is still basically a public good.

Thus, although the flow of education today has a trade ramification, its

mainstream remains in the course of cooperation between educational institutions as

well as between nations in a non-commercial approach. In response to the formation

of the education market and its unexpected effects on the global landscape of

education, a counter balance activity is stemming strongly, within each region as well

as throughout the world, to ensure that education is a public good. That is the

promotion of regional cooperation as well as international cooperation in view of

developing common education spaces/areas, especially in higher education.

Leading the way was the Bologna process with the vision of creating the

European Higher Education Area, that became reality with the Budapest-Vienna

Declaration of March, 2010. Next, the Latin American and Caribbean countries took

the initiative of strengthening cooperation with the European Union in view of

building the ALCUE Common Higher Education Area by 2015 (VALUE White

paper, 2008). Then, in 2006, ministers and senior officials from 27 countries at a

meeting of Asia-Pacific Education Ministers in Brisbane, Australia issued the

Brisbane Communiqué which goals and initiatives seem to follow the Bologna

Process' normative path towards the creation of a common regional higher education

space (Roger, 2011). Later, in 2007, Ministers of education of the African Union

7
presented an African Union Strategy for Harmonization of Higher Education

Programmes (African Union, 2007). Also in 2007, ASEAN Education Forum

unanimously approved The Thang Long Declaration, which expounded upon the need

for creating an ASEAN education space on the roadmap for an ASEAN community

2015 (ASEAN Education Forum, 2007). Within that perspective, The SEAMEO

RIHED, as a Regional Center for Higher Education Development, launched the

initiative of creating a higher education common space by 2015 (Supachai, 2008). In

this connection, it was stipulated in the Master Plan on ASEAN connectivity

(ASEAN, 2011) that building ASEAN human resources in the field of education and

sstrengthening the ASEAN University Network were prioritized areas of cooperation

in education and human resources development. All these processes, activities and

initiatives in the spirit of cooperation towards common education spaces/areas might

be considered as a global wave capable of neutralizing the negative effects of market

forces in education.

Along with the region concept of common education space/area, within each

country was strengthened the concept that education should be the work of everyone.

State still plays a major role, but education should be open to the participation of the

whole society in the provision of education, as well as in the planning, monitoring

and supervising the implementation of policies. In this context, civil society played an

increasingly active role as a partner of the state in education development,

maintaining education as a public good. As a third sector manifesting interests and

will of citizens, civil society not only contributes to providing educational resources,

limiting the negative side of the market, but also plays a vital role in creating a

8
democratic space in education. It is the space in which students, parents and all those

involved or interested in education to have a voice so that education policy is reliable

and feasible, and the implementation of policy is monitored better and more effective.

3. Some New Trends in Education Governance

Previously, when key actors in the organization and operation of education

were the state and educational institutions, education governance focused primarily

on regulating the relationships between these two entities, in which the state was both

the education provider and commander. Under the impact of international integration,

education has made significant changes as mentioned above, which were eventually

due to the presence and participation of two new actors, the market and civil society.

That forced countries to re-examine their education governance, namely to

amend, supplement, or even reform the legal system of education in view of adapting

to the conditions and requirements of new educational realities.

Obviously, each country has its own legal framework of education associated

with its political system, economic level, cultural traditions, and social characteristics.

However, due to the rapid spillover of ideas and lessons learnt in a globalized world,

the amendment and/or supplement of educational laws, policies and regulations in the

context of international integration proceeded with some following common trends.

3.1 New Public Management (NPM).

According to the OECD (2003), NPM is a new model of public management

characterized by strategies borrowed from the private sector: decentralization,

management by objectives, contracting out, competition even within government,

customer orientation, etc. Although, the spread of NPM is a complex process, going

9
through different stages and packaged in different ways in different countries, with

each country following its own reform trajectory within a broader framework

(Christensen & Laegreid, 2010), NPM has been successfully applied in developed

countries and some developing countries in the past two decades in order to cope with

challenges and to take advantage of opportunities in international integration (Ehsan

& Naz, 2003).

In education, NPM has led to structural changes even at the school level, for

example schools now exercise most powers, including planning and budgeting,

resource allocation, hiring and firing, evaluation and monitoring; schools must play in

the quasi-market to attract pupils in competition with other schools; accountability to

parents and other community stakeholders are emphasized; statutory powers have

been given to parents to be involved in the decision-making process, etc. As for

higher education institutions, Marginson and Van der Wende (2008, p. 20) observed:

“A good example of the globalization process lies in the spread of NPM in higher

education. In nations throughout the world the responses of systems and institutions

to globalization have been conditioned by on-going reforms to national systems, and

related reforms in the organization and management of the institutions themselves,

that draw on the techniques of the NPM. In the last two decades these reforms have

been the strongest single driver of change in many countries”.

In this context, the main ideas of NPM, such as decentralization, privatization,

corporatization, accountability, customer orientation, performance measurement, etc.

were introduced and institutionalized in the process of educational law reform of

many countries (See for example Anantha, 2011; Gillard, 2011).

10
 3.2 Regulatory frameworks for quality assurance in cross-border

education.

Cross-border education has grown considerably since the 1980s. With the

access to education markets under GATS commitments, new delivery modes and

multinational providers have appeared on a for-profit basis and brought both big

opportunities and great challenges to education development in many countries. One

challenge of great concern, especially in developing countries, is how to ensure the

quality of cross-border education and to protect students from low-quality provisions

and/or unscrupulous providers.

A fundamental way to overcome this challenge is to develop appropriate

regulatory frameworks for quality assurance in cross-border education. In this

context, UNESCO-APQN (2006) have provided an useful toolkit to assist policy

makers in the development of appropriate regulatory frameworks in order to

maximize benefits and limit the potential drawbacks of international integration in

education. The toolkit presented and discussed different regulatory aspects related to

providing and receiving cross-border education, explored possible options for

establishing regulatory frameworks, and gave a number of country examples which

showed a strong tendency in improving legal frameworks in the context of issues of

quality assurance in internationalization of education.

3.3 Regulatory frameworks towards common educational spaces.

A common educational space is generally understood as a regional space in

which educational institutions and education managers, teachers, learners, are key

actors in cooperation and collaboration to create comparable educational standards

11
within the region. It is formed on the basis of an infrastructure including compatible

curriculum development, credit transfer system, joint structural convergence and

consistency of systems, quality assurance and accreditation, and mutual recognition

of degrees and diplomas. In that common educational space, cooperation and

collaboration between educational institutions are strengthened and enhanced, with

priority activities that encourage the mobility of students, teachers, faculty,

researchers, through exchange programs, and promote the sharing and exchange of

information and knowledge in view of improving the quality of education.

As above-mentioned there is actually in international integration a strong

global trend towards building common educational spaces/areas. This entails within

each related region the need to pay more attention to introducing legislative changes

where necessary to ensure that, for example joint degrees may be awarded, national

qualifications framework should be compatible, quality assurance and accreditation

should be at the regional standard, etc. A typical example is the

amendment/improvement process of European higher education legislation in view of

achieving the objectives of the Bologna Declaration. According to the UNESCO-

CEPES Report (2004), new generations of policy documents and laws for higher

education in European countries were evolving and reflecting a general thrust in the

realization of the objectives of the Bologna Process. It was recognized that countries

implemented the Bologna objectives in their national policies and higher education

legislation, this resulted on the one hand a growing convergence in line with the

Bologna goals, and on the other hand a continuation of diversity associated with

specific national contexts.

12
 3.4 Democratization of education.

As above-mentioned, with the increased role of civil society in international

integration, education governance during these two last decades is moving faster to

democratization. This is built on two fundamental principles: the equality principle in

education access and the participatory principle in policy development.

Concerning the first principle, UNESCO (2001, p.3) pointed out: “The

democratization of education means that every citizen, of whatever age, and every

community, have the right to learn, in order to develop self-confidence, participate in

all democratic and development processes, take an active role in the information

society and find their place in the process of globalization”. This requires the shift of

education systems to lifelong learning (LLL) systems, and “governance structures

within the body politic and institutions that are people-centered, gender-fair and

generational-inclusive, and the creation and nurturing of environments that are

conducive to critical appraisal, constructive criticism and mobilization and

organization for change” (UNESCO, 2001, p.18).

This leads naturally to the second principle, according to which it is necessary

to establish and strengthen social dialogue in policy making and education planning.

In the actual context of international integration, with a lot of difficult choices and

complex implications, participatory processes and consultations have a positive

impact on improving the quality of education and the effectiveness of management;

they are not “a panacea to resolve difficulties, but they are virtually the only

mechanisms for overcoming suspicion and establishing a positive climate for making

and implementing education policy” (UNESCO- ILO, 2006, p.8).

13
 3.5 Educational measurement, comparison and ranking.

Thanks to international integration, education systems over the world are able

‘to see’ each other, thus promoting the sharing of knowledge, the exchange of

research, as well as the need of positioning each education system in the global

education system. Recognizing that comparisons to similar countries provide a useful

benchmark for policymaking, governments are more and more concerned with the use

of international comparisons. Hence arises a new culture of measurement in

education: If previously educational measurement focused on the assessment of

learning, it is now expanded to evaluate educational institutions, local educational

communities, and education systems. The effectiveness mindset, which was prevalent

in international economic integration, found also its way in international integration

of education, according to which the evaluation of education reposed chiefly on the

construction of educational performance indicators. Within this context, various

systems of educational performance indicators have been developed nationally as

well as internationally.

Nationally, the development of good education management information

systems (EMIS) becomes an essential part of the effort to improve education

governance. EMIS provides reliable information to policy makers that allow them to

make informed policy decisions.

Internationally, in view of comparing education statistics across the world,

UNESCO Institute of Statistics provides a rich system of education indicators,

covering main measures of education development, and publishes annually in the

Global Education Digest for international comparison and analysis. For middle-

14
income countries, UNESCO in collaboration with OECD has initiated the World

Education Indicators (WEI) program, aiming to establish a comparative perspective

on key policy issues to better monitor education systems among WEI members.

Concern in recent years is the global university rankings. Despite much

debate about the benefits and pitfalls of the rankings for each education system, it is

interesting to observe that eventually international integration has been leading to a

syndrome of ranking, where almost every country claimed its determination of either

having world-class universities or improving the rank of its universities in the global

rankings. The causes of this syndrome might be different, however seen from the

perspective that university rankings are broadly used for competition in the global

higher education market, it could be said that the market mindset has found another

particular way to penetrate into the arena of education policy development.

4. Impacts of International Integration to Vietnam Education Governance

4.1 New realities in Vietnam education.

With its open-door policy, since the 1990s Vietnam education has gradually

shifted from a closed system to an open one, integrating international factors into the

mission, organization and operation of education. By early 2000, Vietnam education

has already participated proactively to international integration, receiving cross-

border education upon both mechanisms: for-profit and not-for-profit. With the

issuance of the Government Resolution N 0 05/2005/NQ-CP (The Government, 2005),

both for-profit and not-for profit domestic private educational institutions were also

recognized. Thus, an immature education market has implicitly emerged whether

decision-makers accepted it or not (Pham, 2006).

15
 Entering WTO, with its commitments to education under GATS, Vietnam

officially recognized the education market and opened it for the access of foreign

providers. This marked in policy a new period of Vietnam education, that of

integration and development. In this context of international integration, new realities

which were gradually established over the world during these last two decades, make

also their appearance in Vietnam.

First and foremost is the official emergence of the education market.

According to the British Council website (www.britishcouncil.org/eumd-information-

about), Vietnam is a competitive market of many educational corporations from the

USA, UK, Australia, France, Germany, Holland, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, Korea,

China, India, Singapore, Malaysia. These corporations, as Kaplan (USA), ANZ

(Australia), Tyndale (Singapore), Navitas (multinational), are focusing chiefly on the

consumption abroad mode of the market. As for the commercial presence mode, other

corporations, such as NIIT, Aptech, Kinderworld Singapore, APU, have successfully

invested and strongly affirmed their presence in the development of educational

institutions in Vietnam.

With the pressure of the market, Vietnam is interested in strengthening

regional cooperation towards shaping education spaces/areas. Vietnam joined the

Brisbane Communiqué which key goals were related to the recognition and quality of

education and training in the APEC region. Vietnam also participated in the ASEM

Education Ministerial Meetings which aim to establish a strategic partnership

between the Asian and European countries for the 21st century. Of course, with large

areas such as APEC and ASEM, taking account of huge differences and high

16
diversity between countries in economic, political, cultural, and educational

development, it is hard to say of building common education spaces/areas of the

regions. Even within ASEAN countries, although Vietnam and other countries,

namely Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Philippines, advocated the initiative of

building an ASEAN higher education space, the implementation will be very difficult

and full of challenges. According to Supachai (2009), in the region, both policy and

academic discourses on the issue of developing a higher education space or area are

still inadequate. The lack of understanding and awareness about the process of

harmonization in higher education is still the main impediment for long-term strategic

planning in both governmental and higher education sector.

Besides the above-mentioned new realities, it is to recognize that during this

last decade the role of civil society in Vietnam has increased considerably.

Previously, when Vietnam civil society was still young, its role was limited chiefly in

resource contribution to education development. Nowadays, with the expansion of the

middle class and the growth of civil organizations, such as Learning Promotion

Association, Former Teachers Association, Non-Public Colleges and Universities

Association, Elderly People Association, Farmer Association, etc., the role of civil

society in education is growing stronger, ranging from resources contribution to

constructive criticism in policy development

4.2 Implications for Vietnam education governance.

It is clear from the above presentation that, viewed within the context of

international integration, new realities were emerging and transforming profoundly

the landscape of education in Vietnam. As a result, Vietnam education system is

17
growing in complexity with similar characteristics of complex education systems in

the developed world (Fazekas & Burns, 2012):

the increasing diversity of needs and expectations of stakeholders in

education;

the growing important role of new actors in the provision and management

of education;

the added impact of additional layers of governance at the international

and transnational levels;

high requirements on decentralization and flexibility in governance

structures; and

great impact of ICT to governance models.

Obviously, governance has never been easy, and the search for governance

models that allow governments to effectively steer their complex education systems is

actually on the agenda of OECD countries. However, for the time being, in the

context of international integration, some of the most important responses to this

increasing complexity have been the changes in education governance as mentioned

in section 3 of this paper. It is interesting to see that these trends have been also

applied and adapted to Vietnam education governance with, of course, considerable

variation due to specific national context.

First and most important, policy and the legal framework for Vietnam

education governance have been developed gradually along the main strategies of

NPM, which are decentralization, institutional autonomy, privatization,

diversification, quality assurance, performance-based, and learner-oriented. However,

18
as has been analyzed by Pham Do (2011), this was chiefly a kind of NPM which has

been applied on an ad hoc basis, without sound research for adaptation, and therefore

resulting in a patchy, misaligned, and vicious circle in governance innovation.

As for regulatory frameworks related to the education market, it is really a

sensitive issue in Vietnam. The market has already made its appearance in the

education sector since early 2000, but before WTO, one usually preferred not to

mention it. After WTO, although Vietnam has committed to open its education

market for foreign direct investment, the market presence in education has not yet

been officially recognized by decision-makers. This entailed debate in the education

sector as well as in the society at large about the existence of the education market, its

characteristics, its positive and negative effects, its mechanism, and its implications to

governance and management. With the contribution of some notable research (see for

example Dang, 2007; Tran, Dang, Dang Ba, & Tran Thi, 2012; Vu, Nguyen, Dang

Ba, & Pham Do, 2013), all this seem to have a positive effect in creating a gradual

change in the thinking of decision-makers towards recognition of the education

market. By 2012, The Government (2012a) issued a decree regulating both

cooperation with and investment of foreign countries in Vietnam education. Almost at

the same time, The Government Resolution No 40 (The Government, 2012b) has

been passed in view of promoting innovation in the organization and operation of

public service units, including educational institutions, encouraging and facilitating

these units for market participation and for providing more and better services to the

society. Thus, five years after WTO, regulatory frameworks for quality assurance of

cross-border education and for market mechanism in the education sector have been

19
established, marking a considerable change in education governance in view of

adapting to new realities in education.

As regards the shaping of regional educational spaces, Vietnam and other

ASEAN countries seem to be still at the stage of raising awareness. In The Master

Plan on ASEAN Connectivity (ASEAN, 2011), with the vision of building an

ASEAN community by 2015, harmonization of higher education was not yet

mentioned in the list of key actions as well as prioritized projects. This is due chiefly

to key challenges faced by the higher education sector, namely the lack of an agreed

set of infrastructure, including academic cycles, curriculum development, credit

transfer, and quality assurance procedures, to facilitate the harmonization.

On the democratization of education, Vietnam has developed since the 1990s

policy and guidelines for LLL and building a learning society. However, many

obstacles persist and Vietnam LLL is still rather rhetoric than reality (Pham Do,

2009). The actual education system is still a rigid and bureaucratic one, aiming

chiefly to the preparation for exam sitting, with persistent difficulties in connectivity

and streaming. Particularly, it is a system in which there are not yet a democratic

culture and effective mechanisms that permit managers, teachers and learners to

express frankly and openly their views in the process of policy development in

education.

In educational measurement, there is not yet in Vietnam a well functioning

EMIS that allows policy makers to successfully disseminate accurate information

about the functioning of the education system, and thus to provide reliable answers

about the pressing issues of education.

20
 Thus, on the one hand, Vietnam education has exposed similar new realities

and pushed its governance to develop along the same common trends in order to

adapt to the demands and pressures generated from the external environment. On the

other hand, while the general tendency in international integration is a simultaneous

development of market approach and counterbalanced measures, the current tendency

in Vietnam seems to favor market mechanisms in practical development as well as in

regulatory framework.

It is noteworthy that while policy and regulatory framework might be seen as

relatively established in the area of education market, they are still latent in other

related areas. There is not yet in Vietnam education a clearly formulated strategy on

international integration although this has been stipulated as one of the key measures

for fundamentally and comprehensively innovating higher education from 2006 to

2020 (The Government, 2005). While market mechanisms are on the way of

institutionalization, civil society has not yet received any incentive policy for

development and a law on free establishment of associations has to wait for an

indeterminate period of time. The notion of democratization of education has just

been introduced; its content and mechanism have to wait for identification and

clarification. The accountability system at all levels of education administration does

not work properly. This misalignment of policy development, along with poor quality

institutions and low capacity to enforce law implementation, resulted in a vicious

circle in governance innovation.

5. Conclusion

21
 It has been shown in this paper that, due to international integration, new

realities are emerging on the scene of education and spreading all over the world.

These new realities are eventually associated with the participation and contribution

of two new actors, the market and civil society. As a result, education systems, in

developed countries as well as in many developing countries, are growing in

complexity, and educational institutions are shifting from one-dimensional

relationship with the state to a three-dimensional relationship with the state, the

market and civil society.

Consequently, there is a need to redefine the relations between the state, the

market and civil society. This means that the growing in complexity of education

systems entailed the growing in complexity of education governance. In view of

coping with new realities, some innovative strategies have been initiated and then,

thanks to the effects of international integration, became common trends to be applied

and adapted in other countries. This is the case with the proliferation of NPM, the

development of regulatory frameworks for quality assurance in cross-border

education, the shaping of common education spaces, the democratization of

education, and the promotion of educational measurement.

It is important to note that all the above mentioned initiatives came from

developed countries where there is already in place a strong knowledge base in

governance, a massive research apparatus, and a long tradition and favorable

environment for innovation and creativity. Such strengths do not exist yet in Vietnam

as well as in many other developing countries. Therefore innovations in Vietnam

education governance are often imitated and/or borrowed from good practices in the

22
developed world through the spread of ideas in a globalized world. However, due to

the lack of necessary background research, the application and adaptation of new

trends in governance are usually patchy and misaligned.

Thus, there is an urgent need for setting up new agendas to address the

challenges of scientific research in Vietnam education governance. It has been

stipulated in the Education Law (National Assembly, 2005) that priority should be

given to the development of research, application and dissemination of educational

sciences, however due to the scarcity of resources and weaknesses of the research

apparatus, it is actually very difficult to implement the legal stipulation that

“guidelines and policies concerning education should be formulated based on the

results of scientific research, appropriate to the Vietnamese reality” (National

Assembly, 2005, Article 19).

A fundamental and efficient way to overcome this difficulty is to enhance

cooperation and collaboration in view of shaping a common space of educational

research in the region. While it is true that Southeast Asia scholars are more aware of

Western trends than learning from their neighbors, it is now time to sit together, to

explore the possibilities of creating a strong research community, focusing on

common themes in education governance which ASEAN countries are facing, and

thus moving to an open research area in which researchers, knowledge and

technology circulate freely. This is a necessary proposal, reasonable and realistic,

beneficial to all, and thus contributing practically to harmonization of higher

education in the region.

23
 References

Anantha Raj A. Arokiasamy. (2011). An analysis of globalization and higher education in

Malaysia. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(49), 73-81.

African Union. (2007). Harmonization of higher education programmes in Africa:

Opportunities and c Retrieved October 19, 2013 from http://www.africa-

union.org/root/ua/Conferences/2007/aout/HRST/06-10%20aout/Doc/AU-EXP-

EDUC-2-III-Harmoni-Oppor-Challe.part%20one1.doc.

ASEAN. (2011). Master Plan on ASEAN connectivity. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.

ASEAN Education Forum. (2007). Report of Conference Proceedings. Retrieved October 10,

2013 from

http://www.asli.com.my/DOCUMENTS/ASLI_ASEAN%20EDUCATION%20FOR

UM.pdf.

Christensen, T. & Laegreid, P.(Eds). (2010). The Ashgate Research Companion to New

Public Management. Farnham, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Dang Ung Van. (2007). Higher education development in the economic market (in

Vietnamese). Hanoi: Hanoi National University Publishing House.

Ehsan, M. & Naz, F. (2003). Origin, ideas and practices of New Public Management:

Lessons for developing countries. Asian Affairs, Vol 25(3), 30-48.

Fazekas, M. & T. Burns. (2012). Exploring the Complex Interaction Between Governance

and Knowledge in Education. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 67, OECD

Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9flcx2l340-en

Gillard, D. (2011). Education in England: a brief history. Retrieved September 5, 2013 from

www.educationengland.org.uk/history

24
Marginson, S. & Van der Wende, M. (2008). The new global landscape of nations and

institutions. In Center for Educational Research and Innovation, Higher education to

2030, vol 2, Globalisation (pp. 17-57). OECD: CERI.

National Assembly. (2005). Education Law. Hanoi: National Politics Publishing House.

OECD. (2003). Managing Decentralisation: A New Role for Labour Market Policy, Local

Economic and Employment Development (LEED), OECD Publishing.

doi: 10.1787/9789264104716-en

Pham Do Nhat Tien. (2006). Issues of Vietnam higher education after the accession of the

country to WTO (in Vietnamese). Vietnam Journal of Educational Sciences, 15, 1-8.

Pham Do Nhat Tien. (2009, October). Obstacles to lifelong learning in Vietnam and some

suggested solutions. Paper presented at the Follow-up Meeting of the 2 nd ASEM

Ministers Meeting on Education, ASEM Lifelong Learning Conference “Increasing

Opportunities and Removing Obstacles for Lifelong Learning”, Nha Trang City,

Vietnam.

Pham Do Nhat Tien. (2011). New Public Management in the context of an emerging

education market in Vietnam (in Vietnamese). Vietnam Journal of Educational

Sciences, 65, 1-10.

Roger Y. Chao Jr. (2011). Reflections on the Bologna Process: the making of an Asia Pacific

Higher Education Area. European Journal of Higher Education, 1(2-3), 102-118.

Supachai Yavaprabhas. (2008, September). ASEAN higher education area. Paper presented

at the 2009 World Conference on Higher Education: ‘Facing Global and Local

Challenges: the New Dynamics for Higher Education’, Macao SAR, PR China.

25
Supachai Yavaprabhas (Eds). (2009). Conference Proceeding on Raising Awareness:

Exploring the Ideas of Creating Common Space in Higher Education in Southeast

Asia. Bangkok: SEAMEO RIHED.

The Government. (2005). Resolution No 14/2005/NQ-CP dated 02 November 2005 on the

fundamental and comprehensive innovation of Vietnam higher education for the

period 2006-2020 (in Vietnamese).

The Government. (2011). Decision No 711/QD-TTg dated June 13, 2012 on the approval of

the Education Development Strategy 2011-2020 (in Vietnamese).

The Government. (2012a). Decree No 73/2012/ND-CP dated 26 September 2012 on the

cooperation with and investment of foreign countries in the education sector (in

Vietnamese).

The Government. (2012b). Resolution No 40/NQ-CP dated 09 August 2012 on the action

plan for implementing the Project: Innovating the operating mechanism of public

service units and promoting the socialization of some public service types (in

Vietnamese).

The Government. (2013). Draft dated August 02, 2013 of the Scheme on radically and

comprehensively innovating education in response to the requirements of

industrialization and modernization under the conditions of socialist-oriented market

and international integration (in Vietnamese).

Tran Quoc Toan, Dang Ung Van, Dang Ba Lam & Tran Thi Bich Lieu. (2012). Education

development within the conditions of economic market and international integration

(in Vietnamese). Hanoi: National Politics Publishing House.

26
 UNESCO-APQN. (2006). UNESCO-APQN toolkit: Regulating the quality of cross-border

education. Bangkok: UNESCO.

UNESCO-CEPES. (2004, November). Report of the International Conference on “New

Generations of Policy Documents and Laws for Higher Education: Their Thrust in

the Context of the Bologna Process”, Varsaw, Poland.

UNESCO-ILO. (2006). Joint ILO/UNESCO Committee of Experts on the Application of

Recommendations concerning Teaching Personnel, Report, 9th Session. Switzerland,

Geneva: International Labour Office.

VALUE White Paper. (2008). Towards the Common Higher Education Area for Europe,

Latin America and the Carribean. Retrived October 19,2013 from

http://www.vertebralcue.org/index.php/2012-07-24-10-21-38.

VNCP. (2009). Communique No 242 dated April 15, 2009 on the Conclusion of the

Politbureau to continue to execute Resolution of the 2 nd session of the Party Central

Committee, 8th Tenure, and orientation for education development to 2020 (in

Vietnamese).

VNCP. (2011). 11th National Congress Documents. Hanoi: National Politics Publishing

House.

Vu Ngoc Hai, Nguyen Minh Duong, Dang Ba Lam & Pham Do Nhat Tien. (2013). State

management of Vietnam education system in radical and comprehensive innovation,

and in international integration (in Vietnamese). Hanoi: Education Publishing House.

Walford, G (Ed). (1996). School choice and the education market. Oxford Studies in

Comparative Education, Vol 6(1).

27

View publication stats