Innovation in general education governance towards the school autonomy model: International experiences and implication lessons for Vietnam’s education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/8njxhq64Keywords:
School governance, General education innovation, School AutonomyAbstract
Innovation in general education governance is one of the development trends not only in Vietnam but also in the world. This is also an important measure to change and improve the quality of education, especially expand autonomy of high schools and universities. The paper focuses on some main contents: overview of general education; the experiences of some countries in the implementation of the school administration model towards the school autonomy model so that give lessons for Vietnam’s education can be learned in the context of development conditions nowadays. The results in this work would be used to classify the schools into the various groups. The data also analysts on decision-making capability, on what we called an “index of school autonomy”, expressed the possible level of school-level decision-making.
Downloads
References
Tuyen, N.H., Designing Experiential Activity Themes in Teaching Maths to Lower Secondary Students
Congruent with the New General Education Curriculum in Vietnam. American Journal of Educational
Research, 2018. 6(5): p. 396-402.
2. Bloom, D.E., P. Altbach, and H. Rosovsky, Looking Back on the Lessons of'Higher Education and
Developing Countries: Peril and Promise': Perspectives on China and India. 2016.
3. Kosslyn, S.M., The Harvard sampler: liberal education for the twenty-first century. 2011: Harvard
University Press.
4. Bates, R.J., Corporate culture, schooling, and educational administration. Educational administration
quarterly, 1987. 23(4): p. 79-115.
5. Campbell, R.F. and R.T. Gregg, Administrative behavior in education. 1957: Harper.
6. Arcia, G., et al., School autonomy and accountability. 2011.
7. Yuki, T., K. Igei, and A. Demas, Measuring quality of policies and their implementation for better
learning: Adapting World Bank’s SABER tools on school autonomy and accountability to Senegal, 2015,
JICA Research Institute Working Paper 109. Tokyo: JICA-RI.
8. Altbach, P.G., L. Reisberg, and L.E. Rumbley, Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic
revolution. 2019: Brill.
9. Coleman, J.S., Parents, their children, and schools. 2018: Routledge.
10. Pritchett, L. and Y. Aiyar, Value subtraction in public sector production: Accounting versus economic cost
of primary schooling in India. Center for Global Development Working Paper, 2014(391).
11. Leckie, G.J. and J. Hopkins, The public place of central libraries: Findings from Toronto and Vancouver.
The Library Quarterly, 2002. 72(3): p. 326-372.
12. Busher, H. and K. Hodgkinson, Co‐operation and Tension between Autonomous Schools: a study of inter
school networking. Educational Review, 1996. 48(1): p. 55-64.
13. West, A. and D. Wolfe, Academies, the school system in England and a vision for the future. 2018.
14. Squires, G., A. Kalabouka, and J. Bragg, A Study of the Experiences of Post Primary Students with Special
Educational Needs. National Council for Special Education, 2016.
15. Sahlberg, P., Finnish lessons. 2011: Teachers College Press.
16. Vitikka, E., L. Krokfors, and E. Hurmerinta, The Finnish national core curriculum, in Miracle of
education. 2012, Springer. p. 83-96.
17. Kumpulainen, K. and T. Lankinen, Striving for educational equity and excellence: Evaluation and
assessment in Finnish basic education, in Miracle of education. 2016, Brill Sense. p. 69-82.
18. Ranguelov, S., Summary Report Education on Online Safety in Schools in Europe. New Horizons in
Education, 2010. 58(3): p. 149-163.
19. Vahtivuori-Hänninen, S., et al., A new Finnish national core curriculum for basic education (2014) and
technology as an integrated tool for learning, in Finnish innovations and technologies in schools. 2014,
Brill Sense. p. 21-32.
20. Geuna, A. and B.R. Martin, University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison.
Minerva, 2003. 41(4): p. 277-304.
21. Sahlberg, P., Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of education
policy, 2007. 22(2): p. 147-171.
22. Act, E., Act of 17 July no. 61 relating to primary and secondary education and training (the Education
Act). Reformulated with amendments as of 19 December 2008. Norway, 1998, Norway. Retrieved from
http://www. ub. uio. no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-19980717 ….
23. Munthe, E., K.-A.S. Malmo, and M. Rogne, Teacher education reform and challenges in Norway. Journal
of Education for Teaching, 2011. 37(4): p. 441-450.
24. Tveit, S., Educational assessment in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,
2014. 21(2): p. 221-237.
25. Grønmo, L.S. and J.-E. Gustafsson. Student achievement in mathematics in Norway and Sweden as
evidenced by TIMSS. in The 4th IEA International Research Conference. 2010.
26. Nilsen, H., School for the Future: a Critical View on the Norwegian School Reform, 2006,“Knowledge
Promotion”. Stanisław Juszczyk, 2006: p. 43.
27. Godø, H., L. Langfeldt, and A. Kaloudis, In Need of a Better Framework for Success: An evaluation of the
Norwegian participation in the EU 6th Framework Programme (2003–2006) and the first part of the EU
7th Framework Programme (2007–2008). 2009.
28. Bybee, R., B. McCrae, and R. Laurie, PISA 2006: An assessment of scientific literacy. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
2009. 46(8): p. 865-883.
29. Telhaug, A.O. and N. Volckmar, Norwegian Education Policy Rhetoric 1945‐2000: education philosophy
in the political party platforms. Scandinavian journal of educational research, 1999. 43(3): p. 275-293.
30. Haug, B., Educational decentralization and student achievement: a comparative study utilizing data from
PISA to investigate a potential relationship between school autonomy and student performance in
Australia, Canada, Finland, Norway and Sweden, 2009.
31. Faubert, V., School evaluation: Current practices in OECD countries and a literature review. 2009.
32. Sandberg, A. and E. Ärlemalm-Hagsér, The Swedish National Curriculum: Play and learning with
fundamental values in focus. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 2011. 36(1): p. 44-50.
33. He, Y., The Search for Reconciliation: Sino-Japanese and German-Polish Relations since World War II.
2009: Cambridge University Press.
34. Beauchamp, E.R. and J.M. Vardaman Jr, Japanese education since 1945: A documentary study. 2015:
Routledge.
35. Ng, P.T., Mentoring and coaching educators in the Singapore education system. International Journal of
Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 2012.
36. Tsai, K.-T., M.-D. Lin, and Y.-H. Chen, Noise mapping in urban environments: A Taiwan study. Applied
Acoustics, 2009. 70(7): p. 964-972.
37. Yee, A.H., East Asian Higher Education: Traditions and Transformations. Issues in Higher Education
Series. 1995: ERIC.
38. Vargo, E., Thailand's economic crisis slows down public and private higher education, in Private Higher
Education. 2005, Brill Sense. p. 155-158.
39. Australia. Department of Education, E. and W. Relations, Transforming Australia's higher education
system. 2009: DEEWR.
40. Lingard, B., et al., Federal/State mediations in the Australian national education agenda: From the AEC to
MCEETYA 1987–1993. Australian Journal of Education, 1995. 39(1): p. 41-66.
41. Novera, I.A., Indonesian postgraduate students studying in Australia: An examination of their academic,
social and cultural experiences. International Education Journal, 2004. 5(4): p. 475-487.
42. Fluck, A.E., Some national and regional frameworks for integrating information and communication
technology into school education. Educational Technology & Society, 2001. 4(3): p. 145-152.
43. Fang, H., et al., The returns to education in China: Evidence from the 1986 compulsory education law,
2012, National Bureau of Economic Research.
44. Pandey, S.K., School Education System in India before and after Independence. 2019.
45. Tilak, J.B., J.B. Tilak, and Ghosh, Education and Development in India. 2018: Springer.
46. Thomson, S., L. De Bortoli, and S. Buckley, PISA 2012: How Australia measures up: the PISA 2012
assessment of students’ mathematical, scientific and reading literacy. 2013.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
