Socialisation of Education in Vietnam
- Lessons from international experience -
Dr. Yeow Poon - Managing Director
Mayumi Fuchi - Consultant
People and Organisation Ltd.
315B The Big Peg 120 Vyse Street
Birmingham B18 6NF United Kingdom
www.peopleandorganisation.com
yeow@blau.co.uk
+44 121 6938897
Abstract
Today, Vietnam - a country with more than 80 million people - faces a variety of
challenges in education sector. These challenges include ineffective education
management; shortage of qualified teachers; poor schooling facilities, unsuitable
educational materials and affordable access to high quality education. The
Vietnamese government has responded to these education challenges by making
greater use of socialisation, or what is more commonly called internationally,
public-private partnerships (PPPs), as a means of improving the financing and
delivery of education.
This paper examines the nature of socialisation in Vietnam and international
experience with PPPs. Several forms of PPPs are highlighted, as well as the
advantages and disadvantages of PPPs, the evidence on the benefits of PPPs, and
the essential factors for successful PPPs based on international experience. The
paper concludes with some lessons for the further socialisation of education in
Vietnam.
Background
Vietnam has a long history of free, universal education and central planning, where
education is almost entirely provided by the government. However, as Vietnam,
began the transition from a centrally planned to a market oriented economy in the
80s and 90s there was a degradation in education provision as the system struggled
to adapt. Since then, as a result of various reforms, the deterioration has been halted
and significant improvements were made in diversification of education types,
modes of delivery and resources. As part of the restructuring of the education
system since 1989, the government in Vietnam has implemented several reforms,
including a reform that develop a “non-state” system of education and training to
parallel the state system. The Fourth Plenum of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party in 1992 reached several important decisions for the future
development of education and training in Vietnam. These included plans for the
consolidation of public education, the legalization of private institutions and
socialisation of education.
Socialisation of Education in Vietnam
According to the laws of Vietnam on the direction and policy of socialisation of
education, medical, and cultural activities, socialisation is defined “to build up the
sense of community responsibility of the people of various strata toward the
building and improvement of a healthy economic and social environment
favourable for educational, medical and cultural activities. In each locality this is
the sense of community responsibility of the local Party organization, People’s
Council, People’s Committee, State agencies, mass organizations, and economic
organizations, enterprises based in the locality and of each citizen” (Asian Legal
Information Institute 1997).
Socialisation (“xa hoi hoa”) of education therefore involves the mobilisation of the
whole society, that is, all state concerned agencies and organisations as well as
communities, social forces, mass organizations, to develop and implement
education under State guidance. The result is a diversification of types of education,
and types of schools, combining formal, non-formal and informal education and the
development of semi-public, private, and people-funded school in addition to public
ones. It is worth noting that Vietnam is also decentralising education planning and
management to create favourable conditions for education development and
encourage greater participation in delivering education by all sectors.
The socialization of education has brought some positive results. There have been
improvements in construction of school infrastructure, increase in investment in
school building, and rise in financial contributions. According to the Educational
Development Strategies for 2001-2010 a unified and diversified education system
has been built at all levels from pre-school education to doctorate training; the
general education school network has expanded throughout the country; the school
infrastructure has improved, there are boarding or semi-boarding schools for ethnic
minority people; and more vocational schools, colleges and universities. There are
however major challenges. The diversification of education has led to large
increases of student numbers but the capacities of education establishments are still
inadequate. This has raised issues over the quality of education provided. Another
problem is the concern that poorer people would be left out as a result of the
commercialisation tendency (Nguyen Loc, 2006).
Understanding Private-Public Partnerships (PPP) in International Context
Across the globe, education had been the exclusive domain of the state up until the
late 1980s. Since then, governments have begun to realise that state resources alone
could not meet the basic need of delivering quality education to all children. Hence,
there has been a shift in the policy of education provision towards the private sector
becoming an essential partner in delivering education. The distinguishing features
between public and private provision of education is that public provision is
managed by the state and financed via tax revenues; whereas the revenues for
private provision revenues are derived from fees and private contributions.
.
Traditionally, the private sector has participated in the education sector by the
delivery of education services through privately owned schools and higher
education institutions. Other ways the private sector has participated include
building infrastructure such as school buildings, running publicly owned schools
under contract or providing catering, cleaning, security, recruitment and other
administrative services
A PPP however goes beyond a transactional contract to include a spirit of
partnership and aiming to achieve value and outcomes that go beyond what each
partner can deliver alone. A public-private partnership could be defined as ‘a model
of development cooperation in which actors from the private sector (private
corporations, corporate foundations, groups or associations of business) and the
public sector (Ministry of Education, local authorities and schools) pool together
complementary expertise and resources to achieve development goals’. (Genevois,
2008).
Besides private enterprises, PPP partners can also include a range of other non-state
stakeholders. Public-public partnerships would involve only the state and civil
society organisations, community groups and not for profit enterprises.
Multi‐sector partnerships involving all three sectors - government, private sector
and third sector – are sometimes called public‐private‐civil society partnerships
(PPCPs). The main advantage of involving civil society groups is that they provide
local knowledge on needs, affordability, social issues and cultural sensitivities,
thereby ensuring that those most disadvantageous and hard to reach are served.
Range of PPP models
Broadly, PPPs can be divided into 3 categories, exhibiting different characteristics
in their aims and design, as well as roles that are played by the respective public and
private partners.
 philanthropic PPPs utilising corporate philanthropy
 contractual PPPs based on agreement between public agencies and private
partners to provide services in exchange for remuneration from the public
authority or by charging the users
 institutional PPPs are institutional entities, which are newly established or
created through transfer of public assets, jointly held by the public and the
private sectors
Philanthropic PPPs, from the purely altruistic to those with a profit motive, are
generally aimed at enabling disadvantaged children to gain access to education or to
support a school. In adopting schools to support, the private sector partners would
normally provide cash and in-kind resources to complement government funding of
public schools. Areas of support would include improving educational quality,
access, infrastructure and community participation within the government schools.
A common feature of school adoption programmes is a focus on supporting the
poorest government schools.
Example: Adopt-a-School Programme, the Philippines was established in July 1997
through the enactment of Republic Act No 8525. The programme encouraged the
private sector to partner with the Department of Education to address problems such as
shortages of classrooms, desks and textbooks; to provide mechanisms that allow the
private sector to render assistance in upgrading and modernising the Philippine
education system; to provide an environment that is more conducive to learning,
improve completion rates and lift achievement levels; and to widen access to quality
education and reduce student drop-out rates. (reference? is this a quotation?)
There is a wide range of contractual PPPs, ranging from inputs, process and outputs
types of contracts. Input type contracts involve the private sectors providing
management services ranging from school management, for example human
resource management and finance, and support services such as school meals and
building maintenance to professional services covering teacher training, curriculum
design and quality assurance. A typical example is the outsourcing of school
management where public sector authorities commission private and other non-state
providers to operate public schools or manage certain aspects of the school
operations. A main feature is that although these schools are privately managed,
they remain publicly owned and funded. Another feature is that quality is assured
through the management contract that details the performance targets, timeline,
accountability protocols and arbitration procedures.
Fe y Alegría” (FyA, or Faith and Happiness), is a unique public-private programme
established in Venezuela in 1995 by Jesuit educators to set up and administer schools
in impoverished areas. Government may provide some funding to FyA schools to meet setup or operating costs. FyA now has schools in 14 countries with more than 1 million
student and 22,000 staff. A study found that progression and retention rates in FyA
schools were 44 percent and 11 percent higher than in other public schools.
Swope and Latorre (2000)
www.feyalegria.org
Another popular type of input contract is facility availability, which are used to
mobilize private investment thereby reducing the need for government to finance
capital investments up-front. One example of such PPP contracts are Private
Finance Initiatives where the private sector would finance, design, construct and
operates a public school facility over a period of time, from 25 to 30 years. The
government leases the facility and at the end of the contract period, acquire the
ownership of the school facility. PFIs have been used extensively in the United
Kingdom for the construction and maintenance of education facilities.
Process type PPP contracts usually entail the provision of operational services in the
education of students, financial and human resources management, professional
services and building maintenance. Education authorities could contract private
organizations to run an entire public school. These types of PPPs are usually a
response to difficult situations where greater autonomy from public sector
constraints is needed to improve a school performance or to mobilise local
resources. In these cases, the schools are allowed to govern themselves with
participation from local communities and businesses who may contribute to the
construction of facilities, upkeep and running of the school.
Lastly, output type contracts usually involve contracting private schools to enrol
specific students, usually from poor or minority communities, for example through
voucher schemes that provides an entitlement for the parent to use to pay for the
education of their children. These types of contracts could also include government
purchasing programmes where a government contracts with private schools to
deliver education at public expense in the form of a subsidy per student enrolled.
Targeted Individual Entitlement, New Zealand
The Targeted Individual Entitlement (TIE) programme was introduced in 1996 as a threeyear pilot scheme. The TIE programme was designed to assist children from low income
families to attend a private school, to give choice to families whose education options
were limited and to lift educational achievement among low-income families. Under the
scheme, the government funded a small number (160) of children per year to be educated
in private schools. Private schools received 110 percent of the average cost of education
at a state school for each TIE student accepted. Families also received an allowance to
cover non-tuition costs. Reference? Is this a quotation?
The Pros and Cons of PPP
For the proponents of PPP, it is believed that different sectors in society – public,
private and civil society ‐ have potentially complementary competencies and
resources that can produce a positive whole that is greater than the sum of the
individual parts to enhance various sectors in society. Increasing the private sector’s
role in education can therefore have potential advantages over the traditional public
delivery of education. For example:
 Increasing competition in the education market as the private sector can
compete with the public sector for students, thereby encouraging the public
sector to compete by increasing the quality of its education provision
 Improving quality and value for money through open bidding for PPP
contracts. Quality can be assured through specifications of measurable
service and performance standards in the contracts.
 Greater flexibility in balancing supply and demand as generally, the private
sector has greater flexibility in hiring teachers and managing schools than the
public sector does.
 The sharing of risks between the government and the private sector leads to
greater confidence in investing more resources.
 Government can benefit from a range of private sector expertise and
experience in areas such as strategic planning, performance management,
innovative practice, labour market expertise and the efficient delivery of
goods and educational services.
For the detractors of PPPs there are however disadvantages that outweigh the
benefits. Some of the concerns raised regarding the dangers of PPP are:
 PPPs will eventually lead to the privatization of education, thus eroding the
value of education as a universal public good.
 The commercialisation of education will lead to a 2 tier system of higher
quality privately operated schools and poorer less well resourced public
schools, resulting in greater socio-economic segregation.
 Private-sector partners are not education experts and the drive to obtain a
financial return on investment or to maximise profits will hinder the
achievement of educational goals.
 Weak government capacity in procurement, monitoring and supervision will
result in poorly designed and executed PPP contracts, which will expose the
government to significant financial and policy risks.
 Flexible hiring and management practice will lead to human resource abuses
such as reduced pay for teachers, higher workloads and job insecurity.
Does PPP Actually Work in Education?
A recent report by the World Bank on the role and impact of public-private
partnerships indicate that the application of PPP in various countries has led to
positive outcomes (World Bank 2009). However, the report also pointed out that
the research is limited and more rigorous evidence is needed. Generally, the
empirical data available suggests that the private sector can deliver high-quality
education at a lower cost compared to the public sector. The World Bank report
pointed to studies on privately managed schools in the US (Charter Schools), which
showed an initial drop in pupils achievement but tend to do equal or better over a
period of time (about 3 years). Voucher schemes that support pupils from low
income families have also been extensively studied. The outcomes are less certain
with some countries such as Columbia showing positive results and others like in
Chile showing mixed results.
A study examining the association between student achievement and PPPs across
35 countries showed that student performance in maths, reading and science were
lower in publicly run schools compared with schools that are only publicly funded
(Woessmann 2005). The implication of Woessmann’s findings is that schools that
are publicly funded and privately operated deliver better educational outcomes than
schools are either fully publicly or privately funded and managed, as well as schools
that are privately funded but publicly managed (CfBT Education Trust 2008).
Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) have been used extensively in the United
Kingdom. A study by the Treasury examined the UK‘s experience in 61 PFI
projects, while the National Audit Office study monitored 37 PFI projects. Both of
these studies show that PFI projects were more likely to be delivered on time and
within budget than non-PFI projects. Other studies also found that PFI schools have
a better chance of improving educational outcomes (for example KPMG 2008).
However, there are doubts. Although it is accepted that the private sector would be
more efficient in resource utilisation in order to generate profits there is no clear
evidence that PFI schemes will save cost (for governments) in the long term, as PFI
schemes generally cover a period of between 20 to 30 years. Also, the casual link
between PFI schemes and education outcomes are not yet proven.
Ultimately, PPPs in education aims to achieve better education outcomes by
providing improved facilities and more effective management, as well as enhancing
teaching and learning quality and enabling the participation of wider communities.
The experience to date suggests some lessons for the design and implementation of
PPPs and the conditions under which PPPs will work. For instance:
 A strong policy and regulatory framework, defining the role and
responsibilities of the partners, with a focus on enabling the poor and
ensuring the participation of all stakeholders, especially parents and
community groups
 Capacity of central government agencies in policy formulation and review
and capacity at local government level to implement, monitor and manage
PPP contracts.
 PPP policy interventions should be demand driven and flexible enough to
response to different needs and situations.
 The alignment of private sector commercial and corporate social
responsibility (CSR) interests with education policies and strategies.
 Good quality assurance standards, a clear monitoring and evaluation
framework and accountability protocols are critical.
 Procurement procedures, as well as contract monitoring processes, must be
transparent
Conclusion: Lessons for socialisation of education in Vietnam
Although education is the prerogative of the government the lack of finance and
expertise are often major constraints. Hence, the increasing interests in partnerships
with the private and voluntary or community sectors to complement state resources
in delivering education. Empirical research has shown that the participation of
non-state partners has generally led to more positive outcomes, particularly in the
use of private expertise to manage schools. However, the longer term benefits of
PPP models that mobilise financial resources for infrastructure building is less
certain.
For developing countries and countries in transition such as Vietnam there are also
specific issues that increases the risk of PPP failures. As the education system in
Vietnam diversifies in response to globalisation the socialisation of education is
likely to increase. However, for PPP to be successfully applied in Vietnam a
number of lessons should be considered by policy makers:
 Adopting PPP as a major policy tool for delivering education outcomes
would change the role of government agencies from direct management of
education to enabling the participation and mobilisation of non-state actors.
 The weak capacity of education departments in provinces to implement PPP
initiatives needs to be addressed. Implementing PPP will require the
development of new skills to design, negotiate finances, implement, manage
and monitor contracts,
 The prevention of patronage and corruption would be critical to successful
and quality educational outcomes.
More vigorous transparent and
accountable processes in the procurement, award and supervision of PPP
contracts will be needed.
 It will be necessary to develop the capacity of the private sector and other
non-state sector to deliver PPP arrangements.
 School principals and teachers will need to adapt to more flexible
employment, human resource and performance management practise.
School principals (and the School Boards) will need to adopt commercial
principles and private sector management practice.
Governments can and should take a lead role in identifying the PPP models that best
meet its education policy goals. A key factor to success is balancing the public
need of equitable access to education for all and the commercial interests and
competitive nature of the private sector. From the perspective of the private sector
overly strict requirements and opaque bureaucratic procedures would be a barrier to
participation.
Reference
Asia Development Bank. Vietnam. Available online at
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/ADO/2009/VIE.pdf
Asian Legal Information Institute. (1997). Laws of Vietnam on the direction and
policy of socialization of educational, medical and cultural activities. Available
online at http://www.asianlii.org/vn/legis/laws/otdaposoemaca770/
CfBT Education Trust. (2008). Public-Private Partnerships in Basic Education: An
International Review. Available online at
http://www.cfbt.com/evidenceforeducation/pdf/PPP_Report(v3H)Web%20FINAL
%2021_05_08.pdf
CfBT Education Trust. (2009). Public-Private Partnerships in Education. The
Information Portal for Global Developments in Private Education. Available online
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/edinvest.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/NewsletterMar09/$FILE
/PPPs+_Edinvest_FINAL_SR_03.30.09_option.pdf
Downes, A. (2006). Best Practices of Public-Private Partnerships on Education and
Skills Training in the Caribbean. Available online at
http://www.sedi.oas.org/DTTC/comp/docs/Education_caribbean_e.pdf
Educational Development Strategies for 2001-2010. Education Publishing House,
2001, Hanoi.
International Finance Cooperation: World Bank Group. Handbook on Public Private
Partnership. Part Two of the Handbook. Private Sector Development in Education:
The Toolkit Modules. Available online at
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/edinvest.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/Handbook2/$FILE/Hand
book2.pdf
Genevois, 2008. ‘Can and should public private partnerships play a role in
education?’ Directions in Educational Planning: Symposium to honour the Work of
Francoise Caillods. International Institute for Educational Planning. Available
online at
http://www.iiep.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Research_Challenges_and_Tren
ds/pdf/symposium/IGenevois.pdf
KPMG. 2008. “Investment in School Facilities and PFI: Do They Play a Role in
Educational Outcomes?” London.
Nguyen Loc (2006). Vietnam’s Education in the Transitional Period:
2006/SOM2/HRDWG/057. 28th Human Resources Development Working Group
Meeting. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation 22-26 May 2006.
Parliament of Australia. (2002). Public Private Partnerships: An Introduction.
Research Paper no. 1 2002-03. Economics, Commerce and Industrial Relations
Group. Available online at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/rp/200203/03RP01.htm#whatareppp
World Bank. (2004). Private Sector Involvement in Education: A Review of World
Bank Activities in East Asia and Pacific 1996-2002. Paper No.2004-13. Human
Development Sector Unit: East Asia and the Pacific Region. Available online at
http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2005/10/19/000
012009_20051019110801/Rendered/PDF/338110Private01t0in0education0Final.pd
f
World Bank. (2009). The Role and Impact of Public-Private Partnerships in
Education. Available online at
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/2782101099079877269/547664-1099079934475/547667-1135281523948/20652431239111225278/Role_Impact_PPP_Education.pdf