Vietnam: Accountability for Professional Development and Education Quality – PEHRC

INTRODUCTION

Vietnam has been achieving impressive results regarding school enrolment, completed years of schooling and learning outcomes. The case gained international attention after performing exceptionally well in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA – 2012 and 2015). Several aspects have created the conditions for such improvement, including economic and political aspects beyond education. As for the education sector, Vietnam adopted a “double approach” of growing access and improving quality, which has been done mainly through increased financing, teacher training and a creation of a framework for accountability (with school leadership focused on pedagogy and parental partnership). The three most important groups of ‘agents’ at school level – teachers, principals and parents – interact locally and, according to regulations, all three are involved in the accountability system that focuses on professional development and quality improvement. However, some tensions and contradictions put at risk the advances made, including privatisation and the use of financial contributions from families that may increase inequality.

The case study first introduces how ensuring quality education for all has been a global issue, often tentatively addressed with market-based mechanisms and high-stakes testing; and how Vietnam has increased access with quality with public strategies. Second, the country’s approach is presented, and finally, some lessons and limitations are discussed.

EDUCATION QUALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

In the past years, international political commitments, such as the SDGs, have been signed to move towards achieving the right to education for everyone, as guaranteed by international treaties. As a result of national and international efforts, considerable progress has been made. However, there is an international “learning crisis”, with many children are at school but not learning, which has become the concern of several international organisations (Bookings, 2019; World Bank, 2019; UNICEF, 2020; UNESCO, 2014). To improve the quality of education and ensure learning, market-based approaches have been gaining currency internationally, with support from international organisations and actors. With high-stakes testing, accountability becomes associated with the idea of performativity, of publicly showcasing measurable results. Schools, teachers and students are subjected to rankings, that are often publicly displayed and have relevant consequences (such as impacting financing) that are supposed to create “incentives”. However, researchers have been arguing that there is a series of damaging side effects to these policies. Teaching then centres on preparing students for tests, leading to curriculum narrowing, cheating and gaming, exclusion and increased inequality (Au, 2007; 2010; Holloway et al., 2019; Verger et al., 2019), and the “de-professionalisation” of teaching (Ball, 2009, 2010, 2016).

Vietnam, however, has demonstrated good results in growing access and improving public education at the same time. It has shown a remarkable performance in standardised test scores, school enrolment and completed years of schooling. Vietnam has significantly increased school enrolment at all school levels in the past 20 years and has achieved virtually universal primary school enrolment. Regarding lower secondary levels, enrolment has increased from 27% in the early 1990s (McAleavy et al., 2018) to 99.4% in primary school and 92.3% in lower secondary (MoET, 2017). Girls’ enrolment has also improved, with girls’ net enrolment equalling and then surpassing boys’ enrolment at secondary level (Glewwe and Dang, 2017).

Besides performing well in PISA, even before the publication of the PISA 2012 results, the data indicated that government schools in Vietnam were achieving good academic outcomes in core subjects for many students, with a simultaneous improvement during this period in terms of both access and quality. For instance, in 2001 and 2007, the Ministry of Education and Training (MoET) conducted large-scale national assessments of Grade 5 reading and mathematics, in partnership with the World Bank. The results indicated that the majority of students reached the level of “functional” or above in both areas in 2001 (McAleavy et al., 2018). There was also a significant performance improvement between 2001 and 2007 at a time of increasing enrolment.

Importantly, the education system in Vietnam is relatively equitable, thus poorer children can expect a decent quality of schooling. The OECD suggests that one of the most impressive aspects of Vietnamese performance in PISA is the relatively high performance of disadvantaged children (McAleavy et al., 2018). The OECD describes as “resilient” students in the bottom quarter of the PISA “index of economic, social and cultural status” that perform in the top quarter of students internationally in science. Whilst the OECD average was 29.18%, Vietnam’s was 75.51% (OECD, 2016). However, commentators and the OECD itself have urged caution when analysing Vietnam’s results, as they should be seen in light of the exclusion of students from the survey. Its sample, thus, makes comparisons and generalisations difficult (McAleavy et al., 2018; OECD, 2016). Further studies and analysis are needed that consider intersectional aspects of inequality, as students in Vietnam have varying performances according to region, ethnic group, gender and income.

Despite limitations in the measurement and in the case itself, the professionalism of teaching is a central element in Vietnam’s education system; it depends on an “accountability” system that promotes the professional development of teachers and offers valuable lessons.

VIETNAM’S APPROACH: EXPANDING ACCESS AND QUALITY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITH FINANCING AND ACCOUNTABILITY

To achieve the education results mentioned, Vietnam has adopted a series of policies that have created the conditions for such improvement, some fundamental aspects are explored here, with no intention of offering an exhaustive analysis.

PRIORITY IN POLICY AND FINANCING

Education has been set as a national priority since the 1990s, when the country started its transition from a low-income and largely agrarian country, to a lower-middle income one with a thriving diverse economy (which has a dominating public sector in certain industries, particularly in power and infrastructure). The economic growth increased tax revenues, which was followed with a commitment to invest “20% of all public spending” in education (McAleavy et al. 2018). The investment has been consistently high, but it has oscillated in the past years, from as high as 18.05% in 2008 to 15.24% in 2009, followed by a yearly rise, reaching 18.79% in 2012, and then dropping to 14.47% in 2018 (World Bank, 2021a). As a percentage of GDP, it rose from 3.57% in 2000 to 5.6% in 2013, but fell to 4.1% in 2018 (World Bank, 2021b).

The financing has been invested in the so-called “twin-track approach”. This means that the government has invested in expanding and improving facilities, together with attempts to improve critical factors likely to influence school quality, such as the school readiness of five-year olds and the pre-service qualification level of teachers. First, this has meant investing in new schools and improving the infrastructure of existing ones. Whilst this alone is not sufficient to guarantee education quality, it has contributed to it. Furthermore, it has also created a good image of public schools in society, which foments a perception that public schools are good and disincentivises parents from searching for private alternatives. Second, education policies have been implemented, such as offering at least one year of kindergarten to all, increasing pre-service training requirements for teachers, and it has established accountability procedures that not only promote the monitoring of compliance but, most importantly, the professional development of teachers.

Concerning financing, since the late 1980s, Vietnam has adopted a shared form of education financing, often referred to as “socialisation” (also translated as “societalisation”). After an acute fiscal crisis that strongly affected education and reduced enrolment, a system of formal and informal co-payments was implemented. On the one hand, it has enabled the expansion and improvement of the Vietnamese education system and has reinforced the participation of families in education. On the other hand, it has placed a burden on households, with up to 40% of the public education being financed by households, which can affect equity and exclude some students (London, 2021).

PRE- AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING FOR TEACHING QUALITY

Teacher training has improved in the past years. Namely, teaching has been professionalised, with more teachers being qualified at postgraduate level since 2000. Data from PISA 2015 showed that students in Vietnam were, on average, more likely to be taught science lessons by a teacher with a degree in science than students in OECD countries (McAleavy et al., 2018). Teaching is also a very respected profession in Vietnam, and salaries have improved in the past years. Nonetheless, it is still not well paid. There is therefore a widespread practice of private tutoring, which is an opportunity for teachers to supplement their income. Parents see it as a way to enhance the chance of success for their children in a competitive environment and perhaps gain some favouritism from teachers, despite being discouraged by the government (McAleavy et al., 2018).

The training and professionalisation of teaching are also related to teachers’ freedom to decide upon teaching methods and pedagogy. They are trained and encouraged to apply problem-solving in class, addressing students’ needs, and most apply a mix of traditional and student-centred pedagogies. This, however, is not done in isolation. Teachers receive a lot of support, feedback and mentoring in schools, from peers and superiors. Teachers observe each other’s classes, and offer constructive feedback, which is coordinated by a subject leader.

School leadership is also focused on the classroom and on advancing teaching quality. Principals are experienced teachers (with between 10 to 35 years of teaching) and are school leaders with a pedagogical role. They also observe classes, with a focus on coaching teachers for quality. The feedback is then turned into a development plan for teachers. The prevalence of in-school mentoring in Vietnam is much higher than the OECD average (McAleavy et al., 2018).

ACCOUNTABILITY: SELF-EVALUATION AND FEEDBACK FROM PEERS AND SUPERIORS FOR DEVELOPMENT

All education stakeholders are involved in several relationships and mechanisms of accountability. Teachers receive feedback and support for improvement through these mechanisms.

First, teachers conduct self-evaluations and peer-evaluations, assessing themselves with preestablished criteria set to identify strengths and weaknesses, and develop a plan for professional development. The peer review process includes classroom observation and evaluation of planning documents, which verifies the accuracy of self-evaluations and helps with planning improvements. 

Second, this evaluation is done within and through “subject teams”, in which they provide each other with feedback that offers both challenges and support. Each of these subject groups has a lead, who also conducts observations. The feedback is organised, combining the input of peers and superiors, and is shared with both teachers and the principal. The subject leader, therefore, supports the principal in identifying strengths and weaknesses regarding teaching quality and coordinates the group. The leaders combine a monitoring function with strong orientation towards professional development. The developmental accountability subject group is considered one of the most distinctive aspects of the education system in Vietnam.

Third, school principals play a pivotal role in monitoring the quality of teaching while offering professional development support. Monitoring the quality of classes is regarded as a central part of the principals’ work. They also observe lessons and evaluate planning documents, and the information collected is combined with the report from subject groups.

Finally, parents partake in this accountability system. The education regulation gives parents an important role, though it is not always fully implemented. This relationship should foment a relationship of accountability in two ways, in which parents and teachers keep each other accountable for their roles in children’s development and learning. This is done in formal and informal ways, such as Parent Boards and direct contact between parents and educators. The Parental Board plays a role in the school, and it is legally responsible for providing feedback regarding quality and organising extra-curricular activities. Parents report high levels of satisfaction and trust in teachers’ work and professionalism. There are also high levels of volunteering in schools, according to the PISA data (p. 92). As mentioned, this is likely to be connected to the policy of “socialisation”, or the cofinancing practice adopted in Vietnam, which in turn do pose the risk of increasing inequality (London, 2021).

EXTERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY: MONITORING QUALITY BEYOND MEASURABLE RESULTS

Besides this intricate system of accountability at school level, there are also mechanisms of external accountability. There are “peer-review” opportunities for feedback between schools, with both formal and informal mechanisms to allow for principals to exchange comments and support. Representatives from the bodies that monitor schools also hold regular meetings with principals and conduct school visits for inspection. Besides these meetings, they also conduct classroom observations and an evaluation of school records. There are also regular “thematic reviews”, that cover specific topics such as teacher performance, budget management or the implementation of a specific policy. Throughout this process, it is understood that the visits are an opportunity not only to monitor compliance with policy and teaching quality, but also to gather bottomup feedback and learn about the local realities and practical issues that afflict schools. However, these occasions can also become bureaucratic, formal and rehearsed endeavours, with little value for dialogue and substantial feedback.

LESSONS LEARNED AND CHALLENGES

Vietnam has made remarkable advances regarding both access and quality of education. This advancement relies on a series of contextual and cultural elements, practices and policies. Among those, some lessons can be drawn regarding the commitment to stable and significant financing and the system of continuous and multistakeholder accountability.

First, accountability is central in this system, with a deeper and wider meaning than an “accountability by numbers” (Ball, 2003). The Vietnam model contrasts in some respects with currently disseminated forms of results-based accountability that requires educators to organise themselves in response to targets, indicators and evaluations, setting aside beliefs, commitments and prioritising calculations (Ball, 2003). Here, accountability is mostly a form of professional development based on feedback that comes from all school stakeholders. Accountability is thus a way to improve education quality, based on classroom-level coaching. It is assumed that processes matter for quality, instead of having a narrow focus on the measurement of outcomes. 

Second, and relatedly, the Vietnam case illustrates a high level of professionalism. Professionalism can be understood as a “particular relationship between the practitioner and their work, a relationship of commitment that is located within communal and internal dialogues” (Ball, 2009, p.668). Besides improving pre-service training, the country has developed a mechanism for regular professional development in schools. Through self-evaluation and evaluations from peers and superiors (subject group and principal), teachers have a chance to identify teaching challenges, discuss alternatives and ways forward, and plan for improvement. This is a developmental approach that goes beyond supervising, monitoring and checking compliance.

Finally, quality is closely monitored, and although the Vietnam case has reached remarkable outcomes, the country’s experience illustrates a focus on processes and participatory practices that involve all educational stakeholders.

However, there are limitations and unclear aspects that require further inquiry. Some commentators have asked for caution regarding Vietnam’s PISA results. They argue the results could be inflated by the exclusion of some students. The OECD has emphasised that the Vietnamese sample is limited to allow for generalisations and comparisons. The organisation also mentions that, although disadvantaged students often perform well, the fact that there are many students out of school hinders Vietnamese education equity (McAleavy et al., 2018; Akmal, 2018). Furthermore, large-scale test results might mask inequalities that exist in the country, that are particularly harmful to minorities (DeJaeghere et al., 2021). Relatedly, despite financing improvements, parents also contribute considerable amounts to school through the practice of “socialisation”. Critics point to how an elevated household contribution can harm access and equity, and that the commercialisation and commodification of education can put at risk the coherence and performance of the system (London, 2021). Lastly, Vietnamese teachers also report limitations in policy implementation concerning teacher training and assessment, which are related to persistent issues of quality, teacher motivation, negative competition between teachers, teaching for tests, lack of training for including students with disabilities and an over-standardised curriculum that can increase inequality. Nonetheless, the Vietnamese experience points to meaningful alternative approaches to education quality that promote the professionalism of teachers with participatory accountability.