Master plan for higher education institutions the lesson learn for Vietnam

Vietnam has issued the first Master Plan for the network of universities and colleges in the 2006-2020 period [19] (The Plan 121), covering the following topics: (i) Total training siz[r]

MASTER PLAN FOR HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

THE LESSON LEARN FOR VIETNAM

Pham Thi Thanh Hai 1 Nguyen Thi Huong Giang 2

Abstract Recently, the issue of master planning for higher education (HE)

has been widely discussed by policy-makers and professionals Vietnamese

HE in the process of innovation and international integration is orienting

to increasing autonomy for the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) It is necessary for Vietnam in learning experiences from the Master Plan of United States and China Using comparative research in international education, it

is like in planning for HEIs among Vietnam, USA and China in the structure

of 3-4 layers of different HEIs (Orientation in Research, Teaching, Application and Practice) However, Vietnam needs to study system planning and publish specific data for each tier of HE institutions in order to develop the system in accordance with the planning.

Keywords: planning, education system, education forms, higher education, innovation

1 Introduction

The term “Master Plan” in higher education is based on a successful detail plan built for HEIs of California State, USA in 1960 The Master Plan was established

in the context of retaining the number of research universities in the process of the development, expansion and integration of higher education that resulted in some questions, such as: How many students will there be in the future in HEIs

1 University of Education – Vietnam National University, Hanoi;

Email: haiphamtt.vnu@gmail.com, Tel: 0913.509.074.

2 School of Engineering Pedagogy – Hanoi University of Science and Technology;

Email: giang.nguyenthihuong@hust.edu.vn, Tel: 0983.660.128.

of California? How they will be distributed among these HEIs? How should best students be getting in the appropriate HEIs? How long should the new HEIs system be developed? How would the state budgets be delivered for developing the new HEIs system? Until now, the research results of the Master Plan have much contribution for developing of social economics of California State, USA (Douglass, 2010)[1]

The master plans for HEIs also appeared in many developing countries and they usually called them as strategy plans, such as in Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand The national higher education strategic plan of Malaysia set up a framework for developing the higher education system in the period of 2007-2020 There are

7 strategic thrusts in the plan which comprised: widening access and increasing equity; improving the quality of teaching and learning; intensifying research and innovation; strengthening of HEIs; intensifying internationalization; enculturation

of lifelong learning; and reinforcing the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) deliver system

In Vietnam, the Higher Education Innovation Project (promulgated under the Resolution No 14/2005/NQ-CP) announced a chain of objectives and results should

be reached to 2020 However, this project did not mention how to organize the higher education system as well as a plan to achieve the objectives and results announced The main vision of the Project pointed to the HEIs system in 2020 included: (a) increasing to the ratio of 450 students per 10.000 people; (b) 20%-30% of students studying the research oriented programs (undergraduate or postgraduate); (c) 40%

of students attending the non-public universities The Prime Minister approved

“The Plan for a Network of Universities and Colleges”[2] that included: (a) forms

of schools such as ownership – public, private or foreign investment schools (including wholly foreign owner or co-operation/joint ventures); (b) layering in HEIs system

Martin Hayden (2012)[3] recommended that Vietnam should build a good integrated HEIs system The HEIs system should include following components: (a) a small number of “research-oriented universities” (account for around 5% of the student population) which supply for undergraduate and postgraduate (Master and PhD) training programs; (b) a big number of “teaching-oriented universities” (account for around 20% of the student population) which supply the application-oriented curriculums for undergraduate and master programs and partly supply the joint programs which are cooperated with research-oriented universities in training PhDs; (c) a large number of “teaching-oriented universities” (account for around 25% of the student population) only supply the application-oriented curriculums for undergraduate training programs; and (d) a very large number of colleges

(account for around 50% of the student population) which supply the two/three-year vocational training programs and unify the professional tertiary education programs and vocational training programs

2 Methodology

This paper utilizes a methodology of comparative education for studying the Master Plans of the international higher education system including China and United States of America (USA) California (USA) Master Plan is the first Master Plan in Higher Education which is familiar to the world China is the country in the region close to Vietnam The aim of this study is having a well-done understanding about planning the HEIs system in Vietnam Studying the international plans

of HEIs is a critical and challenged approach to the Vietnamese educational philosophy and then that is a detail analysis of the context and fundamentals of the Vietnamese HEIs system[4] (Isaac Kandel, 1933) Comparative Education is the understanding and international cooperation, solves the educational problems

as well as other problems related to the international scope Then, studying based

on comparative education method in countries (China, USA, Vietnam) on planning the HEIs network conducted in three phases:

(i) Studying the context of planning the HEIs system in each country (USA, China);

(ii) Doing comparative researches on the Master Plan for HEIs in USA, China and analysing comparatively the Vietnamese problems;

(iii) Analysing practically the plans for HEIs of three countries and drawing the experienced lesson for Vietnam

3 Master Plan for the higher education system USA and China

3.1 Master Plan for HEIs in California State, USA

The United States has thousands of higher education institutions of different types, from two-year community colleges to world leading research universities The number of students at the various schools consists of about 50%

of the relevant age group Of all the thousands of schools, only some 111 are research universities, and many universities seldom engage in research (Kirsch, 2014[5]) On the level of the individual state, supervision is performed by the regional government that supervises academic schools under its jurisdiction The

State of California has a Board of Regents consisting of 26 members who are

responsible for the public system of higher education

“The original Master Plan was approved in principle by the Regents and the State Board of Education (which at that time governed the CSU and the Community Colleges) on December 18, 1959 and was submitted to the Legislature

in February 1960 A special session of the 1960 Legislature passed the Donahoe Higher Education Act, which included many of the Master Plan recommendations Governor Edmund G (Pat) Brown signed the Donahoe Act into law on April 26,

1960 For various reasons, many of the key aspects of the Master Plan were never enacted into law although agreed to by the public higher education segments and the State There are four major dimensions to this accomplishment: (i) The Master Plan created a system that combined exceptional quality with broad access for students; (ii) It transformed a collection of uncoordinated and competing colleges and universities into a coherent system.(ii) It established a broad framework for higher education that encourages each of the three public higher education segments

to concentrate on creating its own kind of excellence within its own particular set of responsibilities (iv) And it acknowledged the vital role of the independent colleges and universities, envisioning higher education in California as a single continuum of educational opportunity, from small private colleges to large public universities.” (HEP 2, 2012, Martin Hayden)[3]

One of the major features of the Master Plan, California, was the supplying a linked framework for higher education institutions in oder to HEIs can develop and exist together California’s system of higher education includes three types of institutions: universities (e.g., University of California), colleges (e.g., California State University), and community colleges (e.g., California Community College) There was a big difference in functions among three public postsecondary education segments: (a) University of California (UC) is designated the state’s primary academic research institution; (b) California State University (CSU)’s primary mission is undergraduate education and graduate education through the master’s degree; (c) The California Community Colleges (CCS) have their primary mission providing academic and vocational instruction through the first two years

of undergraduate education The UC was to select from among the top one-eighth (12.5%) of the high school graduating class; The CSU was to select from among the top one-third (33.3%) of the high school graduating class; The CSSs were to admit any student capable of benefiting from instruction The higher education coordinating agency was established to renew the Master Plan at regular intervals and to coordinate new campuses and new academic offerings among the segments

of higher education This was replaced in 1973 by the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC)

Figure 1 Pyramid of California HEIs

3.2 Master Plan for HEIs in China

The First Five-Year Plan (1953-1957) focused on the development of heavy industry Plans to reform institutions of higher education to emphasize technical education were finalized in 1951 Unified sets of plans for student enrolment, job assignment, and curriculum content were introduced to ensure that the restructured system performed the intended function From 1952, the Chinese higher education system simulated Soviet administration, teaching methods, textbooks, and even classroom design The experience of other countries, especially those of the West, was rejected, especially during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966–1976)

In late 1976, China followed a more rational, economic-oriented path towards modernization, one of the first tasks undertaken was the restoration of the educational system (Reed, 1988)[6] In December 1978, changes in the education sector had already begun Almost all the decisions necessary to recreate the education system in its pre-1966 state had been announced, and implementation was well underway (Pepper, 1990)[7] Entrance examinations to colleges and universities were reintroduced, and professional standards and expertise were once more held

in regard These post-Maoist changes in educational policy saw the re-emergence

of the old ‘regular’ system with the residue of foreign models (Hayhoe, 1984)[8] The Chinese are passionately engaging with globalization, and market competition and market ideologies may be an even stronger influence in Chinese higher education than in many OECD countries But markets can also be deaf

and blind (Yang, 2003b)[9] and, thus, there may be a role for the state in ensuring

equity Within universities, the challenge is to identify decision-making structures

that allow academics, managers, and governing authorities to work in partnership (Kennedy, 2003)[10]

The Higher Education Law stipulates the framework for decentralization in

the Chinese higher education system, stating that while ‘the State Council shall provide unified guidance and administration for higher education throughout the country’, the local governments at the provincial level ‘shall undertake overall coordination of higher education in their own administrative regions, administer the higher education institutions that mainly train local people, and the higher education institutions that they are authorized by the State Council to

administer’ (Higher Education Law Article 13, Chapter I).

The Chinese higher education system consists of two major components: regular higher education and adult higher education Regular higher education institutions offer full-time programmes for a degree or a diploma They include universities, independent specialized colleges, short-cycle (two or three-year) specialized colleges, and vocational colleges Adult higher education institutions offer programmes to people already holding a job They include broadcasting and television universities and in-service teacher training colleges

According to the functions of academic features, HEIs can be classified into four types: research institutions, teaching and research institutions, teaching institutions and application oriented institutions Based on the national priority

of higher education development, Chinese HEIs are divided vertically into four layers, as shown in Figure 2

Figure 2 Pyramid of Chinese HEIs (Source: Cai, (2011)[11])

3.3 Master Plan for HEIs in Vietnam

Vietnamese Higher Education has evolved over many periods such as: after the feudal period (before 1945), period of resistance against the French colonialists (1945-1954), the period that the country was divided into two regions (1954-1975) and the period of Vietnam’s unification (1975 to now)[12]

After the unification of the country (1975), Vietnam promulgated the policy of educational reform, the system of higher education in the former occupied South was taken over and rearranged: the former model of universities, community colleges and private colleges was abolished and re-arranged following the university model

in the North (Soviet Model) The basic guidelines for renovating higher education are concentrated in the four reform mandates that were adopted at the Conference of Rectors and Party Secretaries of Universities in Nha Trang in the summer of 1987 Accordingly, universities carried out a series of innovations: schools did not assign work to graduates, add new types of training, intensify scientific research activities, production services, training contracts and services to increase revenues; and partly

students paid tuition fees[13] The HEIs system has made significant changes in

structure and training types The development of the education system has created favorable conditions for international integration in education Renovation was bringing a new face to the education system in the direction of modernization, standardization, democratization and diversification

The Education Law (2005) states: “The structure of the higher education system consists of the following levels of training: (i) College degrees: 2-3 years, depending

on the training discipline, for people who have a high school diploma; from 1.5 years

to 2 years for people who have intermediate diplomas of the same discipline; (ii) Undergraduate degree: 4-6 years, depending on training disciplines, for people who have high school diploma or intermediate diploma; Between 2.5 and 4 years for those who have intermediate diplomas in the same discipline; 1.5-2 years for people who have college degrees with the same training sector.”[14, page 38]

Higher Education Law (2012) states that higher education institutions in the national education system include: (i) colleges; (ii) universities and institutes; (iii) regional universities, national universities; (iv) The Institute of Scientific Research

is allowed to train PhD students Vietnamese higher education institutions are organized in the following forms: (i) State-owned higher education institutions (State owns, invests and build infrastructures and facilities; (ii) Private higher education institutions owned, invested and built on by social organizations, socio-professional organizations, private economic organizations or individuals; (iii) Higher education institutions invested by foreign capital

The Vietnamese Government issues the Standards for stratification, rating framework and rating criteria of HEIs (2015)[15] Accordingly, stratification is the division of HEIs into different groups of HEIs according to objectives, training orientation based on standards of the provisions in this Decree HEIs are stratified into 3 groups: (i) research-oriented institutions, (ii) application-oriented institutions; (iii) and practice-oriented institutions

Research- oriented Institutions have activities of training and scientific-research that are specialized in principles, fundamental theories in sciences Scale of training master and PhD degrees accounts for 30% total training scale of research-oriented disciplines

Application -oriented Institutions train the human resources according to applications Training scale, occupations are based on undergraduate and applied-master degrees

Practice-oriented Institutions focus on training and developing the trainee’s practical capacity, integrating the training process with the actual production Training scale, occupations and degrees for practical orientation account for large number; the curriculum is designed to transfer from the professional education; the training programs are mainly undergraduate

Figure 3 Chart of Vietnamese of HEIs

4 Discussion

The most important role of the state in higher education is to define the vision and strategy Research in strategic planning in higher education has been conducted in many countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom and some states in the United States The implementation of these strategies is usually a long process, at least a year, with varying degrees There are many reasons for countries to embark on implementing

a strategic plan for their higher education One characteristic of these strategies is that it often sets a vision for higher education for the future

The HEIs of California State, a distinct example of the USA, have the different features on functions among three groups of state-owned institutions The University of California (UC) is designated the state’s primary academic research institution and is to provide undergraduate, graduate and professional education UC

is given exclusive jurisdiction in public higher education for doctoral degrees (with the two exceptions see CSU below) and for instruction in law, medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine (the original plan included architecture); The primary mission of the California State University (CSU) is undergraduate education and graduate education through the master’s degree including professional and teacher education Faculty research is authorized consistent with the primary function of instruction CSU is authorized to award a specific Doctor of Education (Ed.D.)

in educational leadership Other doctorates can be awarded jointly with UC or an independent institution; The California Community Colleges have their primary mission providing academic and vocational instruction for older and younger students through the first two years of undergraduate education (lower division)

In addition to this primary mission, the Community Colleges are authorized to provide remedial instruction, English as a Second Language courses, adult noncredit instruction, community service courses, and workforce training services

In USA, supervision of HEIs is performed by the regional government-state according to the market-oriented model The market-oriented model receives its inspiration from the capitalist approach, which assumes that organizations attain maximal efficiency in conditions of competition and a free market In this model universities compete with each other for students and financial resources University managers see themselves as entrepreneurs or manufacturers heading

a corporation aimed at offering students academic services The market-oriented model, sometimes also called the “entrepreneurial university” model, uses private industry ‘management principles of performance-based funding The university

is not a goal in and of itself and neither does it constitute public goods Instead, the university is perceived as a commodity, an investment, and a strategic resource The government does not take measures to design and plan the system of higher education; rather, it promotes competition and increases quality assurance and

transparency in academic institutions The assumption is that the competition

between the schools (“vendors” or “providers”) for students, (“buyers” or

“consumers”) support and money, may affect universities, decision making processes with regard to expenditures, the educational product, and institutional innovativeness and adaptation

Under the education law, Chinese HEIs are legally recognized from their establishment, and shall have the autonomy in matters relating to teaching,

research, program development, personnel management, resource allocation and international cooperation The implementation of decentralization policies has resulted in a shift in university governance model from a state controlled model

to a state supervised model (van Vught, 1988) In 2010 a comprehensive reform proposal of HEIs in China was implemented as in the Outline of China’s National Plan for Mid- and Long-term (2010-2020) Education Reform and Development Just like Vietnam, Chinese Ministry of Education is the highest government organization responsible for running the education system The Ministry of Education is responsible for overall planning, policy development, law enforcement, and budget allocation The Ministry of Education is also responsible for initiating reforms, coordinating national programs, projects and innovations Institutions are subject to professional management by the Ministry, and are administrated by local authorities through the provincial education authority However, Chinese Universities currently belong to one of three different “governing organizations”: the Ministry of Education, the governing Ministry, and the local government (Huang F, 2006, page 36)[16]

The initial breakthrough occurred in 1980 when for the first time vocational schools in China emerged to cater for employment opportunities in the tertiary sector of the economy Schools whose graduates needed to find jobs in the labour market by themselves became more common afterwards The impact of the market was most evident in higher education, where universities and colleges offered contract training in exchange for fees This market-oriented experiment

was endorsed by the Decision on the Reform of the Educational Structure, issued by

the CCP Central Committee in 1985, and became part of the reform As the market gained more significance in China, especially in the more developed coastal and urban areas, more substantial reform policies were introduced to make structural

changes in education The Programme for Education Reform and Development

in China, jointly issued by the CCP Central Committee and the State Council in

1993, reaffirmed the 1985 Decision The central government would refrain from direct control over education Instead, government was to act as a facilitator With the phasing out of the planned economy and the diminishing role of the state, the government became increasing reluctant to continue subsidizing students Fees started to become a reality Before long Chinese educational institutions were facing the market on all fronts with potential employers becoming clients Meanwhile, China’s paltry educational spending (in proportion to its GDP) was distributed very unevenly especially between rural and urban areas, resulting in loss of educational opportunities among disadvantaged groups The new market-oriented measures allowed only the fittest to excel and further widened regional