Conclusion: “Indigenization” of Education Reforms Through Capacity Development

  • Yasushi Hirosato
  • Yuto Kitamura
Part of the Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects book series (EDAP, volume 13)

Generally speaking, we believe that the promotion of high-quality basic education has been considered as the public policy that should be pursued by governments of developing countries. However, the developing countries of today, under the influence of neoliberalism ideology, are in favor of the promotion of decentralization of educational management and finance, and of education reforms through deregulation and privatization based on market forces. Therefore, as a means of diffusing quality basic education, while placing emphasis on the role of government, efficiency is being pursued in the process of diffusing basic education by means of reviewing the roles of central and regional governments, the introduction of market forces, and the law of competition. Above all, it is said that in regard to education management, if authority and finance can be devolved to the regions and if the local government and community actively take part in the decision-making process with the result that these bodies strengthen their capacity in taking on practical responsibilities, then highly cost-effective management and efficient practices would be possible (McGinn and Welsh 1999).

What is more, as Southeast Asian countries including three countries of Indochina comprise multicultural, multiethnic, and multilingual communities, there are regional and/or ethnic differences in attitudes toward education. Therefore, if one tries to impose a policy to promote a uniform basic education, local needs are not met, with the danger that nonefficiency of education management and practices may even result. In this regard, the majority of basic education support involving EFA goals is being conducted in the context of decentralization.

Keywords

Coherence Malaysia Decen Indonesia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asian Development Bank (ADB) (1995). Report and Recommendation of the President (RRP), Lao PDR, Postsecondary Education Rationalization Project. Manila: ADB.Google Scholar
  2. ADB (2000). A Wealth of Opportunity: Development Challenges in the Mekong Region. Manila: ADB.Google Scholar
  3. ADB (2001). RRP, Cambodia, Education Sector Development Program. Manila: ADB.Google Scholar
  4. ADB (2002). Technical Assistance Report, GMS Phnom Penh Plan for Development Management. Manila: ADB.Google Scholar
  5. ADB (2004a). RRP, Cambodia, Second Education Sector Development Program. Manila: ADB.Google Scholar
  6. ADB (2004b). GMS Fifth Meeting of the Working Group on Human Resource Development, Yangon, Myanmar, July 2004. Manila: ADB.Google Scholar
  7. Buchert, L. (2000). “From Project to Programme to Sector Wide Support: Some Questions and Concerns.” Prospect, XXX (December): 405–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman, D.W. and Austin, A.E. (eds.) (2002). Higher Education in the Developing World: Changing Contexts and institutional Responses. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  9. Harold, P. and Associates. (1995). The Broad Sector Approach to Investment Lending: Sector Investment Programs. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, The World Bank Discussion Paper No. 302.Google Scholar
  10. Hirosato, Y. (2001). “New Challenges for Educational Development and Cooperation in Asia in the 21st Century: Building Indigenous Capacity for Education Reforms.” Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 4(2): 1–24.Google Scholar
  11. King, K. (2004). “The External Agenda of Educational Reform: A Challenge to Educational Self- Reliance and Dependency in Sub-Saharan Africa”” Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 7(1): 85–96.Google Scholar
  12. King, K. and Buchert, L. (eds.) (1999). Changing International Aid to Education: Global Patterns and National Contexts. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. McGinn, N.F. (2000). “An Argument for Dialogue in Definition of National Policies for Education.” Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 7(1): 15–25.Google Scholar
  14. McGinn, N.F. and Welsh, T. (1999). Decentralization of Education: Why, When, What and How? Paris: IIEP, UNESCO, Fundamentals of Educational Planning 64.Google Scholar
  15. Ratcliff, M. and Macrae, M. (1999). Sector Wide Approaches to Education Development. London: DFID.Google Scholar
  16. Samoff, J. (1999). “Education Sector Analysis in Africa: Limited National Control and Even Less National Ownership.” International Journal of Educational Development, 19(4–5): 249–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sida (2000). Sida's Policy for Sector Programme Support. Stockholm: Sida.Google Scholar
  18. Smith, H. (2005). “Ownership and capacity: Do current donor approaches help or hinder the achievement of international and national targets for education?” International Journal of Educational Development, 25(4): 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. UNESCO (2006). EFA Global Action Plan: Improving Support to Countries in Achieving the EFA Goals (Edition of July 10, 2006). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  20. World Bank (2000). Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  21. World Bank (2002). Project Appraisal Document (PAD), Viet Nam, Primary Education for Disadvantaged Children. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  22. World Bank (2004). PAD, Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR), Second Education Development Project, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yasushi Hirosato
  • Yuto Kitamura

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations