This section introduces data regarding how school members perceive the impact of school autonomy on school curriculum and educational activities. Three major properties emerge from an investigation of the data: namely school innovations within national and local frames, school strategies to implement a school-based curriculum, and barriers to the school-based curriculum.
School Innovations within Frames
Basic program – ‘We are not able to go beyond the frames’.
When being asked about school autonomy in the academic sphere, all interviewees mentioned school-based curriculum development as the most typical example. At first, interviewees tended to describe school-based curriculum under a broader context of national and local frames:
MoET promulgates national learning outcomes and a general curriculum framework. Then DoET localizes to a specific framework which arranges the learning content into a schedule. In general, there is one national framework of the MoET and a specific framework of the DoET, and then the school’s learning content. We are not able to go beyond the frames but must comply with them.
You cannot remove all learning content. For instance, when we develop one topic, it must both respond to innovation requirements and cover the required learning content of MoET (O. 5: 390-4009).
This paragraph should be explained in the Vietnamese context. As previously mentioned, at the national level, MoET maintains a unified national curriculum to ensure that all students can meet national standard learning outcomes. Based on this national one, local governing bodies like the DoET and BoET issue local specific frames to all secondary schools in the area. ‘We are not able to go beyond the frames but must comply with them’ means that although being labeled as one of the first schools enjoying school autonomy in curriculum development, Green School enjoys minimal autonomy due to barriers from both national and local frames. Therefore, the school cannot develop or adopt a brand-new curriculum but can only engage in ‘modifying, supplementing, updating, and renewing the whole or some parts of the national curriculum’ (O. 17: 185-186). In fact, ‘school-based curriculum reserves approximately 80% of the national curriculum’ (I. 20: 88-8910) and the difference between the two curriculums is
‘unnoticeable’ (I. 24: 183). In terms of curriculum structure and learning content, for example, interviewee made comparisons:
You must always comply with the MoET’s curriculum. You can develop learning content into topics or merge similar lessons or content into topics. Important learning content can be expanded, whereas unnecessary ones can be removed or reduced. But you must be consistent with the MoET’s framework (I. 6: 497-501).
This [school-based curriculum] is not a brand-new curriculum, but was developed based on the national curriculum. We modify it [the national curriculum] to
9 The verbatim is quoted from Observation #5, line 390-400
10 The verbatim is quoted from Interview #20, line 88-89
conduct teaching and learning more feasibly. With the same learning content, we just rearrange it to be suitable for our orientations and ideas (I. 7: 89-92).
There is a general curriculum framework. For instance, if you teach about the types of a triangle, you could change approaches, but you must introduce three types, the equilateral, isosceles, and scalene. You can add other cases but you cannot remove this content. In other words, you must retain at least these learning objectives. … Nevertheless, you cannot set too many objectives. If you add more objectives [outside the framework], you must explain why you did so, and what you added that objective for (I. 9: 243-250)
The school-based curriculum is under the MoET’s framework, but we merge lessons into learning topics. We can cut some parts, add some parts, but finally, the curriculum must assure that students can attain education objectives [regulated by MoET] (I. 19: 201-203).
We just restructure it to make it [national curriculum] more appropriate, but core learning content remains as in the textbook and MoET’s curriculum (I. 23: 4-5) Generally, there is no remarkable difference in terms of knowledge and learning content but time allocation. For example, teachers might reallocate time for important content (I. 24: 183-185).
In terms of curriculum structure, it could be argued that Green School can only merge lessons into learning topics to ‘conduct teaching and learning more feasibly.’
Instead of delivering knowledge through separate lessons, Green School introduced it by learning topics to link relevant bodies of knowledge. In addition, teachers can expand important learning content and remove or reduce unnecessary content. Time allocation was also changed accordingly; for example, essential topics are allocated more teaching and learning time. Substantial changes in curriculum, if any, must be fully accountable to
higher governing bodies ‘you must explain why you did so, and what you added that objective for.’ During interviews, most interviewees strongly emphasized the requirement of maintaining MoET’s core learning content in the school-based curriculum such as ‘you must always comply with the MoET’s curriculum’, ‘you must be consistent with the MoET’s framework’, ‘but finally the curriculum must assure that’. One might argue that the school-based curriculum seems to be ‘old wine in new bottles’ when ‘core learning content remains in the textbook and the MoET’s curriculum.’ However, when taking into account the context of highly centralized education in Vietnam and Green School as a first-time participant in the school-based curriculum, these initial changes are somewhat reasonable and could be the first step toward more substantial changes.
Second, interview data further showed that the extent of restructuring learning content varies between subjects. One mathematics teacher reported:
There are differences between subjects. For example, in history, they [history teachers] can remove this lesson and add another one, which is more suitable for our school students. Similarly, in geography, and civil education. For
mathematics, however, because of its strong logic, we are not able to remove or add anything because it must be rationalized. It is different from other subjects.
Generally, mathematics in our curriculum covers most learning content in the national curriculum. We do not remove anything but just add some content. Of course, we reduced some learning content like overlapping parts, for example, those that students learned previously will not have them repeated (I. 1: 42-50) According to this response, the most remarkable modifications were observed in subjects such as geography, history, and civic education, whereas mathematics
maintained most learning content from the national curriculum. The interviewee explained that because mathematics is characterized by strong logic, teachers could not
easily modify learning content. However, another underlying explanation might relate to the influence of high-stakes exams on school autonomy in curriculum development. For subjects that are not included in high-stakes exams, the school and teachers have less pressure regarding teaching to the test and thus have greater autonomy to modify learning content. In contrast, for ‘key subjects’ in high-stakes exams like mathematics and
literature, the school must maintain most learning content in the national curriculum because of a concern that the removed content might be tested.
Initial improvements.
Although Green School enjoys limited autonomy in curriculum development, research data found some positive improvements in the curriculum as well as teaching and learning practice. First, when restructuring the national curriculum, teachers could remove unfeasible objectives to focus on the core objectives only. One teacher observed:
There is a big gap between learning objectives set by the MoET and students’
acquisition capacity. The MoET sets too many objectives, whereas students’
capacity is limited. Thus, we purposefully remove some learning objectives to make students acquire knowledge more efficiently. If I try to meet all learning objectives, teaching and learning come back to chalk and talk, and education innovation gains no value’ (I. 22: 107-111).
In this response, the interviewee was likely to criticize the current top-down approach in which MoET’s experts, researchers, and educators play a crucial role in curriculum development whereas teachers and practitioners can only contribute a weak voice. Therefore, MoET’s national curriculum was identified as unsuitable to teaching and learning practice since it set too many learning objectives and content overwhelming to students’ abilities. The interviewee reported that if teachers try to maintain all learning content listed by the national curriculum, ‘teaching and learning comes back to chalk and
talk and education innovation gains no value.’ This means that with the current national curriculum, teachers cannot apply education innovations but maintain traditional teaching methods like chalk and talk. However, interviewees recognized that the new school-based curriculum had overcome these shortcomings:
Restructuring learning content is definitely more effective than keeping to the previous curriculum. It removes the unessential part and focuses on crucial knowledge only (I. 11: 81-82).
Unnecessary parts, which are no longer appropriate, are removed or reduced.
Essential parts, which might be appropriate to our students – Green School’s students, are given an emphasis. For example, we offer learning content that fits the typical feature of students in this city. I think it would be more suitable (I. 14:
107-110).
The school’s curriculum is based on the MoET’s curriculum. According to school features and students’ capacity, we take consideration of which parts are suitable or unsuitable, which parts should be increased or decreased. … Topics that are unsuitable or strange to students are removed and replaced by other suitable ones (I. 18: 183-188).
It could be seen that the school-based curriculum allowed teachers to remove or reduce unnecessary learning content and introduce topics that are more appropriate for the school students. These interviewees reflected that ‘we offer learning content that fits the typical features of students in this city,’ ‘essential parts, which might be appropriate with our students – Green School’s students, are given an emphasis,’ ‘according to school features and students’ capacity.’ This means that teachers did not make curriculum modifications based on their subjective intentions but on the characteristics of the school
and its students. They expected to create curriculum changes that were more appropriate to their students’ needs.
Second, the interviewee reported that the school-based curriculum created more time and flexibility for teachers to implement teaching and learning innovations. They clarified this as follow:
It [school-based curriculum] is more advantageous. Because the curriculum is reconstructed according to our intentions, we make it [school-based curriculum]
systematically. Similar lessons are merged into topics instead of being separate, and teaching lessons is less time-wasting (I. 8: 9-11).
It [school-based curriculum] facilitates teachers to focus more [on essential content] and implement innovative ideas (I. 11: 83-84).
It is very beneficial when a school-based curriculum arranges learning content into learning topics because fewer topics will reduce the pressure on teaching to meet the schedules. Beforehand I had to finish one lesson in one session. Now I can deliver that lesson in two sessions to make sure that students can thoroughly understand the learning content. In contrast, many short lessons are unnecessary to teach in one session. Thus, the long and short lessons can make up for each other.
It is advantageous when students have more time to practice skills (I. 6: 475-482).
Instead of teaching separate lessons in separate sessions, we can introduce them by topics, as long as we are complying with the MoET’s national learning outcomes. Therefore, teachers enjoy a more active and flexible space in teaching and learning. For instance, there is lesson 1, 2, and 3 in one topic. For a particular body of knowledge of the topic, teachers could introduce lesson 2 first, then lesson 1 and 3. It means teachers enjoy full autonomy in this field to introduce
lessons to attain the best quality. They are also active in selecting reference materials (O. 5: 102-107).
It is explained that the current national curriculum frame tightly regulates the teaching and learning schedule, for instance, a specific lesson is regulated to be delivered on a fixed week and date and teachers must fully comply with it. Moreover, all lessons are allocated the same amount of time, regardless of the complexity or importance of the knowledge. This regulation could be a disadvantage when long lessons or crucial learning content is allocated the same amount of time as short lessons or less essential content.
Thanks to restructuring learning content into learning topics, teachers have less stress from time-constraints since they enjoy extensive autonomy to allocate classroom time.
Most interviewees left many positive comments to this change, such as ‘more
advantageous,’ ‘less time-consuming,’ ‘very beneficial,’ ‘very effective.’ They further illustrated how school-based curriculum changed their classroom practice:
When applying a complex teaching and learning technique, time-constraints have been no longer a problem. With a school-based curriculum, we can realize all our ideas (O. 2: 195-197).
One problem was time-limitations. With 45 minutes11, we can only finish one task, for instance, students can only make notes on the tablecloth, but they do not have enough time to make a presentation and for teachers to deliver comments. ...
Now we are applying the school-based curriculum with learning topics that can be introduced not only in one session but several. Therefore, teachers can arrange one or two sessions for students’ presentations (O. 2: 59-63 … 175-179).
The change here is we do not have to strictly conform to the national schedule. It seems that teachers are ‘untied.’ We can use more new techniques and methods.
11 In secondary schools, one session is delivered in 45 minutes
Students are possibly excited. Because we are ‘untied’ from time-limitations, we can do those things (I. 14: 102-105).
These responses provided examples of how a school-based curriculum facilitates innovations in teaching and learning practice. As teachers enjoy more flexibility in allocating classroom time, they can invest more time in crucial learning content or experiment with various teaching and learning methods. Like the case of the teacher in Observation #2, if it is the national curriculum, she must introduce every lesson in separate sessions, which might be challenging for implementing project-based learning.
With the school-based curriculum, when learning content is restructured into topics, she arranged one session for introducing the essential content of that topic and brainstormed on a learning project, then held other sessions for teamwork, student presentations, and teachers’ reflections. Although research data may be somewhat limited to confirm whether these new teaching and learning methods are better than traditional ones, it is clear that the school-based curriculum creates more flexibility for teachers and
encourages them to be more innovative in teaching and learning.
In summary, it could be concluded that within a limited extent of autonomy in curriculum development, Green School chose to adjust learning objectives and restructure scattered learning content. This minor improvement might be a wise strategy when the school has no previous experience in developing a brand-new school-based curriculum.
Interview data proved that this initial change in curriculum overcame certain limitations of the national curriculum and made positive improvements in teaching and learning practices, for instance when learning objectives are more appropriate and feasible, the curriculum is more coherent and appropriate to students’ needs, and teacher autonomy has been increased. Teachers feel that their teaching work is more comfortable and flexible. They are set free from time-constraints and can apply various teaching and
learning methods. Due to the pressure of high-stakes exams, the school is not able to make enormous changes to ‘key’ subjects such as math or literature but other ‘minor’
subjects such as civil education, history, or geography can be adjusted to local needs.
Advanced program.
Since the national curriculum cannot be primarily adjusted, Green School found another way to utilize its autonomy in the academic area. Instead of teaching and learning in one period (in the morning or afternoon), the school organized all classes into two periods per day:
Our school curriculum has Period 1 and 2. Period 1 is the basic program following MoET’s curriculum, and there might be added some projects or revisions. In Period 2, we apply our own curriculum and topics (I. 13: 76-80).
In this case, a basic program or ‘Period 1’ aims to deliver the key learning content of the national curriculum with aims at equipping students with MoET’s required learning outcomes. The advanced program or ‘Period 2’ is offered only in some key subjects and designed by schoolteachers. One interviewee added another rationale for the advanced program:
Previously the school offered only two ‘high quality’ classes with ‘two periods per day’ service. There were two special classes for gifted students and six general classes for other students. First, parents gave bribes to send their children to high-quality classes. Second, the school could not manage students’ off-time well because they had to attend private extra classes. Now all classes in my school now are ‘high quality’ with two periods per day. Students in grade 6 and 7 are able to have lunch at the school. ... We can manage students better. When I changed education services, our school budget was raised. Although I did not increase the tuition fee, we have greater financial resources to improve teachers’ salaries. They
are paid well. They feel happy and do not have to teach the extra classes. I must think about financial matters (I. 29: 65-78).
This response might hint that the advanced program is derived from the needs of students and parents. It is not a rare practice in the context of test-oriented education when the ultimate learning goal is to get excellent academic performance in learning and high scores in high-stakes exams, for instance ‘parents gave bribes to send their children to high-quality classes’, students ‘had to attend to low-quality extra classes.’ The school just recognized this essential need and exercised the granted autonomy to respond to it.
Another reason might be that due to limited autonomy, Green School is not able to significantly change the national curriculum. Moreover, merely adding a large amount of the school’s tailored learning content into the basic program national curriculum seems to be unfeasible since the curriculum might become overload. Thus, the school separated one basic program to offer learning content of the national curriculum and one advanced program to introduce extended learning content. The school also provided supplementary services like lunch meals. It could be interpreted that when developing the school-based curriculum, self-financed schools like Green School must take both educational needs and financial issues into account. On the positive side, this strategy might help students get prestigious tutors in their school instead of going to private tutoring classes. Parents could feel assured when their children stay at school the whole day and are well managed by teachers12. The introduction of the advanced programs and supplementary services help the school increase its budget and manage students better. However, it is uncertainty whether the strategy of transforming all classes into ‘high quality’ classes could lead to
12 Teachers in Vietnam are especially respected and valued as essential as second mothers or fathers (see Chapter 3, section Teachers in Public Secondary Schools)
actual improvements in quality or whether it is just changing of the label and increasing learning time from one to two periods per day.
Next, interviewees reported that in both basic and advanced programs, the amount of learning time at Green School is increased compared to those of other schools. One interviewee gave an example in literature:
There are generally four sessions in the advanced program of other secondary schools, while ours is five sessions. Other schools offer three sessions for the basic program, and we offer four (I. 2: 109-111).
However, this increase has not occurred in all subjects or for all classes, as one physics teacher explained:
In other upper secondary schools, they teach according to the MoET’s national curriculum. We also apply that curriculum and increase practice sessions. For physics, the MoET allocated two sessions per week, if it is Class D13, we maintain two sessions per week. But for Class A14, there are six sessions per week (I. 3: 43-47).
It should be clarified that the advanced program is composed of the key subjects of high-stakes exams, and increasing instructional hours occurred in those key subjects only. For upper secondary education, for example, students of Class A take an advanced program in mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Therefore, the instructional hours of mathematics, physics, and chemistry are remarkably increased, whereas those of literature, English, and other social science subjects are remained the same as in the national curriculum. This curriculum structure reflects a typical test-oriented education in Vietnam, and even schools with academic autonomy must accept it as an unavoidable
13 Class D is for students who take Block D (mathematics, literature, and English) in the national examination.
14 Class A is for students who take Block A (mathematics, physics, and chemistry) in the national examination.