James H. Williams, Ed.D.
jhw@gwu.edu
CICE, Hiroshima University
George Washington University
August 2, 2012 Very poor country, but rapidly growing economy
 Access has improved, especially at primary Lower secondary is problematic Working to improve quality
 School system rebuilt from very low base after Khmer Rouge Teachers and students were especially targeted Afterwards, teachers recruited, even when under‐qualified
 Ongoing and recent efforts to upgrade qualifications of teachers
 Government encouraging/requiring teachers to earn post‐secondary

qualifications
 But lacks means to provide free to allEducation in Cambodia:
Comparison with Southeast Asian countries
Singapore

Malaysia

ThailandIndonesia

Philippines

Vietnam

Laos

Cambodia

Myanmar

GNP per capita[US$](2006)

28,730

5,620

3,050

1,420

1,390

700

500

490

--

Adult Literacy
Total（M／F）

94（97／91）92（94/89）94（96／92）91（95/87）93（93/94）90（94/87）72（80/66）76（86/67）90（94/86）

NER at Primary
Total（M／F）--（--／--）

100(100/100)94（94／94）96（97/94）91（90/92）88（--／--）

84（86/81）90（91/89）100（99/100）

Survival Rate atPrimary
Total（M／F）--（--／--）

99（--／--）--（--／--）

79（78/81）70（66/75）92（--／--）

62（62/62）55（54/57）72（71/72）

GER at Lower
Secondary
Total（M／F）--（--／--）

90
98
78（89/91） （96／100） （77/79）

86（83/90）88（90/86）52（58/46）54（59/49）56（56/56）

GER at Upper
Secondary
Total（M／F）--（--／--）

53（48/58）59（55／64）73（66/80）59（58/60）35（39/29）21（25/16）35（35/36）51（51/50）Primary

Bachelor
Upper
Lower
s
Secondar SecondaryyMastersNo
pedago‐gicalTraining

Ph.D.

Primary School Teachers
National

1,903

24,375

18,563

554

13

0

406

Urban

229

4,839

4,705

278

12

0

20

Rural

1,674

19,536

13,858

276

1

0

386

Secondary School Teachers
National

233

7,524

20,432

6,870

414

7

250

Urban

64

2,323

5,439

3,469

306

7

27

Rural

169

5,201

14,993

3,401

108

0

223

LocalePrimary

Secondary

National

49:1

25:1

Urban

30

20

Rural

54

28

LEVEL OF EDUCATION
Primary education
Short‐term training
Training (3+1), (4+1), (4+3),(5+3)
Training (7+1), (8+1)
Training (8+2)
Training (11+2), (12+2)
Training Bachelor's degree +1
Lower secondary education
7+3 1983‐1984
8+3 1985‐1991
9+1 1981‐1984 University of Phnom Penh (UPP)
9+1 1982‐1984 UPP & Battambang
9+1 1988‐1990 UPP
11+2 1990‐1992 RTTC’s
12+2 1998‐2004 RTTC’s
12+2 2000‐2004 Primary school teachers to RTTC

NumberTotal: 56,812
20,059767
10,823
6,908
17,1991,056
Total: 21,931
1,629
10,086
1,432
151
273
1,178
6,714
468

%
100
35.2
1.4
19.1
12.2
30.2
1.9
100
7.4
46.0
6.5
0.7
1.2
5.4
30.6
2.1

Teaching Level

Basic
Basic cost
Monthly Pay of food per(as ofperson/per
January
month
2010)

Percentage
of Payrequired forfood

Increaserequired toreachminimum
living wage

Primary$50$19.80

39.6%

120%

Lower Secondary$75$19.8026.4%

60%Upper Secondary$100$19.8019.8%

20%Teaching 1st career choice?
Father’s education
Yes

No

No education

97.2

2.8

Some primary

90.4

9.6

Completed primary

87.0

13.0

Some secondary

85.6

14.4

Lower secondary

89.9

10.1

Upper secondary

82.5

17.5

Some higher education
Completed higher
education

80.6

19.4

69.3

30.7

 Formal teaching credentials offered only by public institutions• Provincial Teacher Training Centers (PTTC) for pre‐school and primaryteachers – post‐secondary, 2 years• Regional Teacher Training Centers (RTTC) for lower secondary teachers –post secondary, 2 years• National Institute of Education (NIE) for upper secondary teachers – post
BA, 1 year However, degrees in language (e.g., English, French) offer pedagogicaltraining
 Additionally, many current teachers are “upgrading” their qualifications byearning a bachelors degree
 Formal credentials required to teach in public schools but private schools
may not require teaching credentials or pedagogical training Some schools still must employ teachers without sufficient qualifications
 Various in‐service programs offered (though not discussed here)

As a public good and a strategic imperative for all levels of
education and as the basis for research, innovation and creativity,
higher education must be a matter of responsibility andeconomic support of all governments…



At no time in history has it been more important to invest in
higher education as a major force in building an inclusive anddiverse knowledge society and to advance research, innovationand creativity. The past decade provides evidence that higher
education and research contribute to the eradication of poverty,
to sustainable development and to progress towards reaching
the internationally agreed upon development goals, which
include the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and
Education for All (EFA).



Higher education institutions of Cambodia today can beclassified basically into three types‐‐the Royal Academy,
universities, and colleges specializing in particular fields.

Very limited capacity to engage in researchMany higher education institutions in Cambodia only run
programs in specific areas of specialist fields, and only few multi‐
faculty universities offer instruction over a broad range of fields

Demand for higher education has risen dramatically in recent
years. In response, many private higher education institutions
are opening up

Regional context: Due to its low quality of education, Cambodia
may continue losing talent to neighboring countries Higher education – high demand Private higher education permitted from 1997, now far exceeds

public enrollment
 Also fee‐paying students were admitted to public HEIs
 Private higher education almost always “for profit”
 Huge growth – Cambodia’s higher education enrollment > 80 times
larger than in 1980
 Most new institutions are private; most new places are fee‐paying
 Government is working to regulate private higher ed— “work inprogress”—much of the regulation of quality is mostly left to market

Economic recovery and expansion since 1990s after the civil wars
over two decades Needs and demands for high skilled labor force in the globalized
economy Rapid expansion of higher education since late 1990s,
particularly through the privatization of higher education
 Growing awareness of the importance of improvements inqualityAs higher education grew, especially from late 1990s, problemsof low quality widely recognized Accreditation Committee of Cambodia (ACC) established in 2003
 “The Education Strategic Plan (ESP) 2006‐2010” prioritizes
quality assurance, quality improvement & improved
management
 From 2005, all undergraduate students have to take Foundation
Year Study as compulsory part of studies
 Introduction of credit award and credit transfer system
 Many foreign agencies and organizations are providing supportEnrollment in Higher Education, Cambodia, 1970-2005
60,000

Number of Students

50,00040,00030,00020,00010,000

0.00
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Year (1975, 1985, 1995 interpolated)

2000

2005

Gross Enrollment Rates ISCED 5a & 6
80
Australia

70

Cambodia60

China
Hong Kong

GER

50

Indonesia

40

Japan
Lao PDR

30

Malaysia
New Zealand

20

Philippines
10

Korea (Rep)
Thailand01999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year

Viet Nam

19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
20
07
20
09

Number of Institutions
90

80

70

60

50
Private40
Public

30

20

10

0

Year

19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08

Enrollments
90,00080,00070,00060,00050,000Public40,000Private30,00020,00010,0000Year90,000

80,00070,000

Enrollments

60,000Public Scholarship

50,000Private Scholarship
Public Fee-paying
40,000Private Fee-paying

30,00020,00010,000

0
1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002
Year

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

100%

90%

Percentage of Fee-paying students

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002
Year

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Enrollment in Higher Education, by Gender
140,000

Number of Students

120,000
100,000
80,000FemaleMale

60,00040,00020,00002000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year

1.

2.

3.

4.

Private/public governance and finance of institutions• Usually formulated in a binary, in fact, considerable blurring• Private institutions operate under public law; may receive
public funding. Public institutions may charge fees
Finance of students•
Public scholarships vs private scholarships and/or
student/family funding•
Continuum from complete public provision to no public
support for individual student
In context of teacher preparation, destinations of teachersPublic education vs private education or outside education
sectorPublic‐private partnerships• Between business or NGOs and public institutions ‐‐ not yet inCambodian higher education or teacher education

Pro

May open up opportunities forConMay offer a way for well‐off topreviously un‐enrolledindividuals/groups

segregate themselves frompublic system

Private may bring additional

Typically costs more but higher

resources into systemcosts do not automaticallytranslate into higher quality

Private may mean greater

May bifurcate into high quality

quality or innovationand low quality private

Teaching may serve as gateway

Teaching may serve as dead‐end

profession

profession

What has been the effect of private and of fee‐paying
provision of higher education for teachers?
 Does it appear to have increased supply?
 Has it improved or reduced the quality of teacher
preparation?
 Has private and fee‐paying higher education increased
mobility or reduced it?
 What are the key demographic and background characteristics ofteacher trainees in different types of institutions?
 How can the institutions involved in teacher training, understoodbroadly, be classified into types according to key background andinstitutional characteristics?
 How do teacher aspirations and career choices differ across these
institutional types?
 How do costs differ across these institutional types?
 How does quality vary?
 Broadly, does private higher education appear to foster social
mobility or stratification among teacher trainees?

 Surveys of students, teacher trainers, administrators in 14 higher education and post‐

secondary institutions
 Relied primarily on student data (four types)• Formal teacher trainees ‐‐ all available, willing 2nd year students at 1 PTTC, 1
RTTC outside Phnom Penh
• Language students – all available, willing 4th year language students at 6 private
institutions (2 in Phnom Penh); and 2 public institutions (1 in Phnom Penh)• Current teachers upgrading – all available, willing 4th year students majoring insubjects taught in upper secondary school in 3 private HEIs (2 outside Phnom
Penh); and 1 public HEI in PP• Potential teachers – all available, willing 4th year students majoring in subjects
taught in upper secondary school in 1 public HEI in PP
 Teacher trainers – from available, willing teachers of teacher trainees in each institution(n = 19)
 Institutional data – from administrators of 13 out of 14 institutions (1 institution was
unwilling to provide data)

Types of teacher
trainee
Students in teacher
credentialing
institutions (PTTC,
RTTC, NIE)
Current teachers
upgrading/ orcompleting theirtraining earning BA
Foreign language
students
4th yearundergraduates insubjects taught inupper secondary
school
Total

Total number ofstudents surveyed

Final sample(all 1,2 ; groups 3,4,
only teaching 1st goal)

605

605

NIE, 1 RTTC,
1 PTTC, allpublic221

221

1 public HEI, 3 private

353

232

6 private HEIs, 2
public190

181

1 public

1,369

1,239

14

Number of
institutions

Students In

Institutions

Credentialing programs

3 public institutions

Last year undergraduate
programs upgrading

1 public, 3 private
institutions

Language programs

Last year undergraduate
programs, potential
teachers

2 public, 5 private
institutions

1 public institution

Criteria
All willing students in classtime of our visit
All willing last year
students in Chemistry,
Physics, Biology,
Mathematics, English,
Khmer or Social Studies
class at time of our visit
All willing last year
students in class the timeof our visit and who
indicated an interest inteaching
All willing last year
students in Chemistry,
Physics, Biology,
Mathematics, English,
Khmer or Social Studies
class at time of our visit
and who indicated interestin teaching

Further selection for “final
sample” after datacollection?
NoNo, not for teachers
upgradingYes, students who
indicated teaching as theirfirst career choice wereselectedYes, students who
indicated teaching as theirfirst career choice wereselected Institutions could be classified in several ways: 2 types (public,

private) or 3 types (public, teacher training, private) However, looking at social background of students, in combination
with institutions and types of teacher training, suggests a more
complex grouping may be more revealing.

TEACHER CREDENTIALING

3.40

NIE
RTTC
PTTC

3.90
3.10
2.80

PUBLIC

4.30

IFL
RUPP
Public #3

5.35
4.03
4.00

PRIVATE

3.96

Private #1 (Phnom Penh)
Private #2 (Phnom Penh)
Private #3 (Phnom Penh)
Private #4 (Provincial capital)
Private #5 (Provincial capital)
Private #6 (Provincial capital)
Private #7 (Provincial capital)

4.73
4.16
3.98
3.75
3.33
2.66
1.80

1. High SES language
1 public (IFL), 1 private HEI; Language; High Fathers Ed

2. Medium to medium high SES private language

Private HEI, Language, Medium/medium high Fathers Ed

3. Public
2 public HEI (1 is RUPP)
4. Medium to medium high SES private upgrading
Private, Upgrading, Medium/Medium high Fathers Ed
5. Upper secondary teacher prep–NIE
NIE
6. Primary and lower secondary teacher prep (PTTC, RTTC)
RTTC, PTTC
7. Low SES private
Private HEIs; Language, Upgrading, Low Fathers Ed

Institution Type

Average Parent Education(1 = no education …
8 = completed higher ed)

High SES (language)

4.6(some upper secondary)Medium to medium high SES Private
language

3.6(lower secondary)

Public

3.6

Medium to medium high SES Private
upgrading

3.6

Upper secondary teacher prep (NIE)

3.6

Primary and lower secondary teacher prep
(PTTC, RTTC)

2.7(some primary)

Low SES private

2.5

Type

Civil servant

Enterprise

FarmerTeacherHigh SES(language)

29

41

6

11

Medium tomedium highSES Private
language

14

14

17

31

Public

12

15

2

6

Medium tomedium highSES Private
upgrading

8

8

12

11

Upper secondary
teacher prep–
NIE

20

13

25

27

Primary andlower secondary
teacher prep
(PTTC, RTTC)

15

7

34

15

Type

Plan to teach rest ofcareer?

Want to teachprivate or privatethen public?

Want son to teach?
(% yes)High SES (language)

37

48

34

Medium to medium
high SES Private
language

60

7

51

Public31

20

68Medium to medium
high SES Private
upgrading

80

40

42

Upper secondary
teacher prep (NIE)

68

2

42

Primary and lower
secondary teacher
prep (PTTC, RTTC)

67

2

61

Low SES private

79

10

73

Type

Average Tuition(annual in US$)% relying on work/
family/scholarshp
primary support% receiving
scholarshipHigh SES (language)533

28/64/1

25

538

29/67/0

11329

16/80/4

39

306

66/32/2

33

17

19/71/3

76

64

4/90/128

Medium to medium
high SES Private
language
PublicMedium to medium
high SES Private
upgradingUpper secondary
teacher prep (NIE)
Primary and lower
secondary teacher
prep (PTTC, RTTC)

Type% Primary% Lower
Secondary% Upper
Secondary% PostSecondaryHigh SES(language)

1

4

10

86

Medium tomedium highSES Private
language

2

5

30

63

Public

0

0

63

37

Medium tomedium highSES Private
upgrading

3

10

60

28

Upper secondary
teacher prep–
NIE

1

2

61

37

Primary andlower secondary
teacher prep
(PTTC RTTC)

18

37

36

8

Type

% of Teaching staff
with PhD% Teaching staff withMA

Students feel well
prepared to teach?
(1‐5: 5=hi)

High SES (language)

3

49

4.0

Medium to medium
high SES Private
language

16

73

3.6

Public

32

52

3.6

Medium to medium
high SES Private
upgrading

10

82

‐‐

Upper secondary
teacher prep (NIE)

5

94

4.3

Primary and lower
secondary teacher
prep (PTTC, RTTC)

0

9

4.3

Low SES private

11

59

3.7

Average Years of Education, Faculty

Average Years (after secondary)

6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4

PublicPrivate

5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
2005

2006

2007
Year

2008

Nature of privatization

How private‐public plays out

Extent to which public/private school and teacher
preparation systems operate separately

Blurring of public and private distinctions by key
stakeholders

For future research

In Cambodia?
Not usefully a binary
Blurred distinctions
Institutional governanceFor profit
Student costs
Desired teaching destination
Relatively unregulated
Systems may operate independently but
different aspects of privatization are pervasive
Multiple enrollment
Multiple teaching
Private classes by public school teachers
Private ownership by some public officials
Private costs in public institutions
Scholarship availability in private institutions
Families and students bear major financial burden in all
Private school attendance by public officials, children
Quality of different institutions
Quality of teachers
Comparison of private K‐12 schools vs. public K‐12
schools
More innovation in private education?

 Private higher education plays an important role in teacher preparation in

Cambodia.
 However private higher and post‐secondary teacher education is complex,
appearing to:• Provide spaces which the government may not be able to provide• Provide access to middle class students as well as to lower SES
families• Draws additional resources into the higher education system• Stratify multiple aspects of teacher preparation, from students’
aspirations to costs to likely choices students haveQuestions, Comments, Suggestions
Thoughts?

Illustrative dimensions of privatization

GovernanceFunding

Enrollment
Teaching
Teachers’ educational backgrounds
Teachers’ destinations
Teachers’ income
Incentives

Governed by public or non-public entities?
If non-public, for-profit, not for profit
If for profit, private or public shares
Legal regulations—nature of laws regulating higher
education, details of regulations, tightness,monitoring and enforcement capacity
Ownership by government officials vs. non-public
officials vs. NGOs
Ownership by national or international individuals
or entities
Exclusively public? Mixture of public and nonpublic? Exclusively non-public?
Percentage of university funded by student tuition
Availability of scholarships, amounts,
qualifications
Availability of loans, amounts, qualifications,
repayment
Grants from public institutions
Grants from international entities—governments,
international agencies, NGOs, individuals
Enrollment in 1 public institution vs. 1 private
institution vs. multiple enrollment
Teaching in 1 public institution vs. 1 private
institution vs. multiple teaching commitments
Public school, private, bothPublic school, private, both
From school alone, from private tutoring, from side
job, combinations
Competition among schools for students, grants,
recognition, curriculumStudents’ experience and outlook on teaching as a career
Question: Percentage of respondents who:
Reported applying to other higher education institutions(HEI)… applied to another HEI who applied to a public
institution… to a private institution
Were enrolled in more than one HEI
Had taught prior to their current studies… of which, percentage who had taught in a private
schoolReported feeling they had realistic career options otherthan teaching
Felt their standard of living would be higher than that of
their parents… Felt it would be lower… Saw no difference or did not know
Indicated preference for public school teaching… Indicated preference for private… For either
Indicated desire to teach in Phnom Penh
… Elsewhere
Reported wanting to teach at:… Primary school… Lower secondary school… Upper secondary school… Post-secondary school:
Felt it would be very or somewhat difficult to getteaching position
Said following were most important in getting a teachingposition:… Ability… Qualifications… Name and prestige of institution… Connections; Grades; Effort; Commitment
Ranked following important in teaching as career(highest to lowest)… Contribution to country… Contribution to community… Job security… Interaction with children… Being close to family… Salary… Ease of getting a position… Moonlighting potential… Being in an urban area
Said they would like their son or daughter to become ateacher… Said they didn’t know
Said they wanted their child to teach in public school

Percent
14
30
70
14
42
43
56
57
8
36
47
8
36
31
69
6
12
48
35
83

66
21
9
less than 5
80
73
76
59
64
61
59
44
39

50, 5032, 3370

… Private school
Expect to teach for rest of their careers
Be teaching in ten years
Say their primary funding for studies comes from:… Family… Work… Loans… Scholarships
Receive some scholarship… which covers 100% of tuition… which covers less than 50% of tuition

16
63
81
70
24
4
2
40
63
32

Potential outcomes of privatization and our assessment
Potential pros and cons ofprivatization
Private provision broadens access

In Cambodia?
Appears to do so… though not necessarily toprestigious institutions
Privatization may foster”- Stratification- Segregation of well-off students

Appear to be private institutions forwell-off and for poorer-

Appears to do so
Appears to do so--

May do so, though possibly
inadvertent

Allowing of institutions
catering to low SES students to
reduce pressure of populardemandPrivatization may bring additional
resources into the system
May allow public resources to be
deployed primarily toward the eliteor other sectors, letting government“off the hook” for provision to all
May allow public resources to beallocated to needier investments
Private costs students more

… leading to higher quality

Teaching may be dead end

Moderately strong,correctional

Strong, indirect – more institutions
than government is paying for

Unclear

Impossible to knowYes
In some cases, in others
lower quality (anecdotally)

Depends on institution

Privatization may lead toproliferation of degrees in fields that
may not serve graduates well, or
may not be in the national interest
Teaching may serve as a gateway
profession

Strong, indirect – a lot more students
in school than in public institutions
Moderately strong,correlational

Surely, though also begins to put up
education for sale, may exclude poor

Improve quality through competition

Privatization may bring innovation

Strength of evidence

Unclear, though anecdotally
institutions with external resourcesfrom international donors appeared
to offer innovative programs
Unclear, but only RUPP
offers full curriculum ofarts, sciences, professional
studies, technology, agriculture, etc.
Likely so, especially at upper
secondary, post-secondary levels andin language prep
Also likely so, especially at primarylevel

Strong – logically, survey,
anecdotally, reportedly
Visually & anecdotally, varies –some private have great facilities,
others very poor
Competition is evident, whether
quality is improved, or marketing is
unclearDifficult to see much innovation intime, approach we used
Difficult to know, but most private
universities offer similar range ofsubjects – language, business, andsuch
Many students come from humble
backgrounds, virtually all havepassed parents’ education levels
Unclear but changes to salary scale
surely needed