Building Capacity for a Sustainable Future in Vietnamese Education
Malcolm H Field*, Ian H Frank***
Kyorin University, Mitaka City, Tokyo, Japan**
Future University Hakodate, Hakodate, Hokkaido, Japan
Abstract
For governments, capacity is measured in potential or realized economic development. In Vietnam,
educational training seminars abound, but what evidence is there of transfer: operationalized
knowledge in real-world contexts?
Vietnam’s recent progress is a South East Asian success story. Between 1990 and 2016, GDP grew bymore than 3000% (WENR, 2017), and the 2015 PISA results - 8th in science, 17th in math and 19th inreading - outstripped countries with much higher GDP output and wealth. This incredible rise is notguaranteed into the future. Much is dependent upon a combination of complex factors, including
government policy, sustained foreign direct investment, infrastructure development, and themodernizing of systems and services.
Some, notably including the World Bank, have attempted to attribute Vietnam’s performance tofactors related to education, both cultural (focus on school work, time studying outside classrooms)
and systemic (centralized education, school resources, connectivity, more children in early andprimary education). Continued growth would then require the expansion and development of theeducation and vocational training sectors.
We believe that quality of teaching is a reflection of the quality of the teacher training and theinstitutional support that teachers receive. Further, we believe that capacity development goes beyond
practice and policy implementation: it extends to the changing of mindsets and of attitudes that lead toquality of life, and to the empowerment of individuals, leaders, organizations and society. That is,“the training of educators is one of the pillars of sustainable development and national capacity
building” (AlAlfi, 2018).
This paper reflects on our many years (well over a decade combined) of working with educators andof leading seminars in Vietnam. Using theoretical understandings of capacity development, wereconcile our participant observations and experiences against the literature, and draw conclusions
about building sustainable future capacity in the Vietnamese education sector.
Kyorin University, 5-4-1 Shimorenjaku, Mitaka-shi, Tokyo, 181-8612, Japan
Future University Hakodate, 116-2 Kameda Nakano, Hakodate, Hokkaido, 041-8655, Japan

Introduction
From a platform of a GDP increase of over 3000% between 1990 and 2016 (WENR, 2017),
Vietnam’s economy is predicted to grow by more than six percent by 2020 (World Bank,
2016), and to become the world’s 20th largest before 2050 (PWC, 2017). The World
Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2017-2018 also highlights Vietnam’s
progress, moving it up five places from the previous year, and twenty places in the last five
years (Hara, 2017). Factor in Vietnam’s excellent 2015 PISA (Programme for International
Student Assessment) results, where it outperformed countries with much higher GDP
output and wealth, and Vietnam’s potential is easily recognizable.
A prime candidate as a catalyst of Vietnam’s rapid success is its investment in education. For
example, the leader of the OECD’s Directorate of Education and Skills put the 2010 level ofthe Vietnamese government’s expenditure devoted to education at 21% - a larger
proportion than in any OECD country (Schleicher 2015). Researchers at the World Bank
(Parandekar and Sedmik, 2016) have used mathematical tools to analyze Vietnam’s 2012
PISA results in detail, suggesting two types of educational factor to explain the `Vietnam
effect’ in education: cultural and systemic. Examples from the former category include
students being more focused on their school work, being less likely to arrive late for school,and spending more time studying outside the classroom than in other developing countries.
For the latter, candidates include centralized education (bringing with it an emphasis on
student achievement and teacher supervision) and the number of children in early andprimary education. Parandekar and Sedmik’s work predicts much future research analyzing
the sources of Vietnam’s educational success, and has been widely commented on, forexample (Pfeiffer 2017).
Given the linkage between economic growth and educational performance, a continued
upwards path for Vietnam would appear to require an accompanying expansion anddevelopment of the education and vocational training sectors. This necessarily brings us tothe questions of what capacity development is in educational terms and how can it be
pursued?
Capacity Development
For some, capacity development relates primarily to the process of teaching, making it amatter of directly improving educational pactices and training. For others, capacity
development is more about the strengthening of institutions, even extending to broadinterpretations that include improvements in human rights and access freedoms. In terms ofactual definitions, the WHO describes capacity building with a broad brush as thedevelopment and strengthening of human and institutional resources (United Nations,2006). With a finer granularity, (UNESCO, 2012) splits educational capacity development
into four categories: institutional (rules, policy), organizational (structures and systems to
support rules), staff (skills and proficiencies of individuals), and technical (knowledge andtools needed to complete target actions). The Education for All Fast-Track Initiative adopted
an OECD (2006) definition with three layers: “the ability of people, organisations and society
to manage their affairs successfully” (p.6) carrying an implication that environments2

influence the behavior of institutions and individuals by defining the rules, the structures
and the outputs. With this stance, low performance would be attributed to lack of skills andtraining (ibid.). As capacity development is context dependent, it requires “systematic effort
to strategically [aim at]… three levels of capacity (individual, organizational andinstitutional)…” (Op. Cit.) and consideration of the interactions between the three levels. In
this interpretation, educational capacity development predominantly becomes the purview
of local institutions, organizations, and individuals, more than any agency, institution ortraining program. It becomes “a process undertaken jointly…in collaborative partnerships”(Vallejo & When, 2016, p.4). Collaborative partnership can be a facilitator of sustainablecapacity development, as it can help communities address the issues arising when new skills
and knowledge are introduced.
A yet more detailed approach is followed by UNESCO (2012)1, which outlines six actions andidentifies five domains that need to be considered when assessing capacity needs. The
domains are strategic policies, governance and management, human resources, financial
resources, and technologies. The actions range from the first step of “engaging
stakeholders” at all levels from government to local individuals when developing asustainable capacity development strategy (p.20), to the final action of `closing the loop’
through “monitoring and evaluation”. An understanding that capacity development is “notan isolated one-off activity (such as provision of specific training)” (Op. Cit.) is identified as
crucial. This view brings with it an acceptance that although a training may target standalone capacity development, unless it is embedded within a context it may neither transfer
nor be sustainable. Potential difficulties arise from the complexity of ascertaining the impact
and sustainability of change, especially as budgetary limitations and long-term access toparticipants are constraints in many capacity development programs. Benefits may notalways be tangible – especially in the short term. To offset this problem, many organizations
and institutions use basic numeric data as success indicators (for example, participant
numbers and exposure time) rather than attempting the more demanding measurement of
whether changes in behaviours and practices have actually resulted, and whether any suchoutcomes are in fact sustainable.2
Within this mix, our focus is on educational development, with a strong awareness thatdeveloping educational capacity does not exist in a vacuum, but within an integrated
system. We mind the many lessons from the literature that “not enough thought has been
given to the broader political and social context within which capacity development efforts
take place” (OECD, 2006). We concur with the UNDP (2009, p.5) view of capacity
development that: “it is the process through which individuals, organizations and societies
obtain, strengthen and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their own development
objectives over time.” The UNDP argues that any capacity development approach must leadto transformation, sustainable over time, and generated from within (ibid,). As such,capacity development goes beyond performing tasks and activities and policy
implementation: it is about changing mindsets and attitudes that lead to improved quality
lives, the empowerment of individuals, of leaders, of organizations and of societies.
1

An in-depth look at this publication is outwith the scope of this paper, but highly recommended.
Refer (Vallejo & When, 2016) Capacity Development Evaluation: The Challenge of the Results Agenda andMeasuring Return on Investment in the Global South.
23Throughout our combined more than ten years of conducting numerous and varied training
workshops and seminars, we have attempted to provide new skill sets to teachers,
educational managers, leaders of schools and higher education, and by extension, to othereducational trainers. Our aim has been to help in producing better and more efficientlearning outcomes that can be applied both in educational environments and in a wider
cultural context to build, enhance and maintain quality of life. In this, we would like tobelieve in the sentiment expressed by the AlAlfi foundation that:“…the training of educators is one of the pillars of sustainable development andnational capacity building ... Quality in teacher and principal education for teaching
future citizens will, in the long run, contribute to alleviation of poverty, promotion ofequity, democracy, professionalism, ethical conduct and good governance.”3

But training seminars abound, with diverse objectives running the gamut from professional
development to inner peace. We must therefore ask how it is that evidence of transfer fromevents to the real world can be provided? How can skills and proficiencies operationalized inreal-world contexts be measured and reported on?
Educational Capacity Development 1: Macro down
Education’s role in improving lives and economies is well documented. From UNESCO’s
Millennium Development Goals (MDG) to the OECD’s PISA global rankings and China’s rise,
education has been seen as a prime avenue to enhance social lives, improve economic
productivity, and develop technological prowess. It follows that it is initially at the macrolevel that the country and political objectives and systems either aid or hinder capacity
development in education. As an example reference, consider the conclusion of (Land et al,2015) that “discourse has been intimately associated with evolving discussions aroundcountry ownership, partnership and aid effectiveness, with increasing appreciation of thepolitical, cultural and related contextual dimensions of capacity development”. Relevant
issues include the structures of education systems, accreditation of courses and awards,
financing, resources, policies, rules, teacher training and political norms.
Time, space and context are crucial to this discussion. By time, we refer to the ongoing
monitoring of educational goals, objectives and delivery of learning potentials. Many ofthese in Vietnam are focused on single-set skills, sometimes described as I-type skills. A
general trend of an evolution towards T-type professionals (depth of knowledge in one
discipline or skill and a wider general knowledge) has been one result of the Web 2.0
revolution, and its effects can be witnessed in urban centers in Vietnam. A logical endpoint
here is aπ-type skill portfolio, denoting at least two in-depth skills or disciplines along with apractical understanding of general knowledge and global interaction. Some, for example Joi

3

The authors have no affiliation or agenda relating to this organization, which we encountered via a random
walk of the Internet, see http://www.alalfifoundation.org/en/talent-center/capacity-building-for-schoolteachers-principals.aspx.

4

Ito from MIT, have gone further to propose that the future of education is `no-discipline’,with multidisciplinary frameworks melding into one.
Space refers to how and where educational practices occur and learners engage: are policies
enabling or are they restrictive? It is here that organizational practices and proceduresintersect with local communities. Space relates to the autonomy and accountability ofeducators: do the tools available to educators and learners ensure that stakeholders (suchas policy makers, educational leaders, teachers and even parents) understand theconsequences of implementing policies in their local environments?
Finally, context recognizes that educational practices are situated within the frameworks ofcountries: histories, customs, beliefs, political systems, fears and creativities. Naïve
application of international assessment and comparative educational practices, such as
those often forthcoming from the OECD, can do more harm than good when countries areattempting to develop sustainable educational capacity. To offer just one example,
focussing on Korea’s high tertiary graduation rates can hide the reality of degree inflationand that many there may soon be at risk of losing jobs to advances in technology. In thecontext of Vietnam, claiming that the country’s exceptional educational results contributeto economic growth carries risk, since much of Vietnam’s output is arguably based on lowknowledge and low to medium-skill production of goods rather than high-end technologicaland innovative ventures.
Educational Capacity Development 2: Micro up“…for capacity building to be effective, it must respond to the growth anddevelopment needs of the individual as well as those of the relevant institutions. For
all practical purposes, building teacher capacity is, ultimately, engenderingdevelopment, growth and excellence within an education system.”(Egbo, 2011)

Many educators recognize that the micro-level is where capacity development is mostpowerful. In the final analysis, it is at this level that the educational goals and objectives forboth learners and macro-level systems must be realized. There is a plethora of publications
that focus on sound pedagogical practice (e.g., Moyles et al, 2002; Lozano, R, et al, 2017). It
is no accident that of the six areas identified by Hattie as contributing to effective learning(Hattie 2012, Hattie & Yates2014) 4 at least four - the individual, the home, the teacher, andteaching/learning beliefs and pedagogy - are primarily `micro’ in nature, even if societal
contexts may give them some `macro’ flavor. The remaining two areas (school and curricula)also have a significant `micro’ characteristic, depending on the extent to which centralized
authorities play a part in their implementation5.
4

A visualization of the six components can be found at https://visiblelearning.org/nvd3/visualize/hattie-ranking-interactive-2009-2011-2015.html.
5
There are significant questions regarding the statistical validity of Hattie’s work, for example see(Bergeron 2017). However, its policy impact is undeniable, with even non-converts making
acknowledgements such as “Hattie’s work is everywhere in contemporary Australian schoolleadership” (Eacot, 2017).

5

In some of our training seminars we have introduced an educational framework proposedby the Harvard professor Richard Elmore (Elmore 2014). To quote Candice Bocala, amember of the teaching team for the framework who contributed to its philosophical basis:“People learn best when… they are able to apply knowledge about themselves… when… they
can create clarity out of confusion… when… they can develop and test new designs.”

The value of Elmore’s framework is that it positions learning as the base upon which allother factors can be understood or audited and reconciled. What a community or individual
understands about learning influences the educational structures they build, how they
design curricula and classrooms, how they teach or instruct and what pedagogy to adopt,and how they lead and mange institutions and classrooms. These factors affect whether
capacity development can be sustained. What emerges from frameworks such as those ofboth Hattie and Elmore is that the micro level is crucial.
We believe that with the exception of outliers, the quality of teaching is a reflection of thequality of teacher training and the institutional support that teachers receive. As Sindhi and
Shah (2016) note: “The vicious cycle of poor quality in-service teacher development begins
with the absence of high quality teacher educators”. We agree with the conclusion thatwell-trained teacher educators are necessary for sustainable education.
Although economic constraints may be used as a first recourse to explain sub-optimalteacher training, examples from across the globe highlight that much can be achieved evenin the face of less-than-ideal financing. The challenge for schools and for training institutions
and policy makers alike is addressing how learning can be sustainably supported andimproved within the limitations of the available resources (Mirunde, 2015).
In summary, we believe that capacity development at the micro-level is a necessary starting
point for discussion of educational futures. This is the level that directs research-teachingadministration-community pathways and drives philosophies about the purpose and role ofeducation and the development of capacity. It is here that collaborative partnerships
facilitate sustainable capacity development because they can effectively address the issues
that communities face with the skills and knowledge deemed necessary for progress. It iswith this in mind that we attempt to frame our own learning from Vietnam.
A Long-Term Vietnam Relationship
Combined, the authors have an association with Vietnam’s education sector that exceeds
ten years. This has encompassed many experiences, including practical (for example, visiting
schools and observing classes and talking with teachers), professional (delivering training
seminars) and academic (presenting at international conferences). We have worked withinternational organizations, private conglomerates, universities, training institutes, NGOs,
private schools, and even with the tourism sector. We have met with educational managers
and leaders, participated in numerous planning meetings, enjoyed socialization, and ofcourse committed many cultural faux pas. Throughout, our objective has been the6

development of a sustainable capacity. Throughout, conversations with participants havealways led to their local contexts. Throughout, we have targeted follow-up in local contexts.
Especially from our seminars, there is one key observation that emerges: the people we
encountered displayed notable motivation and desire to be exposed to and to adopt newleadership strategies and teaching pedagogy. Even when seminar attendance was requiredby local authorities, the active engagement with the learning material and tasks was anindication that individuals in local contexts were open to additional learning opportunities
and leadership pathways. We also found that creativity was often more evidenced thanlogical and rational thinking - a realization that we explain by the coincidence that most of
our seminar participants did not have primary backgrounds in mathematics or the sciences(although on one memorable occasion a professor from an Engineering faculty expressed
his delight upon realizing how an apparently unrelated practical task could be transferred tothe specialist education of his students). Nevertheless, in several of our seminars, theapplication of scientific and mathematical concepts with cultural ideas demonstrated that
educational standards could be localized.
Of course, we sometimes encountered circumstances beyond our control that negatively
impacted on potential, resulting in a lack of engagement or in mis-aligned expectations.
Prime amongst these was the scheduling of extended seminars on weekends, taking awayfrom the family time traditionally valued in Vietnamese culture. Further, over the course ofmany years of varied seminars, we came to recognize a gap in basic educational andpedagogical practices. This gap seemed most prominent between the private and public
sectors. Using just the blunt metric of participant numbers, we came to be unsurprised byenrollment numbers at seminars in rural setting to rise as high as 300, whereas whenworking with NGOs in bespoke sessions in the environs of Ho Chi Minh City numbers could
be as low as 25. Participation rates for intermediate urban sessions hovered at around 100
or below, particularly when working with private conglomerates or universities. Maybe
unsurprisingly, we found that the higher the number of participants, the more difficult it
became to manage tasks, to allow for differences in perspective towards strategy andoutcomes, and to arrive at task completion. Notwithstanding this background, after we
modified a seminar following direct requests from participants in a rural setting (that is,dialogue with stakeholders at the community level), the level of educational practice andunderstanding demonstrated was equal to anything we had witnessed in urban settings –school, bespoke training institution or university.
We claim no statistical significance for any lessons drawn from our experiences. There weremany variables far beyond our control, for example the capacity of seminar participants tounderstand a second language. We brought with us a strong weakness to all ourinteractions: an inability to function in a common language other than English. This made us
reliant on the translation skills of interpreters (not to mention interpreters’ theoreticaleducational knowledge and experiences). Teaching Assistants (TAs) also became a filter of
information and knowledge, which could only be practically monitored if errors were
evidenced whilst on-task. In general, we found that the pool of TAs was lacking in thespecific areas of capacity development being asked of participants. Given the luxury of some
repeated seminars with the same assistants, we were able to improve TA knowledge andpractice, but never fully to desired levels.

7

Over our long Vietnam relationship, we have re-iterated at each possible juncture our desireto (and need for access to) work with communities and teachers in local contexts. With the
exception of a large private urban school, we have not able to instigate such collaborations
in a significant way. It is this specific shortcoming that we address in the following section, inthe hope that the forthcoming decade may be one of significant progress and may benefit
from a grounded insistence by those taking the lead (be it our own renewed resolution, or
the choice of those that mobilize after we step to one side).
Sustainable Futures
Our experiences support the thinking developed in the Education for All – Fast Track
Initiative Framework that capacity development cannot be defined or limited to short-term
training activities, workshops or courses. Ideologically, our closest inspirations have become
educational philosophers such as Dewey or Illich, who argued for strategies that grow frominteraction in `micro’ contexts involving all stakeholders. Whereas external or top-downinterventions are rarely sustainable, trust and capacity can in contrast be built whenschools, communities and individuals at the local level have some stake in a process. Suchapproaches require commitment, ownership, a consistent and transparent leadership and along-term vision that transcends institutional politics and policies. An inspired example hereis the work in Peru of the NGO “PRATEC”– from the Spanish acronym for the Andean
Project for Peasant Technologies. They took a failing top-down transplantation of acentralized education system and transformed it through micro-level action thatincorporated a framing concept from the native Quechua language: Iskay Yachay, or “TwoKinds of Knowledge”. This work deserves to be better known, but since it lacks a canonicalEnglish language print reference, we encourage readers instead to view its publicly available
videos.6
Within Vietnam there are individuals, organizations and governments that are mobilizing
under similar kinds of principles. We take the opportunity provided by this paper tohighlight just one representative: the “Teach for Vietnam” movement, an NGO created by
Phuc Huynh (MBA, Harvard) under the auspices of Global Education Network “Teach For All”
program. Teach for Vietnam invites people (usually young) to teach, work with and live in
local communities for at least two years. Currently, most of the training of these “fellows” isas teachers of English, but there is no systemic reason why this should be the only discipline.
A description from the organization’s web site is instructive: “Fellows are equipped withdeep local understanding, skills, and expertise to make positive impacts on students, local
teachers, parents, and community.”7 Although working with curricula laid out at thenational (macro) level, the realization via a partnership with (micro) local communities
results in trust gains that act as a genuine catalyst for “collective impact” change inclassrooms and in schools. Both the model and the outcomes differ significantly from theoften-seen top-down (macro) trainings that can suffer by being insulated from localized
community needs and practices.
6

For example, here is a 30-minute sub-titled program made available by “InsightShare”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98FU3DX9EKs
7Teach for Vietnam, http://teachforvietnam.org/?lang=en

8

Our “Vietnam decade” gave us an invaluable impetus to consider the experiences of others(both in Vietnam and elsewhere) and to frame our experiences within the existing literature
on capacity development. Let us sign-off as simply as possible: for a goal of sustainable
future capacity development, we believe that Vietnam’s enormous potential can be
nurtured by privileging the `micro’ of individuals and communities, which in turn may
impact the `macro’ of institutions, organizations and policy-makers.
References
Bergeron, P. (2017) How to Engage in Pseudoscience with Real Data: A Criticism of John Hattie’s
Arguments in `Visible Learning’ From the Perspective of a Statistician, McGill Journal of
Education, Vol 52, No 1, http://mje.mcgill.ca/article/view/9475/7229, accessed May 2018
Con, K. (2014) Identifying Effective Education Interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-analysis of
rigorous impact evaluations, Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University, Graduate School ofArts and Sciences
Education for All Fast Track Initiative (2008) Guidelines for the Capacity Development in the
Education Sector, available at
http://toolkit.ineesite.org/toolkit/INEEcms/uploads/1039/Guidelines_Capacity_Development_Educ_Sector.pdf, accessed April 2018
Eacot, S. (2017) School leadership and the cult of the guru: the neo-Taylorism of Hattie, School
Leadership And Management, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1327428,
accessed May 2018
Egbo, B. (2011) Teacher Capacity Building and Effective Teaching and Learning: A seamlessConnection, Keynote at International Conference on Teaching, Learning and Change,
International Association for Teaching and Learning (IATEL), 2011
Elmore, R. (2014) edX, Harvard GSE2x, Leaders of Learning, accessed June 2014
https://courses.edx.org/courses/HarvardX/GSE2x/2T2014/526d076c84c1481885a3260f6dad6
d93/
Hattie, J. (2012) Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning, Routledge: Oxon
Hattie, J. & Yates, G.C.R. (2014) Visible Learning and the Science of How we Learn, Routledge: Oxon
Hara, K. (2017) Indonesia, Vietnam leap up global competitiveness list, Nikkei Asia Review, 27
September 2017, at https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/Economy/Indonesia-Vietnamleap-up-global-competitiveness-list
Lozano, R., Merrill, M.Y., Sammalisto, K., Ceulemans, K., & Lozano, F.J. (2017) Connecting
Competences and Pedagogical Approaches for Sustainable Development in Higher Education:
A Literature Review and Framework Proposal, Sustainability, 9, 1889, 20 October 2017, at
www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/10/1889/pdf, accessed June 2018
Land, A., Grejin, H., Hauck, V. & Ubels, J. (2015) Reflecting on 25 years of capacity development andemerging trends, p.1-18, Capacity Development Beyond Aid, SNV Netherlands Development
Organisation
Mirunde, A. (2015) Training and Professional Development Needs for Effective Secondary School
Management, Doctoral Dissertation for University of Tanzania, at
http://repository.out.ac.tz/1270/1/DISSERTATION_-_Albano%2C_Mirunde-MED-APPS.pdf
Moyles, J., Adams, S., & Musgrove, A. (2002) SPEEL Study of Pedagogical Effectiveness in Early
Learning, Department for Education and Skills, Anglia Polytechnic University, Research Report
RR363, available at http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4591/1/RR363.pdf
Mulford, B. (2003) School Leaders; Challenging Roles and Impact in Teacher and School
Effectiveness, OECD Commissioned Paper, April 2003, at
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/37133393.pdf
OECD (2006) OECD (2006) The Challenge of Capacity Development: Working Towards Good Practice,
OECD, A DAC Reference Document, available at9http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/capacitybuilding/pdf/DAC_paper_final.pdf,
accessed May 2018
Perlman, J., Winthrop, R., McGivney, E. (2016) Millions Learning: Scaling Up Quality Education in
Developing Countries, Brookings Institute: Washington DC
Parandekar, S. D., and Sedmik, E.K. (2016) Unraveling a Secret: Vietnam’s Outstanding Performanceon the PISA Test Policy Research Working Paper 7630, World Bank Group, Education Global
Practice Group at
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/258431468196137980/pdf/WPS7630.pdf
PISA (2015) PISA 2015 Results (Volume 1): Excellence and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing,at http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/pisa-2015-resultsvolume-i_9789264266490-en#page46
Pfeiffer, C. (2016) Vietnam’s students perform mysteriously well on tests, and researchers havefigured out why, Business Insider, 14 July 2016, at http://www.businessinsider.com/vietnamsstudents-test-well-and-a-new-paper-has-figured-out-why-2016-7
PWC (2017) The Long View: How will the global economic order change by 2050? Price Waterhouse
Cooper, Economics Team Report
Ranjan, N. & Rahman, N (date??) Role of Teacher in Enhancing Learning Achievement of Child &Emphasis on Teacher Skill Development, Knowledge Building and ICT, OneWorld South Asia, at
http://www.dhsekerala.gov.in/downloads/role_tech.pdf
Sindhi, S.A. & Shah, A.R. (2015) Capacity Building of Teacher Educators; A Harbinger of Quality
Education at School Level, Concurrents.org, 26 Feb.2015, athttps://www.countercurrents.org/sindhi260215.htm
Schleicher, A. (2015) Vietnam's 'stunning' rise in school standards, British Broadcasting Corporation
News, 17 June 2015, at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-33047924
Vallejo, B. & When, U. (2016) Capacity Development Evaluation: The Challenge of the Results
Agenda and Measuring Return on Investment in the Global South, World Development, Vol.79,
pp.1-13
United Nations (2006) Definition of basic concepts and terminologies in governance and public
administration, ECOSOC Committee of Experts on Public Administration, E/C.16/2006/4, 5thJanuary 2006, New York, available at
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan022332.pdf
United Nations Development Programme (2009) Capacity Development: A UNDP Primer, UNDP,
2009, United Nations Press; New York
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/capacitydevelopment/capacity-development-a-undp-primer/CDG_PrimerReport_final_web.pdf
UNESCO (2012) Guidelines for Capacity Development in Education Policy Planning and Resource
Management, Education Sector, ED/PED, UNESCO, available at
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002202/220274e.pdf, accessed April 2018
World Bank (2016) Word Bank Data, at https://data.worldbank.org/country/vietnam
World Education News and Reviews (2017) Education in Vietnam, WENR Asia Pacific, 8 Nov. 2017, athttps://wenr.wes.org/2017/11/education-in-vietnam

10