Search results

The article aims to offer an introduction to the special issue on changing education governance in Asia.

A brief overview of the issue is provided.

The article notes that one of the prominent issues running through the issue is the dilemma between the assertion of academic freedom and the deepening governance/management reforms in schools and universities.

The article highlights that the issue offers a distinct comparative perspective in analyzing recent changes in education governance and management in selected Asian societies.

The principal goal of the article is to examine how Singapore, one of the East Asian tiger economies, has attempted to diversify its higher education system by developing “transnational education” in the island state.

With particular reference to the most recent education reforms and changing higher education governance in Singapore, this article focuses on how the Singapore government has changed its higher education governance models in enhancing the global competitiveness of its higher education system by adopting more pro‐competition policy instruments and allowing the growth of transnational education in the city state.

The findings suggest the choice of policy tools (the choice of market forces in higher education and the rise of transnational education in the present case) is highly political and governments should pay particular attention to the particular socio‐economic and socio‐political contexts of their countries when making such choices.

The paper shows that the role of government in East Asia is still important, especially when there is a strong need for government to set up appropriate regulations, social protection and welfare, hence, governments in East Asia are very much conceived as a complement to the markets.

Globalization and the evolution of a knowledge‐based economy have caused dramatic changes to the character and functions of education in most countries around the world. In order to enhance the overall competitiveness of individual nation‐states in the global market environment, comprehensive education reforms have been launched in different parts of the globe to strengthen manpower training. Realizing the fact that there is only one resource in Singapore – human capital – the Singapore government therefore has tried to maximize the potential of its citizens in the further advancement of its economic modernization. In order to make its citizens more creative and innovative, the Singapore government openly acknowledges the importance of allowing more autonomy for schools in charting their own courses of development. By introducing a policy of decentralization, the Singapore government hopes that schools could have more autonomy and flexibility to develop their strengths and thereby individual schools can evolve with their own unique features. One way to promote quality education is the introduction of the “school excellence model” (SEM) to engage schools in self‐improvement and self‐assessment exercises. This paper sets out in this policy context to examine and study the newly proposed SEM, with particular reference to examining and studying the philosophy and principles, major features and detailed procedures of this quality assurance model. More specifically, this paper will also analyze this model in light of the global trends of educational decentralization and marketization, reflecting upon the changing role of the Singapore government in educational governance.

Although the existing literature indicates the strategy of decentralization adopted by the Chinese government has permitted the introduction of transnational higher education (TNHE) into mainland China at its very beginning in the 1980s, relatively little research has been conducted to explore the effects of the ensuing-released policies on the development of TNHE after then, especially at institutional level. The purpose of this paper is to fill this research gap by presenting data/information about recent development of TNHE in China and analyzing teachers’/students’ perceptions of autonomy enjoyed by the newly emerging cooperation type, Sino-foreign cooperation universities.

Based upon the purposive sampling method, we chose University A and B as case studies in this research to ensure the representativeness, since they cooperate separately with the major exporters of TNHE in China. In addition, key informants and snowball sampling were adopted to select our respondents. In total 5 administrative staff and 12 students were interviewed to evaluate their working/ learning experience there. The detailed information about the interviewees are listed as Appendix.

The fieldwork conducted in 2014 and 2015 reveals the governance model toward Sino-foreign cooperation universities could be categorized as predominantly decentralized. Specifically, the authors listed the most obvious aspects showing the different level of autonomy enjoyed by different cooperation types below: the internal administrative structure, the enrollment capacity, the criteria of admission and the quality assurance method.

This paper critically explores how local education bureaus regulate these TNHE programs in general and monitor the operation of the overseas university campuses being founded in China in particular. In addition, this paper also reports the field interviews with faculty members and students, particularly their evaluation of working/learning experiences in the field of TNHE. Most important of all, this paper critically reflects upon the changing educational governance and explores what regulatory regime could better conceptualize the changing state-TNHE relations in China.

The article aims to use the globalization theory and the implications of democratization for social policy to analyze the school governance reforms in Taiwan and South Korea.

The article describes the main features of decentralization policy in the school sectors in the two societies with a historical review of their democratic transition and educational reforms during the 1990s. It then classifies decentralization into two categories, namely managerial decentralization and societal decentralization, by conceptualizing their context, rationales and policy instruments. It closes by considering the implications of Taiwan's and South Korea's experiences for educational decentralization and education reforms.

It is found that in Taiwan there is a comprehensive and institutionalized empowerment of teachers and parents but full institutionalization of involvement of the school community is still in progress in South Korea.

This article reviews and compares the development and major changes of school governance in Taiwan and South Korea.

This paper sets out in the wider context of globalization to examine how and what specific reform strategies the Government of the Hong Kong special administrative region (HKSAR) has adopted in reforming its higher education system to enhance the competitiveness of its higher education in the increasingly globalizing economic context. More specifically, this paper has chosen a focus to examine how, and in what way universities in Hong Kong have attempted to make themselves internationally competitive, and what systems have been introduced to assure quality.

This paper adopts a case study approach in examining recent higher education changes/reforms in Hong Kong. Using literature survey, documentary and policy analysis, intensive interviews, as well as field observations, the paper has provided a comprehensive review and a critical analysis of higher education governance in Hong Kong.

This paper has reviewed major higher education reforms in the HKSAR, with particular reference to examine how higher education institutions have changed the ways that they are governed and managed. Academics working in Hong Kong nowadays are confronted with increasing pressures from the government to engage in international research, commanding a high quality of teaching and contributing to professional and community services. As Hong Kong universities have tried to benchmark with top universities in the world, they are struggling very hard to compete for limited resources. “Doing more with less” and “doing things smarter” are becoming fashionable guiding principles in university management and governance. Internal competition in the university sector is inevitably becoming keener and intensified.

The paper discusses the case study of Hong Kong which reflects how a rapidly developed economies in East Asia have attempted to tackle the growing impact of globalization on higher education governance.

This paper provides a comprehensive picture of how the universities in Hong Kong have responded to increasingly intensified quality assurance pressures, and fills an identified information gap on specific strategies in promoting the international competitiveness of universities in the city‐state in East Asia.

This paper aims to trace the evolution of two initiatives – the direct subsidy scheme and independent schools initiative – their genesis, rationale, current form and take‐up rate. It also analyses them as education reforms in terms of policymaking dynamics. The very notion of the term “privatization” will be examined.

The article examines the two school privatization schemes in Hong Kong and Singapore, by putting into perspective a discussion of their policy implications, thereby reflecting on their similarities and differences in their agenda, implementation and implications.

The findings indicate that the DSS and independent school schemes in both Hong Kong and Singapore are in line with the global trends of privatization. It is suggested that the governments of the two places have adopted different approaches in the implementations of their schemes.

The paper shows how the direct subsidy scheme and independent schools initiative represent attempts over the past two decades by the governments of Hong Kong and Singapore, respectively to promote school privatization.