1. Home
  2. Our Thoughts

Enhancing Civic Engagement in Educational Governance of Myanmar at Local Level

On 11 July 2024 by SPP

Author: Phyu Nyein

I. INTRODUCTION

It is a well-known truth that the population and labor force in an educated society are crucial in driving demands for social fairness, economic growth, and poverty alleviation. Thus, as a vital and fundamental public service delivery, nearly all governments and duty-bearers concur to supply and commit to greater efforts to deliver effective and efficient educational services.

With its long history of poor educational quality, accessibility, literacy, and other metrics, Myanmar in particular has to focus on finding the most effective, long-term solutions that can accommodate the demands and diversity that have always existed in the nation. Current crises in Myanmar, including the recent coup, highlight the need for a more flexible education system. This system shouldn’t just rely on top-down administration, but should also empower local communities to take initiative since local communities are often more resilient in the face of political and social upheaval and can play a crucial role in delivering education even in difficult times. While examining this environment, it is crucial to increase accountability and ownership in the provision of educational services, as this is a commonly recommended strategy in any successful and functional governance structure.

And systemic civic engagement could be a huge help in achieving this. This paper focuses on helping governance systems and local leaders throughout Myanmar, particularly those emerging from recent crises. It argues that involving citizens (civic engagement) is crucial for building strong communities and creating long-lasting solutions for education delivery. By giving people a voice and a stake in the system, civic engagement fosters a sense of ownership among local communities. This, in turn, encourages transparency and accountability from those making decisions (decision-making bodies) within the education system, also known as education governance.

To achieve this, the paper will analyze past challenges with civic engagement in education especially in the democratic reform period. It will also explore potential solutions and opportunities identified through data collected from frontline service providers and local communities actively involved in local education governance.

A. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF MYANMAR’S HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND PROLONGED CONFLICTS.

Myanmar’s education system boasts a remarkable past. It once enjoyed a golden age, marked by prestigious universities and a high literacy rate achieved through a unique collaboration of monastic, missionary, and state-run education (Lall et al.,2014).

However, this progress began to falter in 1962 with the onset of a series of political upheavals, military coups, and propaganda campaigns. Student activism played a pivotal role in these movements, leading the government to tighten its control over education (Zobrist & McCormick, 2013). This shift in focus, coupled with broader economic struggles, resulted in a decline in educational quality.

Despite these challenges, alternative education systems emerged. Ethnic armed organizations (EAOs), civil society organizations (CSOs), and community groups developed independent education programs, particularly in ethnic minority regions, to counter the junta’s monopoly on education (South & Lall, 2016).

Then, a glimmer of hope arrived in 2011 with a brief period of democratic rule. This era brought in the Comprehensive Education Sector Reform (CESR), a significant reform initiative. The CESR aimed to decentralize the system, promote democratic values, and ensure greater equity in education access. Notably, for the first time, the national education policy involved diverse stakeholders, including NGOs, civil society, and education experts (Basic Education Law, Myanmar,2014 through the amendment in 2015 and 2019). The Basic Education Law further reflected this vision, emphasizing an educated citizen that values diversity and equal opportunity. These reforms fostered optimism for a transformed education landscape.

However, the 2021 coup shattered this progress. The ongoing political turmoil continues to disrupt the education sector, highlighting the enduring link between Myanmar’s political system and its educational outcomes. Consequently, the legacies of dictatorship, including social injustice and unequal access to quality education, continue to plague Myanmar’s education system.

Myanmar’s recent coup highlighted deep flaws in its education system, especially in regions formerly under strict government control. In response, the National Unity Government (NUG, the exiled government) and ethnic groups launched alternative education systems to counter the state’s control (Aung Tun, Sep 22, ISEAS) . However, these parallel systems haven’t effectively filled the educational gaps and instead face their issues.

This situation suggests that past reforms while aiming for democracy, might have missed core problems in delivering educational services. It seems a reliance on a strong central political system isn’t working. We need new approaches that function with less dependence on a centralized system. Empowering citizens to participate in education (civic engagement) could be a good starting point.

B. IMPORTANCE OF CIVIC PARTICIPATION IN THE GOVERNANCE SYSTEM.

Civic engagement is viewed as individual or collective actions by members of the public that aim to influence decision-makers or to pursue common goals or efforts taken by powerholders to share information, and engage in dialogue with or receive feedback from the wider public.(Sumaya et al.The Asia Foundation,2020). Within the governance framework, government agencies assume leadership roles and provide guidance, enhancing national and local participation through transparent and accountable mechanisms. On the service delivery front, citizens, both individually and collectively as civil society organizations (CSOs) or community-based organizations (CBOs), actively participate and represent themselves. They engage in participatory monitoring, budgeting, and auditing processes.

Following Myanmar’s democratic transition, power and authority were allocated between the Union Government and 14 states and regional governments under the 2008 constitution. Each state or region comprises four or five districts, totaling 74 districts overall, with each district containing four or five townships, resulting in a total of 330 townships. Townships are structured based on wards in urban areas and village tracts in rural regions (Hook et.al, Asia Foundation,2015).

In the realm of educational governance in Myanmar, the Ministry of Education (MoE) oversees the formalized education system, categorized into union, state/regional, and local (township) levels. The union minister supervises nine line departments at the union level, with state and regional education offices, district-level offices in some areas, and township-level education offices managing the ministry at subsequent levels (Ministry of Education’s administrative structure). The township-level education office is particularly crucial as it represents the closest administration to frontline service provision points, such as basic education schools. Unlike other sectors of governance structures in Myanmar, school-level administration where service providers-  teachers and service users- students and their relevant community meet is also significant in the education system of Myanmar.

Under the MoE umbrella, the school-level administration, primarily linked with the Basic Education sector, plays a pivotal role. Basic education in Myanmar comprises three levels: primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary (KG+12), influencing literacy, quality education, and equity. From 2011 to the current period under SAC(State and Administration Council) controlled areas, this level has been managed under the Department of Basic Education(DBE) of the Ministry of Education(MoE).

Education law, introduced in 2014 and amended in 2015, underscores civic participation, emphasizing the role of parent-teacher associations, school management committees, school welfare organizations, and other relevant entities. At the school level, where education is directly delivered, organizations play a vital role in fostering local community and guardian participation.

Despite extensive reform efforts, including policy development and legal frameworks, challenges persist, especially for rural youth facing socio-economic barriers. Resource redistribution lacks equity across diverse areas, leading to educational injustice gaps for marginalized and vulnerable groups (Marie Lall,2021). Hence, Civic participation emerges as a key tool to address these issues, particularly at the local level, focusing on schools as vital hubs for engaging students, guardians, and local representatives because of the sustainable nature of local communities roles who are often more resilient in the face of political and social upheaval. And they can play a crucial role in delivering education even in difficult timesby advocating for equal access to education, ensuring transparency and accountability in the management of educational resources, and monitoring the quality of education provided in schools. And another consideration of civic participation is the diverse nature of the country(ethnic, geographical, social, and political)– which needs more localized and customized education services delivery system. It enhances the potential of practicing this approach in the existing and future equipped education system that could be encouraged to local governance actors in different regions in terms of resource efficiency while resources are limited, upbringing the effectiveness of local needs, and developing the culture of community interest in any governance areas as well.

II. DATA COLLECTION METHOD

Data has been collected using a Qualitative Survey (One-to-one interviews + Focus group Discussion) with the local representatives covering Yat Mi Yat Pha (community representatives), PTA members, and SMC members and services providers (teachers+principals). Data has been collected using online communication channels for those who still have and can access it online. And for those who cannot access online communication, community mobilizers used to work for their represent community support by conducting in-person interviews using referred questionnaires. And this paper was also produced from the incorporation of secondary data from existing research and evidence.

THE PAPER IDENTIFIES KEY CHALLENGES IN LIMITED CAPACITY FOR PARTICIPATION, LOW MOTIVATION FOR PARTICIPATION, LACK OF OPEN SPACES FOR DIALOGUE AND WEAK CHECK AND BALANCE SYSTEM.

 
III. BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM AND FINDINGS

This section argues that schools and their associated township offices hold immense potential to boost civic engagement in Myanmar’s formal education system. School-level organizations, like Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) and School Management Committees (SMCs), play a vital role by facilitating communication and fostering collaboration between parents, teachers, and the community.

However, despite the legal framework supporting these organizations, limitations exist. The paper identifies key challenges in Limited Capacity for Participation in terms of centralized decision-making and administrative burdens on service providers, Low Motivation for Participationalong historical negative interactions between the public and government officials, Lack of open spaces for dialogue and Weak Check and Balance System with no or ineffective complaint mechanism in the system.

The paper emphasizes the need to address these challenges to build a strong check and balance system for civic engagement in Myanmar’s education. This includes empowering local communities, streamlining administrative processes, and creating safe spaces for dialogue. By working on these issues, schools can become effective hubs for civic participation, ultimately leading to a more responsive and inclusive education system.

LOCAL SCHOOLS: KEY TO BOOSTING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN MYANMAR’S EDUCATION

This section highlights schools and their associated township offices as the focal points for increasing civic participation in Myanmar’s formal education system. School-level organizations play a crucial role in facilitating this engagement, recognized by the system and ensuring accessibility for local communities.

Schools typically have two key groups:

  • Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs): These associations act as a bridge between parents/guardians and teachers, fostering communication.
  • School Management Committees (SMCs) and other committees based on the projects: Led by school principals and community representatives, these committees oversee and approve the budget process, managing funds allocated by the Ministry of Education (MoE).

Furthermore, some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) contribute to school infrastructure and facilities. Notably, both in rural and urban areas, village-level community-based organizations (CBOs) and village representatives (Yat Mi Yat Pha) actively participate in fundraising and supervising school infrastructure projects.

The PTAs and SMCs frequently share the same community representatives in the majority of areas where public education is the primary service provider, even though this indicates the low level of interest in the education system among the local community and the difficulties posed by their socioeconomic status in devoting time to it. It has also been frequently observed that the educational governance structure makes proper coordination in delivering the services without taking into account NGOs, CBOs, or other informal and non-public education institutions at the local level though there has been incremental involvement of NGOs and other stakeholders at the national level after the reform.

LACK OF EMPHASIS ON CIVIC PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMALIZED SYSTEM.

SCHOOL PRINCIPALS: GATEKEEPERS OR LIMITED PARTNERS IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT?

While research (Landscape of Principalship, Pwint Nee Aung) highlights the multifaceted role of school principals in Myanmar’s education system – leading teaching and learning, managing finances, and overseeing school administration – their ability to promote civic engagement appears constrained.

Following Orders, Not Leading Change:

  • Despite heading school-level organizations like PTAs and SMCs, principals often follow directives from higher authorities, limiting their power to influence decision-making within these bodies. In cases like SMCs, where budgets are pre-determined by higher administration, the role of the principal and committee members becomes primarily focused on monitoring spending through paperwork, hindering opportunities for collaborative decision-making.

Limited Delegation to Teachers:

Principals seem hesitant to delegate power or decision-making authority to teachers, who are the primary service providers in schools. This restricts teacher participation in managing school organizations and potentially dampens their enthusiasm for civic engagement.

ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS OF THE SERVICE PROVIDERS TO FOCUS ON CIVIC PARTICIPATION.

While Myanmar’s public education system aims to increase civic participation at the township level, administrative burdens can act as a barrier for service providers- teachers, school administrators, and administrative staff. Here’s how:

  • Time Constraints: Overly complex administrative processes can consume time that service providers, like teachers and school administrators, could dedicate to engaging with the community.
  • Focus Shifted: Services providers in the system have always been found to work on results-oriented and meeting deadlines. These kinds of excessive paperwork and bureaucratic procedures might shift focus away from fostering meaningful participation with community members.
  • Limited Resources: If administrative tasks require significant resources, it can take away from resources available for community engagement activities. At the school-level organizations, most of the teachers could not participate in engaging through their experience and perspectives, and interactions with the community representatives mean a lot because of their workload on teaching with the shortage of teachers.
  • Reduced Motivation: Tedious administrative burdens could lead to demotivation among service providers, hindering their enthusiasm for community involvement.
  • Communication Gaps: Complex procedures and unclear communication channels between service providers and township offices can create confusion and impede collaboration.

These factors highlight the need for streamlining administrative processes to encourage and support effective civic participation in Myanmar’s education system.

CAPACITY LIMITATIONS OF THE SERVICE PROVIDERS TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE CIVILIAN’S VOICE.

The capacity limitations of service providers in Myanmar pose significant challenges in effectively incorporating the voices of civilians in educational governance. These providers, which include government agencies, NGOs, and education institutions, often lack the necessary knowledge and skills to engage with citizens and facilitate their participation in decision-making processes.

Moreover, there may be a lack of institutional frameworks and mechanisms to promote and facilitate citizen participation in educational governance. Teachers are often lost in engaging with the community to take further steps toward developing positive participation in school-level organizations. They are mostly not informed by the guidance of how to engage rather than the instruction of who to engage and what needs to be done through it.

As a result, the voices of civilians may be marginalized or ignored in policymaking and decision-making processes related to education. Constraints in decentralized decision-making processes for civic engagement in Myanmar’s education pose significant challenges to building a strong check and balance system.

These constraints can include a lack of coordination and communication between different levels of government, limited resources and capacity at the local level, and a lack of transparency and accountability in decision-making processes. Additionally, there may be political and cultural barriers that hinder meaningful civic engagement,

A LEGACY OF DISTRUST: A BARRIER TO CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
“You are not allowed to enter the school if you are not on duty“

The often overlooked factor contributing to civilians’ disinterest or lack of engagement in the governance system lies in the pre-existing relationship between public servants within the governance system and the general public. Historically, this interaction has been unfavorable due to the pervasive effects of corruption in administration (tea circle- corruption) and the influence of the Junta regime, which promotes authoritarian and top-down approaches. This distrust is rootedwithin the education system itself and leads to:

  • Hesitancy to Engage: Community members are hesitant to participate in school-level organizations like SMCs and PTAs and engage in the system due to a lack of faith in the system’s responsiveness.
  • Limited Influence: Educational decision-making processes may not adequately consider community needs and concerns.

As one respondent pointed out, signboards displaying in the schools like “You are not allowed to enter the school if you are not on duty” symbolize this exclusionary approach and discourage active community involvement.

ABSENCE OF OPEN AND SAFE SPACES FOR CIVIC INPUT, DIALOGUE, AND TRANSPARENCY.

Myanmar’s formal education system lacks effective mechanisms for incorporating civilian voices. This absence of a safe space for dialogue forces citizens to seek alternative ways to make their concerns heard. This is not a new phenomenon. Throughout history, activists and civilians in Myanmar have resorted to protests and public demonstrations to pressure the government, even under the current “democratic” regime.

The lack of formal channels for constructive dialogue reflects poorly on the government’s commitment to transparency. This, in turn, discourages public participation in the system.

The 2015 Student protest demanding academic independence in the National Education Bill during education reforms exemplifies this frustration. The lack of formal channels for constructive dialogue reflects poorly on the government’s commitment to transparency. This, in turn, discourages public participation in the system.

Local communities have witnessed these negative interactions between citizens and the government. Public servants cannot often effectively listen to and address public concerns.

Social media, particularly Facebook, has emerged as an unofficial platform for sharing information and complaints about the education system. While some issues have been resolved through this channel, it highlights the absence of formal and structured spaces for civic engagement. This leaves many critical issues and valuable citizen input unaddressed.

 

CHALLENGES IN BUILDING A STRONG CHECK AND BALANCE SYSTEM FOR CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AT LOCAL LEVEL.

In pursuit of democratizing and decentralizing the education system in Myanmar, there is a need to establish a strong check and balance system for civic engagement. This system should involve the participation of various stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations, civil society groups, community-based organizations, and faith-based organizations (Jatmikowati et al., 2020).

These stakeholders can play a crucial role in advocating for equal access to education, ensuring transparency and accountability in the management of educational resources, and monitoring the quality of education provided in schools. However, several challenges need to be addressed in building a strong check and balance system for civic engagement in Myanmar’s education as it presents significant challenges as

  • Power Imbalance: The degree of decision-making power of the committee members is usually found at the implementation stages and not at the planning and designing of the decision-making and policy process of the governance system. Final decision-making authority often rests with school principals or, the upper level of decision-making bodies in the system by limiting the impact of community suggestions or concerns.
  • Ineffective Complaint Channels: It is barely found channels to raise the concerns and voices of the community in most of the public service delivery in Myanmar. This also applies in the education system and existing systems for raising concerns with education officials might be ineffective, discouraging community participation.
  • Limited transparency: Transparency in budget allocation and project execution may be lacking, hindering accountability for resource utilization.
  • Unequal Participation: Participation rates might vary across communities due to factors like limited awareness, time constraints while delivering results focus, or lack of interest among citizens.
  • Ineffective Selection: If representatives on committees are not chosen effectively, they may not truly represent or actively engage their communities.
  • Language Barriers: Choosing the common language across the country in communication produces gaps as Myanmar’s diverse nature of the country can exclude some community members from participation.
  • Resource Constraints: Limited resources at the school level can hinder the effectiveness of community engagement activities.

Addressing these challenges can create a more robust check and balance system within Myanmar’s education governance, ensuring that civic participation leads to positive change in the system.

IV. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
This policy paper aims to support local governing bodies, both those existing now and those that may emerge after the crisis.

This report intends to impose recommendations to improve Myanmar’s education system based on findings, references from secondary data, and the current state of affairs. And, these aim to support local governing bodies, both those existing now and those that may emerge after the crisis.

For example, the National Unity Consultative Council’s (NUCC) Federal Democracy Education Policy aligns with these goals. It emphasizes civic participation as a key role for local councils at various levels. This policy can be a model for creating educational policies that promote democracy and social justice.

 

STRENGTHENING LOCAL COMMITTEES AND ORGANIZATIONS

To ensure transparent and inclusive decision-making, local education committees and institutions with direct civic involvement need a revamp. Here’s how:

  1. Fairer Representation:

These committees should be formed through transparent processes, such as free and fair elections or alternative participatory approaches. Clear guidelines should be established for their structure, including methods for selecting representatives.

  1. Diverse Leadership:

The selection process should result in a broad range of community leaders. This includes representatives from various neighborhoods, racial and ethnic groups, and those with diverse student interests.By ensuring a well-rounded group, committees can effectively represent local needs and perspectives when making school decisions.

  1. Collaboration:

The education system should encourage school-level organizations to integrate and collaborate with community-based organizations (CBOs) and other local entities. This collaboration should involve continuous information sharing and incorporating local voices into decision-making processes.

By strengthening local committees and fostering collaboration, schools can benefit from a broader range of perspectives and resources, leading to a more effective and inclusive educational environment.

 

EMPOWERING EDUCATORS AND ENCOURAGING COLLABORATION

To strengthen local service providers and promote civic engagement, we need a two-pronged approach:

  1. Investing in Collaboration Skills:
  • Evaluation and Incentives: Integrate community partnership efforts into teacher and administrator performance reviews. This incentivizes building strong relationships with local organizations.
  • Specialist Training: Develop career ladder programs like “master teacher” or “lead teacher” initiatives. These programs can equip district and school-based specialists with the skills to organize, evaluate, and improve family and community involvement programs.
  1. Overcoming Community Hesitation:
  • Facilitating Regular Engagement: Encourage and facilitate regular interaction between local educators and community-based organizations (CBOs). This ongoing dialogue can foster trust and understanding.
  • Addressing Historical Distrust: Recognize the community’s potential apprehension due to past experiences with the government. Regular interaction with dedicated and collaborative educators can help bridge this historical gap.

By strengthening educators’ skills and fostering regular, positive interactions with CBOs, we can create a more collaborative and effective education system that benefits from the combined expertise of both educators and the community.

ENHANCING DECENTRALIZATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL FOR EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT CIVIC PARTICIPATION IN EDUCATIONAL SERVICE DELIVERY.

Decentralization has always been an essential theme that needs to encompass all sectors of Myanmar’s governance system. Being a diverse country with numerous ethnic and minority groups with a long history of political complexities and existing social gaps, especially, needs a decentralized education system that could guarantee local administrative bodies could able to conduct their localized needs of services delivering.

  1. Empowering Schools and Teachers:
  • School principals should be given greater decision-making authority to manage school administration and lead school-level organizations more productively.
  • Teachers, the backbone of the education system, should be empowered to participate in civic engagement initiatives. This could involve delegating power to them and allowing them to address localized needs within the broader framework.
  1. Bottom-Up Policymaking and using social accountability tools:

Educational policies should be developed through a collaborative process, starting at the community level. This requires active participation fromcivic representatives, teachers, school principals and civil society organizations.This could be achieved through using social accountability tools such as public hearings can ensure that the voices of citizens are heard throughout the policy lifecycle, from agenda setting and formulation to legislation and implementation.

  1. A Holistic Approach:

The current focus on increasing civic participation at the implementation stage is a positive step. However, for long-term effectiveness and stronger accountability, a comprehensive decentralization agenda is necessary. This will create a more efficient education system that fosters stronger civic engagement at all levels.

UTILIZING THE MEDIA OR ACCESSIBLE INFORMATION CHANNELS AND FORMALIZING THE PROCESS.

Existing communication channels, such as social media, which are already accessible and popular among the public, are not officially recognized by the education system. Additionally, other media platforms like television or broadcasting channels, which boast high viewer rates in specific regions or among particular social groups, should be taken into account. This could be achieved by establishing official websites or channels by the Ministry of Education (MoE) or its respective departments. Through these platforms, information could be disseminated regularly, and avenues for collecting complaints or feedback from civic representatives could be provided.

Furthermore, it is essential to consider distributing information in the local language or in a bilingual format (Myanmar and the local language) to ensure that the services are accessible to individuals based on their region. This is particularly crucial for a country with diverse ethnic backgrounds and languages.

 

V. CONCLUSION

This policy brief highlights the critical need for enhancing civic engagement in the educational governance of Myanmar. The policy recommendations emphasize the strengthening of formalization processes, the creation of open and safe spaces for civic dialogue, and the implementation of a robust check and balance system in educational governance.

Empowering local committees, enhancing decentralization and accountability, utilizing media and accessible information channels, and formalizing the process are key components of the proposed policy measure.

By addressing these challenges and implementing the recommended policies, Myanmar can establish a more inclusive, transparent, and effective educational governance system that actively involves citizens in decision-making processes, fostering social justice, equality, and improved education outcomes for all. Additionally, these suggestions are meant to be applicable in any educational governance structure across a range of political contexts.

Interview Questions (for Parents,Committee Members) 

  1. Have you ever heard of organizations/groups/individuals who have interest and work for educational works ? Could you please list down what kinds of organizations/groups are they? Do you ever collaborate with them and how do you think the collaboration works with them?
  2. How well do you understand PTAs and SMCs work in the system? (especially in terms of participation by the community and how?)
  3. How many meetings/discussions did you involve in the past ? Did you ever attend ,if not , how do you think about what kinds of people are involved in these types of activities?
  4. What kinds of things have been discussed in these discussions/meetings? Normally who made the final decision. And who has the most influential status for the decision making and how?
  5. Do you feel like you are being welcomed to these meetings/discussions?
  6. Do you think you will be welcomed as an individual or collective by the the decision makers in the system? If yes, in what kind of situations will they be?
  7. Do you think you have freedom to express your ideas and opinions on the system?
  8. Do you feel supportive by the community and from those who are involved in the services delivery and decision making system to express your opinion?
  9. On what points of the Education system,do you feel satisfied/or not with service opportunities /delivery systems?
  10. Are there any places that could collect your opinions/suggestions and feedback on the system?
  11. From which kind of channels/sources do they receive the information of the updates of the education services and policy changes.  What kind of information do they normally receive?

Interview Questions (for teachers, headmasters/headmistresses or township level education officers)

  1. Have you ever heard of organizations/groups/individuals who have interest and work for educational works ? Could you please list down what kinds of organizations/groups are they? Do you ever collaborate with them and how do you think the collaboration works with them?
  2. How many times have you been engaged in Parents of the students and community leaders by means of coordination for the school management and teaching purposes? At what kind of events?
  3. How do you understand the works of PTAs and SMCs?
  4. Times that you have been counted their opinions and taken into consideration for the implementation and decision making process if there are. In what kind of scenarios?
  5. On what points of decision making process and services delivery, do you think you could take them into participation?
  6. For what reasons do you think they(civic representatives) could not take part closely connected with you?
  7. Apart from the government, from which organization did you get the support (technically+financially) at your villages/townships?
  8. In current or your experienced educational system, how much do you think it has been considered civic participation and coordination? On what points(teaching or administration)? Are they really working in practice?
  9. To what extent do civic engagement and diversity matters relate in the education system? For what reasons?
  10. Information access and channels now working?
References
  1. Sumaya Saluja, Ye Min Thant, Matthew Hamilton, Saw Raymond Andrew, Su Phyo Win, Jane Sail,Hkaw Myaw: STRENGTHENING SUBNATIONAL CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN MYANMAR (The Asia Foundation) https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Strengthening-Subnational-Civic-Engagement-in-Myanmar_EN_22.20.pdf (February, 2020)
  2. Brooke Zobrist and Patrick McCormick, PhD1: https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/A-Preliminary-Assessment-of-Decentralization-in-Education_Myanmar.pdf
  3. Ministry of Education’s administrative structure: https://www.moe.gov.mm/?q=content/%E1%80%96%E1%80%BD%E1%80%B2%E1%80%B7%E1%80%85%E1%80%8A%E1%80%BA%E1%80%B8%E1%80%95%E1%80%AF%E1%80%B6
  4. Marie Lall: Myanmar’s Education Reforms:A pathway to social justice? (2021)
  5. Min Zaw Soe,Ms. Aye Mya Swe,Ms. Nan Khin Moe Aye, Ms. Nan Htet Mon: Reform of the Education System in Myanmar Case Study (January,2017)
  6. https://teacircleoxford.com/essay/corruption-a-severe-chronic-disease-myanmar-has-to-fight/
  7. ASHLEY SOUTH AND MARIE LALL: SCHOOLING AND CONFLICT:ETHNIC EDUCATION AND MOTHER TONGUE-BASED TEACHING IN MYANMAR (Feb 2016)
  8. Marie Lall, Thei Su San, Nwe Nwe San, Yeh Tut Naing, Thein Thein Myat, Lwin Thet Thet Khaing, Swann Lynn Htet, and Yin Nyein Aye : Citizenship in Myanmar, contemporary debates and challenges in light of the reform process (2014)
  9. The Basic Education Law (The Pyidaungsu Hluttaw Law No. 34, 2019) http://www.myanmar-law-library.org/law-library/laws-and-regulations/laws/myanmar-laws-1988-until-now/national-league-for-democracy-2016/myanmar-laws-2019/pyidaungsu-hluttaw-law-no-34-2019-basic-educational-law-burmese.html
  10. David Hook, Tin Maung Than And Kim N.B. Ninh: Conceptualizing Public Sector Reform In Myanmar (June,2015)(The Asia Foundation): https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Conceptualizing-Public-Sector-Reform-in-Myanmar_Policy-Brief_ENG.pdf
  11. Pwint Nee Aung:THE LANDSCAPE OF PRINCIPALSHIP IN YANGON, MYANMAR (2017) https://researchbank.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10652/4241/MEdLM_2017_Pwint%20Nee%20Aung%20%2pdf?sequence=7&isAllowed=y
  12. Aung Tun: The Political Economy of Education in Myanmar:Recorrecting the Past, Redirecting the Present and Reengaging the Future(SEP,2022, No.2022-5) https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/ISEAS_EWP_2022-5_Aung_Tun.pdf