International Review of Education

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-020-09850-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

Introducing a tool to gauge curriculum quality

under Sustainable Development Goal 4: The case
of primary schools in Vietnam

Anh‑Duc Hoang1 · Hiep‑Hung Pham2,3 · Yen‑Chi Nguyen1 ·

Le‑Kim‑Ngan Nguyen1 · Quan‑Hoang Vuong4,5 · Minh Q. Dam2 ·
Trung Tran6 · Tien‑Trung Nguyen7,8

© UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning and Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Abstract
The purposes of the study presented in this article were twofold. One was to respond
to the question: what makes a quality curriculum? within the framework of the
fourth United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG 4). The other was to
develop and pilot an appropriate instrument to evaluate the quality of curricula in
a sample of private schools in Vietnam. While public schools are still preparing for
implementation of Vietnam’s New General Educational Curriculum, small adjust-
ments are already being made to the curriculum in some private and international
schools in Vietnam, which have been issued a curriculum customisation licence.
Therefore, the pilot schools which participated in this study can serve as case studies
for the upcoming major policy improvement in Vietnam’s public schools, thus pro-
viding guidance for Vietnamese policymakers, school principals and teachers. While
there is no “one-size-fits-all” curriculum assessment formula, since each country
exhibits distinctive features in its teaching and learning programme, the indicators
developed by the authors for their study can be adjusted to suit the needs of other
countries.

Keywords Curriculum evaluation · Sustainable Development Goal 4 · Kindergarten

to grade 12 (K-12) education · Education in Vietnam

Résumé
Introduction d’un outil pour mesurer la qualité d’un curriculum à l’aune du qua-
trième Objectif de développement durable: le cas des écoles primaires au Viêt Nam –
L’étude présentée dans cet article avait deux objectifs. Le premier était de se deman-
der, à l’aune du quatrième Objectif de développement durable (ODD 4), ce qui fait
qu’un curriculum est de bonne qualité. Le second consistait à développer et tester un

* Anh-Duc Hoang
[email protected]
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 A.-D. Hoang et al.

outil approprié pour évaluer la qualité des curriculums dans un échantillon d’écoles
privées au Viêt Nam. Tandis que les écoles publiques continuent de se préparer à la
mise en œuvre du nouveau curriculum d’enseignement général du Viêt Nam, certains
établissements privés et internationaux du pays, qui ont obtenu pour lui un permis
de customisation, procèdent déjà à de petits ajustements. Par conséquent, les écoles
pilotes qui ont participé à cette étude peuvent servir d’étude de cas pour l’importante
amélioration politique à venir dans les écoles publiques vietnamiennes, fournissant
ainsi une orientation aux décideurs politiques, aux directeurs d’école et aux ensei-
gnants. Bien qu’il n’existe pas de formule universelle d’évaluation des curriculums,
les programmes d’enseignement et d’apprentissage des différents pays ne présentant
pas les mêmes caractéristiques, les indicateurs élaborés par les auteurs de cette étude
peuvent être adaptés aux besoins d’autres pays.

Introduction

In 2015, the United Nations (UN) launched its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The fourth of
these goals, SDG 4, is dedicated to education. It aims to
ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learn-
ing opportunities for all (UN 2015a; emphasis added).
The provision of quality education and learning opportunities is crucially based
on carefully designed curricula. A quality curriculum can not only consider-
ably improve learning and teaching, but also empower students to construct and
enhance their own knowledge, skills and values, enabling them to lead meaning-
ful and productive lives (Stabback 2016).
Curricula are implemented at various levels, namely: national (or macro) level,
school (or meso) level, classroom (or micro) level, and individual (or nano) level
(Van den Akker et al. 2003). Around the world, some countries (e.g. Australia,
Germany, the United States) have no mandatory national curriculum, while oth-
ers have a national curriculum (e.g. Sri Lanka, Vietnam, China); and some have
flexibility to implement an existing national curriculum at school level (e.g. New
Zealand, India) (NIER 1999).
However, at any level, no country seems to present a full best-practice model,
which should include the development, implementation and evaluation of the cur-
riculum. In Vietnam, an emerging young cohort of scholars is currently trans-
forming the country’s academic playground (Vuong 2019), in which sustainable
research and development are crucial. Thus, the need for a best-practice evalua-
tion tool (or paradigm) with indicators to gauge the quality of the curriculum is
undeniable, especially since the country has joined the global effort of realising
the SDGs (UN 2015a).
The study we present in this article was conducted with two purposes in
mind. First, relating SDG 4 to the context of Vietnam, we aimed to localise the

13
Introducing a tool to gauge curriculum quality under Sustainable…

curriculum evaluation framework conceptualised by Philip Stabback on behalf of

the UNESCO Bureau of Education (IBE). He expresses
the belief that, while curriculum might commonly be perceived as a set of doc-
uments, the quality of those documents is closely connected to the processes
used to develop them and to the means through which they are put into prac-
tice. In other words, judging the quality of the curriculum itself cannot be done
in isolation from the broader processes of curriculum development, implemen-
tation and evaluation (Stabback 2016, p. 9).
Second, our intention was to then pilot our contextualised evaluation tool to assess
the curricula developed by and used in four private primary schools in Hanoi, Viet-
nam. We believe the findings of our study can play a significant role in support-
ing teachers, school managers and policymakers in Vietnam in terms of practice-
oriented quality assurance, thereby facilitating progress towards achieving SDG 4.
In addition, our suggested evaluation tool may also be useful for other countries to
gauge their curriculum quality.
We begin with an overview of SDG 4 in various contexts, both historically and
geographically. Next, we consider curriculum and its connection to SDG 4 more
generally, and then particularly in Vietnam, before addressing the question of
whether there is one paradigm for all. We then provide our methodology and present
our study, concluding with a discussion of the applicability of the results, while also
considering limitations and future research.

SDG 4 in various contexts

The history of the SDGs

Recognising the importance of sustainable development in transforming the world

into a better place, the United Nations General Assembly prioritised this in its 2030
Agenda (2015–2030). This prioritisation led to the formulation of 17 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) on 25 September 2015 (UN 2015b). The main aims of
this Agenda are to end poverty (SDG 1) and hunger (SDG 2); to protect the environ-
ment (SDGs 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 5) and to assure everyone’s health (SDG 3),
peace (SDG 16) and prosperity (SDG 8). The 17 SDGs are to some extent based
on the previous agenda’s 8 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), with the addi-
tion of new fields which need to be addressed urgently, including climate change,
economic inequality, sustainable consumption as well as peace and justice. These
17 goals cover 169 targets in total, and each target is followed by 2 or 3 indicators
to measure and drive progress towards achieving the goals’ objectives (UN 2015b).
Among the 17 SDGs, SDG 4 is central, because education is the key that will
allow many other Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) to be achieved. SDG 4
has 7 outcome targets, together with 3 means of implementation (sometimes lumped
together as 10 “targets”), and 11 indicators which were specifically developed and

13
 A.-D. Hoang et al.

agreed for this particular SDG (UN 2015b, SDG 4 Targets and Indicators), covering
almost every aspect in the educational sector.
Progress towards the achievement of SDG 4 is documented in SDG “Progress
Reports” released annually by the United Nations’ Secretary-General. The 2016
report mentioned several challenges related to education. These challenges included
that worldwide, “59 million children of primary-school age were out of school [in
2013]”, 1 in 5 of whom had dropped out, and 2 in 5 of whom were believed to be
unlikely to ever set foot in a classroom (UN 2016, p. 7). The 2018 report presented
an encouraging global increase in the rate of learners participating in early child-
hood and primary education, from 63 per cent in 2010 to 70 per cent in 2016 (UN
2018, p. 7), which reflected the effectiveness of promoting SDG 4 targets 4.1 and
4.2:
4.1 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and qual-
ity primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning
outcomes

4.2 By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early child-
hood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for
primary education (UN 2015a, Targets and Indicators).
In addition, the 2018 report stated that in 2016, approximately 85 per cent of pri-
mary school teachers around the world were trained, despite the undeniable gap
among regions and areas (UN 2018, p. 7). This result for target 4.C, which aims to
substantially increase the supply of qualified and well-trained teachers is “making
little progress” (UN 2019, p. 12), and the latest available data from 2017 (ibid.) indi-
cate that target 4.A relating to educational facilities has not met the desirable goal,
especially in some low developed countries (LDCs).1
How each country attains and integrates the objectives of SDG 4 into national,
regional and local actions and implementations depends on their various contexts
and aims. This article investigates the implementation of SDG 4 in Vietnam, which
will be discussed in more depth in the next subsection. There are a number of rea-
sons why Vietnam is an ideal subject for this research. As a developing country with
lower-middle income (Vuong et al. 2019), Vietnam is facing many obstacles, yet
willing to open up towards globalisation and welcome new approaches to tackle
those challenges. Second, Vietnam is probably one of the promptest nations to wel-
come and adopt SDGs into its Agenda 2030 policies and its National Action Plan,
which has been in place since May 2017 (VPM 2017). In addition, during the first
decade of this century, Vietnam has experienced a boom in the number of inter-
national and private educational institutions, especially in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh
City, ranging from pre-school to university levels (Huong 2010, p. 101). These

1
Target 4.A aims to “Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensi-
tive and provide safe, nonviolent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all” (UN 2015a, Tar-
gets and Indicators). Target 4.C aims to “substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including
through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed
countries and small island developing states” by 2030 (ibid.).

13
Introducing a tool to gauge curriculum quality under Sustainable…

schools are mostly foreign-owned or funded by foreign investments; therefore, more

or less, they are being given more autonomy in the practice of developing their own
curriculum. In addition, Vietnam’s exceptional results in the Programme for Inter-
national Student Assessment (PISA) have been so impressive (World Bank 2018)
that we felt we would like to obtain a better insight into this country’s application of
SDG 4 to its curriculum, and it is this interest which prompted our study.

SDG 4 in Vietnam

Vietnam’s government has always considered education among its top national pri-
orities. In 2013, the government expenditure on education regarding the percentage
of gross domestic product (GDP) was 5.652 per cent, which is higher than the world
average of 4.683 per cent (World Bank 2019). Before the establishment of SDG 4 in
September 2015, some strategies had been developed to improve national education,
such as the Education Development Strategy 2011–2020 (VPM 2012a), the TVET
Development Strategy 2011–2020 (VPM 2012b), the Framework on Building a
Learning Society for the period 2012–2020 (VPM 2013a), and Decree No. 20/2014/
ND-CP on “Education Universalisation and Illiteracy Eradication” (Vietnam Gov-
ernment 2014), to name but a few.
After the SDGs had been widely established, Vietnam continued its efforts to
improve education as well as engaging in following and promoting SDG 4’s targets.
In 2016, Vietnam’s then President (Tran Dai Quang) went to Singapore to propagate
and “strengthen partnership for regional sustainable development” (Thuc Minh 2016).
He also highlighted that among all 17 SDGs’ objectives, what Vietnam prioritised was
training and enhancing human resource development, and that the country expected to
implement UNESCO’s Global Citizenship Education (GCED) guidance (UNESCO
2015) successfully (Nhan Dan 2016). In addition, there are some other laws and poli-
cies which have been enacted to support SDG 4 targets, such as the Action plan on gen-
der equality in education 2016–2020 (Vietnam MoET 2016), the Scheme on stamping
out illiteracy by 2020 (VPM 2013a, b), etc. Then in 2017, Vietnam published Decision
number 622/QD-TTg about the National action plan for the implementation of the 2030
Programme for sustainable development (VPM 2017), and Decision number 2161/QD-
BGDDT about the “Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals in education
and training until 2025 and Orientations up to 2030” (Vietnam MoET 2017a). Eight
out of the ten SDG 4 targets are mentioned, namely targets 4.1 to 4.7 and 4.A, while
targets 4.B and 4.C are omitted with no clear reason. With target 4.B related to “sub-
stantially expand[ing] … the number of scholarships available” in developing countries
(UN 2015b, SDG 4 Targets and Indicators), one possible reason for its omission may be
that scholarships play a small role in Vietnam compared to developed countries.
Although effecting many positive results, such as the increase in the rate of chil-
dren in Vietnam attending preschool, and the completion rate of primary school (UN
2018), etc., the policies supporting SDG 4 still have some drawbacks. First, regard-
ing elderly people, there are no policies or programmes to meet this group’s demand
for learning, to enhance their competencies and skills, or to bolster lifelong learning.
Second, pupils and students are still receiving a low or inadequate level of support

13
 A.-D. Hoang et al.

for their learning. Third, the State management regulations on education are not
being fully implemented in practice. Finally, many local sites are not properly inte-
grated into the system, notably in terms of the decentralisation of finance and human
resources (Vietnam Government 2018a).
Besides these challenges which still need to be overcome, there is one other draw-
back Vietnam needs to conquer: the country has paid less attention to “the curricu-
lum” than it deserves. Throughout the ten targets of SDG 4, the term “quality educa-
tion” is repeated many times. Since a quality curriculum is undoubtedly essential for
enabling quality learning (Stabback 2016), it is our firm belief that Vietnam should
focus more on developing a quality curriculum in order to reach the targets of SDG
4. In the next section, we go into more detail about the curriculum and what it looks
like in the educational context of Vietnam.

The curriculum and its connection to SDG 4

Curriculum centralisation and decentralisation

Since a curriculum is widely considered to be a “pillar of the entire educational pro-

cess”, many countries endeavour to update their curricula from time to time (Stanley
and McCoshen 2012). Simon Field et al. (2007) list the three important domains to
which any education system should pay attention: (i) the design of the educational
system itself; (ii) its practical implementation; and (iii) resourcing and funding.
Therefore, the design of a particular country’s education system plays an important
role both in tackling educational inequities and in reflecting the country’s contempo-
rary “pictures” of educational equity issues. As educational inequity and inequality
are not the status quo, but rather fluid manifestations of mixed causes and effects
(Hoang 2019), a curriculum should also not be regarded as a fixed framework serv-
ing as a bridge to minimise inequities and inequalities.
Currently, curriculum governing levels vary from country to country, with con-
trol either in the hands of the central government or a local government authority
(NIER 1999). Moreover, it is generally recognised that a country’s curriculum poli-
cies reflect its inherent attributes in terms of culture, economy, politics and society.
For instance, Slovakia introduced reforms in 2008 which decentralised the country’s
curriculum design to school level, resulting in about 50–60 per cent of the curriculum
now being under local management. By consequence, the curriculum can be tailored
to meet local demands and needs, and make best use of local possibilities, even though
it still has to meet certain requirements stipulated by national authorities (Stanley and
McCoshen 2012). In India, there is a national core curriculum up to secondary level
which is currently been revised to accommodate more local nuance (Gohain 2020).
In the Republic of Korea, it was the sixth revision of the national curriculum of 1992
which gave more autonomy to the local and school level (UNESCO-IBE 2011).2

2
“The curriculum currently in use [in the Republic of Korea] was fully revised in 2015 and will be fully
applied on an annual basis by 2020” (Korean MoE 2019, p. 40).

13
Introducing a tool to gauge curriculum quality under Sustainable…

Other countries such as Indonesia, China, France, Japan, Lao PDR, Sri Lanka,
Vietnam and Thailand have reported highly centralised curriculum development
processes, while granting teachers, schools and local authorities varying degrees of
flexibility in curriculum implementation (NIER 1999). For instance, up to 10 per
cent of local content is allowed in Lao PDR, and up to 20 per cent in Indonesia
(ibid.). In New Zealand and Australia, teachers can build their own content within a
centrally developed curriculum framework (NIER 1999).

The curriculum in Vietnam

In Vietnam, there has been a salient trend of decentralising the education system,
a development which is, indeed, consistent with the overall global trend. For many
centuries, the country was influenced by Confucianism, which formed the mecha-
nism of selecting the students with the highest academic results to be government
officers (Vuong et al. 2019). During the past century, despite the fact that Confu-
cianism and its structure of appointment no longer applied, all curriculum-related
processes were centralised and managed by the Vietnamese State government.
However, Vietnam witnessed a change in the system when Instruction number 791/
HD-BGDDT (Vietnam MoET 2013) was issued, which pertains to “Encouraging
high schools to develop a curriculum to meet the particular and specific needs of
students.” The year after, Resolution number 88/2014/QH13 (Vietnam National
Assembly 2014) about “Innovating textbooks and curriculum for general educa-
tion” was approved, stating that the education system should focus on intellectual
and physical development, fostering skills and career orientations for students, and
encourage independent organisations to compile various textbooks based on the new
curriculum. Next, in 2016, Decision number 1982/QD-TTg (VPM 2016) about the
Vietnamese Qualifications Framework was born, creating the foundation for Viet-
nam’s New General Educational Curriculum (Vietnam MoET 2018).
Small adjustments are already being made to the curriculum within the scope of
private schools and international schools, which can serve as case studies for the
upcoming major policy improvement, scheduled for 2021. For instance, Decree
number 86/2018/ND-CP on “Regulations on foreign collaboration and investment
in education” (Vietnam Government 2018b) opened up possibilities for schools to
establish relationships with international partners to implement their own “inte-
grated programmes”, based on the combination and harmonisation between the
national curriculum and international curricula. However, the typical options for
secondary schools are international accredited curricula such as the International
Baccalaureate (IB) or the Cambridge International General Certificate,3 which

3
The International Baccalaureate (IB) Middle Years Programme (MYP) and the Cambridge Interna-
tional General Certificate of Secondary Education (IGCSE) are two international school leaving certifi-
cates. “The former was developed in the mid-1990s and is currently being relaunched in a 21st-century
approach. The latter programme of study was developed by University of Cambridge International
Examinations in 1985 and has become popular in recent years among British domestic and international
schools worldwide due to the clarity of its learning content” (Corlu 2014, p. 793).

13
 A.-D. Hoang et al.

stipulate that they have to follow the providers’ strict regulations and standards and
have few options to customise each school’s curriculum. However, there are many
lessons that can be learned even from such narrow adaptations.
All these policies marked essential changes in Vietnam’s education system, espe-
cially in terms of the decentralisation process. For the first time ever, Vietnam now
has a National Qualifications Framework (NQF) which is compatible with those of
other countries in the world. Moreover, Vietnam’s New General Education Curricu-
lum (Vietnam MoET 2018) put an end to a period of almost 50 years (since 1970) in
which Vietnam had only one textbook package and no curriculum or outcome goals
or objectives for each grade. With the new agenda, there is now more autonomy for
schools and educators to choose textbooks as well as more leeway to be creative
in teaching and learning activities. However, the birth of this New General Educa-
tion Curriculum now leads to a need to create a tool in order to develop, evalu-
ate and continuously improve the curriculum. The next part of this article discusses
UNESCO-IBE’s evaluation framework (Stabback 2016) and how it can be applied
to Vietnam’s educational context.

One paradigm for all? UNESCO‑IBE’s curriculum evaluation framework

Developing economies like Vietnam may benefit significantly from scientific

research (Vuong 2018). In the early 1990s, William Doll (1993) alerted scholars
and policymakers to the instability of curricula in the post-modern world and dis-
cussed the effects of the changing global context on subjects such as science, lit-
erature, mathematics, arts, etc., noting that “how the sweeping changes affecting
[those fields … would] play themselves out in education and curriculum” was still
“unknown” (ibid., p. 3). He even foresaw the emergence of new hierarchies of edu-
cational authority; of new concepts of the curriculum arising as a consequence of
new teacher-student relationships. Doll’s conceptual predictions brought up a some-
what startling argument:
the belief in the teacher’s authority will be waived over the action and interac-
tions between teachers and students (Doll 1993).
This prognosis was strengthened by later empirical and conceptual studies. For
example, referring to “the organisation of the content and overall structure of [a]
curriculum”, Ronald Harden and Neil Stamper (1999, p. 141) described the concept
of a “spiral curriculum” as “one in which there is an iterative revisiting of topics,
subjects or themes” (ibid.) rather than a simple repetition of topics. They list the fea-
tures of such a spiral curriculum as being: (1) the revisiting of topics; (2) an increase
in levels of difficulty; (3) the relating of new learning to previous learning; and (4)
an increase in students’ competence (ibid.). As they work their way through such a
spiral curriculum, both students’ and teachers’ capabilities improve.
At the same time, as Gillian Roehrig et al. (2007) point out, curriculum imple-
mentation is also influenced by teacher and school characteristics. Thus, it stands to
reason that it is not merely the curriculum itself which schools and educators should
regard as their sole objective when aiming for a “quality curriculum” (Stabback

13
Introducing a tool to gauge curriculum quality under Sustainable…

Table 1 Categories and criteria for judging curriculum quality

Categories Criteria

Development of the Curriculum Planned and systematic

Inclusive and consultative
Led by curriculum professionals
Cyclical in nature
Sustainable
The Curriculum itself Values each child and holds that every child matters equally
Comprises high quality, relevant and appropriate “content” and
contributes to the development of competence
Is well organised and structured
Is underpinned by a set of assumptions about how children learn
Implementation of the Curriculum Students
{New expectations placed on …] Teachers
Schools/learning environments
Education systems and authorities
Evaluation of the Curriculum Systematic and planned
Regular
Conducted by qualified and experienced people

Source: Stabback (2016, p. 10)

2016). The matter is more complex, and to consider its various components, we now
take a closer look at Stabback’s conceptual framework (ibid.) and its effectiveness
for judging the quality of existing and proposed curricula.
Education is linked to its social and cultural background (Applebee 2008).
A quality curriculum is not an end in itself; it comprises more than a mere list of
subjects which students should learn or a set of documents containing learning
resources and learning outcomes. It should refer to various levels of planning and
decision-making, and its quality is closely associated with the processes used to
develop it, the means through which it is put into practice, and the procedure to
evaluate its effects. Therefore, Stabback (2016) organised his curriculum evaluation
criteria into four categories (see Table 1): (1) Development of the curriculum: (2)
The curriculum itself; (3) Implementation of the curriculum; and (4) Evaluation of
the curriculum. As Stabback points out, this framework addresses four key aspects
of SDG 4, namely that
education should be (1) inclusive and equitable, (2) characterized by quality
learning, (3) promoting lifelong learning, and (4) relevant to holistic develop-
ment, Curriculum, in other words, provides the bridge between education and
development – and it is the competencies associated with lifelong learning and
aligned with development needs, in the broadest, holistic sense of the term,
that span that bridge (Stabback 2016, p. 4).
Nevertheless, the framework proposed by Stabback (2016) is not of the “one-
size-fits-all” kind; it neither covers all aspects of SDG 4 nor does it solve

13
 A.-D. Hoang et al.

curriculum-related problems in emerging countries such as Vietnam. Specifically,

when it comes to under-qualified and inexperienced teachers, under-resourced class-
rooms, special needs or minority children, there are many measures that should be
taken besides optimising the curriculum. The necessity of tackling all kinds of chal-
lenges in our fast-changing world has extended the purpose of today’s education
beyond a focus on academic achievement only (Hoang 2019). Therefore, the idea
of lifelong learning should not be narrowed to the scope of classroom lessons only,
but also be incorporated in each and every action taken by the school. If we consider
a school as a learning organisation, various stakeholders, such as teachers, school
principals and administrators, must also participate in the educational processes
– including curriculum design and implementation.
Allan Glatthorn et al. (2018) state the importance of establishing context-based
perspectives towards curriculum development and implementation to foster stu-
dents’ readiness to learn about, understand and reform the changing world. Regard-
ing the context of Vietnam, the transition from centralisation to decentralisation,
and lack of information transparency, public and local community engagement are
currently hindering the development of a quality curriculum. Moreover, while the
framework proposed by Stabback (2016) can be seen as a big picture of curriculum
development and implementation at the criteria level, it is not sufficiently refined for
measuring a particular curriculum framework. The study we present here introduces
a more detailed model, built on Stabback’s concept.

Methodology

Our research team consisted of 8 members (the authors of this article) from 6 insti-
tutions. The research was led by the first author of this article, Anh-Duc Hoang,
Director of EdLab Asia Educational Research and Development Centre, and we
embarked on our research in early 2019. The aim of our joint study was to develop a
customised curriculum evaluation tool for Vietnam.
We adapted the UNESCO-IBE framework conceptualised by Stabback (2016) to
our purposes by including small and measurable indicators for each of Stabback’s
criteria in Table 1. The development of these indicators was informed by local and
international quality assurance guidelines such as Directive No. 40 on “Fostering
friendly schools and proactive students” (Vietnam MoET 2008); Circular No 14
on “Standards, development and revision procedures of a national general educa-
tion curriculum; Regulation and operation of a national general education curricu-
lum evaluation committee” (Vietnam MoET 2017b): the Handbook of Accreditation
(WSCUC 2013); and the “Core standard for CIS Membership” (CIS 2019).4
Using Stabback’s framework, existing literature and national regulations, and also
drawing on 48 interviews we conducted with school principals, teachers and admin-
istrators, we assembled an empirical synthesis of local regulations and educators’

4
The acronym CIS stands for Council of International Schools.

13
Introducing a tool to gauge curriculum quality under Sustainable…

responses and constructed a qualitative assessment rubric.5 Once we had developed

our customised model, we piloted it in four private primary schools in Hanoi, Viet-
nam, evaluating their curricula.
The validation of our customised curriculum evaluation tool relies on the range of
evaluated schools. We designed the tool’s language and measurement method with
the aim of reaching as wide a wide range of school principals as possible. Any sub-
sequent adaptions of our model by any public or private school may be regarded as a
further contribution to the validation of the tool.

Practical application of the curriculum evaluation rubric in Vietnam’s

educational context

Evaluation method

The use of the descriptive tool of a quality assessment rubric is quite common in
education. In this context, a rubric refers to anything such as a rule, guide, criterion,
description for assessment, or grading system (Cooper and Gargan 2009). The use of
rubrics has brought many benefits to both students and teachers. Malini Reddy and
Heidi Andrade (2010) found links between rubrics and learning in many studies,
which suggested that students who have rubrics to guide their work achieve higher
results and deeper learning than their peers who do not, since rubrics can create
additional opportunities for feedback, reflection and continued learning. In addition,
rubrics help teachers to think critically and carefully about what they will teach, as
well as help students, educators, or even parents clearly understand the expectations
for students’ learning performance (Cooper and Gargan 2009).
Even though Stabback’s framework for a quality curriculum (Stabback 2016)
contains as many as four categories (the curriculum itself, its development, its
implementation and its evaluation), jt does not have rubrics, indicators or any other
measurable items. Realising that the “Implementation of the Curriculum” and
“Evaluation of the Curriculum” categories could be seen as students’ formative
and summative assessments respectively,6 we decided to synthesise a rubric for our
adapted curriculum evaluation tool by referring to and extending from prior litera-
ture, local regulations, and educator’s responses in interviews. An overview of the
resulting tailor-made curriculum evaluation tool we propose for Vietnam is provided
in Table 2.7
Four important considerations guided us in the construction of our qualitative
rubric. First, among a range of types of rubrics, we chose a task-specific and analytic

5
We go into more detail about rubrics later in the article. For now, in a nutshell, a rubric refers to “a set
of instructions or rules” (OUP n.d.).
6
Formative assessment refers to ongoing assessment throughout the school year, while summative
assessment refers to end-of-year assessment.
7
The detailed rubric is available from the authors upon request.

13
 Table 2 Proposed curriculum evaluation model for Vietnam
13

Categories Criteria Indicators Scale

1. Development of the Curriculum 1.1. Planned and systematic The development process takes into account good 0–4
The development of the Curriculum research and practice (looking inwards, outwards
needs to be planned and systematic; and forwards)
inclusive and consultative; and led by The development process includes sequenced work- 0–4
curriculum professionals shops, drafting and consultative activities
The development process has clear timelines 0–4
There is participation of experts 0–4
The development process includes detailed calcula- 0–4
tion of anticipated cost
1.2. Inclusive and consultative, taking into account Students and their families 0–3
and finding consensus among students and their Teachers 0–3
families; teachers; employers; tertiary education
Employers 0–3
institutions; and government
Tertiary education institutions 0–2
Government 0–3
1.3. Led by curriculum professionals The development process should be led and managed 0–4
by qualified and experienced professionals (who
have technical and process-oriented skills, knowl-
edge and experience in curriculum development)

A.-D. Hoang et al.

 Introducing a tool to gauge curriculum quality under Sustainable…
Table 2 (continued)
Categories Criteria Indicators Scale

2. The Curriculum itself 2.1. Values each child and holds that every child The curriculum is inclusive 0–4
A good quality curriculum values each matters equally The curriculum is differentiated 0–3
child and holds that every child mat-
ters equally; comprises high-quality,
relevant and appropriate “content”
and contributes to the development
of competence; is well organised
and structured; and is underpinned
by a set of assumptions about how
children learn
2.2. Comprises high-quality, relevant and appro- The curriculum is up-to-date and relevant 0–4
priate “content” and contributes to the develop- The curriculum is suitably demanding 0–3
ment of competence
The curriculum is appropriately sequenced and 0–2
progressive
The curriculum is balanced 0–4
The curriculum is integrated across all subjects 0–4
2.3. Is well organised and structured There is a Curriculum Framework which contains: 0–3
- National mission statements
- A vision, aims and objectives
- An educational philosophy
- Requirements for teachers and students
- Guidelines for educators, textbook writers
- A curriculum structure and allocation of content to
grade levels
The curriculum includes a Subject curriculum (or 0–3
Syllabus)
13

The curriculum includes Textbooks, Teacher guides 0–3

and other support materials
 Table 2 (continued)
13

Categories Criteria Indicators Scale

2.4. Is underpinned by a set of assumptions about Each student is different 0–4

how children learn Students learn by making connections between what 0–4
they know and what is new
A love for learning and a motivation to continue 0–4
learning are important to students
Students learn best when they play an active role in 0–
their learning
Learning is a social activity 0–4
Students learn best when they reflect metacogni- 0–3
tively on their learning, and can articulate their
current level of understanding
Students learn best in warm, safe and supportive 0–2
environments
Good relationships between teachers and students 0–2
and among students are critical for learning
The development in students of broadly defined 0–4
competencies or capabilities depends on the
integration of three broad learning domains:
knowledge, skills and values
Students learn best when teachers provide feedback 0–4
on their learning through continuous assessment

A.-D. Hoang et al.

 Introducing a tool to gauge curriculum quality under Sustainable…
Table 2 (continued)
Categories Criteria Indicators Scale

3. Implementation of the Curricu- 3.1. Students Lesson plans reflect students’ active engagement in 0–2
lum the lesson
New expectations placed on students; The assessment reflects students’ creativity and 0–4
teachers; schools/learning environ- engagement
ments; parents; and education system 0–4
There is peer feedback among students
and authorities
There are extracurricular activities for students 0–3
There is a student conference in which students are 0–4
able to contribute their opinions and modifications
to the curriculum
3.2. Teachers Teachers are provided with Teacher Guidance (TG) 0–3
3.3. Schools/learning environments School principals understand the content of the 0–4
curriculum
School principals encourage and support teachers in 0–4
adopting new and innovative teaching practices
School principals make space for their head teachers 0–4
to consider the curriculum and its implementation
in some depth with the teachers in their teams
School principals use curriculum delivery as a 0–3
means for professional development
School principals ensure that the learning environ- 0–3
ments are safe and well-equipped with best materi-
als to support teaching, learning and assessment
13
 Table 2 (continued)
13

Categories Criteria Indicators Scale

3.4. Parents Parents are familiar with the content of the cur- 0–3
riculum
Parents take part in meetings and conference about 0–4
curriculum delivery organised by schools and
teachers
Parents support and sponsor extracurricular activities 0–4
of the school
Parents provide students with teaching and learning 0–4
materials
Parents ensure that their children complete their 0–4
take-home assignments
3.5. Education system and authorities Education authorities support teachers and schools 0–2
in being innovative and creative
Education authorities ensure that assessment, forma- 0–3
tive as well as summative, reflects the curriculum
Education authorities provide the resources and 0–2
equipment necessary to implement the curriculum
successfully
Education authorities allocate time in a flexible way 0–4
Education authorities maximise curriculum support 0–4
budgets
4. Evaluation of the Curriculum 4.1. Systematic and planned The evaluation is based on a clearly defined purpose 0–4
and scope
The evaluation is conducted at different levels in the 0–3

A.-D. Hoang et al.

education system: classroom, school, local area,
national
The evaluation is based on valid and reliable data 0–4
 Introducing a tool to gauge curriculum quality under Sustainable…
Table 2 (continued)
Categories Criteria Indicators Scale

The evaluation is based on appropriate criteria 0–3

The evaluation is carried out within a clear and 0–4
broadly agreed quality framework
4.2. Regular The school has a basic timeline to evaluate the cur- 0–4
riculum
The school has a plan for how the evaluation should 0–2
be administered
The school has a budget for curriculum evaluation 0–2
The evaluation is conducted on both small and large 0–4
scales
4.3. Conducted by qualified and experienced Evaluators are trained with qualified degrees and 0–3
people certificates
Evaluators are experienced 0–4
Evaluators understand the context of the curriculum 0–4
Evaluators report their evaluation findings in a 0–4
professional, valid and transparent way
Evaluators have a strategic plan of processes needed 0–3
to measure the curriculum

Notes: Categories and criteria are based on Stabback (2016, p. 10)

The column labelled “Scale” refers to the degree to which the indicator is fulfilled, with 0 representing non-fulfilment
13
 A.-D. Hoang et al.

one since we intended to measure a complex performance process with defined

tasks.
There are several types of rubrics. A generic rubric is used to assess or evalu-
ate a process (i.e., problem solving) across disciplines, whereas a task-specific
rubric is applicable only for a specific, defined task (Bargainnier 2003, p 75).
Second, we based our concept on the recent and unique educational context of Viet-
nam, which led to the omission of some of Stabback’s criteria and the addition of
others we felt to be important. Third, while most of these indicators were built on
a 0–4 scale;8 some were built on a 0–2 or 0–3 scale, as the collected material for
those criteria was not yet sufficient for a 0–4 scale. Finally, after completing our
interviews and observations, we converted all the indexes and data to a 0–4 scale to
make the interpretation process more convenient and consistent. In this, we followed
the suggestion of Gerriet Janssen et al. (2015, p. 15) that a “4-point revision of the
original rubric along broad ability bands would be adequate.”

School selection

After, constructing our proposed curriculum evaluation model for Vietnam, we

aimed to pilot it in a sample of Vietnamese primary schools.
Despite the recent preparation of Vietnam’s New General Education Curriculum
(Vietnam MoET 2018), the current centralisation status of Vietnam’s kindergarten
to grade 12 (K-12) educational system still does not allow public schools to custom-
ise their curriculum. Thus, our research was only able to focus on private schools
to capture insights for the coming reform in public schools. Recently, the number
of new private K-12 or P-12 (Primary level to grade 12, not including Kindergarten
level) schools in big cities like Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Hai Phong or Da Nang
has been increasing dramatically. However, these new schools are too young and
still finding their feet, which did not make them stable enough to be considered as
typical samples. Since the primary school level in Vietnam includes 5 grades (1 to
5), secondary school level includes 4 grades (6 to 9), and high school level includes
3 grades (10 to 12), our criterion of considering only schools which had been in
operation for at least 5 years ensured that the schools we selected had experienced at
least one complete cycle of the curriculum they were using at primary level.
With our options confined to private schools, we narrowed the range to focus
on schools whose customised curricula are being implemented on the strength of
a legal licence to do so. While schools without a curriculum customisation licence
might have better practices at some levels, we excluded these from our research. For
the purposes of our study, it was necessary to select schools which published infor-
mation about their curriculum on their websites so we would be able to access and
evaluate it. Finally, we could only include schools which were willing to be evalu-
ated by us.

8
0 represents non-fulfilment; 4 represents full marks.

13
Introducing a tool to gauge curriculum quality under Sustainable…

Selection criteria

Regarding the purpose of our pilot evaluation within the educational context of Viet-
nam, we formed a list for the school selection process which included the following
criteria:

(1) The private school has been established for more than 5 years;
(2) the school is implementing its own curriculum officially;
(3) the information about the school’s curriculum is accessible; and
(4) the school is open to being evaluated by the research team.

Selected schools

Among the many private schools in Vietnam which have experience in creating their
own curriculum, we made a shortlist of more than 20 schools that fit the first two
points of our selection criteria. However, information about the curriculum was only
available on the websites of 14 schools. In the end, only four schools allowed us
to access deeper information, conduct interviews, and evaluate their curriculum. In
order to ensure ethical consideration, the schools’ names cannot be disclosed, so we
refer to them here as Schools A, B, C and D. However, it is possible to present short
descriptions of these schools:
School A: A P-12 school, established in 2007 by a group of parents who were
unable to find an ideal school for their children. This school maintains connections
with various high schools in the United States of America and Canada, as well as
conducting many joint activities with multiple international organisations. The
school is currently offering a standard programme for the national diploma9 and a
dual-diploma programme with an additional international diploma from its interna-
tional partner. The school has not been yet accredited by an international accredita-
tion body.
School B: A P-9 school, established in 2010 by a former teacher. The school
currently provides only one programme, which is mostly based on the Vietnam-
ese national curriculum. The school maintains some connections with international
organisations and always encourages its students to participate in international stu-
dent contests. The school has not yet been accredited by any international accredita-
tion body.
School C: A full K-12 school system, established in 2013 by a private enterprise.
The school has two academic tracks for students: a standard programme, based on
the national curriculum, and a high-quality programme based on the Cambridge
International Secondary Education curriculum. The school is accredited by interna-
tional accreditation bodies.
School D: A P-12 school, established in 2008 by a former educator. The school
has 5 curriculum options for students: the standard programme and the high-quality

9
The Vietnamese national diploma is the certificate students receive when they pass the National High
School Graduation Examination in their last year (grade 12) of upper secondary school.

13
 A.-D. Hoang et al.

Figure 1 Development of the curriculum

programme, both of which are based on the national curriculum, and three other
bilingual programmes combining curricula from several foreign countries. The
school also maintains partnerships with one foreign high school and one accredita-
tion body of its bilingual curricula.

Data collection and analysis

The data collection process was divided into two phases. First, we scanned through
each school’s website to find out all the information related to the curriculum and
used our rubric to evaluate it. Most of the criteria in the second category (The Cur-
riculum itself) were gathered during this phase, while it only yielded limited infor-
mation for the other three categories.
During the second phase, we implemented a site visit to each school and inter-
viewed 10–14 teachers and school principals at each school. Consistency between
the answers of teachers and school principals led to a particular location on the
rubric of each criterion, while the inconsistent answers required more discussions to
figure out the actual status of the related criteria. Finally, we converted the data into
a scale of 0–4 and fed them into Excel to plot each school’s score values for each
indicator. The results are presented in visualised spider charts (Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4)
for each of the four categories.

13
Introducing a tool to gauge curriculum quality under Sustainable…

Figure 2 The curriculum itself

Figure 1, depicting the spider chart for the Development of the curriculum, pre-
sents a distinction between Schools A and C and Schools B and D. While Schools
A and C scored large values for curriculum development, with averages of 2.24 and
2.88 respectively, Schools B and D scored many zeros when being assessed, which
led to low average figures of 0.70 and 0.67 respectively. The low numbers mean that
these schools did not do well in the development phase of the curriculum, and they
did not even have a timeline or anticipated cost. Thus, we anticipated that the perfor-
mance of Schools B and D would be worse than that of Schools A and C in the other
three categories.
In the category of The curriculum itself, the differences among the four schools
were smaller, as can be seen in Figure 2. The average values for Schools A, B, C and
D were 2.27, 0.93, 2.33 and 0.97 respectively, with some zeros scored by Schools
B and D. Schools A and C were found to be doing a good job in underpinning their
curriculum with assumptions about how children learn. The notable point in this
category was that three out of four schools scored zero for the item “appropriately
sequenced and progressive curriculum”. This means that they did not give enough
attention to “age-and grade-appropriate levels” as well as stages of children’s devel-
opment, especially their cognitive and emotional growth.
Figure 3 illustrates the Implementation of the curriculum in the four selected
schools. Compared to the two previous categories, this category presented higher
scores in the assessed points, with six indicators reaching a maximum score.

13
 A.-D. Hoang et al.

Figure 3 Implementation of the curriculum

Figure 4 Evaluation of the curriculum

13
Introducing a tool to gauge curriculum quality under Sustainable…

However, the indicators where all four schools reached maximum scores were those
determined by external factors, i.e. the national education system and authorities.
Another indicator which achieved high marks was the fact that parents were familiar
with the content of the curriculum. Possible reasons for this could be that the parents
really cared and tried to understand the curriculum, or the school really did a good
job in communicating and explaining it clearly to the parents. The average scores
of the four schools (A, B, C and D) for this category were 2.83, 1.24, 2.71 and 1.56
respectively, so School B still scored the lowest points.
Like the spider charts for the first three categories, Figure 4 also indicates a clear
trend among the four schools for the category of the Implementation of the cur-
riculum. This trend seems to be consistent throughout the four categories. While
School C scored maximum points for nine indicators, School B scored five zeros,
and remained below 2.0 for all indicators, implying its evaluation process needed to
be improved substantially. Averages for Schools A, B, C and D in this category were
2.88, 0.79, 3.57 and 2.19 respectively.
In general, the scores of the final category for Schools A, B, C and D were 2.57,
0.96, 2.81, and 1.36 respectively. The trend for the four schools was fairly consistent
throughout the four categories, with School C scoring highest, followed by Schools
A, D and B. Our results demonstrate that the four categories of Development, the
Curriculum itself, Implementation, and Evaluation are closely related. The school
with the best performance (compared to the other schools) in the first category,
tended to keep it position of performance until the last category. This suggests that
a good quality curriculum is easier to achieve if the school has a good quality cur-
riculum development process.
During the transition process schools are undergoing as Vietnam’s educational
reform is being implemented, various standards are being upgraded and there is evi-
dence of new approaches at national, regional and school levels. It is therefore not
surprising that we found several zero scores in our four spider charts. During the
interviews we conducted, we realised that while these schools were aware of these
missing pieces, what we were evaluating was their current status rather than their
future intentions. The reasons behind those zero scores might well be interesting,
but would require further research for each school individually.
Although Stabback’s 4-category framework is a circular one, in the sense that it
needs to be modified and improved regularly, it is always good to pick one particular
category to start with, especially since each category is the input of the next one.
Measuring their curriculum using indicators enables schools to find out where and
in which category they need to improve. They can even assess their chosen first cat-
egory and convert the results to points, thus setting a more realistic goal for the other
three categories.

Conclusion, application, limitations and future research

Our main aim in this study was to provide an appropriate instrument to evaluate the
quality of curricula in Vietnam. We also felt inspired to contextualise UNESCO-
IBE’s framework to gauge curriculum quality (Stabback 2016) within a country’s

13
 A.-D. Hoang et al.

efforts towards achieving the United Nations education-related Sustainable Develop-

ment Goal, SDG 4. There is no “one-size-fits-all” curriculum assessment formula,
since each country, or even each state/city/school exhibits distinctive features in
their teaching and learning programme.
We therefore suggest the introduction of the rubric as a qualitative scale, and pre-
sent the result of our study as a good example for other countries to develop their
own curriculum evaluation scale. For our own country, Vietnam, in particular, this
research suggests that the government can develop a more comprehensive system to
measure the adjustment of public schools to educational reform. Finally, this model
can serve as a foundation for establishing a mixed-methods ranking system for eval-
uating K-12 schools’ sustainable development overall, an aspect which is critical, yet
has been neglected for some time.
It is important to note that this study also has some limitations. The first is that
although we developed a rubric for measuring curriculum quality, its levels are still
inconsistent in terms of measurement scales. The reason for this is that we applied
our model to Vietnam only, so that some criteria or indicators were either added on
or eliminated to fit our particular context, which led to the variability of the point
scale. Future research might reveal more indicators or employ a new approach in
building the rubric to ensure consistency of levels among all criteria. Another limi-
tation is the small number of pilot schools. Only four schools agreed to participate
in our research among those who met our requirements and were open enough for
us to access their data and procedures. Moreover, our sample was limited to private
schools due to public schools’ current lack of autonomy in developing their own
customised curriculum. Therefore, we hope that future investigators will be able to
widen their representative school sample in Vietnam to include public schools once
these have been accorded more self-control, so that the open data will help us to
draw stronger and more holistic conclusions (Vuong 2020).

References
Applebee, A. N. (2008). Curriculum as conversation: Transforming traditions of teaching and learning.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bargainnier, S. (2003). Fundamentals of rubrics. Pacific Crest Faculty Development series. Hampton,
NH: Pacific Crest. Retrieved 23 March 2020 from https://pcrest.com/research/fgb/1_4_2.pdf.
CIS (Council of International Schools). (2019). Membership standards: Core standards for CIS member-
ship (dedicated webpage). Leiden: CIS. Retrieved 23 March 2020 from https://www.cois.org/for-
schools/membership-standards.
Cooper, B. S., & Gargan, A. (2009). Rubrics in education: Old term, new meanings. Phi Delta Kappan,
91(1), 54–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909100109.
Corlu, S. (2014). Which preparatory curriculum for the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme
is best? The challenge for international schools with regard to mathematics and science. Interna-
tional Review of Education, 60(6), 793–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-014-9446-9.
Doll, W. E., Jr. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
Field, S., Kuczera, M., & Pont, B. (2007). No more failures: Ten steps to equity in education. Paris:
OECD Publishing. Retrieved 13 March 2020 from https://www.oecd.org/education/school/45179
151.pdf.

13
Introducing a tool to gauge curriculum quality under Sustainable…

Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. M., & Boschee, B. F. (2018). Curriculum leadership: Strat-
egies for development and implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Gohain, M. P. (2020). 15 Years on, schools to get new curriculum. The Times of India, updated 14 May
(online newspaper article). Retrieved 17 June 2020 from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india
/15-years-on-schools-to-get-new-curriculum/articleshow/75727846.cms.
Harden, R. M., & Stamper, N. (1999). What is a spiral curriculum? Medical Teacher, 21(2), 141–143.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01421599979752.
Hoang, A. D. (2019). Fantastic educational gaps and where to find them: LERB—A model to classify
inequity and inequality. Journal of International Education and Practice, 2(4), 19–28. https://doi.
org/10.30564/jiep.v2i4.1309.
Huong, T. T. (2010). Insights from Vietnam. In R. Johnstone (Ed.), Learning through English: Policies,
challenges and prospects. Insights from East Asia (pp. 96–114). Kuala Lumpur: British Council.
Retrieved 23 March 2020 from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/publicatio
n_1_-_learning_through_english.pdf.
Janssen, G., Meier, V., & Trace, J. (2015). Building a better rubric: Mixed methods rubric revision.
Assessing Writing, 26, 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2015.07.002.
Korean MoE (Ministry of Education). (2019). Education in Korea 2019. Sejong: Korean Ministry of
Education. Retrieved 17 June 2020 from https://english.moe.go.kr/boardCnts/view.do?board
ID=282&board Seq=80325 &lev=0&searc hType =null&statu sYN=W&page=1&s=engli
sh&m=0303&opType=N.
Nhan Dan. (2016). Chủ tịch nước Trần Đại Quang tiếp Giám đốc Chương trình Giáo dục Công dân Toàn
cầu của UNESCO [Vietnam President Tran Dai Quang met the Director of UNESCO’s Global Citi-
zenship Education Programme]. Nhan Dan, 21 December (online newspaper article). Retrieved 20
April 2020 from https://www.nhandan.com.vn/nation_news/item/31617702-chu-tich-nuoc-tran-dai-
quang-tiep-giam-doc-chuong-trinh-giao-duc-cong-dan-toan-cau-cua-unesco.html.
NIER (National Institute for Educational Research). (1999). An international comparative study of school
curriculums. Tokyo: National Institute for Educational Research.
OUP (Oxford University Press). (n.d.). Rubric. In Lexico.com (online dictionary). Detroit, MI: Lexico.
com. Retrieved 18 June 2020 from https://www.lexico.com/definition/rubric.
Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment and Evalua-
tion in Higher Education, 35(4), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930902862859.
Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence
on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883–907. https://
doi.org/10.1002/tea.20180.
Stabback, P. (2016). What makes a quality curriculum? In-Progress Reflection No. 2. Current and Critical
Issues in Curriculum and Learning series. IBE/2016/WP/CD/02. Geneva: UNESCO International
Bureau of Education (IBE). Retrieved March 23, 2020 from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223
/pf0000243975.
Stanley, J., & McCoshen, A. (2012). Curriculum reform in Europe: The impact of learning outcomes.
European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) report. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved 23 March 2020 from https://www.cedef
op.europa.eu/files/5529_en.pdf.
Thuc Minh. (2016). Chủ tịch nước Trần Đại Quang: Đoàn kết, chung sức hành động, cùng phát triển
bền vững [President Tran Dai Quang: Solidarity, joint action for sustainable development]. Thanh
Nien, 30 August (online newspaper article). Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://thanhnien.vn/the-
gioi/chu-tich-nuoc-tran-dai-quang-doan-ket-chung-suc-hanh-dong-cung-phat-trien-ben-vung-73924
1.html.
UN (United Nations). (2015a). Sustainable Development Goal 4: Quality education (dedicated webpage).
Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg4.
UN. (2015b). Sustainable development knowledge platform. Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://susta
inabledevelopment.un.org.
UN. (2016). Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals: Report of the Secretary-General.
Document Number E/2016/75. New York: United Nations Economic and Social Council. Retrieved
11 June 2020 from https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2016/secretary-general-sdg-report-2016-
-EN.pdf.
UN. (2018). Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals: Report of the Secretary-General.
Document Number E/2018/64. New York: United Nations Economic and Social Council. Retrieved

13
 A.-D. Hoang et al.

20 April 2020 from https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2018/secretary-general-sdg-report-2018-

-EN.pdf.
UN. (2019). Report of the Secretary-General on SDG progress 2019: Special edition. New York: United
Nations. Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/docum
ents/24978Report_of_the_SG_on_SDG_Progress_2019.pdf.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). (2015). Global citizenship
education: Topics and learning objectives. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 11 June 2020 from https://
unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000232993.
UNESCO-IBE (International Bureau of Education). (2011). Republic of Korea. World Data on Educa-
tion. Données mondiales de l’éducation. Datos Mundiales de Educación (7th edn 2010/2011;
updated version June 2011). IBE/2011/CP/WDE/KO. Geneva: UNESCO-IBE. Retrieved 17 June
2020 from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000193189.
Van den Akker, J. J., Kuiper, W., & Hameyer, U. (Eds.). (2003). Curriculum landscapes and trends.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Vietnam Government. (2014). Nghị định số 20/2014/NĐ-CP: Về phổ cập giáo dục, xóa mù chữ [Decree
Number 20/2014/ND-CP: Education Universalisation and Illiteracy Eradication]. Ha Noi: Govern-
ment of Vietnam. Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://luatvietnam.vn/giao-duc/nghi-dinh-20-2014-
nd-cp-chinh-phu-85647-d1.html#noidung.
Vietnam Government. (2018a). Vietnam’s voluntary national review on the implementation of the sus-
tainable development goals. Ha Noi: Department for Science, Education, Natural Resources and
Environment, Ministry of Planning and Investment. Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://sustainabl
edevelopment.un.org/content/documents/19967VNR_of_Viet_Nam.pdf.
Vietnam Government. (2018b). Nghị định số 86/2018/NĐ-CP: Quy định về hợp tác, đầu tư của nước
ngoài trong lĩnh vực giáo dục [Decree Number 86/2018/ND-CP: Regulations on foreign collabo-
ration and investment in education]. Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-
ban/dau-tu/Nghi-dinh-86-2018-ND-CP-quy-dinh-ve-hop-tac-dau-tu-cua-nuoc-ngoai-trong-linh-vuc-
giao-duc-337783.aspx.
Vietnam MoET (Ministry of Education and Training). (2008). Chỉ thị số 40/2008/CT-BGDĐT: Về việc
phát động phong trào thi đua “xây dựng trường học thân thiện, học sinh tích cực” trong các trường
phổ thông giai đoạn 2008–2013 [Directive Number 40/CT-BGDDT: Fostering friendly schools and
proactive students in the period 2008–2013]. Ha Noi: Ministry of Education and Training. Retrieved
20 April 2020 from https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/giao-duc/Chi-thi-40-2008-CT-BGDDT
-phat-dong-phong -trao-thi-dua-xay-dung-truon g-hoc-than-thien -hoc-sinh-tich-cuc-truon g-pho-
thong-giai-doan-2008-2013-68464.aspx.
Vietnam MoET. (2013). Hướng dẫn số 791/HD-BGDĐT: Thí điểm phát triển chương trình giáo dục nhà
trường phổ thông [Instruction Number 791/HD-BGDDT: Encouraging high schools to develop a
curriculum to meet the particular and specific needs of students]. Ha Noi: Ministry of Education and
Training. Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Giao-duc/Huong-dan-
791-HD-BGDDT-2013-thi-diem-phat-trien -chuon g-trinh-giao-duc-nha-truon g-pho-thong -20550
3.aspx.
Vietnam MoET. (2016). Quyết định số4996/QĐ-BGDĐT: Phê duyệt kế hoạch hành động về bình đẳng
giới của ngành giáo dục giai đoạn 2016–2020 [Decision Number 4996/QD-BGDDT: Action plan
on gender equality in education 2016–2020]. Ha Noi: Ministry of Education and Training. Retrieved
20 April 2020 from https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Van-hoa-Xa-hoi/Quyet-dinh-4996-QD-
BGDDT-Ke-hoach-hanh-dong-ve-binh-dang-gioi-cua-nganh-Giao-duc-2016-2020-331140.aspx.
Vietnam MoET. (2017a). Quyết định số 2161/QĐ-BGDĐT: Ban hành kế hoạch thực hiện mục tiêu phát
triển bền vững lĩnh vực giáo dục và đào tạo đến năm 2025 và định hướng đến năm 2030 [Deci-
sion Number 2161/QD-BGDDT: Implementation of sustainable development goals in education
and training until 2025, and orientations up to 2030]. Ha Noi: Ministry of Education and Training.
Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Giao-duc/Quyet-dinh-2161-QD-
BGDDT-2017-Ke-hoach-phat-trien-ben-vung-giao-duc-dao-tao-2025-2030-353688.aspx.
Vietnam MoET. (2017b). Thông tư số: 14/2017/TT-BGDĐT: Ban hành quy định tiêu chuẩn, quy trình
xây dựng, chỉnh sửa chương trình giáo dục phổ thông; tổ chức và hoạt động của hội đồng quốc
gia thẩm định chương trình giáo dục phổ thông [Circular Number 14/TT-BGDDT: Standards,
development and revision procedures of a national general education curriculum; regulation and
operation of a National General Education Curriculum Evaluation Committee]. Ha Noi: Ministry
of Education and Training. Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/

13
Introducing a tool to gauge curriculum quality under Sustainable…

giao-duc/Thong -tu-14-2017-TT-BGDDT-tieu-chuan -chinh -sua-chuon g-trinh -giao-duc-pho-

thong-353757.aspx.
Vietnam MoET. (2018). Chương trình giáo dục phổ thông mới [New general education curriculum].
Ha Noi: Ministry of Education and Training. Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://moet.gov.vn/
tintuc/Pages/tin-hoat-dong-cua-bo.aspx?ItemID=5755.
Vietnam National Assembly. (2014). Nghị quyết số 88/2014/QH13: Về đổi mới chương trình, sách
giáo khoa giáo dục phổ thông [Resolution Number 88/2014/QH13: Innovating textbooks and a
curriculum for general education]. Ha Noi: Vietnam National Assembly. Retrieved 20 April 2020
from https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Giao-duc/Nghi-quyet-88-2014-QH13-doi-moi-chuon
g-trinh-sach-giao-khoa-giao-duc-pho-thong-260798.aspx.
VPM (Vietnam Prime Minister). (2012a). Quyết định số 711/QĐ-TTg: Phê duyệt “Chiến lược phát
triển giáo dục 2011–2020” [Decision Number 711/QD-TTg: Education development strategy
2011–2020]. Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Giao-duc/Quyet
-dinh-711-QD-TTg-nam-2012-Chien-luoc-phat-trien-giao-duc-2011-2020-141203.aspx.
VPM. (2012b). Quyết định số 630/QĐ-TTg: Phê duyệt Chiến lược phát triển Dạy nghề thời kỳ
2011–2020 [Decision Number 630/QD-TTg: TVET development strategy 2011–2020].
Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://www.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/chinhphu/hethongvan
ban?mode=detail&document_id=159647.
VPM. (2013a). Quyết định số 89/QĐ-TTg: Phê duyệt Đề án “Xây dựng xã hội học tập giai đoạn
2012–2020” [Decision number 89/QD-TTg: The framework for building a learning society for
the period 2012–2020]. Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://vanban.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/
portal/chinhphu/hethongvanban?class_id=2&_page=1&mode=detail&document_id=165348.
VPM. (2013b). Quyết định số 692/QĐ-TTg: Hê duyệt đề án “xóa mù chữ đến năm 2020” [Decision
Number 692/QD-TTg: Scheme for stamping out illiteracy by 2020]. Retrieved 20 April 2020
from https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Giao-duc/Quyet-dinh-692-QD-TTg-nam-2013-phe-
duyet-De-an-Xoa-mu-chu-den-nam-2020-184543.aspx.
VPM. (2016). Quyết định số 1982/QĐ-TTg: Phê duyệt khung trình độ quốc gia việt nam [Decision
Number 1982/QD-TTg: Vietnamese qualifications framework]. Retrieved 20 April 2020 from
https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Giao-duc/Quyet-dinh-1982-QD-TTg-phe-duyet-khung-trinh
-do-quoc-gia-Viet-Nam-2016-327841.aspx.
VPM. (2017). Quyết định số 622/QĐ-TTg: Về việc ban hành kế hoạch hành động quốc gia thực hiện
chương trình nghị sự 2030 vì sự phát triển bền vững [Decision Number 622/QD-TTg: National
action plan for the implementation of the 2030 programme for sustainable development].
Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://thuvienphapluat.vn/van-ban/Thuong-mai/Quyet-dinh-622-
QD-TTg-2017-Ke-hoach -hanh-dong-quoc-gia-thuc-hien-Chuon g-trinh -nghi-su-2030-34883
1.aspx.
Vuong, Q. H. (2018). The (ir)rational consideration of the cost of science in transition economies.
Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0281-4.
Vuong, Q. H. (2019). Breaking barriers in publishing demands a proactive attitude. Nature Human
Behaviour, 3, 1034. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0667-6.
Vuong, Q. H. (2020). Reform retractions to make them more transparent. Nature, 582(7811), 149–149.
Vuong, T. T., Semerák, V., & Vuong, Q. H. (2019). The Vietnamese economy at the crossroads. In
R. Macdonald (Ed.), Southeast Asia and the ASEAN economic community (pp. 91–143). Cham:
Palgrave Macmillan/Springer.
WSCUC (WASC Senior College and University Commission). (2013). Handbook of accreditation.
Alameda, CA: Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) Senior College and Uni-
versity Commission. Retrieved 20 April 2020 from https://www.wscuc.org/resources/handbook-
accreditation-2013.
World Bank. (2018). Growing smarter: Learning and equitable development in East Asia and Pacific.
World Bank East Asia and Pacific Regional Reports series. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Retrieved 23 March 2020 from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29365.
World Bank. (2019). Government expenditure on education, total (% of GDP). Washington, DC: World
Bank. Retrieved 23 March 2020 from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

13
 A.-D. Hoang et al.

Anh‑Duc Hoang, MSc, is Director of EdLab Asia Educational Research and Development Centre in
Hanoi, Vietnam. He has played a critical role in forming new educational policies and practices through
his work with different Government bodies, NGOs and schools, and was honoured as one of Forbes’ “30
under 30” in 2020. His research interests include education policy, teaching and learning, education man-
agement and leadership.

Hiep‑Hung Pham, PhD, is Director of the Center for Research and Practice on Education at Phu Xuan
University in Hue, Vietnam, and Director of Research at EdLab Asia Educational Research and Develop-
ment Centre in Hanoi, Vietnam. His research interests include international education, education renova-
tion and research policy.

Yen‑Chi Nguyen, MSc, works as an Investigator at EdLab Asia Educational Research and Development
Centre in Hanoi, Vietnam. Her research career focuses on economics of education, sustainable education,
teacher training, educational measurement and behavioural economics.

Le‑Kim‑Ngan Nguyen, MA, is a Research Assistant at EdLab Asia Educational Research and Develop-
ment Centre in Hanoi, Vietnam. Her work focuses on English language teaching, teacher education and
curriculum renovation.

Quan‑Hoang Vuong, PhD, is Director of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Social Research at Phenikaa
University in Hanoi, Vietnam. Dr. Vuong has published over 120 articles in more than 50 journals,
including the world’s leading ones such as Nature, Nature Human Behaviour, Scientific Data and Pal-
grave Communications.

Minh Q. Dam, PhD, is President of Phu Xuan University in Hue, Vietnam. He is known as a pioneer in
innovative education and higher education reform. His areas of interest are education reform, education
management and leadership.

Trung Tran, PhD, is the Director of the Vietnam Academy for Ethnic Minorities, and the Leader of the
Vietnamese Science Editors (VSE) Team. His main research areas are ethnic education, education man-
agement, teaching methodology and public policy. He is also involved in interdisciplinary research com-
bining education and mathematics, computer sciences, economics and technologies, and development of
scientific research skills.

Tien‑Trung Nguyen, PhD, works as a Senior Editor of the Vietnam Journal of Education, published by
Vietnam’s Ministry of Education and Training. His main research interests comprise mathematics educa-
tion, science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, teacher training, higher edu-
cation, educational management, and scientometrics.

13
Introducing a tool to gauge curriculum quality under Sustainable…

Affiliations

Anh‑Duc Hoang1 · Hiep‑Hung Pham2,3 · Yen‑Chi Nguyen1 ·

Le‑Kim‑Ngan Nguyen1 · Quan‑Hoang Vuong4,5 · Minh Q. Dam2 ·
Trung Tran6 · Tien‑Trung Nguyen7,8
Hiep-Hung Pham
[email protected]
Yen-Chi Nguyen
[email protected]
Le-Kim-Ngan Nguyen
[email protected]
Quan-Hoang Vuong
[email protected]
Minh Q. Dam
[email protected]
Trung Tran
[email protected]
Tien-Trung Nguyen
[email protected]
1
EdLab Asia Educational Research and Development Centre, Hanoi, Vietnam
2
Center for Research and Practice on Education, Phu Xuan University, Hue, Vietnam
3
EdLab Asia, Hanoi, Vietnam
4
Centre for Interdisciplinary Social Research, Phenikaa University, Hanoi, Vietnam
5
NAFOSTED Scientific Council on Basic Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, The
Vietnam Ministry of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam
6
Vietnam Academy for Ethnic Minorities, Hanoi, Vietnam
7
Institute of Theoretical and Applied Research, Duy Tan University, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam
8
Vietnam Journal of Education, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam

13