Raising Teachers’ Salaries – The Gap Between “Dream” and “Reality” Across 4 Terms of Education Ministers
In 15 years and across 4 terms of Ministers, a common point can be seen in their dream: Increasing teachers’ income. But now, some have retired, and Minister Nguyen Kim Son’s term has passed its 7th month, yet the teachers’ aspiration to “live on their salary” has still not become reality.
The “Debt” of 4 Terms of Education Ministers to More Than 1 Million Teachers
The debate session at the National Assembly on November 11 was the first time the new Minister of Education, Nguyen Kim Son, answered interpellation questions before the National Assembly. One of the Delegates participating in the debate with the Minister of Education said: “We cannot forever view tutoring as a social problem, because it is a lifeline for teachers, stemming from the fact that teachers’ salaries are still too low.”
Anyone who cares about education will realize that many Party documents (Resolution of the 2nd Plenum of the 8th Central Committee, Resolution of the 8th Plenum of the 9th Central Committee, and Resolution No. 29-NQ/TW in 2013) have affirmed: Teachers’ salaries must be given the highest priority ranking in the salary scale.
Anyone who cares about education probably cannot forget back in November 2006, when he was still the Minister of Education, Mr. Nguyen Thien Nhan once stated: “The Ministry plans to submit to the Government a scheme to raise teachers’ salaries, so that by 2010 teachers can live on their salaries.” That promise lit up hope for millions of teachers everywhere from rural to urban areas. On January 21, 2009, right before the Lunar New Year, the Minister of Education and Training called on businesses and philanthropists to join hands and contribute “so that teachers could have a Tet with less deprivation than ordinary days, have a tray of food to offer to ancestors, have new clothes for parents and children, and have banh chung and banh tet to eat on the 1st day of Tet.” That year, a teacher in a high-mountain area received 100,000 VND as a Tet bonus, enough to buy 3 kg of pork rump at market price.
When he became the new Minister of Education and Training, Mr. Pham Vu Luan also said: “We have proposed reforming teachers’ salaries.” 05 years later, Minister Phung Xuan Nha shared: “Teachers’ salaries are a debt that torments me.” And last April, in his first statements after taking office, the new Minister of Education, Nguyen Kim Son, continued to express: “I hope teachers’ lives will be improved.” In 15 years and across 4 terms of Ministers, a common point can be seen in their goal: Increasing teachers’ income. But now, Mr. Nguyen Thien Nhan has retired, Minister Nguyen Kim Son’s term has passed its 07th month, and the teachers’ aspiration to “live on their salary” has still not been fulfilled.
I do not know how Minister Nguyen Kim Son will carry out the wish to improve teachers’ income that he expressed at the beginning of his term. Even assuming that tutoring and extra classes are officially recognized by the education sector as a legitimate business sector as a way to improve income for teachers, that is only for teachers of core subjects. What about preschool teachers, primary school teachers, and teachers of minor subjects? The education sector cannot help but face a truth: Our teachers’ salaries are not enough to live on. And enabling teachers to live on their salaries is the responsibility of the education sector.
Whenever we want to find a solution for teachers’ salaries, we usually look toward the state budget, but if we continue choosing this approach, it will be an extremely difficult mission to achieve.
According to statistics from the Ministry of Education, up to the end of 2019, the whole country had 1.24 million public school teachers across all levels. The current minimum salary of a teacher is 2.7 million VND. So I make an assumption: if we raise salaries for 1.24 million teachers by 100 USD per person (about 2.3 million VND), the state budget will have to bear an additional 1.5 billion USD. In truth, this increase still would not help teachers live on their salaries. But this is already an extremely massive increase relative to the current capacity of the state budget. Not to mention that if we raise salaries for teachers without raising salaries for doctors, military officers, police personnel, etc., those sectors would surely raise questions. An overly difficult problem for the state budget.
If we want to raise teachers’ salaries while ensuring the state budget does not bear too large a burden, the easiest and fastest way is to raise tuition fees. But in the public sector, raising tuition fees is not an easy task because it easily goes against Party and State policies. At the same time, raising public school tuition fees would be one of the most “unpopulist” policies. Case in point, back in November 2020, just one day after publishing the draft of a new Decree proposing tuition fee increases across all levels, the Ministry of Education had to withdraw this proposal due to public indignation. The Education Minister’s dream of raising teachers’ salaries faces another major obstacle, as several provinces and cities want to waive tuition fees for primary and secondary students. Other provinces and cities are promoting the non-increase of tuition fees. I cannot agree with the proposals of these localities either, even knowing that it would please many citizens.
Ensuring income for teachers is the responsibility of not only the education sector but also the entire political system. As long as we cannot give more than one million public teachers an attractive and livable salary, let’s not think about waiving tuition fees. Teachers are like the pillars of education; their inability to live on their profession will pull down the development of Vietnamese education.
Therefore, if we still choose the solution of raising teachers’ salaries through the state budget, then raising tuition fees will be almost the only path we can choose. If tuition fees increase by just 5–10%, the state budget would breathe much easier, and teachers’ salaries would certainly be improved. This is something feasible (and should be done) for high-income provinces and cities and at prestigious educational institutions. If possible, I propose collecting tuition fees based on the tax-declared income level of parents. Granted, it is not completely accurate, but it is the most feasible gauge for the current situation. Afterwards, the State can establish education funds sourced from the increased tuition fees to allocate to poor provinces that cannot raise tuition fees.
We should also not let the issue of teachers’ salaries be naturally regarded as the duty of the Central Government, but must consider it a target assigned to local authorities. If the Government can construct an indicator evaluating the political performance of provincial Party Secretaries / Chairpersons, which includes an indicator on: the average per capita income of a public-sector teacher relative to GDP per capita, and publish this index ranking annually, I believe it would create a significant incentive mechanism and pressure on provincial leaders to increase teachers’ income.
This is similar to publishing the annual Provincial Competitiveness Index (CPI). Any leader with a low evaluation index would lose prestige. That will be the motivation for them to come up with solutions to solve the problem of teachers’ income: it could be calling for sponsorships from local businesses; it could also be offering swap policies such as exchanging real estate projects for education funds, exchanging educational land for teacher welfare funds; or building subsidized housing to attract good teachers… Under competitive pressure, provinces and cities will have to introduce policies encouraging people to join the teaching workforce, which will naturally push teachers’ income up to a new baseline.
An Educational Problem That the Public and Private Sectors Can Solve Together
However, if we only endlessly loop around finding solutions to raise teachers’ salaries through budget revenue sources, we will easily fall into a state of feeling powerless. And precisely because of orbiting around traditional ways of thinking for so many years, many people forget that the story of teachers’ income can actually be a problem that both public education and private education can join hands to solve.
First, it is necessary to reduce pressure on the public education sector by encouraging private education. Currently, the private sector accounts for only 2.5% of the scale of Vietnamese education. If the private sector accounts for 30% of total students, the pressure of paying public sector teachers’ salaries on the state budget will decrease significantly, while teachers’ incomes will also be improved in the private sector according to market economy laws.
One of the things Minister Phung Xuan Nha accomplished during his controversial term was issuing Decree 86 (on foreign cooperation and investment in the field of education). This was a breakthrough reform aimed at boosting foreign investment in education and encouraging the development of the private education sector.
Although there are still some shortcomings in Decree 86 in my opinion (for instance, conditions for establishing private universities are overly strict), I still consider this a major step forward for Vietnamese education, an important springboard for private education to develop, and an indirect way to improve teachers’ income by letting market mechanisms adjust it instead of the state budget.
With a correct policy, strong private sector investment in education is not difficult at all. As long as the State has encouraging policies, the private sector will certainly participate in significantly solving many problems facing Vietnamese Education. However, encouraging private investment in education is not the job of the Ministry of Education alone. Attracting policies are needed, and application procedures for operating licenses also need to be shortened and streamlined.
For example, in my business, it takes us 5–10 years to obtain a university license and no less than a year to obtain a high school operating license, whereas admissions are purely seasonal. Besides, land reserved for education is terribly expensive and lacks incentives. There are too many barriers discouraging private businesses that want to invest in education.
Another thing that the State and the private sector can do together to improve teachers’ income is allowing public-private partnerships in public schools. Public schools have the advantage of very good infrastructure. Meanwhile, the cost of investing in private education is most expensive in the infrastructure investment phase. As someone working in private education, I deeply understand this paradox: we have to invest immensely in facilities, renting land to build schools at exorbitant prices, while many public schools with large land funds do not use them completely.
If the State can authorize public-private partnership mechanisms allowing public schools and private education sectors to jointly utilize these resources on a mutually beneficial basis, public schools gain additional revenue sources to increase teachers’ income, while private educational institutions can save on infrastructure investment costs to focus on investing in educational quality.
Similar to how public hospitals offer fee-based service consultations, in the early days when this program was first implemented, it faced considerable opposition. But now everyone acknowledges the success of this model, as hospitals have improved their revenue sources, and patients with needs for high-quality medical services are catered to without affecting other patients.
With education, the private sector can provide international educational programs according to students’ needs and pay back facility usage fees to the school via the Trade Union fund. This fund can redistribute income to low-income teachers in the school.
Quite a few major cities have been applying this form of cooperation. Currently, our EQuest Group also collaborates with many public schools to implement international educational programs taught 100% in English, with quality recognized according to international standards, yet the tuition fee is only 500 thousand VND/month/student, receiving particularly strong support from both parents and students.
There are some views arguing that this creates inequality in society when within the same public school, some students study the standard program while others study the advanced program. In my opinion, forcing students to accept a standardized, flattened educational program is a shortsighted and conservative view. Either way, having many students good at Math or English in a school without the State having to pay extra money is better, isn’t it? Why call it inequality? As long as we do not act unequally.
If public hospitals can collect service fees for consultations with professors and PhDs, then many parents are also willing to pay a little extra money so their children can learn a few additional skills. Please do not tell public school parents to send their children to private schools, because private school costs can far exceed their financial capacity, but at public schools where physical infrastructure is already available, costs can be significantly reduced. The dream of accessing international-standard educational programs will no longer be too far out of reach for public school students with just affordable tuition fees if we support public-private partnerships in education.
Public-private partnerships are common in many countries, but it remains a rather new concept in Vietnam. However, considering the benefits it brings to public educational institutions, the private education sector, students, and teachers alike, I see no reason why we should hesitate.
Minister of Education Nguyen Kim Son’s first statement upon taking office was his desire to reform teachers’ salaries. I understand his concerns, as they are also the concerns of everyone working in education. Therefore, I write these shared thoughts in hopes that the Minister will consider encouraging private education as a solution to this problem – a problem that many terms of previous Ministers were forced to leave for their successors.
In summary:
