Developing manager teams of community learning centers

vely, the professional capacity of developing community activities is considered as an important factor to assess the quality of the team. The thesis has developed criteria to survey professional capacity of the CLC managers. The data result (Table 2.12) shows that, by working in CLCs is the regime “concurrently”, most of the CLC board of directors are busy with working inside the Party, education institutions 10 and unions, so they do not have the time and enthusiasm for the management of CLCs leading the understanding of the learning characteristics, capabilities, and needs of adults, or knowledge of building Learning Society, or understanding of the organization of programs/ activities in CLCs on the basis of surveys has been still many deficiencies. Criteria on the CLC board of directors has self-learning sense and capabilities, fostering professional qualifications are evaluated at the best level with X = 3.40. The Average score 3.14 means that the directorate team is assessed on the professional competence of developing community activities/ training/ learning programs at fair level. 2.3.3.3. Capacity of planning of the CLC manager teams Planning for the CLC activities is considered as the first important stage in the management of the Center Directorate. The stage of planning will be the premise for organizing the implementation of tasks at CLCs as well as monitoring, inspecting and evaluating CLC activities. Table 2.13c. The correlation between the level of implementation and the quality of implementation of the CLC directorate board in planning Planning capacity Level Quality D 2 = (nm) 2 Average Rank (n) Average Rank (m) 1. Fully complying with the system of superior documents 2.95 1 3.37 1 0 2. Evaluating, analyzing and determining the priority order for people’s learning needs 2.91 3 3.19 4 1 3. Planning specifically and comprehensively for each activity to meet learning needs 2.92 2 3.31 2 0 4. Estimating resources to deploy (human, financial, material, information...) 2.85 4 3.29 3 1 Total 2 Applying the hierarchical correlation coefficient (Spearman), we have r = 0.8, so the level of implementation and the quality of implementation of the CLC directorate board in planning for the CLC activities has a strong correlation with each other. This means that the more often the planning is carried out, the better the implementation quality. 2.3.3.4. Capacity of directing and organizing the implementation of activities of the CLC manager teams The organizations to carry out activities in CLCs are considered a key task in the managemtn of the CLC directorate board. Through the survey, the results obtained the reality of managing the organization of activities performed in CLCs as follows: Table 2.14c. The Correlation between the level of implementation and the quality of implementation of the CLC directorate boards in organizing Organization capacity Level Quality D 2 = (nm) 2 Average Rank (n) Average Rank (m) 1. Allocating and assigning rationally with CLC officials for each specific activity 2.94 2 3.22 3 1 2. Actively coordinating with local agencies and organizations 2.96 1 3.24 2 1 3. Communicating and mobilizing people to participate in CLC activities 2.92 3 3.22 3 0 4. Selecting the teaching contents, forms and teaching methods appropriate to each CLC activity 2.90 5 3.19 5 0 11 Organization capacity Level Quality D 2 = (nm) 2 Average Rank (n) Average Rank (m) 5. Mobilizing people to participate in regularly learning at CLCs 2.90 5 3.22 3 4 6. Guiding and speeding up members to perform their tasks on progress, adjusting and making decisions in time when having extraordinary circumstances 2.89 6 3.21 4 4 7. Motivating for Centers by the forms of encouragement 2.85 7 3.34 1 36 8. Communicating for individuals and organizations to have a clear understanding of the CLC's key roles, functions, tasks and activities 2.80 8 3.18 6 4 9. Fully and regularly reporting on CLC activities to local authorities 2.91 4 3.22 3 1 Total 51 By calculating with the hierarchical correlation coefficient (Spearman), we have r = 0.58 so between the level of implementation and the quality of implementation of the CLC board of directors in organizing the implementation of CLC activities. Although the organization of implementation of activities at CLCs has been regularly done by the CLC board of directors, the implementation results have only stopped at a fairly good level. 2.3.3.5. Capacity of monitoring and evaluating of the CLC manager teams Monitoring and evaluating plays a very important role in the implementation of CLC activity plans. However, in fact, many CLCs only attach importance to the planning and implementation, but do not pay enough attention to monitoring and evaluation. Survey results show that: Table 2.15c. The Correlation between the level of implementation and quality of implementation of the CLC directorate board in monitoring and evaluation Capacity of monitoring and evaluation Level Quality D 2 = (nm) 2 Average Rank (n) Average Rank (m) 1. Examining and evaluating lesson plans and teaching plans of teachers/ speakers/ consellors of CLCs 2.17 1 3.27 1 0 2. Supervising and making timely and necessary adjustments when conducting activities in CLCs. 2.14 3 3.13 4 1 3. Monitoring and reviewing activities of CLCs. 2.11 4 3.23 3 1 4. Assessing the impact and effectiveness of the people’s learning activities in CLCs for the improvement of community life 2.16 2 3.26 2 0 Total 2 The monitoring and evaluating the CLC activities is only done occasionally and the quality of monitoring and evaluating the CLC activities is generally quite fair. Applying to the hierarchical correlation coefficient (Spearman), we have r = 0.8, so between the level of performance and the quality of performance of the CLC board of directors in monitoring and evaluating the CLC activities has a strong correlation with each other. This means that the more often monitoring and evaluation are performed, the better the quality of performance. 12 2.3.3.6. Capacity of mobilizing resources inside and outside the community for center activities of the CLC manager teams Through practical surveys, the thesis obtained the results of capacity of the CLC manager teams in the resources mobilization to maintain and develop CLC activities as follows: Table 2.16c. The Correlation between the level of impleamentation and the quality of implementation of the CLC directorate board in mobilizing resources Capacity of mobilizing resources Level Quality D 2 = (nm) 2 Average Rank (n) Average Rank (m) 1. Studying the ability of sponsor and contribute resources inside and outside the community 2.28 1 2.72 3 4 2. Identifying, analyzing and selecting effective approaches to donors and contributions 2.22 3 2.71 4 1 3. Providing information about the activity contents to be funded and suggesting the levels, forms of contribution and sponsorship according to the appropriate plan 2.23 2 2.76 1 1 4. Maintaining relationships with donors and contributions 2.15 4 2.73 2 4 5. Solving problems arising in the process of mobilizing resources 2.09 5 2.69 5 0 Total 10 The mobilization of resources for CLC activities has only been conducted occasionally and the results have been fairly moderate. Applying to formula of the hierarchical correlation coefficient (Spearman), we have r = 0.5, so the level of performance and the quality of performance of the CLC directorate board in resource mobilization has moderate correlated together. 2.3.3.7. Capacity of linking and coordinating with community organizations and individuals, agencies and unions for the CLCs activities CLCs need to link and coordinate with other agencies inside and outside community to organize the activities of CLCs. Having more links, close coordination, CLCs will mobilize resources more effectively and organize the center activities more plentifully and variously. Therefore, capacity of linking and coordinating with community organizations is considered as an important capacity and a difference of the CLC directorate board. Table 2.17c. The Correlation between the level of implementation and the quality of implementation of linking and coordination with community individuals, organizations, agencies and unions Capacity of mobilizing resources Level Quality D 2 = (nm) 2 Average Rank (n) Average Rank (m) 1. Making a list of all the departments, agencies, unions, organizations and individuals, programs and projects inside and outside the community having the ability of coordinating with centers 2.17 2 2.79 1 1 2. Learning about the functions, tasks, operating mechanisms of existing programs and projects of organizations and individuals 2.06 6 2.75 4 4 3. Building strong relationships with agencies, organizations and individuals having capable of linking and coordinating inside and outside the community 2.09 5 2.73 5 0 13 Capacity of mobilizing resources Level Quality D 2 = (nm) 2 Average Rank (n) Average Rank (m) 4. Agencies, individuals, organizations, unions at localities are involved in coordinating in planning, organizing activities and evaluating efficiency of centers 2.11 4 2.71 6 4 5. Organizing communication for individuals and organizations to understand more the CLC's main roles, functions, tasks and activities. 2.14 3 2.76 3 0 6. Sharing experiences, difficulties and challenges of centers with the community to receive the support and consensus of organizations at local level. 2.21 1 2.78 2 1 Total 10 The status of survey shows that the level of linking and coordination with community organizations, individuals, agencies and unions for activities of CLCs is only at an occasional level and the quality of performance is only at fair level. Using the hierarchical correlation coefficient (Spearman), we have r = 0.7 so between the level of performance and the quality of performance of the CLC board of directors in linking and coordination with community organizations, individuals, agencies and unions for CLC activities has strongly correlated with each other. This means that if the link and coordination is done regularly, the quality of implementation is better and more effective. 2.4. Actual situation of developing the CLC manager teams The CLC management team is an important internal force that decides the development or regression of CLC model. Situation PT team Management Training College CLCs shown in the following: (1) To arrange to use and assign specific tasks to each member of the board of directors CLCs; (2) Training and fostering contingent of CLC managers ; (3) Regimes and policies for CLC staff ; (4) Assessing contingent of CLC managers ; (5) Create an environment, create motivation for the CLC staff . 2.4.1. Arranging the use and assignment of specific tasks for each member of the CLC board of directors Due to the nature of the CLC manager teams working concurrently, it is impossible to do the planning for these teams. The CLC board of directors will not have a long-term stability but will operate flexilbly according to the working term of commune leaders, leaders of primary and secondary schools in the locality and commune-level Association for Promoting Learning. As such, it is only possible to allocate and assign specifically to each member of the CLC directorate board. Table 2.18. Actual situation of management of assigning tasks to members of the CLC directorate boards Contents Good Fair Moderate Limited Total Average score (X) Rank 1. Understanding the needs and expectation of each officer concurrently holding the position of the CLC directorate boards 18 198 115 3 334 2.69 4 2. Agreeing on assigning tasks to each member of the CLC directorate boards 41 233 56 5 335 2.92 1 14 Contents Good Fair Moderate Limited Total Average score (X) Rank 3. Assigning specific tasks to each member of the CLC directorate boards in each Center's long-term, medium- term and short-term plan 39 210 78 7 334 2.84 2 4. Adjusting in time when management task stagnated or ineffective 29 216 84 2 331 2.82 3 Average of X 2.82 The data in Table 2.18 shows that this work is assessed to be quite good with X = 2.82, the X fluctuates insignificantly, the lowest is 2.69 and the highest is 2.92 . The results also indicated that there were assignments of tasks for members of the CLC directorate boards, but the level of achievement was not very effective. The management of this content just stop at the assignment of tasks for the members, but to implement effectively and appropriately, there was no careful consideration in the division of responsibilities for each individual based on the self-interest, aspirations, competence and forte of each concurrent officer in the CLC directorate board. The Average score is 2.82 demonstrating the management of assigning tasks to members of the directorate board only at fair level. 2.4.2. The training and fostering the CLC manager teams 2.4.2.1. Actual situation of conducting surveys on needs and organizations of training and fostering for the CLC manager teams The study shows that the implementation of survey on needs and organization of training and fostering of the CLC manager teams are not really effective as expected, as follows: Table 2.19. Actual situation of surveys of needs and organization of training and fostering for the CLC manager teams Contents Good Fair Moderate Limited Total Average score (X) Rank 1. Planning the training and fostering 99 151 76 5 331 3.03 1 2. Organizing the training and fostering 70 146 102 17 335 2.80 3 3. Directing the development of training and fostering contents and programs 96 117 100 17 330 2.88 2 4. Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of training and fostering quality 29 56 222 20 327 2.28 4 Average of X 2.75 The data in Table 2.19 shows the management of implementing survey on needs and organization of training and fostering for the CLC directorate board is at level of fair (X = 2.74). The planning of training and fostering is evaluated as good with X = 3.03. The remaining content is only assessed at level of fair. However, the monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of training quality was judged at the lowest level, close to the Average (X = 2.28). The gap between the best and the lowest levels is also quite large = 0.75. This result shows that, although the planning of training and fostering has been paid attention, and done regularly with good levels, the monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of training and fostering is not mentioned much. This shows a big gap in the training and fostering. Because of the inability to evaluate the effectiveness of training, sometimes the next plans of training and fostering are formal and not close to the expectation and aspirations of the CLC manager teams. The average score 2.75 pointed out that the survey on needs and organization of training and fostering for the CLC manager teams only at level of fair. 15 2.4.2.2. Actual situation of developing the training programs for the CLC manager teams The CLC manager teams work concurrently, they also benefit the learning programs to meet the requirements of working positions as the State servants and officials. Therefore, the training contents for this team should be fostered in-depth about managing CLCs and education of community development. To avoid duplication of training contents with the category of public servants, the CLC manager teams need to be fostered with some basic contents: Table 2.22. Actual situation of developing the training programs for the CLC manager teams Contents Good Fair Moderate Limited Total Average score (X) Rank 1. Characteristics and methods of teaching adults 13 103 176 45 337 2.24 6 2. Management of developing community education 18 216 89 12 335 2.71 3 3. Management model of CLCs 37 240 54 07 338 2.90 1 4. The role of CLCs for developing sustainable community and building Learning Society from locals 35 228 62 04 329 2.89 2 5. Mobilizing resources from community for CLC activities 14 190 99 34 337 2.54 4 6. Developing mechanisms for effective coordination with stakeholders in CLC activities 05 153 121 51 330 2.33 5 Average of X 2.60 In the opinion of major respondents, the training contents are only achieved at the level of moderate - fair with the average score X = 2.60. The content “Characteristics and methods of teaching adults” with the lowest average score (X = 2.24) and the content “Management model of CLCs” at the highest average score (X = 2.90) compared with the remaining contents. Thus, most of training contents for the CLC manager teams are now largely focused on managing CLCs, it is not paid attention to the contents of the characteristics of teaching methods for adults, or mobilizing resources from community for CLC activities, or mechanism of effective linking and coordination with the stakeholders in the organization and development of CLC activities. The average score 2.60 means that the management of developing the program contents retraining for the CLC manager teams stops at the level of fair. 2.4.3. The compensation policy for the CLC manager teams The main content of the compensation policy for the CLC manager teams focused on honoring the CLC manager teams with the community development and motivation and capacity development for CLC manager teams. The data in Table 2.23 shows that the current remuneration policy for the CLC manager teams is only in moderate level (X = 2.37). In particular, the honor policy for the CLC manager teams (X = 2. 08) is the weakest in the remuneration for this team. The local authority creates favorable conditions for the CLC manager teams to work concurrently, which is also considered as the best content in the remuneration policy, but it also stops at fair level with X = 2.54. Thus, the survey data shows that the remuneration for this team is still very modest and has not been taken seriously, shown by the average value of X only reaching the moderate threshold. 16 Table 2.23. Actual situation of compenstation policy for the CLC manager teams Contents Good Fair Moderate Limited Total Average score (X) Rank 1. Local authorities create favorable conditions for the CLC manager teams to hold concurrently 44 113 161 19 337 2.54 1 2. Responsibility allowances for the CLC manager teams 33 97 193 14 337 2.44 2 3. Honoring policy for the CLC manager teams to community development 14 49 226 47 336 2.08 4 4. Comending and rewarding work for the CLC manager teams 31 83 215 2 331 2.43 3 Average of X 2.37 2.4.4. Evaluation of the CLC manager teams Evaluating the quality of the CLC manager teams not only to understand the real situation of all aspects of this team but also through which there are predictions about the quality of staff as well as the outlines of feasible plan to improve team quality. Table 2.24. Actual situation of evaluating the CLC manager teams Contents Good Fair Moderate Limited Total Average score (X) Rank 1. Developing specific evaluation criteria 65 83 123 55 326 2.48 4 2. Issuing evaluation regulations 31 141 140 9 334 2.50 3 3. Using evaluation results in rewarding and honoring the CLC manager teams 45 137 134 05 321 2.69 1 4. Measuring the impact of the evaluation on developing CLCs 17 77 169 64 327 2.14 5 5. Making the necessary adjustments after the evaluation 36 158 113 15 322 2.66 2 Average of X 2.49 The evaluation of team also points only level of fair with the average score X = 2.51, but this point at the low level of fair and even close to the level of moderate. In which, the content "Using evaluation results in rewarding and honoring the CLC manager teams" and " Making the necessary adjustments after the evaluation" are the two items that are best evaluated (respectively X = 2.69 and X = 2.66). The content "Making the necessary adjustments after the evaluation" was rated as the weakest in the evaluation of staff (X = 2.14). 2.4.5. Creating working environment and motivation for the CLC manager teams The factor of creating working environment and motivation for the CLC manager teams is an indispensable factor in developing this team. The data table 2.25 shows that the building of environment, the creation of motivation for the CLC manager teams is only at a fair level with the average score of X = 2.53. This average value is at the low level of fair level and is close to the moderate level. Out of the three factors of environment building, motivation creation for the CLC manager teams, only factor 1 is fair, while 2 and 3 are moderate. 17 Table 2.25. Actual situation of building environment, creating working motivation for the CLC manager teams Contents Good Fair Moderate Limited Total Average score (X) Rank 1. Being equipped with facilities and materials to meet working requirements at CLCs 70 116 105 45 336 2. 62 1 2. Creating motivation for the CLC manager teams 66 109 88 74 337 2. 49 2 3. Creating a favorable legal framework for the CLC manager teams 61 107 93 69 330 2. 48 3 Average of X 2. 53 Over the years, building environment and creating motivation to work has not been really focused. Creating a favorable legal corridor for the CLC manager teams still faces many difficulties. Materials and facilities to meet the requirements of work at centers are also limited and has not been interested. The promote motivation for the team is little attention as these staffs work concurrently so the leaders do not pay attention to develop this team. 2.4.6. Factors affecting the development of the CLC manager teams There are many factors affecting the development of the CLC manager teams, it can be about the working environment; the local conditions of socio - economic development; the management mechanisms and policies of the State and education sector; the quality, capacity and qualifications of the CLC manager teams. The data analysis shows that factor "quality, capacity and qualifications of the CLC manager teams" have the most impact to developing this team with X = 2.38. At the point of Average score (X = 2.11), it shows the factors having a moderate influence on the development of team. Conclusion of chapter 2 Currently, depending on the characteristics of CLCs model that the amount and structure of the CLC manager teams modified accordingly. Most CLCs have stabilized in terms of quantity and structure, the quality of the CLC manager teams has been gradually improved. However, the professional capacity of developing community activities/ training programs/ learning programs and management capacity (planning, organizing to the implementation, monitoring - evaluation, resources mobilization, link - coordination among agencies) of this team have not really met the requirements. Besides, the development of the CLC manager teams has many shortcomings and inadequacies shown: The usage and assignment of specific tasks to each member of the directorate has not been focused; The training and fostering the team has not been effective; The monitoring and evaluation of the team has not been conducted regularly; The system of legal documents and mechanisms and policies for the CLC manager teams is lacking, inadequate and incomplete; The local leaders have not built a working environment as well as solutions to create working motivation for the team... To develop the CLC manager teams, it is necessary to have appropriate and feasible solutions, in which be interested in training and fostering effectively the team to improve management capacity; arranging the use and assignment of work in accordance with the CLC board of directors; monitoring - evaluating staff regularly and objectively; building environment to create working motivation and regimes and policies suitable to develop this team. 18 CHAPTER 3. SOLUTIONS OF DEVELOPING TEAM MANAGERS OF CENTER LEARNING COMMUNITY 3. 1. Principles of proposing solutions The thesis is based on 7 principles to propose solutions, including the followings: the historicity and inheritance; the legacy; the practical