submitting as their long-term national education plans. The RegionalOffice was to compile these plans, along with a comprehensive needsanalysis for each country that was being undertaken concurrently, andthen develop a method of analysis that would better inform policymakersin the region. This was deemed necessary because educationalplanners in the region found the Karachi Plan wanting in some criticalregards. For instance, though it was based on statistics that weresupposed to be descriptive of education in the region, it provided littlereal analysis that was useful for planners. Furthermore, many felt that itseconomic forecasts were not grounded in the reality of their individualcountry contexts. In fact, so unrealistic were the economic predictionsupon which it was based that it was often referred to as ‘pie-in-the-sky’.A new methodology was needed that would yield more accurate data, andthat was also adaptable to the specific needs of each country, and even todifferent regions within each country.Much of the work of developing this new methodology was done prior toApril 1965. However, its final form was very much influenced by thecontribution of the new Director of the <strong>UNESCO</strong> Regional Office, RajaRoy Singh, an educational administrator from New Delhi. The ‘AsianModel’ (<strong>UNESCO</strong>, 1966), as it became known, was presented to the<strong>Bangkok</strong> Conference of Ministers of Education and MinistersResponsible for Economic Planning of Member States in Asia, inNovember 1965 (<strong>UNESCO</strong>, 1965). The overall importance of the AsianModel cannot be understated. It not only provided key data missing fromthe Karachi Plan, it regionalized the entire educational developmenteffort. The Asian Model marked both the attainment of, and theacceptance of, a new level of responsibility and self-respect for thecountries of the region.<strong>UNESCO</strong>-Japanese Co-operationThe next building block for educational innovation for development inAsia-Pacific came in 1967 when the Director-General of Japan's NationalInstitute for Educational Research (NIER), Dr Masunori Hiratsuka, andRaja Roy Singh, forged an agreement for direct co-operation betweenNIER and <strong>UNESCO</strong>. The agreement bound both <strong>UNESCO</strong> and theGovernment of Japan to "provide a joint co-operative programme ineducational research in Asia, through the National Institute ofEducational Research [NIER], Tokyo" (<strong>UNESCO</strong>, 1971a, p. 6). Thiswas the beginning of an important link in the Institute system for regionalco-operation, and later would prove to be an invaluable piece of the newAPEID network. "No other educational co-operation programme, in thisregion or any other developing region, has brought together so manycountries, representing such an enormous range of diversities, in aThe Building Blocks © 7
systematic and sustained way for mutual help, over such a long period oftime" (ACEID, 1998, p. 6).The first meeting held under this agreement took place later in 1967. Itwas a meeting of regional experts in educational research. Itrecommended that a long-term study be conducted across the region todetermine each country's needs and goals for educational research,curriculum development and educational planning in relation to theoverall planning for development. This linkage of educational planningto development is significant as it foreshadowed the network model ofeducational innovation for development. By and large, education hadtraditionally been treated as a separate entity with no direct link to othersocial and developmental problems like poverty, disease, unemployment,and over-population. Eventually, participants at the Chiangmai Seminarin 1971 would elaborate upon this connection, making a clear distinctionbetween social and economic development, and call for an emphasis onboth. In other words, educational innovation would no longer be isolatedfrom other aspects of development, and development itself was no longerto be exclusively understood in terms of economics and Gross NationalProduct (GNP).The Chiangmai Seminar recommended that, as the Regional Instituteshad effectively raised the level of expertise in the region, it was now timefor the next phase. After much persuasion, Raja Roy Singh was able toadvance his idea as to what that next phase should comprise. Headvocated a Regional Office with “a critical mass of interdisciplinaryspecialists to provide a nerve centre to activate the operations in a wholecontinent with mobile task forces ready on call, resource personsavailable at the end of a telephone line, and forums for exchange ofinformation and experience, all guaranteeing a perpetual meeting ofminds” (Guruge, 1986, p. TWO/28). Officially authorized in 1972 by the17 th Session of <strong>UNESCO</strong>’s General Conference in Resolution 1.211,(<strong>UNESCO</strong>, 1973, p.1), the APEID/ACEID network was establishedthrough Resolutions 13 and 14 of the Third Regional Conference ofMinisters of Education and Those Responsible for Economic Planning inAsia (<strong>UNESCO</strong>, 1971b, p. 59). APEID was, and continues to be, anAsia-Pacific network: of and by the Member States of Asia-Pacific, andfor the common needs and interests of the Member States in Asia-Pacific,as they determine them to be.8 © Snapshots of Primary and Secondary Education in Asia-Pacific
- Page 5 and 6: P r e f a c eIn responding to the m
- Page 7 and 8: List of AbbreviationsACEIDADBAECAPE
- Page 9 and 10: C O N T E N T SPrefaceList of Abbre
- Page 11 and 12: Pakistan28. In-service Teacher Educ
- Page 13 and 14: Projects from 14 countries are incl
- Page 15 and 16: ability to make a regional contribu
- Page 17: and this became a foundation stone
- Page 21 and 22: ReferencesACEID (1998), ACEID News,
- Page 23 and 24: project in Higher Secondary Educati
- Page 25 and 26: Models of Educational InnovationA d
- Page 27 and 28: was clearly a main goal of the cons
- Page 29 and 30: Innovation in primary and secondary
- Page 31 and 32: Schwab, J (1969), The practical: A
- Page 33 and 34: List of Projects by CountryRelation
- Page 35 and 36: List of Projects by CountrySince 19
- Page 37 and 38: List of Projects by CountryThe proj
- Page 39 and 40: CHINAList of Projects by Country7.
- Page 41 and 42: List of Projects by Countrydealing
- Page 43 and 44: ContactDr R Govinda, National Insti
- Page 45 and 46: List of Projects by Countryand Trai
- Page 47 and 48: List of Projects by Countryeducator
- Page 49 and 50: List of Projects by Countryteaching
- Page 51 and 52: List of Projects by CountryTo suppo
- Page 53 and 54: Workplace training involves the app
- Page 55 and 56: MALDIVESList of Projects by Country
- Page 57 and 58: List of Projects by CountryThis UNI
- Page 59 and 60: 26. Secondary Education Development
- Page 61 and 62: Simpson, M (1998), Student support
- Page 63 and 64: List of Projects by Countryeducatio
- Page 65 and 66: List of Projects by Countrybased le
- Page 67 and 68: List of Projects by CountryThe low
- Page 69 and 70:
Elementary Lead Schools of DECS. Su
- Page 71 and 72:
Dr Alberto P Mendoza, Director IV,
- Page 73 and 74:
ContactSoledad A Ulep, Institute fo
- Page 75 and 76:
List of Projects by Countryhalls or
- Page 77 and 78:
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORSPhilip Bergstr
- Page 79 and 80:
• rural 4, 10, 30, 34, 35, 36•