Abolishing the school board: A major change in public university leadership

Bỏ hội đồng trường: Biến động lớn về lãnh đạo đại học công lập - Ảnh 1. — Not organizing school councils at public universities is one of the contents that attracted the attention of delegates attending the 2025 University Education Conference recently organized by the Ministry of Education and Training - Photo: MOET

The Ministry of Education and Training has just requested universities and vocational training institutions to temporarily suspend planning work and consider appointing new school board leaders and school leaders. This directive aims to implement Resolution 71 of the Politburo , which includes an important content: not to organize school boards in public educational institutions (except for schools with international agreements).

Inadequate, must change

In recent years, the university council model has been considered a major step in the process of granting autonomy to universities. This model is, in theory, an advanced governance structure, helping universities clearly separate the supervisory and operational roles, gradually approaching international standards. However, in the process of operation, this model has revealed many problems.

In the report on the preliminary assessment of the implementation of the Law on University Education for the 2019-2024 period sent to the Government, Minister of Education and Training Nguyen Kim Son said that up to now, 167/171 public universities (excluding those under the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Public Security ) have completed the establishment and consolidation of university councils, but the effectiveness of operations still has many shortcomings.

According to reports from 13 ministries, ministerial-level agencies and 24 localities, 67 university education institutions have implemented the Party Committee Secretary as Chairman of the School Council and Chairman of the University Council.

The Ministry of Education and Training has found that in practice, the school councils at some universities are still weak and formalistic, and have not properly and fully exercised their powers and responsibilities as prescribed by law. This has led to the role of the school council being overlooked or, in some places, conflicts and contradictions between the school council, the chairman of the school council and the principal.

The new policy will abolish the school council model at public universities, which is a major change compared to the current Law on University Education.

Thus, the new organizational structure of higher education institutions will no longer have school councils for public schools (except for those with international cooperation elements). School councils only exist in private schools or units with international agreements.

This marks a major change in the university governance structure when the principal - chairman of the university council model was once considered a step forward in university autonomy.

Party Secretary and Head

The abolition of the university council is not only a change in the organizational structure but also has a profound impact on the way public universities operate, manage and govern in the coming time. This decision represents a strong shift: from a decentralized model to a centralized, unified model, where the head of the Party Committee will concurrently take on the executive role.

This is not only an organizational adjustment but also a clear message about strengthening the Party's leadership role in the education system, while also placing higher demands on the capacity, mettle and management thinking of the school's leadership team.

However, in reality, when there is no longer an institution like the school board to act as a counterweight, critic, and monitor, other inspection and evaluation mechanisms will be required to avoid falling into a situation where "one person decides everything".

Innovation in university governance models cannot stop at changing the organizational structure but must go hand in hand with staff training, perfecting the legal framework, and building a democratic academic culture that respects criticism.

Otherwise, the problem of university autonomy may return to the starting point, where schools are completely controlled by superiors instead of being operated based on internal capacity and real academic needs.

Pause new appointments

On September 12, the Ministry of Education and Training issued two official dispatches to its affiliated educational institutions and competent authorities, requesting a temporary suspension of planning and appointment of new leadership positions, including: director, principal, deputy director, and deputy principal. These positions will only be reappointed when their term ends, and new appointments will be suspended until further instructions are issued.

For the school council, the chairman and vice chairman of the school council whose term ends will continue to operate until new instructions are issued. In case the chairman is no longer of age to manage, the vice chairman (if any) will operate the school council or the school council will elect an operator if there is no vice chairman.

Also according to the direction from the ministry, educational institutions are required to temporarily suspend planning for the positions of president and vice president of the school board (if any).

Improving the effectiveness of university governance

Resolution 71 is considered an important milestone in the orientation of education and training development of the whole country, aiming to innovate thinking, streamline the apparatus, improve the effectiveness of university governance, and at the same time ensure the comprehensive leadership of the Party at educational institutions. One of the important orientations in Resolution 71 is to strengthen the direct and comprehensive leadership role of the Party organization, especially the role of the head of the Party Committee at educational institutions.

Accordingly, the model of Party Secretary concurrently being the head of the educational institution will be implemented instead of the previous model of Principal and Chairman of the School Board.

"3 in 1" engine

Bỏ hội đồng trường: Biến động lớn về lãnh đạo đại học công lập - Ảnh 2. — A corner of Tsinghua University, China's top university - Photo from the school's website

Resolution 71 of the Politburo identifies the party secretary who is also the head of a university as a "3-in-1 engine" that combines political, governance and administrative power.

This model promises to address the diffusion of power, speed up decision-making, and increase accountability. But the stronger the incentives, the greater the risk of imbalance without proper oversight and academic guidance.

Lessons from China show that the concentration of power both creates momentum for development and poses risks. In China, the party secretary is the "number one person" in the university, the president is only the deputy secretary in charge of academics. All major decisions are guided and approved by the party committee.

The secretary is both a decision-maker and a manager, a coordinator and a political representative. Thanks to that, many universities can mobilize resources from the state, local authorities and businesses, closely linked to national strategies such as "Made in China 2025" or artificial intelligence and green technology programs.

However, many secretaries are criticized for lacking academic background and being administrative, which reduces the autonomy and creativity of universities. This is both a model of strength and a warning.

In Vietnam, Resolution 71 identifies the Party Secretary as the head of the university. This policy helps unify leadership and overcome the situation of "three heads": Party Committee - School Council - Board of Directors.

Centralized power also shortens the time for decisions on personnel, finance, and strategy, ensuring consistent implementation of political guidelines. At the same time, it sets a new requirement: the leader must meet a "double standard": both political courage and understanding of modern university management.

The model of the Party Secretary who is also the leader can be compared to a vehicle equipped with a "3-in-1 engine". The Secretary is both the political leader and the administrator - operator, and at the same time the administrative legal entity of the University. Three powers converging in one position create a very strong engine, helping the vehicle run fast, decisively and without the dispersion of power as before.

But the more powerful the engine, the more reliable the braking and guidance signals must be. The braking is the mechanism of monitoring, checking and transparency; the guidance signals are the correct political orientation, linked to academic autonomy and social needs. Without these two elements, the vehicle can easily lose control or go off track.

Relations with businesses also need to be taken into account. Previously, the school council had business representatives, helping to connect training strategies with labor needs. Now this channel no longer exists, easily weakening the connection between schools, businesses, and society. China's experience is to set up advisory councils and cooperative alliances to compensate. Vietnam needs alternative mechanisms: business advisory councils, strategic cooperation agreements, and accountability reports to the labor market.

One option discussed is that the party secretary also serves as the principal. This model is extremely compact, avoids conflicts of authority, and speeds up decision-making. However, the absolute concentration of power and the overload of work pose a risk of overwhelming the academics.

This option can be applied to small, application-oriented schools, but with multidisciplinary, research-oriented, national-level universities, it is necessary to maintain relative separation: the secretary takes care of political and strategic orientation, the principal takes care of academics and administration.

It is necessary to promote the advantages and overcome the limitations of this model by standardizing leadership capacity, connecting businesses and society and nurturing a creative academic environment. Only then will the "leader" truly be a professional driver, leading Vietnamese universities to integrate and develop sustainably.