FAST TRACK The Guidelines for Academic Affairs Administration of Buddhist Secondary Schools in Luang Prabang Province

Abstract

The objectives of this research were to: 1) investigate the current status of academic administration in Buddhist secondary schools in Luang Prabang Province, 2) to create the guidelines for academic administration in Buddhist secondary schools in Luang Prabang Province, and 3)evaluate these guidelines for academic administration in Buddhist secondary schools in Luang Prabang Province. The research methodology was divided into three phases. The target group for Phase 1 consisted of 59 school administrators and teachers. The target group for Phase 2 comprised 9 key informants, namely: the President, Vice President, and Head of Office of the Lao Buddhist Fellowship Organization (LBFO); school directors and deputy directors; and the Head of the Sangha Affairs Sector. For Phase 3, the stakeholders involved in evaluating the guidelines consisted of 15 school directors, academic staff, and teachers. The research instruments used were questionnaires, structured interviews, and guideline evaluation forms. Data were analyzed using statistical measures including frequency (f), percentage (%), mean ( ), and standard deviation ( ).

The research findings revealed that the overall status of academic administration in Buddhist secondary schools in Luang Prabang Province was at a high level. When ranked by mean from highest to lowest, the areas were: curriculum development, learning process development, measurement and evaluation, and innovative media development, respectively;  There were 22 proposed guidelines for academic administration in Buddhist secondary schools in Luang Prabang Province, including: 7 guidelines for curriculum development, 5 guidelines for learning process development, 6 guidelines for measurement and evaluation, and 4 guidelines for innovative media development; The overall evaluation of the guidelines for academic administration in Buddhist secondary schools in Luang Prabang Province showed that both suitability (propriety) and feasibility were at a high level. When considered individually, each guideline was rated at high to highest levels for both suitability and feasibility.