New road map for education reform

It has now been roughly 17 years since the passing of the progressive National Education Act (NEA) of 1999, providing the basis for major education reform in Thailand.
Despite the many visionary principles of the NEA such as “education for all and all for education”, actual results have been disappointing, primarily related to problems of implementation and instability in the political leadership of the Ministry of Education (MOE) – 19 different ministers in the last 16 years.
In recent years, both academics and those in the media have been harshly critical of Thai education, and how it represents a major obstacle adversely affecting Thailand’s future.
Among major persisting problems are:
1) Inadequate returns on investment. Thailand consistently ranks near the top in the percentage of government budget spent on education, but educational outcomes as reflected, for example, in O-NET, PISA, and TIMSS achievement of Thai students is disappointing and PISA scores have actually been declining.
2) Quality problems persist throughout the system as noted in an important book on the quality controversy in Thailand by Professors Alain Mounier and Phasina Tangchuang at Chiang Mai University.
3) There are serious and increasing educational disparities, as noted in the new book “Unequal Thailand”, by Pasuk and Baker and in the work on inequality of educational attainment by World Bank economist Dr Dilaka Lathapipat.
4) As noted by former deputy prime minister, Yongyuth Yuthavong, Thailand is not investing enough in research and development, contributing to its being caught in a “middle-income” trap.
Given such serious educational problems and issues, the current government had no choice but to develop a new road map for education reform. Three elements of that reform are analysed critically in this article:
1) The proposal to reduce the length of the school day and formal hours of instruction.
2) The policy in the proposed new charter to eliminate free upper-secondary education.
3) The Section 44 new regulation restructuring the nature of educational decentralisation.
Each of these three elements is controversial and contentious. In analysing this new road map, it is important to draw upon empirical and research evidence.
Based on research evidence around the world, the first element of the reform seems unwise and unsound. For example, during the period 1960-1990, when Japan’s productivity-per-person increase was the highest the world has ever seen, Japanese students were spending 33 per cent more time studying than those in the US. Thus, a Japanese high school graduate had knowledge comparable to a US college graduate.
In his important and influential book “Outliers”, Malcolm Gladwell, stresses time on task – and notes that it takes at least 10,000 hours to develop proficiency in something such as learning French or playing tennis. In the era of the Asean Economic Community, Thais need to be studying English more, not less.
With regard to eliminating free upper-secondary education, this actually makes economic sense, though it “looks bad”. Many attending upper-secondary education, particularly in urban areas, are from well-to-do families. If they are provided free education, then in essence, the poor are subsidising the rich, as is the case with university tuition far below actual costs.
Free upper secondary education should be just for those unable to afford it. With the resulting substantial savings, those funds can be invested in improving the quality of pre-school and vocational education, for example, and increasing R and D expenditure to make Thailand more competitive.
With respect to the Section 44 regulation to restructure Thai educational decentralisation, there is some misunderstanding and confusion. Educational Service Areas (ESAs) are not being eliminated, but their roles are certainly diminished and key influential committees associated with them have indeed been abolished.
The rationale for the new structure emphasising the province and the new provincial education officer (“educational governor”) as the focal point for decentralisation is four-fold:
First, this new structure should facilitate unity and integration, because the provincial education officer and the related provincial education committee cover all levels and types of education. Thus, the “all for education” goal should now be more operational.
Second, with this new structure it is hoped that educational corruption at the local level will be reduced and/or eliminated. For example, currently in the Northeast, there is commonly a fee of Bt300,000-Bt400,000 for a teacher to secure a transfer to a more desirable school location.
Third, the province is real with related provincial identity, whereas the Educational Service Areas are artificial bureaucratically established areas. For example, there are important identities associated with being “khon Suphan Buri” or “khon Buri Ram”.
Fourth, and this has to remain “unspoken”, this may give the government more political control of teachers influential in local areas, important with crucial political voting on the horizon.
In discussing this new structure with many diverse Thais, both elite and those in remote areas, there are highly mixed reactions. The new system does, however, seem consistent with the experimentation to promote Area-Based Education (ABE) being promoted by the Thailand Research Fund and the Quality Learning Foundation.
In my November 2015 fieldwork in the remote area of Bueng Kan in the Northeast, I heard the theme, “one size does not fit all” again and again.
Under this new system, each province should develop its own vision for education. For some provinces such as Khon Kaen – which is emphasising the revitalisation of the Isan language, including signage in Isan language – mother-tongue education in early years may be adopted, while the majority of Thai provinces may have no interest in this.
To deal with the educational inefficiency problem noted at the beginning of this column, the small school problem must be solved, but one province may emphasise multiple-grade teaching while another emphasises school consolidation.
A province such as Mukdahan may promote the teaching of Vietnamese and Chiang Mai, and with its sizeable tourist industry, may include Spanish in its curriculum.
The overall consensus seems to be that the success of the new system will be highly dependent on the leadership quality and vision of those with now greater “educational power” such as the permanent secretary, the provincial education officers and committees, and the governors.
Genuine decentralisation will only happen if there is dedicated, visionary, sustained and honest leadership at all relevant levels, including school directors.

Gerald W Fry is distinguished international professor in the Department of Organisational Development, Policy and Development, University of Minnesota. [email protected]