The quality of teaching is what really matters

Parents will certainly strive to send their children to schools that they consider the best via whatever means. And money is an effective way to enable parents to get what they want for their children.

Of course, the question of “tea money” often comes up before the opening of the school season. The issue has got increasingly intense because the differences in the quality of schooling have widened over the recent years. 

Pictures of parents and students waiting desperately to get accepted at recognised schools do not suggest an inadequate supply of schools. In fact, there are schools that have seats available. But parents don’t want to send their children there because they are not confident about the quality of teaching at these schools.

The issue, however, has been framed as a reflection of the disparity between the “haves” and “have-nots”. Parents who can offer better financial resources to support schools often have a better chance to get their children accepted. Parents with average children and little financial resources are likely to face fierce competition with only a few slots available. Failing that, they would have to settle and enter their kids in the second- or third-best schools.

Famous schools have naturally become a target for parents and their resources. But the educators and activists should instead look at what has gone wrong at schools that no parents want their kids to go to.

Education Minister Suchart Tadathamrongvej recently tried to legalise this despicable, yet popular, custom, by calling payment from parents a “school donation”, instead of “tea money.”

Suchart’s move, not surprisingly, drew quick condemnation from activists. Building Thailand Club president Amnuay Sunthornchote said Suchart’s policy would encourage 

discrimination against people on the basis of financial status.

Let’s face it: Thailand has now become a materialistic society. Money often gets people what they need or want. Regardless of what form of contribution is made, the tradition of tea money will continue.

Suchart was not quite right in his argument that parents’ donations would make up for inadequate quality of schooling. 

But the physical improvement of schools does not provide an answer to good education. The Education Ministry or even the schools’ management tend to measure schools’ success by their new buildings or a new set of computers. State subsidies often go to new buildings or computer facilities. The quality of teachers is hardly improved and the average class size in Thai schools is still too big to enable teachers to get pay sufficient for the students in their classes.

The Education Ministry has in fact received a massive budget. But this money never gets used on improving the quality of teaching or classrooms for the students. Adults tend to use the children’s money on something that children may not care for, such as fancy buildings.

While the education-related arguments in Thailand centre around the question of money, other countries have looked at the fundamental issue to see how to improve teaching or the learning environment for students.

American education officials have felt it’s imperative to improve the quality of teaching after seeing “their” children perform worse than countries such as Singapore and South Korea. In a move to address the issue, officials in New York State and the state teachers’ union recently reached an agreement on a new evaluation system to measure the quality of teachers’ work. 

The disparity in the school system has been framed by some as an issue of injustice. Children of well-off parents have more advantages to get access to the best schools.

But instead of blaming their parents, educators should focus on how we can narrow the gap and provide quality teaching to students at all schools. After all, the best school is defined by their students and teachers – not the financial support that it has.