Misguided plan could defeat its own object
Play
Closing and merging small schools with larger ones may mean a lot of kids are deprived of the right to learn
Making children walk 10 kilometres to school would seem cruel in many countries, but in Thailand’s rural areas it’s routine for thousands of young students. They have the right to education but limited choices in terms of the school “nearest” home. All this might have to change this coming academic year, however, with the Education Ministry planning to close small schools across the country and merge their students into larger schools nearby. The future is uncertain for many. Will they agree to continue their studies in new schools – or drop out?
Under the ministry plan, 5,962 schools with fewer than 60 students each would be closed because of their below-par academic results. The ministry blames the poor quality of education in these schools on the fact that fewer students means less funding. Merging the students into larger schools will raise standards overall and make better use of the budget.
The intention might be good, but the elimination of small schools has proved unpopular. The news media have voiced strong opposition, calling on the ministry to reconsider. First and foremost, critics say, students suffer if they have to travel far to school. Thousands of kids already walk several kilometres a day and an even longer distance could leave them too tired, affecting their learning ability.
Minister Phongthep Thepkanjana addressed the issue on the Prime Minister’s weekly “Meet the People” television show, saying, among other reassurances, that the Office of the Basic Education Commission has a budget to buy as many as 1,000 vans to transport the students. He stressed that every child will have a school to attend and every teacher a job. Even developed countries, such as the US, close schools that have 300 or fewer students, he pointed out. Phongthep neglected to mention, however, that American infrastructure and circumstances differ greatly from those of rural Thailand.
The minister’s TV appearance proved less than convincing. In a subsequent Suan Dusit Poll, 60 per cent of respondents remained opposed to the ministry’s plan. Meanwhile almost 20,000 have signed an online petition against the policy. On the social media, people exchange personal experiences. “I went trekking in the Doi Chiang Dao forest at the beginning of the year,” said one, “and heard about a school there that’s already closed. The locals told me that their kids now have to attend another school 10 kilometres away. The kids have to travel on foot through the forest, but they skip school during the rainy season because the route becomes impassable.”
On Facebook, critic Vanchai Tantivitayapitak lamented, “Policy-makers dictate the quality of education from air-conditioned offices, based on cost per head and viable investment. They never go out and ask communities how they adapt and what hardships they could face. The vans will not be able to send these kids to school.”
There is similar criticism in the mainstream media over the proposal’s practicality. Most concur there are schools with poor-quality teaching, but argue that a blanket shutdown based on headcount and budget is illogical. Closures should be done on a case-by-case basis, based on the readiness of community and the best interests of the kids. What benefit could the plan bring, many people ask, if it ends up with children abandoning school?
Opponents are asking the ministry to rethink the plan. The budget allocation sounds impractical and top-down implementation does not guarantee the best solution. The argument that closures create “viable investment” in education is unacceptable when the Education Ministry enjoys one of the biggest shares of the national budget. People are comparing those proportions of government spending. If the government can afford to pay back Bt2 trillion in loans to build infrastructure, plus more than Bt100 million on a first-car subsidy, plus Bt10 billion for student computer tablets, why can’t it improve quality in the small schools to avoid shutting them down? Small schools are not offices that can be restructured in a week or two after moving around desks and chairs. What is the use of higher education standards if fewer kids can attend school?
