Reducing classroom hours is a double-edged sword

Many parents are unwilling to even consider the notion of “free time” for children, but the subject is under debate again with the Education Ministry announcing plans to reduce classroom hours. Students have naturally greeted the news with joy, and motorists are looking forward to less traffic congestion during morning and afternoon rush hour. But parents’ reactions are mixed. While some welcome the move, others are worried about how to keep their kids occupied in their time away from school.
 
What is less discussed is whether the notion will do anything to remedy the poor quality of Thai education.
 
New minister Dapong Ratanasuwan, an Army general, seems to think so, saying cutting down class hours “will reduce students’ stress”. In a bold first move in office, he has instructed schools across the country to end lessons at 2pm each day starting next semester. More than 3,500 schools will begin implementing the policy in November.
 
The idea is to give students an extra hour per day to spend on extracurricular activities that also build their knowledge and skills. At present they are subject to long hours of low-quality study in schools that do not foster efficient learning.
 
If judged on the time students devote to schooling, Thai education quality would rank among the best in the world. Thai students spend 1,200 hours a year in class, but their exam results are proof that study time does not correlate with quality. Students in Finland spend 626 hours a year in school – half as much as their Thai counterparts – and yet consistently score high for academic excellence. Thai schoolchildren stay in class longer than most of their counterparts in developed countries, but fail to outperform them in international rankings.
 
Observers have long criticised the education system for its focus on rote learning rather than encouraging children to think for themselves. As such, reducing class hours could be a spur to this much-needed independent thinking, as well as enabling them to pursue innate talent in sport and music. However, there is no guarantee that schools will be able to fulfil the ministry’s wishes by instilling children with extra skills or knowledge outside of normal class hours.
 
The Office of the Basic Education Commission now has the urgent task of designing a course syllabus to suit the reduced study time and an extracurricular blueprint for the free time. Both are tough challenges rendered at short notice.
 
It would be unfair to predict whether those challenges will be met – and even whether schools will be able to dismiss students at 2pm. If parents and teachers fail to find worthwhile free-time pursuits for youngsters, the whole scheme will have been in vain. The initiative has potential, but the outcome depends largely on support from schools and parents.
 
Cutting classroom hours offers the freedom of open space, but that will be wasted if there is nothing to fill it. Thai education has for decades suffered from short-term policies and aborted efforts. As such, serious doubts remain over whether the “free-time” policy will bear fruit.
 
It is no surprise that public opinion is split on the move, which has the look of a double-edged sword that could cut either way. If the students’ additional free time doesn’t add up to new knowledge, then it will fail. But if it encourages independent learning and self-development, it could be a crucial step towards the quality education so desperately needed in this country.
 
The biggest challenge now for the ministry and related agencies is to lay the firm foundations necessary for this initiative to succeed. If they can help students benefit from the free time available to them, all the blunders that preceded it can be forgiven.