Counting the cost of a broken school system
Last week, Singapore International School of Bangkok (SISB) became the first education institution listed in the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET). Its listing has shed light on not only its profit-oriented business model but also the disparity between private and state education systems.
With an IPO of 260 million shares, SISB Co Ltd, the operator of the school, debuted on the Market for Alternative Investment amid criticism concerning the “ethics” of putting an education institution on the stock market.
Kelvin Koh, SISB’s chief executive officer, told reporters the company hoped to grow with long-term investment. SISB is eager to contribute to Thai education by “its principle of putting education before business”, he said, adding that the company had consulted the Education Ministry prior to going public.
But it turned out that the head of the ministry is among those who raised the issue of ethics. Responding to the first day of trading, Education Minister Teerakiat Jaroensettasin questioned whether the school should enjoy tax-exemption privileges offered by the Private Schools Act.
The tax break is granted on the basis that private schools are considered an important agent contributing to “equal education access” in Thailand.
Some people have started to say that it is not right for a school to start making profits on the stock market. Their main concern is that the direction of the school’s operation may shift towards maximising profits for shareholders by focusing on increasing school tuition fees rather than improving education quality for its students.
Listing an education business on the stock market does not violate Thai law. But whether it promotes ethics in education is another issue. Before delving into the matter, let’s consider the business aspect of private education and the bigger picture of the Thai education system.
In Thailand’s private education sector, many school operators have made great efforts to stay competitive in the market by, for example, improving learning facilities and hiring well-qualified teachers to attract parents seeking to buy the best future for their children.
Those parents are willing to pay expensive tuition fees. From such a perspective, it is fine to list a private school in the stock market as a means to raise funds to expand the business and serve the needs of people who can afford it.
In fact, many profitmaking schools provide good quality education to students in Thailand where state-owned schools lack capital and capacity. They reflect and promote a diversity of choices in the Thai education system.
But they are not the choice for students of low-income families. These pupils often end up in state schools where tuition is affordable but the quality of the education they provide leaves plenty to be desired. Operators of many state-owned schools receive a limited budget from the government. Teachers in state schools are poorly paid and rarely receive opportunities to enhance their qualifications. A friend of mine started teaching in a rural primary school this year and gets a monthly salary of only 8,000 baht.
Ironically, the government’s inability to improve the quality of both state schools and their teachers is the main reason that private education thrives.
If you visit state-run schools in rural areas, you’ll find that the number of students enrolling in them is pretty low. That is because local parents have enrolled their kids at urban state schools located further away or private schools. These choices reflect their need for better education for their children.
Additionally, quality state education is also concentrated among famous schools. Facing high competition in getting a seat for their kids in those wellknown institutions, many parents have been forced to pay “tea money”, the so-called “additional charges”, to school operators. Apart from money, some use their personal connections to place their kids in those schools.
In another sphere, joining private tutorial schools is a must for Thai students. In an effort to boost their kids’ study performance, parents pay for tutorial classes to ensure that their kids have access to qualified tutors, a wider range of educational materials, tips and guidelines about school examinations.
In fact, they may be paying for extra classes provided by some state school teachers who quite possibly put more effort into these salary-boosting extra classes than they do during their school hours.
In this situation, pupils from lowincome families don’t have anywhere to go to get a “quality” education.
While the Thai education system allows a free market in private education, it has done little to improve state schools. As a result, the gap in the quality of education wealthy kids receive compared to their poorer peers has widened. Kids from private schools thus end up having better career prospects.
At the same time, there is also disparity among state school students. The scores of students who took the O-net, the standardised national test, in the past few years show that those from schools in richer provinces such as Bangkok, Phuket and Chon Buri earned higher marks than students from rural schools.
What adds salt to the wound is chronic corruption in the state education system which has robbed students of the benefits of much of the investment their school may have received.
So if you look at a case of one international school being listed in the stock market, it seems like there is nothing ethically wrong. It’s an exchange of service and money. It is also a stark reminder of the inequality in the Thai education system that has created a two-tier system.
When education is commoditised, there will always be families who can and families who can’t afford it. Without a serious effort to improve state education, the window of opportunity for state school students, especially those from low-income families, may close when it doesn’t have to.
The government’s inability to improve state schools is the reason that private education thrives.