Free our failing schools
The biggest obstacle to much-needed education reform in Thailand is not the lack of budgetary support nor human resources. It is resistance from the Education Ministry itself. This depressing fact was brought home by highranking education official Payom Chinnawong, deputy secretary-general of the Office of the Basic Education Commission, in his response to comments by Supachai Panitchpakdi, former chief of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), who said educational administration in Thailand is a failure.
Mr Supachai said the Thai education system is aggravating social inequality. In response, Mr Payom said entering a university should not be an indicator of inequalities or failure in the education system.
His refusal to accept a straightforward evaluation of the Thai education system is not surprising. It reflects the ministry’s refusal to confront its own failure. This is why little, if anything at all, has been done to fix the archaic system which is leaving the country further and further behind international standards.
Mr Supachai’s criticisms echo what many educators have pointed out before. In sum, the education budget is no problem. The Ministry of Education receives a massive 20% of the government’s budget for education investment. This proportion is among the highest in the world.
Manpower is not the problem either. More than 450,000 people or one-third of the entire civil service are teachers and educational personnel under the ministry. They also receive better remuneration, work security and welfare benefits.
Class hours in Thailand are also among the highest in the world. Yet Thai students have successively failed both national and international tests, trailing behind other neighbouring countries. This calls into question the system’s rotelearning approach and teaching quality — or the lack of it.
Mr Payom is correct to say entering university should not be viewed as education success. Indeed, the country needs to nurture the diverse capabilities and needs of individual students. The country also needs to support and improve vocational education. But the ministry is doing just the opposite.
In reality, the system brainwashes students to chase university degrees and look down on vocational education. It focuses on tests and tutoring, which favour the well-to-do students who can afford after-school tuition.
This system not only aggravates social inequalities, it also fails to meet the country’s real needs. Unfortunately, university education also fails to fulfil the purpose of education and bridge disparity; it ignores research and development for the national good, focusing on serving business interests and urban concerns.
Mr Supachai correctly blames education failure on administration mismanagement. However, this is not only about inequitable urban-rural resource distribution. It is also about policy and administrative centralisation.
Toward reform, local schools must be able to initiate change on their own. They should be able to design their own curriculums and train their teachers to improve classroom teaching, efficiency and competitiveness. Policy and administrative centralisation makes this impossible.
At present, schools cannot even hire their own teachers. Placements, transfers and promotions are decided from the top in Bangkok.
This centralisation is worsened by territorial competition among agencies in charge of different levels of education, which hinders policy coordination.
Education reform demands school autonomy and decentralisation. If education authorities keep on clinging to central power, the country will be stuck with an expensive system which leaves the country further and further behind international standards.