The government has correctly identified the education system as an area in need of reform. In fact, it is a national security risk for two reasons.
Tens of thousands of students sit an exam in a bid to secure university seats. Despite substantial financial support from the government, the country's education system still lags behind other countries in the region. THITI WANNAMONTHA
First, there is evidence from international testing (by the Organisation for Economic Countries and Development's Programme for International Student Assessment, or Pisa) that Thailand's education system is beginning to fall behind those of its neighbouring Asean countries, including Vietnam. While Thai students' Pisa results did improve from 2009-2012, the Thai director attributed this to improvements in elite demonstration schools. Thailand's economic growth rate is already under pressure, and weak international test results remind investors that other Asean countries may provide better investment opportunities.
Second, regional and provincial breakdowns — whether Pisa, the Thai O-Net or Trends in International Mathematics and Science Survey (Timms) — consistently show regional and provincial structural inequalities in the Thai education system that work against ethnic minority students, students from families of lower socio-economic status, and students from rural areas — three categories which often overlap. These differences have been made much more transparent via urban migration and social media. This creates an expectation of greater equality of opportunity that can readily be exploited by machine politicians if not assuaged.
The task therefore facing the Prayut government — that of levelling up the entire national education system while also reducing inequality — is enormous, spanning thousands of schools and well over 100 universities. However, other countries have faced similar challenges in recent years, notably Canada (the Ontario Literacy and Numeracy Strategy, from 2004-2008) and England (National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies, 1997-2005), with some degree of success. The following analysis partially draws on the findings of these programmes.
The first step in the reform process is to introduce a dedicated reform unit, headed by the Education Ministry and drawing together all relevant departments. This reform unit should have its own secretariat and a dedicated budget that can only be spent on its goals. In the case of England, this was £600,000,000 (31.5 billion baht). The reform unit can be guided by the overall objective of creating a Western-style education system infused with (primarily) Buddhist ideals and philosophy.
The second step for the reform unit is to set a small number of publicly transparent, ambitious, yet viable goals, for example, in literacy, numeracy, morality and English. These should include high-level global goals, such as increasing O-Net scores in maths, Thai and English by 2.5% per year for five years, or improving Pisa and Timms scores year on year, for example by at least five points per year for Pisa. In the area of morality, the concept of a self-sufficiency school with orchards, gardens and small farms could be set up to help impoverished students. Crucially, the reform unit should also include structural goals to reduce racial/class educational inequality (itself immoral), such as increasing the O-Net scores of ethnic minorities (the several million Thai Lao, Kham Meuang, Thai Malay, Khmer and Karen children) year on year, with the aim of reaching parity with Central Thai children.
Third, the scientific method should be applied. This means opening up the education reform process to external peer evaluation. For example, the management of the English literacy and numeracy strategies was evaluated by a Canadian team.
Similarly, the fourth step is for all Thai data gathering (testing) related to reform to be externally evaluated, by the Cambridge University examination board, for example. This would establish reliable and valid baselines and progress indicators, as well as feedback for education improvement. The eventual aim could be creating university exit tests in English, as previously suggested by the Thai Ministry of Education.
The fifth step is to apply the scientific method to the reform process via evidence-based reform strategies. Such strategies, drawing on the Ontario and English experiences, would include motivating teachers by being permissive rather than prescriptive, developing leadership based on accurate data, recruiting literacy and numeracy specialists (at a ratio of 1:60 in the English case study), reducing primary school class sizes to a 1:20 teacher-student ratio (Ontario case study) and teaching teachers to use portfolios, project work and the internet to individually develop learners in these smaller classes.
Sixth, accurate data gathering means failure can be addressed. Failing students should be detected as early as possible, by the end of Grade 1. This means schools must not hide failure and instead need to assess learners realistically. Students failing in literacy and numeracy should be supported in class by specialists. Out of class, they should be enrolled in externally evaluated after-school or "summer school" programmes. This means schools with significant problems with literacy and numeracy should be specially exempted and set learning progress — not high grades — as objectives.
Seventh, ethnic minorities need to be better integrated into the national education system. The reform unit should introduce a multilingual system including the mother tongue for all minority groups for Kindergarten and Grades 1-3. This is because global, as well as Thai research (by Mahidol University in schools in the deep South), indicates such an education leads to lower dropout and truancy rates, greater motivation, and higher literacy and numeracy skills in the national language.
As well as the greater use of minority languages and local knowledge in the education system, visible reminders of the Thai social system and its relationship to regional/local languages as well as to English need to be introduced. This means that all signs in minority area schools need to be in Thai (placed higher and larger), regional or local languages, and English. This will also enhance the prestige of the minorities and give them a greater sense of ownership of the education system.
In other words, until Thailand successfully integrates (not assimilates) Thailand's minority peoples into its education system, global improvements will only address one aspect of the national security risk. Integration means the Prayut government will improve the socio-political "happiness" of the minorities and provide equal opportunities for all, part of Thailand's international obligations under both the Millennium Development Goals and Education for All programme, and so win the approval of the relevant international monitoring bodies, principally Unicef and Unesco.
John Draper is Project Officer, Isan Culture Maintenance and Revitalisation Programme, College of Local Administration, Khon Kaen University.