Interview on Thailand Social Monitor - Improving Secondary Education

ฟังการให้สัมภาษณ์เรื่อง การปรับปรุงการมัธยมศึกษาในประเทศไทยจาก คุณอัจริยา โครตบรรเทา ผู้เชี่ยวชาญด้านการศึกษา แผนกงานพัฒนามนุษย์ ธนาคารโลกสำนักงานประเทศไทย  คลิกที่นี่

Full English transcript:

Why does the World Bank put such a great emphasis on education?

Education is crucial for development since it enhances a person’s chance to gain more knowledge and skills, and be better prepared to make wise and good decisions about his or her future.  This in turn leads to more equality among people, and easier access to better opportunities in various aspects.  Therefore, education is one of the most important issues addressed by the World Bank.

The World Bank and Education

The World Bank has provided educational assistance to developing countries since 1963, and is currently one of the world’s largest external sources of funding for educational assistance to the world. 

ThailandSocial Monitor - Human Development Unit

The World Bank in Thailand has currently drafted a new report called the “Thailand Social Monitor:  Improving Secondary Education” which attempts to highlight recent accomplishments in the advancement of Thailand’s secondary education.  It addresses the issues of access and equity, quality and efficiency, considers challenges Thailand is facing with regards to secondary education, and provides some recommendations for policy consideration. 

The report is part of a series of social monitors which were conceived as a tool to reflect on current situations about selected social issues in Thailand’s health, education and social protection sectors. 

Access to or enrolment in education

Education has always been among the high priority areas in Thailand, and as a result school enrolment rates have significantly increased during the past decade.   

During the period of 1980-1990, the Royal Thai Government (RTG) focused on expanding access to primary education. Such efforts resulted in successful achievements; Thailand was able to provide nearly universal compulsory education.

However, during the same period of time, secondary education enrolment lagged.   That is, approximately only 30 percent of the Thai population enrolled in secondary schools, compared to approximately 60-70 percent in the Philippines and 80-90 percent in Korea.

This affected the level of knowledge and skills of the Thai labor force.   In 1997, as much as 70 percent of the Thai labor force received only elementary education or less, while 17 percent obtained secondary education (and 8 percent had a university degree). 

Starting in the 1990s, the RTG made strong efforts to expand access to secondary education. By incorporating lower secondary education in already established primary schools, the RTG created more opportunities for children to be able to attend secondary school.   Therefore, during the period of 1990-2000, the rate of secondary school enrollment dramatically increased to approximately 80 percent of the total Thai population. 

Problem – The group of children who still have no access to education

Those who still do not have access to education include the disabled, the poor, and the children with fewer opportunities.   Thailand’s database system still lacks the capacity to reach out to these children.   Most of the available figures are only estimates, and sometimes figures from different sources show significant discrepancies. 

Quality of education

International comparative reports are used to indicate the quality of secondary education in Thailand in comparison with other countries.   There are 2 major reports.   The first is the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which measures the ability of 15 year old children in applying certain knowledge and skills in exercises such as analysis and problem solving.   The second one is the program called Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study  (TIMSS), which measures the ability of 15-16 year old children (Grade 8 in the American schools, and Mathayom 2 in Thai schools) in mathematics and science.

The results of both reports suggest that Thailand’s performance is satisfactory when compared to other countries with similar income levels, such as Indonesia or Brazil.   However, they show that Thailand lags behind countries such as Japan, Hong Kong, and Korea.

In a more in-depth analysis, it is found that only a small number of Thai students perform at the higher levels of proficiency (from the total of 6 levels).   For example, over 50 percent of students performed at or below the PISA level one in mathematics in 2003.  

As for Thailand’s report, “The Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA)” conducted an external quality assessment of schools providing basic education, and concluded last month that from the total of 30,010 schools, only 10,865 schools were up to standard levels (approximately 36 percent, or only one-third).

Factors affecting the quality of education

Teachers:

·         Availability of resources.

·         Teaching ability.   According to the TIMSS, in the year 2003 as much as 55 percent of students in mathematics classes and 58 percent of students in science classes interviewed reported that they were taught by teachers who felt less than adequately prepared in teaching these subjects.

·         Thai classrooms are dominated by front-style lecturing. Little effort is made to students to engage in discussion or critical / creative thinking.   On average, Thai students spend one-fifth of their study time listening to the lecture given by their teachers, and one-fifth doing the exercises guided by their teachers. These rates are similar to those of the students participating in the TIMSS.

·         But Thai students rarely have the opportunity to apply the knowledge they have learned on new situations, or to use creative thinking in their daily life.   As much as 91 percent of students report that their teachers show them how to do mathematics exercises.

Schools

·         The teacher to student ratio is 1:28 on average.  However, these ratios vary in different provinces, starting with 1:12 in Petchaboon Province to 1:37 in Chiang Rai.

·         Number of students per class.

·         However, the relationship between the number of students per class and student achievement is difficult to extricate.   The average classroom size of Asian schools tends to be larger than the international average.   For example, there are 36 students per class in Japan, and 50 students per class in the Philippines.   As for Thailand, the average number of students per class is as much as 43. 

·         The international comparison reports suggest that the considerable number of students per class seems to have no negative effect on students’ accomplishments.   Moreover, the students from the classrooms with a large number of students in Japan, Hong Kong, and South Korea even receive higher scores in mathematics and science. 

·         However, there are other factors involved.  In Thailand, the classrooms with a large number of students are generally in the big schools with high competition, and which have sufficient learning materials. Moreover, the students in those schools usually come from more privileged family backgrounds. Therefore, they also receive other supports, which affect student achievement.    

The Children and their Family

·         Analysis shows that high family income has a positive impact on student academic achievement.   This is because these families are willing to pay for the education of their children.

·         Furthermore, parents with a higher education level also place more emphasis on the education of their children.

Efficiency of the Thai education system

The RTG allocates more than one fifth of its total budget on education, which accounts for 4 or 5 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).   Such a distribution is rather significant when compared to the average distribution of lower-middle income countries, which is usually 3.5 percent, or the average distribution of other East Asian and Pacific countries, which is usually 3.2 percent.  Furthermore, Thailand even maintained this level of distribution during the 1999 economic crisis.

More than two thirds of the education budget is allocated to basic education, with pre-primary and primary levels receiving the largest proportion. 

In 2003, Thailand allocated approximately 28 percent of its total education budget or 1.13 percent of GDP to secondary education, falling behind what countries with strong secondary education sectors typically spend.  On average, lower-middle income countries allocate 40 percent of their total education resources or 1.86 percent of GDP to secondary education. 

Most interestingly, the unit cost for secondary education in Thailand is lower than the unit cost for primary education.  

In addition to limited public resources for secondary education, this is further compounded by the very low shares of private resources available for secondary education financing.  (In Thailand, private sector contributions amounted to 0.06 percent of GDP, an equivalent of only 5 percent of public sector financing).

More equality is required in terms of budget allocation to localities.   According to the Asian Development Bank’s report in 1989, previous budget distributions tended to be in favor of the provinces with healthier financial situation, with Bangkok receiving the largest share of the budget. 

While education receives the largest share of the national budget across sectors, whether those resources are equally and efficiently distributed among different income groups is debatable.  

Considering the quintile distribution of the Thai population based on income, the poorest 40 percent of the population receive 56 percent of total spending, reflecting a pro-poor allocation of resources.  The quintile distribution for secondary level education is distributed fairly equally; however, spending for tertiary education is clearly regressive.  The wealthiest 20 percent of the population receive 53 percent of total spending.  This raises questions on whether or not the distribution of resources should be reconsidered.