Improving Equity & Quality of Education in Thailand

Using the results from International and

National Assessments

[PISA , TIMSS, & National Test]

SummaryIn conclusionThe youth of Thailand are not been well prepared to meet the challenges in later life and to compete in the international & regional community.

The Impact of school factors gives information to the system level where to attack the weakness.

Findings From PISA :

• The following slides summarize schools factors that associated with science performance

• Only some selected factors, and their gross effect on performance are presented.

School factors : PISA looked at

• Admitting, selecting and grouping

• School management and funding

• Parental pressure and choice

• Accountability policy

• School autonomy

• School resources

School management

At School level• Ability grouping for all subjects associates with

negative effect (-10 score points)

• Student learning time for regular lessons in school (+ 14 score points/ 1 additional hour)

• Student learning time for-out-of-school lessons, e.g. coaching schools(-13 score points/ 1 additional hour)

• Index of school activity to promote learning (+7 score points/ 1 S.D. of the index)

Figure 2.2.a Proportion of students taking out-of-school-time lessons with non-school teachers, by type of out-of-school-time lessons

One to one lessons Small group lessons Large group lessonsPercentage

Note: Countries are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of students taking out-of-school-time one to one lessons.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Norw

ayDe

nmar

kFi

nland

Neth

erlan

dsSw

eden

Japa

nCh

ileTu

rkey

Lithu

ania

Icela

ndCz

ech

Cana

daAu

stra

liaAu

stria Ne

wUn

ited

Hong

Kon

g-Un

ited

Belgi

um Isra

elM

acao

-M

exico

OEC

DPo

land

Switz

erlan

dBr

azil

Ger

man

yTh

ailan

dIre

land

Serb

iaM

onte

negr

oFr

ance

Luxe

mbo

urg

Colom

biaIn

done

siaSl

ovak

Croa

tiaPo

rtuga

lLa

tvia

Chine

seBu

lgaria

Russ

ianEs

tonia

Spain

Urug

uay

Azer

baija

nTu

nisia

Arge

ntina

Kore

aLie

chte

nste

iHu

ngar

yKy

rgyz

stan

Rom

ania Ita

lyQ

atar

Slov

enia

Jord

anG

reec

e

Out of school time classes with non school teachers

Out of school time classes with school teachers

Figure 2.2.b Proportion of students taking out-of-school-time lessons with school teachers, by type of out-of-school-time lessons

One to one lessons Small group lessons Large group lessonsPercentage

Note: Countries are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of students taking out-of-school-time large group lessons.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Bel

gium

Net

herla

nds

Den

mar

kA

ustr

alia

Uru

guay

New

Zea

land

Gre

ece

Spa

inIr

elan

dLu

xem

bour

gG

erm

any

Fra

nce

Liec

hten

stei

nA

rgen

tina

Can

ada

Slo

veni

aC

roati

aF

inla

ndT

urke

yC

zech

Icel

and

Sw

itzer

land

Ser

bia

Aus

tria

OE

CD

Hun

gary

Nor

way

Chi

leU

nite

dE

ston

iaLi

thua

nia

Col

ombi

aU

nite

dIs

rael

Bra

zil

Sw

eden

Mon

tene

gro

Rom

ania

Bul

garia

Mex

ico

Por

tuga

lS

lova

kIta

lyP

olan

dLa

tvia

Qat

arJa

pan

Tun

isia

Indo

nesi

aM

acao

-chi

naC

hine

seK

orea

Rus

sian

Tha

iland

Jord

anH

ong

Kon

g-A

zerb

aija

nK

yrgy

zsta

n

Effect of Resources and Funding

More public funding- negative effect (- 3 score points for additional 10% of public funding)

Lack of qualified teachers (-3.5 points for additional unit of index)

Availability of quality educational resources: (+ 3.9 score points for additional unit of index)

At System level

Schools have higher degree of autonomy in budgeting (+ 22.5 score points for one additional standard deviation).

Schools have higher degree of autonomy in educational content (+ 20 score points for one additional standard deviation).

Data say that: Education systems where:

Implication for policy

Improving equity/ Raising performance Target factors that have impact on learning quality. Use research results as the base for decision making. Target low performance: low performing schools / low- performing students within schools

Targeting disadvantage children / disadvantage schools – More assistant scheme is needed to gear towards this target.

Allocation of schools resources (with precaution that computers do not show positive enhancing on learning.)

Resource: Do we target the disadvantage?

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

PISA 2000 PISA 2006

Small schools Big schools

Data show that Big schools shortage decreased; small schools unchanged

Thailand: Top and Bottom performersFrom PISA 2000 to PISA 2006

340

360

380

400

420

440

460

480

PISA 2000 PISA 2006 PISA 2000 PISA 2006 PISA 2000 PISA 2006

Top group Bottom group

Read Science Math

From the Studies of Computer for Instruction

• Results did not support the positive impact of computer on learning.

• Students most frequent use of computers did not score higher than the least users.

Source: OECD (2005) Source: OECD (2005) Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell usAre students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us , Figure 4.6, , Figure 4.6, p.65.p.65.

ICT & Performance (OECD)

Mathematics performance

475

500

525

Bottom

quarter

Second

quarter

Third

quarter

Top

quarter

Reading performance

475

500

525

Bottom

quarter

Second

quarter

Third

quarter

Top

quarter

Index of ICT Internet/entertainment use

Index of ICT program/software use

Frequent use of computer and score (Thailand)

The moderate users scored higher

405

410

415

420

425

430

435

440

Bottomquarter

2nd quarter 3rd quarte Top quarter

math read

Implication for policy:

At system level : What is needed to rethink !Schools autonomy in budgeting & education content.

Standards for all students. [ All students need to masterneed to master reading and mathematics which are basics to any other learning.]

Quality time

Where do we go from here?

Que sera, sera! What ever will be, will be.

The future’s not ours to see.Que sera, sera!

Will we see rainbow day after day?

Here was she said to me:

Thank you !Thank you !

Sa-buy-dee Thailand

Back up slides

• Empty

PISA 2006East Asian countries performed on top group. But Thailand, Indonesia were on lower end 0f

the scale.

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Read Math Science

HKG

Ch-T

JPN

KOR

THA

IND

Change in Reading performance from PISA 2000 to PISA 2006

350

400

450

500

550

PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006

KOR HKG JPN Ch_TP

Ma-C THA INDO

Change in Mathematics performance

350

375

400

425

450

475

500

525

550

575

PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006

KOR HKG JPN Ch_TP

Ma-C THA INDO

Change in Science performance

350

400

450

500

550

600

PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006

KOR HKG JPN Ch_TP Ma-C

THA INDO

By TIMSS results (Science & mathematics) the countries are separated: High and low performers

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

Science Math

SNG

Ch_TP

JPN

KOR

HKG

THA

MAL

INDO

TIMSS Math from 1995 - 2007

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

1995 1999 2007

Ch_TP*

KOR

SNG

HKG

JPN

MAL*

THA

INDO

TIMSS

TIMSS Science from 1995 – 2007[Countries in Asia]

400

420

440

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

600

1995 1999 2007

SNG

Ch_TP

JPN

KOR

HKG

THA

MAL

INDO

TIMSS

Trend: Thailand compared to Hong Kong (in TIMSS 1995 the two performed equally well)

440

460

480

500

520

540

HKG

THA

1995

1999

2007

Sci - THA & HKG

Thailand: The National tests from 2000 to 2008 show no improvement but decline

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2003 2006 2008

Thai Math Science

English Linear (Math) Linear (English)

Thank you !Thank you !

Sa-buy-dee Thailand