Public Disclosure Authorized - World Bank · Thailand Social Monitor : Improving Secondary...

38191P

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

edP

ublic

Dis

clos

ure

Aut

horiz

ed

3Thailand Social Monitor : Improving Secondary Education

ABBREVIATION

A-NET Advanced National Educational TestBMR Bangkok Metropolitan RegionCGD Comptroller Generalûs Department CYS Children and Youth SurveyDGE Department of General EducationESAs Education Service AreasFDI Foreign Direct InvestmentGAT General Aptitude TestGDP Gross Domestic ProductGER Gross Enrollment RateGNI Gross National IncomeGPP Gross Provincial ProductHSEP High School Equalization PolicyICL Income Contingent LoanIEA International Association for the Evaluation of Educational AchievementLGO Local Government OrganizationLLECE Latin American Laboratory for the Assessment of Quality in EducationMDGs Millennium Development GoalsMOE Ministry of EducationMOI Ministry of InteriorNEA National Education ActNFE Non-Formal EducationNER Net Enrollment RateNESDB National Economic and Social Development BoardNIETS National Institute of Education Testing ServicesNSO National Statistics OfficeOBEC Office of Basic Education CommissionOEC Office of Education CouncilOECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ONEC Office of National Education CommissionONESQA Office of National Education Standards and Quality AssessmentO-NET Ordinary National Educational Test ONPEC Office of National Primary Education CommissionPASEC Programme dûAnalyse des Systemes Educatifs de la CONFEMENPIRLS Progress in International Reading Literacy StudyPISA Programme for International Student AssessmentPROGRESA Programa Nacional de Educacion in, Salud y AlimentacionRTG Royal Thai GovernmentSACMEQ Southern and Eastern African Consortium for Monitoring Educational QualitySAT Scholastic Aptitude TestSES Socio-Economic SurveySPR School Participation RateTIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science StudyUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationUNICEF United Nations Childrenûs Fund

, ,

The Thailand Social Monitor serieswas conceived as a tool to reflect oncurrent situations about selected socialissues in Thailandûs health, education andsocial protection sectors. The first SocialMonitor, Challenge for Social Reform, waslaunched in 1999 in response to the 1997economic crisis. To date, five SocialMonitors have been issued.

This issue of the Social Monitor focus-es on Thailand secondary education. TheMonitor first attempts to highlight recentaccomplishment in the advancement ofThailand secondary education. Itaddresses the issues of access and equi-ty, quality and efficiency and considerschallenges Thailand is facing with regardsto secondary education. Finally, it pro-vides some recommendations for policyconsideration.

This Social Monitor was led by LuisBenveniste under the overall guidance ofIan Porter (Country Director), Christopher

Thomas (Sector Manager) and TamarManuelyan Atinc (Acting Sector Director).The team wishes to especially thankKhunying Kasama Varavarn (PermanentSecretary) and the Ministry of Educationstaff for their inputs and invaluable com-ments as well as to Ana Revenga andKhuankaew Varakornkarn for the initialdevelopment of this Social Monitor. Theteam benefited from background papersprepared by Dilip Parajuli and DeonFilmer, Niels-Hugo Blunch, and AnaRevenga and Chaiyuth Punyasawatsut.The team would also like to extend itsappreciation to the peer reviewers,Ernesto Cuadra, Daniel Mont, Carmen dePaz Nieves, Omporn Regel, Kaspar Richter,Norbert Schady, Christopher Wheeler andCharlotte Vuyiswa McClain-Nhlapo fortheir insights and suggestions to strength-en this study. Finally, the team would liketo thank Keiko Inoue, AchariyaKohtbantau, Rachadawan Pasugswadand Juliana Williams for excellent researchand administrative assistance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

4

AbbreviationAcknowledgementsContentsExecutive SummaryBackground to Education in ThailandAccess to and Equity in Secondary EducationQuality of Secondary Education in ThailandEfficiency of the Thai Education SystemAddressing the Next Generation of ChallengesI. Education in Thailand: An OverviewIntroductionEducation Reform in Thailand: Historical ContextBridging Basic Education, Tertiary Education and the Labor MarketA Key Tool for Closing Equality and Equity GapsII. Access to and Equity in Secondary Education in ThailandAccess to Secondary EducationEquity in Secondary EducationReaching out to the ExcludedInterventions to Stimulate Equitable Secondary School ExpansionIII. Quality of Secondary Education in ThailandQuality of Thai Education: Lessons From International DataFactors Affecting Quality of Education in ThailandTeacher CharacteristicsSchool CharacteristicsHousehold and Individual CharacteristicsQuality Assurance Mechanisms in Thai EducationIV. Efficiency of the Thai Education SystemPublic Spending on EducationHousehold Education ExpenditureRaising Efficiency of Secondary Education FinancingV. Addressing the Next Generation of ChallengesIncreasing Access And EquityImproving QualityAssuring EfficiencyReferences

345899

1011121415151823262731364452535959616466707177808485868891


CONTENTS

Figure 1.A: Primary School Participation Rate by Income Quintile, 1994-2002Figure 1.B: Education Transition PatternsFigure 1.C: Comparison of Secondary Gross Enrollment Rate Trends, 1970-2000Figure 1.D. Secondary Participation Trends by Income Quintile, 1994-2002Figure 2.A: Thailand Educational Attainment Profiles for Ages 16 to 19, 1994-2002Figure 2.B: Transition of Three Cohorts from Grades 1 to 12, 2001-2003Figure 2.C: School Participation Rates, Gross Enrollment Rates and Net Enrollment

Rates by Sex and Gains, 1994-2002Figure 2.D: Grade Completion by Urban/Rural Location, 1994 and 2002Figure 2.E: Secondary Net Enrollment Rates by Region, 1994-2002Figure 2.F: Survival Curve Estimates for Ages 6 to 15 in Thailand, 1994 and 2002Figure 2.G: Trends in Secondary Gross Enrollment Rates across Asian Countries, 1980-2003Figure 2.H: Percentage of Upper Secondary Graduates to the Population, 2003Figure 2.I: Reasons Cited for Dropping Out, Grades 7-12, 2004Figure 2.J: Reasons for not Continuing Lower and Upper Secondary Education, 2002Figure 2.K: Average Annual Expenditure on Education per Person by Education Level, 2002Figure 2.L: Share of Children and Youth at School or Work by Age, 2002Figure 2.M: Ratio of Number of Students Attending Public to Private Schools at Secondary

Level,1992-2002Figure 3.A: PISA 2003 Test Score Results in Mathematics Literacy by Income GroupFigure 3.B: PISA 2000 Test Score Results in Reading Literacy by Income GroupFigure 3.C: Trend Line of PISA Test Scores against Log GDP per CapitaFigure 3.D: Trend Line of TIMSS Mathematics Scores against 2003 GNI per CapitaFigure 3.E: Trend Line of TIMSS Science Scores against 2003 GNI per CapitaFigure 3.F: Average Mathematics Performance by Wealth, 2000Figure 3.G: Between- and Within-School Variation in Mathematics Scores, 2000Figure 3.H: Student Teacher Ratio and Class Size in Secondary Schools by Region, 2002Figure 3.I: Cross-National Comparison of Average Mathematics Achievement and Class Size,

1999Figure 3.J: Perceived Adequacy of Physical Infrastructure and Educational ResourcesFigure 3.K: Mean Scores by Level of Mothersû EducationFigure 4.A: Share of Education Budget by Spending Category, 1997-2004Figure 4.B: Sources of Revenue for Local Governments, 1997-2004Figure 4.C: Incidence of Public Expenditure across Income Quintiles by Education Level, 2002Figure 4.D: Distribution of Public Spending on Education by Level, 2000 and 2002

FIGURES

19202122283032

32333435363940424349

555556565757586162

636572757677

6

Table 1.1: Incidence of Public Spending for Primary Education by Income Quintile, 2000Table 1.2: Incidence of Public Spending for Secondary Education by Income Quintile,

2000Table 1.3: Gini Coefficient by Country and Share due to Differences in Educational

Attainment of Household HeadTable 2.1: Average Years of Educational Attainment, 1999-2003Table 2.2: Age Distribution by Grade, 2002Table 2.3: School Participation Rate by Income Quintile and Provincial per Capita

Income, 2002Table 2.4: Number of Disabled and Special Students by Type and Gender, Academic

Year 2004Table 2.5: Private Expenditure Estimates on Education by Income Quintile (Real Baht),

1994-2002Table 3.1: Percent of Teachers with Masterûs Degree or Higher, 2002Table 4.1: Education Budget, 2000-2005Table 4.2: Education Budget Allocation and Student Enrollment by Spending Category,

2002Table 4.3: Total Secondary Education Expenditure as Percent of GDP by Source of

Funding, 2003Table 4.4: Per Capita Educational Expenditure by Region (Baht), 2002Table 4.5: Household Expenditure on Education by Region, 1994-2002Table 4.6: Household Expenditure on Education by per Capita Income Quintile, 1994-2002Table 4.7: Utilization Ratios by Education Level, 2002

Box 2.1: Educational Enrollment-GER or NER?Box 2.2: The Path to Universal Secondary Education in KoreaBox 2.3: Summary of Government-Initiated InterventionsBox 2.4: Demand Side Financing MechanismsBox 3.1: Measuring Quality of Education across CountriesBox 3.2: The Office for National Education Standards and Quality AssessmentBox 4.1: Private Participation in Education: Examples from Korea, Africa and Chile

TABLES

1922

24

292634

38

41

597173

74

76787982

BOXES29374550596777


8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Secondary education has the potential toserve as a pathway for studentsû progressand advancement. It can offer skills devel-opment for producing a workforce withexpertise that matches the needs of thelabor market. Indeed, investment in sec-ondary education reaps great rewardswhen it acts as the critical link betweenbasic education, higher education and the

labor market. Yet secondary educationcan also act as the main bottleneck pre-venting the equitable expansion of educa-tional opportunities. Thailandûs secondaryeducation is currently at a crossroads, withthe potential to improve opportunities foryoung people or become a binding con-straint to economic growth and competi-tiveness. It is thus an opportune time to


take stock of recent accomplishments in theadvancement of Thailandûs secondary edu-cation, as well as consider the challengesthat lie ahead.

Chapter 1 provides a background to edu-cation in Thailand, including the historicalcontext of reform and recent trends at theprimary and tertiary levels. Chapter 2reviews the current state of the Thai second-ary education system as a whole andacross different groups of the population.Additionally, comparisons are offered acrossregions. Based on these results, an analysisof the demand side of secondary educa-tion is explored, such as the effects ofhousehold decision-making in sending chil-dren to school. Chapter 3 looks into theissue of the quality of secondary educationand suggests possible avenues for improvingthe quality of educational services inThailand. Chapter 4 investigates options toenhance efficiency in the utilization of finan-cial resources. Finally, policy recommenda-tions are suggested in Chapter 5, taking intoconsideration the goals of the Royal ThaiGovernment (RTG) and the distinct historicalevolution of its education system.

BACKGROUND TO EDUCATION INTHAILAND

Education has been a priority area sinceThailand shifted to a constitutional monar-chy in 1932. National EducationDevelopment Schemes (NEDSs) have guidedmajor education reform strategies and iden-tified targets and priority areas at thenational level. Most recently, the 1999National Education Act (NEA) and the 2002-2016 National Education Plan have respec-tively raised compulsory education from 6 to9 years and introduced a balanced focuson both human-centered and economic

development. Decentralization of educa-tional management has been implementedthrough the creation of Education ServiceAreas (ESAs) that are meant to increasecommunity-level participation.

During the 1980s, the RTG focused onexpanding primary education. Such effortsare reflected in the achievement of nearuniversal primary education, regardless ofincome, geographical location or sex.During the same time period, however, sec-ondary education enrollment lagged.Efforts by the Thai government to expandaccess at the secondary level have pro-duced dramatic growth in secondary enroll-ment in the 1990s and onwards. In 1997, 70percent of the total labor force had onlyreceived elementary education or less, while17 percent had obtained secondary educa-tion and 8 percent had a university degree.But investments in secondary education inthe 1990s began to pay off. By 2004, thelabor force with more than primary educa-tion reached close to 40 percent. Whilerecent achievements put Thailand ahead ofmost East Asian countries, it still falls behindAsian Tiger1 and Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD)countries. In order for Thailand to take thenext step in advancing its secondary edu-cation system, a better understanding ofhow key issues such as access, equity, qual-ity and efficiency play out in the Thai con-text is crucial.

ACCESS TO AND EQUITY IN SECONDARY EDUCATION

The RTG has set a goal in its first nationalMillennium Development Goals (MDGs)report to achieve universal lower secondaryeducation by 2006 and universal upper sec-ondary education by 2015. Both gross and

1 Asian Tiger countries refer to Hong Kong, SAR, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea.

net secondary enrollment rates haveincreased significantly in the past 15 years.Currently, secondary education is at reachfor most children. This is a result of a con-certed effort from the RTG to redressinequities in education participation.

Equity in access to secondary educationhas improved. Participation rates in second-ary education demonstrate that accessacross gender, the rural-urban divide,regions and socioeconomic status groupshas expanded, benefiting all groups in somemeasure. However, while the urban/ruralgap has grown smaller, on average thegender gap has grown significantly largerand to the benefit of girls. It is also worthyof notice that barriers to secondary school-ing narrowly due to household incomeremain an important concern in Thailand.There are large differences in secondaryschool enrollment between the poorest andthe richest population groups. Althoughthese differences have narrowed over time,they have remained quite substantial. Thegap in school participation between thewealthiest and the poorest population quin-tiles in 1994 was 24 percent and stood at17 percent in 2002. Finally, internationalcomparisons show that Thailand made dra-matic improvements over the past twodecades. Thailand started out in the late1980s with one of the lowest secondarygross enrollment rates in the region, but sub-sequently picked up pace in later decadesto position itself in the top tier due to aconcerted Government effort to expandaccess.

But despite important gains, much workremains to be done. While 98.6 percent ofchildren were estimated to complete pri-mary school in 2002, only 88 percent trans-ferred to lower secondary and 69 percentcontinued to upper secondary.Understanding both demand and supplyside factors to educational attainment is

vital in order to address access and equal-ity gaps in Thailand. A cost benefit analy-sis shows that the main reason preventingchildren from attending or staying in schoolsis lack of financial support. Educationalcost poses a larger burden to poor families,who must contribute a greater share of thehousehold income after paying for foodand other basic needs. The opportunitycosts of forgone income are compoundedfor these families as well. In addition, whilethe RTG committed to provide 12 years offree education, non-tuition costs such aslibrary fees, exam levies, meals and trans-portation serve as substantial financialobstacles for many poor families. Despitehigh rates of return to education inThailand, many poor families are still unableto meet the direct or opportunity costs ofsending their children to secondary school.

Thailand has implemented several key poli-cy interventions in an attempt to boost sec-ondary enrollment. Such interventionsinclude loan and lunch programs, scholar-ships and a bicycle lending project for ruralstudents, which have indeed contributed tothe recent surge in secondary educationaccess. However, the interventions havefallen short of meeting the needs of verypoor families, whose children continue todrop out of the education system. In par-ticular, targeting disadvantaged students atthe lower secondary school level will ensurea higher transition rate from primary to sec-ondary level.

QUALITY OF SECONDARYEDUCATION IN THAILAND

An area of great concern for Thailandûssecondary education system is studentachievement. An important conclusionstands out from benchmarking the perform-ance of Thai students internationally:Thailand has higher scores than other coun-tries at similar income levels, suggesting that

10

it has been generally successful at providingeducational services of certain quality equi-tably. And not only Thai students on aver-age perform well relative to their peers inother countries at similar income levels, butthe distribution of knowledge acrossThailand is fairly equitably distributed.Socioeconomic status accounts for a mod-est share of the total variation in studentachievement scores overall.

Yet, while the Programme for InternationalStudent Assessment (PISA) and the Trends inInternational Mathematics and ScienceStudy (TIMSS) results suggest that Thailandûsperformance is acceptable given its incomelevel and knowledge is rather fairly distrib-uted, they also underscore that there areurgent problems with education quality thatdemand urgent attention. Very few Thaichildren score in the top proficiency levels.Furthermore, a very large share of studentsis performing below acceptable proficiencylevels. Thailand had roughly 40 percent ofstudents performing at or below the PISAlevel one in literacy and over 50 percent ofstudents performing at or below the PISAlevel one in mathematics. This contrastsgreatly with the upper income countrieswhere only around 10 percent of studentsscore at or below level one. In summary,a vast proportion of students are function-ing at or below the most basic level of lan-guage, mathematics and science ability.

What factors affect student achievement?Given Thailandûs low levels of academicachievement in absolute terms, policies toraise the overall performance level of thegeneral student population are imperative.Teacher quality is an important factor.Enhancing teacher professional develop-ment could potentially translate into signifi-cant improvements in student flows andlearning. There is also a shortage ofresources for learning in Thai schools andthis is generally perceived as a constraint to

higher student achievement. Greaterinvestments in basic school resources inorder to provide a minimum set of materi-als for effective use by teachers to supportinstructional content could well buttress stu-dent performance in Thailand and translateinto higher learning outcomes.

EFFICIENCY OF THE THAI EDUCATION SYSTEM

The RTG allocates more than one fifth of itstotal budget on education, which accountsfor about 4 or 5 percent of the countryûsGross Domestic Product (GDP). This level ofallocation was maintained even through theeconomic crisis in the late 1990s. More thantwo thirds of the education budget is allo-cated to basic education, with pre-primaryand primary levels receiving the largest pro-portion. Thailand allocated approximately28 percent of its total education budget(1.13 percent of GDP) to secondary educa-tion in 2003, falling behind what countrieswith strong secondary education sectorstypically spend. Lower-middle incomecountries allocated on average 40 percentof their total education resources (1.86 per-cent of GDP) to the secondary level. Moststrikingly, the unit cost for secondary educa-tion in Thailand is lower than the unit costfor primary education. The limited resourc-ing of secondary education through publicfinancing is further compounded by verylow shares of private resources coming tosecondary education. In Thailand, privatesector contributions amounted to 0.06 per-cent of GDP, an equivalent of 5 percent ofthe public sector financing.

Local governments are reliant on subsidiesfrom the central government to financeeducation. The RTG has encouraged thedecentralization of educational manage-ment in order to improve local participationand ownership. Decentralization alsoincludes increasing the share of local gov-


ernment resources spent on education.However, most local agencies still rely onsubsidies from the central government tofinance education. In general, resourcesfrom local government only comprise 20 to30 percent of education spending. While education receives the largest shareof the national budget across sectors,whether those resources are equally andefficiently distributed among differentincome groups is debatable. The poorest40 percent of the population receives 56percent of total spending, reflecting a pro-poor allocation of resources. The quintiledistribution for secondary level is distributedrelatively equally; however, spending for ter-tiary education is clearly regressive. Thewealthiest 20 percent of the populationreceives 53 percent of total spending.

The NEA articulates a vision for free basiceducation during 9 years of compulsoryeducation. In addition, it proposes ambi-tious targets on education service provision,including a student teacher ratio adjustedto 25:1, a new teacher compensation struc-ture, increased and better integrated use ofinformation technology, and additionalfunds to encourage more children to enrollin the system. These are worthy goals. Butthese commitments require substantial fund-ing upfront, either from the public or the pri-vate sectors. Current spending in second-ary education is insufficient to fulfill thesecommitments. Raising the cost effectivenessand performance of the education sectorwill be imperative to enhance outcomesand contain costs. Without serious consid-erations to efficiency measures, many of thecommitments promulgated under the NEAcould remain elusive.

ADDRESSING THE NEXT GENERATION OF CHALLENGES

In order to include the excluded andincrease school participation, efficient datacollection and analysis is a prerequisite.Data and management information systemsshould be able to timely estimate childrenoutside the formal education system,enabling the design of suitable programsand providing strong evidence for policydecision making. For instance, although thegender gap in secondary education parti-cipation has been increasing, to the bene-fit of girls, there is a lack of clear under-standing about the reasons that are drivingthis phenomenon and virtually no policy dis-cussion as to how to redress this situation.

The role of alternative education servicemodalities can be strengthened. Existingprograms, although encouraged by theNEA, are small and do not seem to satisfythe potential demand. Flexible educationarrangements can play a key role in provid-ing opportunities to disadvantaged childrenin accessing secondary education. Greaterflexibility in terms of learning sites, classschedules and curriculum can provide amore suitable environment to fit the needsof children who cannot participate in tradi-tional school settings, such as rural migrantworkers.

In order to improve student outcomes, inter-nal and external quality assurance mecha-nisms have been established. The Ministryof Education (MOE) has adopted a cautiousapproach to manage the çstakesé of thisassessment, in order to encourage schoolstaff to approach it openly as an opportu-nity for self-improvement. On the onehand, recommendations made by externalevaluators must be tangible and achiev-able. And the quality of external independ-ent evaluators itself needs to be monitoredand evaluated for the process to be mean-

12

ingful. On the other hand, school staff willneed to demonstrate action to turn aroundineffective practices in order to make a dif-ference in student performance.Mechanisms to provide systematic rewardsfor improvements in academic or institution-al outcomes could be weaved into the cur-rent system. Performance-based incentivescould provide the necessary impetus to fueladministrative and instructional behavioralchanges. Significant citizen participation is expectedto take place in the management of ESAs.Additionally, pilot programs examining differ-ent types of school boards to explore waysto enhance the relevance and responsive-ness of education service delivery to localneeds are under way. As administrativeand service delivery functions are beingdevolved, a strong accountability systemmust be actively nurtured in order to fostera service-oriented culture that is responsiveto local aspirations and needs.

The NEA specifies that the financing systemwill be restructured by providing blockgrants to ESAs and schools on the basis ofa standard capitation formula in addition toother per capita top ups according topoverty levels and other provisions for disad-vantaged students. ESAs will also beresponsible for raising additional funding, butthe level of local revenue generation is

uncertain and, according to current esti-mates, likely to be low. At present, the pri-vate sector plays a small role in generalsecondary education, accounting for 11percent of student enrollments in lower sec-ondary and 20 percent in upper secondaryeducation. Its overall share has eitherremained largely stagnant or diminishedover the past decade. In terms of financialcontributions, the private sector accountedfor approximately 5 percent of overalldomestic secondary education resources.Mobilizing private resources can be animportant source of secondary educationfinancing and could free up publicresources for improved targeting to disad-vantaged populations or service deliveryquality enhancements.

Thailand has achieved remarkable improve-ments in education secondary provision andparticipation. Much has been accom-plished in the last decade. The RTG hasnow embarked on finding solutions to thenext generation of challenges: consolidat-ing equitable access, improving quality andenhancing efficiency. An ambitious educa-tion reform program is gathering momen-tum. Dedicated efforts and a continuedfocus in redressing existing systemic imbal-ances can realize the potential to fulfill thegoal of a high quality universal secondaryeducation for all Thai children.


EDUCATION IN THAILAND:AN OVERVIEWI.

14

INTRODUCTION

Secondary education has the potential toserve as a pathway for studentsû progressand advancement. It can offer skill deve-lopment for producing a workforce withexpertise that matches the needs of thelabor market. Indeed, investment in sec-ondary education reaps great rewardswhen it acts as the critical link betweenbasic education, higher education and thelabor market. Yet secondary educationcan also act as the main bottleneck pre-venting the equitable expansion of educa-tional opportunities. Thailandûs secondaryeducation is currently at a crossroads, withthe potential to improve opportunities foryoung people or become a binding con-straint to greater economic growth andcompetitiveness. It is thus an opportunetime to take stock of recent accomplish-ments in the advancement of Thailandûssecondary education, as well as considerthe challenges that lie ahead.

This chapter elucidates the importance ofdeveloping the Thai secondary educationsystem, first by considering its distinct histori-cal development. Education reform effortssince 1932 are considered in order toexplore the trajectory that Thailandûs sec-ondary education system followed. Thepotential for secondary education to serveas the key bridging point between primaryschooling, tertiary education institutions andthe labor market is considered. Theadvancement of secondary schooling is dis-cussed with respect to its links to the allevi-ation of poverty and income inequality.Finally, an international comparison placesthe current state of Thai secondary educa-tion in the context of accomplishments ofcomparable countries.

EDUCATION REFORM IN THAILAND: HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Since Thailand shifted from an absolute to aconstitutional monarchy in 1932, education-al policy has been regarded as an integralcomponent of national development plan-ning. The first NEDS was devised the sameyear, formally recognizing every individualûseducational ability. During the NEDS of1960-1976, the RTG pledged compulsory pri-mary education, with special provisionsmade for children with disabilities. The pri-mary school dropout rate was as high as 60percent in the 1960s, and secondary enroll-ment was only 2 percent of the age group(World Bank 1998). The NEDS of 1977-1991changed the structure of the education sys-tem from 4:3:3:2 (4 years lower primary, 3years upper primary, 3 years lower second-ary and 2 years upper secondary) to 6:3:3,whereby six years of compulsory primaryeducation is followed by three years eachof lower and upper secondary schooling.The subsequent NEDS of 1992-2001 oversawthe passing of a new Constitution in 1997,which ensures the çequal right to receivefundamental education for the duration ofnot less than twelve years which shall beprovided by the State thoroughly, of quali-ty, and without charge,é paving the way foruniversal access to 12 years of quality edu-cation for all Thai children.

In 1999, the NEA was promulgated to serveas the cornerstone of education provisionand administration. The NEA raised compul-sory education from 6 to 9 years, enforcingall parents to enroll their children in schoolsuntil they graduate from the lower second-ary level. In particular, the NEA recognizeschildren with special educational needs.Those with physical, mental, intellectual,emotional, social, communication or learn-ing deficiencies as well as economically or


legally disadvantaged groups are fully enti-tled to government educational servicesand basic education is to be specially pro-vided.

Under the NEA, the Thai education systemwas divided into formal, non-formal, andinformal sectors.2 All educational institutions,regardless of the type of education provid-ed, are expected to allow the transfer ofcredits both within and across differenttypes of institutions so that students are ableto transition smoothly between school levelsand tracks as necessary. This eases thetransition for students who drop out of theformal education system but elect to con-tinue their learning through community-based or non-formal programs. The policyalso allows students to re-enter the formaleducation system later. This section of theNEA also spurred the building of additionalschools for special programs and learningcenters to enhance informal education.However, the credit transfer across differenttypes of educational institutions hasremained very limited to date.

The NEA calls for major reforms in allaspects of the Thai education system.Among them are three priority areas: (a)learning reform, (b) teacher reform and (c)education quality assurance. In the area oflearning reform, a more targeted core cur-riculum responding to capabilities and inter-ests of different groups of learners has beendeveloped. The new basic education cur-riculum entered into implementation coun-try-wide in 2001. A primary goal is forteaching to be more learner-oriented and

encouraging a thirst for knowledge that canlead to life-long learning.

Teacher reform has focused on improve-ments in the quality of pre-service and in-service teacher training, professional stan-dardization and personnel administration. Afive-year university program for preparingnew teachers has been rolled out. Duringthe 2003-2006 period, the MOE has set atarget to produce teachers and schoolmanagers with post-graduate qualifications(higher than a bachelorûs degree). Theresults of these reform efforts need to becarefully evaluated. While support for in-service teacher development has becomemore available, training programs havetended to be conventionally providedthrough short-term workshops. A cascademodel predominates where Ministry officialstrain ESA supervisors who subsequently trainteachers. Training sessions generally providelittle time for teachers to practice what theyare learning and seldom is any follow upsupport provided when they return to theirclassrooms to implement what they havelearned. There is limited evidence thatthese training programs are demand-drivenor fully responsive to teachersû needs. Nor isthere evidence that the current approachto teacher professional development leadsto improved teaching practice andimproved student learning. The on-goingdecentralization process has also hinderedteacher development activities as it remainsunclear whether the MOE or ESAs should beplaying a leading role in this arena.Moreover, delays in the development ofprofessional standards and enactment of

16

2 Formal education consists of two levels: basic education and higher education. Basic education covers the 12years of education prior to higher education. Higher education is further divided into two levels, lower than degreeand degree levels. Formal education includes schools under the jurisdiction of the government, including institutionsthat provide schooling for students with disabilities, as well as welfare-based schools that address the needs of stu-dents who are socially disadvantaged. Other types of formal education include schools for the ecclesiastic, special-ized education, vocational and special vocational consisting of sports and fine art schools. Non-formal educationaims to reach those outside the formal school system, including early childhood and adult education. Pre-schools, lit-eracy programs and certain adult vocational training fit under the non-formal education category. Finally, informaleducation promotes self-learning and often operates out of community-based locations such as learning centers,libraries and museums.

Acts related to decentralized personneladministration have had an unfavorableeffect on teacher reform as a whole.

The quality of education provision must bemonitored through both internal and exter-nal quality assurance mechanisms. The NEArequires that internal evaluations for second-ary education be conducted annually byeach individual institution on the basis ofMOEûs standards. These evaluations mustbe made available to the public. Externalevaluations are carried out by an independ-ent agency - the Office for National EducationStandards and Quality Assessment(ONESQA). For the most part, it appearsthat the internal and external quality assur-ance process to date has been largely pro-cedural. There is limited demand for infor-mation on school quality and the formativeevaluation process has not translated yetinto a reflective exercise to improve schooldevelopment planning or foster account-ability to education sector stakeholdersregarding the quality of service delivery.

Most recently, the National Education Plan2002-2016 has advanced a vision of educa-tion that embraces human-centered devel-opment and a holistic scheme integratingeducation, religion, art and culture. It ishoped that the National Education Plançwill (1) lead to a knowledge-based socie-ty; (2) promote continuous learning and (3)involve all segments of society in designingand decision-making concerning publicactivitiesé (Bhangananda 2003). The goalsoutlined in the National Education Planreflect an ongoing debate in Thailandabout the balance between educationaldevelopment for the sake of promotingeconomic competitiveness and for preserv-ing çcultural self-relianceé (Witte 2000). Thisdebate has intensified during the post-AsianCrisis years, as Thailand attempts to navi-gate the tides and pressures of economicglobalization.

Considerable structural change has beenintroduced in recent years. The agenciesmainly responsible for educational provision,namely the MOE, the Ministry of UniversityAffairs (MUA) and the Office of NationalEducation Commission (ONEC), were re-organized into a single MOE. One hundredand seventy five ESAs have been estab-lished to handle education management ata decentralized level. ESAs have differentcapacities for absorbing service deliveryfunctions transferred to them due to varia-tions in coverage area, number of qualifiedpersonnel and endowed resources.Sustained technical assistance will be need-ed to build local-level institutional capacityfor efficient service provision.

The 1997 Constitution ensures the right oflocal administration organizations to partici-pate in the provision of education toimprove outcomes through increased com-munity participation. The decentralizationinitiative requires Local GovernmentOrganizations (LGOs) to assume greaterresponsibility in school management. LGOsbegan taking on some functions in late2004, including the monitoring of childdevelopment centers, developing appropri-ate activities for pre-primary schools, over-seeing sub-district libraries and village read-ing centers, and providing school milk andlunches. However, the transfer of second-ary school management to LGOs has beenmore complex. A study conducted by theOffice of Inspection and Evaluation foundthat around 78 percent of LGOs were readyto assume transferred functions in primaryeducation, but only 11 percent of theseLGOs were ready to take responsibility forsecondary schools. Further evaluation isneeded to assess the readiness of schooladministration capacities before this transferoccurs at the secondary level. Currently,the Cabinet has agreed to slow down thetransfer process and requested that theMOE work closely with related stakeholders


to ensure a smooth transition. In addition,teachers have raised concerns about trans-ferring administrative responsibility for sec-ondary schools to LGOs, fearing that thiscould lead to political interference in edu-cational issues such as teacher job security,curriculum and classroom pedagogy as wellas possible recruitment of teachers for elec-toral purposes.

In addition to recent reforms, the RTG cur-rently allocates more than 20 percent of itstotal budget to the education sector,reflecting its strong commitment to educa-tional development. The emphasis on theimportance of education comes at a cru-cial time for Thailand. Emerging from theAsian Crisis, the country has revived andprojected itself towards being a competitivenation in the global marketplace. Fournational priorities have been laid down, allof which require better quality of educationand knowledge management: (a) increas-ing competitiveness; (b) reducing povertyand inequality; (c) developing social capitaland (d) managing natural resources.Furthermore, as economic growth picked upspeed after the crisis, exports have grownfrom USD50,000 million in 1998 to almostUSD111,000 million in 2005. Foreign DirectInvestment (FDI) also rose from USD6,900 mil-lion to USD9,800 million over the same peri-od. The trend in economic growth and FDIhas placed pressure on local firms to bemore competitive, as well as stimulate tech-nological progress, and hence heightenedthe demand for a better skilled and edu-cated workforce.

BRIDGING BASIC EDUCATION, TERTIARY EDUCATIONAND THE LABOR MARKET

At a global level, limited investments in sec-ondary education have been an outcomeof several factors. There have been nocomprehensive initiatives for secondary edu-

cation, such as Education for All and theFast Track Initiative at the primary level.While there tend to be advocates that pushfor the expansion of primary and tertiaryinstitutions at the country level, secondaryschooling tends to be neglected. Finally,reaching political consensus for secondaryexpansion and reform has been more diffi-cult than for primary or tertiary education,making secondary school policy choicesmore ambiguous, risky and complex(Moreno 2005). Yet there has been increas-ing recognition of the key role that second-ary education can play as the bridgingpoint between primary schooling, highereducation and the labor market. Below,the link between primary expansion andsecondary schooling in Thailand is outlined.The importance of secondary education inconnecting young people to tertiary educa-tion and the labor market is also discussed.

During the 1980s, the RTG promoted univer-sal primary education and reduced theadult illiteracy rate through the heavyexpansion of primary education. In this peri-od, the government built at least one pri-mary school with extension classes up tolower secondary levels for every two villagesthroughout the country (Suwansathit 2002).In addition, the change in the format of theeducation system from 4:3:3:2 to 6:3:3ensured that children stayed longer inschools. Through this effort, universal pri-mary education, measured in terms of theGross Enrollment Rate (GER), was successful-ly achieved (104 percent in 2003).Household survey data largely confirm offi-cial statistics, showing a rising trend towardsuniversal primary completion. SchoolParticipation Rates (SPR) - that is the pro-portion of children 6-11 years of age thatenroll in school regardless of their schoolinglevel - have also demonstrated impressiveoutcomes. In 2003, the transition rate fromprimary to lower secondary level was 93percent, the retention rate at the primary

18

Figure 1.A: Primary School Participation Rate by Income Quintile, 1994-2002

An analysis of public expenditure in 2000also supports this finding. A calculationbased on the number of students enrolledin public school and fixed unit cost showthat at the pre-primary and primary educa-

tion level, about 31 percent of publicexpenditure was allocated to the poorestquintile while only 8 percent went to therichest quintile (see Table 1.1).

Table 1.1: Incidence of Public Spending for Primary Education by Income Quintile, 2000

Level of Income Public School Enrollment(thousands)

Enrollment Fixed Unit Cost

Expenditure Incidence(% share)

Q1 (Poorest)Q2Q3Q4Q5 (Richest)

2,1181,7391,4631,050548

29,75524,42520,54914,7547,704

312521158

As the RTG intensified efforts to achieve uni-versal primary education in the 1980s, it alsofocused on boosting access to tertiary edu-cation. This resulted in almost universalaccess to primary education and a rapid

expansion of tertiary education, while sec-ondary enrollments stagnated through thisperiod. Main obstacles have been povertyand the high direct and opportunity cost ofeducation (World Bank 1998). Such factors


Source: Household Socio-Economic Survey 1994-2002

level was 90 percent and the literacy ratewas 96 percent (Thailand Ministry ofEducation 2004).

Such achievements at the primary educa-tion level were experienced across the Thaipopulation, regardless of income, geograph-

ical location or sex. Especially acrossincome groups, recent trends between 1994and 2002 show that the primary SPR for thepoorest quintile has risen continuously overtime, reflecting the successful inclusion ofpoor households (see Figure 1.A).

Source: Household Socio-Economic Survey 2000

20

The achievement of universal primary edu-cation eventually led to increasing pressureon the Government to expand compulsoryeducation to cover the lower secondarylevel. Direct subsidies were introduced in1987 covering free textbooks and uniforms,low cost dormitories, health/nutrition pro-grams and school fee exemptions.Approximately 50 percent of all rural sec-

ondary students benefited from these sub-sidy programs. However, poverty and thecost of schooling have continued to be aconstraint for expanding secondary school-ing and reaching universal coverage.

Country comparisons show that Thailandûssecondary GER was stagnant until around1990 and then picked up dramatically. In

resulted in a sluggish secondary GrossEnrollment Rate (GER) of around 30 percentwith almost half of all children finishing pri-mary education dropping out of the formaleducation system.

In a recent World Bank study titled çClosingthe Gap in Education and Technology, ç deFerranti et al. (2003) find that most OECDcountries and many East Asian countries fol-lowed an educational transition trajectorythat resembles a pyramid: primary educa-tion was universalized first, followed by anexpansion of the secondary system andfinally broader access to universities.Thailand, instead, took a different path. Inthe 1980s, after a decade of successful

expansion at the primary level, the focusshifted towards tertiary education, overlook-ing the expansion of secondary education.Consequently only a small number of sec-ondary graduates constituted the newrecruits entering the skilled labor force andthe middle income bracket. In other words,the distribution of educational attainment inThailand was çsqueezed from the middleé,where the base got thinner and the topwider, while the middle remained relativelyunaffected. The distribution looked morelike an anvil than a pyramid, with the major-ity of the population having only primaryeducation or less, but more individuals withtertiary education than secondary educa-tion only (see Figure 1.B).

Figure 1.B: Education Transition Patterns

Source: De Ferranti et al. 2003


Figure 1.C: Comparison of Secondary Gross Enrollment Rate Trends, 1970-2000

Source: World Bank 2005

Low levels of investment at the secondarylevel through the 1980s had led to a rela-tively low-skilled workforce in Thailand. In1997, 70 percent of the total labor forcehad only received elementary education orless, while 17 percent had obtained second-ary education and 8 percent had a univer-sity degree. But investments in secondaryeducation in the 1990s began to pay off.By 2004, the labor force with more than pri-mary education reached close to 40 per-cent. Secondary GERs had jumped from 68percent in 1994 to 77 percent in 2002. But disaggregating by household per capi-

ta quintile reveals large differences in sec-ondary school enrollment between thepoorest and the richest population groups.These differences have remained quite sub-stantial over time. The gap in SPR betweenthe wealthiest and the poorest populationquintiles in 1994 was 24 percent (85% versus61%) and stood at 17 percent in 2002 (93%versus 76%). While it is clear that second-ary schooling opportunities for the poorestchildren still have much room for improve-ment, Thailand had accomplished animpressive rate of expansion nonetheless(see Figure 1.D).

contrast, other Asian countries started withhigher secondary GERs and continued to

grow at a more modest pace during thesame period (see Figure 1.C).

22

The incidence of public expenditure for sec-ondary education shows that spending isdistributed almost equally across quintiles(see Table 1.2). Such spending patternspartially explain why the gap in secondaryachievement between the richest and thepoorest quintile has remained relatively sta-ble over time. Enrollment rates are higherin Bangkok than in other parts of the coun-

try, higher in urban than in rural areas andlower in those districts where ethnic groupsaccount for a high percentage of the pop-ulation. The challenge facing the govern-ment is how to continue to expand basiceducation to disadvantaged groups whilemaintaining universal access to and goodquality of primary education.

Figure 1.D. Secondary Participation Trends by Income Quintile, 1994-2002


Table 1.2: Incidence of Public Spending for Secondary Education by Income Quintile, 2000

Level of Income Public School Enrollment(thousands)

Enrollment Fixed Unit Cost

Expenditure Incidence(% share)

Q1 (Poorest)Q2Q3Q4Q5 (Richest)

843987967885646

11,82913,84613,57512,4129,064

1923222015



Mandatory education under the 1999 NEAonly includes up to lower secondary school-ing. Students who want to continue theireducation beyond the lower level have anoption between three years of upper sec-ondary or three years of lower vocational(technical) education. Most students whochoose upper secondary education aim togo to university. Those who choose lowervocational education tend to continue theireducation at the upper vocational level.Students with diploma or upper vocationaleducation can continue to a universitydegree by continuing with two more yearsof schooling at a university.

Enrollment estimates at lower and uppersecondary levels indicate that growth trendsand between-group gaps are much largerin the higher grades, probably as a resultthat in upper secondary education therehas been greater room for improvement.For example, the average SPR for lower sec-ondary (12-14 years age-group) increasedfrom 88 percent in 1994 to 94 percent in2002, while at the upper secondary level(15-17 years age-group), it increased from57 percent in 1994 to 77 percent in 2002.The absolute (and relative) gains were larg-er in the poorest quintile: from 31% to 56%at the upper secondary level.

In an effort to continue to expand second-ary education, Thailand faces two criticalchallenges: developing an effective strategyfor further broadening access to upper sec-ondary education and finding an appropri-ate balance between the academic andvocational tracks. Thailandûs ability toaddress these issues will greatly impact itsability to open up the pipeline from second-ary to tertiary education as well as to thelabor market.

Furthermore, Thailandûs reform programfocuses not only on access, but alsoenhancement of quality and market rele-

vance. Anticipating the needs of the newknowledge-based economy will prove key.The çnew general skillsé needed for such aneconomy go beyond reading and writingand mathematics to include such things asthe ability to work in a team, to approachnew problems creatively, to know how touse a computer and at least to understandEnglish, if not speak it fluently (World Bank2001b). The Thai secondary education sys-tem will act as the bridging point to achanging labor market only to the extentthat graduates attain such skills and theirtalents and creativity are harnessed into theeconomy.

A KEY TOOL FOR CLOSING EQUALITY AND EQUITY GAPS

Secondary education is a key tool for alle-viating poverty in Thailand. A recent reporton Poverty and Public Policy (World Bank2001a) finds that in 1998-99, individuals withupper secondary education and vocationaland technical qualifications improved theirstandard of living. In contrast, those withsecondary or lower levels of schooling suf-fered real income declines. Education alsohad a powerful effect on reducing ruralpoverty. The risk of poverty declined by 66to 74 percent when the highest educatedadult in the household had primary or sec-ondary education, as compared to no edu-cation. Finally, the less-educated popula-tion was at greater risk of increased pover-ty during times of crises. Between 1996 and1999, poverty incidence increased from 21to 24 percent for households headed by anilliterate person and from 12 to 19 percentamong those headed by a primary-educat-ed person. In contrast, the rate did notchange appreciably among householdsheaded by persons with vocational andpostsecondary education.

24

Secondary education is an important vehi-cle for bringing about broader incomeequality and social equity in Thailand, par-ticularly since the country has one of thehighest Gini coefficients in the region (0.51in 2002, contrasted with the regional aver-age of 0.38). Furthermore, Thailand wasestimated to have the fifth worst incomedistribution among developing countries inthe 1990s (Phongpaichit and Sarntisart 2000).Income inequality in Thailand worsenedsteadily from the 1960s to 1992, improvedmarginally over 1992-98, and then lost allthose gains over one year in the Asian eco-nomic crisis. Evidence from Thailand, aswell as other countries such as Turkey, Chileand Russia, shows that differences in educa-

tional attainment of household head con-tribute to lingering inequality in income dis-tribution (see Table 1.3). Additionally, differ-ences in education attainment aloneaccount for at least one-fifth of total over-all inequality and for an even larger frac-tion for within-region inequality. In particu-lar, inequality in access to secondary edu-cation may adversely affect the extent ofinequality in income distribution(Phongpaichit and Sarntisart 2000).Evidence also suggests that as secondaryeducation is expanded, and as supply of lit-eracy and other skills is distributed amongmore youth, income inequality begins todiminish (UNESCO 2003).

Table 1.3: Gini Coefficient by Country and Share due to Differences in Educational Attainment of Household Head

Country

Thailand (1999)Turkey (1994)Chile (1999)Russia (1995)

0.530.450.510.47

19%22%26%5%

Source: World Bank 2000 and 2001a

Apart from private rates of return, which arerealized through higher earnings of individu-als, an increase in educational attainmentcontributes to higher social returns to invest-ment in education, particularly with respectto health benefits. Social returns, forinstance, may come in the form of a bet-ter educated mother who heads a familythat is more health conscious, better nour-ished and has the prospect of realizing theimportance of education for the next gen-eration. Evidence from 45 demographicand health surveys across countries showthat children of mothers with secondaryschooling have a mortality rate that is 36percent lower than those whose mothersonly have primary schooling (Filmer and

Prichett 1997). Additional years of schoolingalso serve as an effective preventionscheme against HIV/AIDS, an epidemic thatis increasingly of concern in Thailand andthe region (World Bank 2002). Finally, chil-dren residing in households headed by aneducated individual have an increasedchance of continuing with additional yearsof schooling.

Secondary education attainment is also acontributing factor to non-market publicbenefits. In general, better educated citi-zens tend to participate more in publicaffairs in the form of increased voting ratesand staying abreast of current events in pol-itics. In addition, better educated citizens

Gini Coefficient % of Total Income Inequality due to Education


tend to have less association with crime.One study shows a decreasing likelihood ofyouths engaging in criminal activities whenthey attend school and work (Witte andTauchen 1994). Increased years of school-ing, usually associated with higher earnings,can also reduce the reliance on welfareand public assistance programs.

The NEA paved the way for a new stage inthe enhancement of Thailandûs educationsystem. The most recent National EducationPlan has the potential to further advancethe system with strategies currently in placethrough 2016. In particular, efforts to bal-ance economic competitiveness andhuman-centered development mark a dis-tinct phase in the thinking that framesThailandûs future educational advancement.Although recent trends in secondary educa-tion expansion show improving results, muchremains to be done to promote access andquality as well as the efficiency of the sec-ondary education system.

In this regard, the current issue of theThailand Social Monitor looks into the chal-lenges lying ahead for secondary educationin Thailand. First, the interplay of demandand supply is investigated, and in particular,how their interaction affects the secondaryeducation system. Equity in access to sec-

ondary education across different groups ofpopulation is explored, as well as the obsta-cles behind universal access to secondaryeducation. Second, the quality of second-ary education is analyzed on the basis ofcomparative data from international assess-ments. Third, this issue reviews the efficien-cy of the secondary education system, bothin terms of resource allocation and internalefficiency. Finally, some general policy rec-ommendations are provided.

The report is organized as follows. Chapter2 reviews the current state of the Thai sec-ondary education system as a whole andacross different groups of the population.Additionally, comparisons are offered acrossregions. Based on these results, an analysisof the demand side of secondary educa-tion is presented, including effects of house-hold decision-making in sending children toschool. Chapter 3 looks into the issue ofthe quality of secondary education inThailand and suggests possible avenues forimproving it. Chapter 4 investigates optionsto enhance efficiency in the utilization offinancial resources. Finally, Chapter 5 sug-gestes policy recommendation, taking intoconsideration the goals of the RTG and thedistinct historical evolution of its educationsystem.

26

ACCESS TO AND EQUITY INSECONDARY EDUCATION INTHAILANDII.


The RTG intensified its efforts to expandaccess to secondary education in recentyears, particularly in rural areas. Its commit-ment is mirrored in the 1997 Constitutionwhere universal access to 12 years of edu-cation is guaranteed for all Thai children.Greater commitment is reflected in the 1999NEA which extended compulsory educationfrom 6 to 9 years. To translate these com-mitments into action, the RTG has set a tar-get to achieve universal lower secondaryeducation by 2006 and universal upper sec-ondary education by 2015.3

Currently, lower secondary education is atreach for most children. Compared toenrollment rates in 1994, access to second-ary schooling has notably expanded for allsocioeconomic groups. This is a result of aconcerted effort from the RTG to redressinequities in education participation.Despite important gains, much work remainsto be done. While 98.6 percent of childrenwere estimated to complete primary schoolin 2002, only 88 percent transferred to lowersecondary and 69 percent continued toupper secondary. Poor and rural childrenare at the greatest disadvantage. One ofthe challenges for the RTG lies in develop-ing appropriate policies and strategies toenroll and keep disadvantaged children insecondary school in order to continue topromote equitable development andgrowth opportunities. Thus, this sectionoffers an in-depth look at secondary educa-tional attainment, disaggregated along the

lines of gender, the rural-urban divide,regional and income groups.

The analyses in this chapter are largelybased on two data sources: (1) administra-tive data collected by the MOE and (2) alarge-scale, national survey of representativehouseholds, called the Household Socio-Economic Survey or SES4 (National StatisticsOffice 1994-2002). While the MOE adminis-trative data are considered to be census-based, errors due to inconsistency and datamanipulation are known to exist. The SEShas been recognized as a credible sourceof data. However, its reliability is also limit-ed due to a small sample size - 45,000households for most of the analyses in thischapter, but even smaller when focusing onthe secondary school age population(between 12 to 17 years). A snapshot ofdata from these two sources is not alwaysconsistent, but they reflect similar trendsover time.

ACCESS TO SECONDARY EDUCATION

There has been a consistent gradual rise inthe average number of years of education-al attainment for the Thai population aged15 and over. For the population agedbetween 15 and 21, in particular, the aver-age years of schooling is nearly 10 years.This suggests that most children have atleast completed lower secondary educa-

3 In September 2000, the RTG, along with other governments, signed the Millennium Declaration, pledging a commit-ment towards achieving the MDGs, where achieving universal primary education is one of the eight goals. The firstThailand MDGs Report, launched in June 2004, assessed the current Thai education system and showed that Thailandhas already achieved universal primary education in terms of gross enrollment ratio. 4 The SES is conducted every two years by the National Statistics Office (NSO). It contains information on householdincome, household consumption patterns, changes in assets and liabilities, ownership of durable goods and housingcharacteristics. It was first conducted in 1957 with intervals of five years until 1988, after which point the survey hasbeen undertaken every two years.

28

2000 2001 2002 2003

15 and over15-2115-5960 and over

7.19.47.73.5

7.29.57.83.6

7.49.67.73.7

7.69.77.83.8

7.89.87.93.9

Source: Office of Education Council 2004a

Educational attainment profiles for ages 16to 19 show a notable improvement overtime. Based on the SES, the number ofyouth between 16 and 19 years-old whocompleted primary education (grade 6)and lower secondary education (grade 9)rose continuously since 1994 (see Figure2.A). By 2002, about 95 percent of the 16to 19 year-old population completed at

least grade 6, indicating an impressive pri-mary school completion rate. Moreover, 80percent of the population aged between16 and 19 had completed lower secondaryeducation in 2002, which is a significantincrease compared with 50 percent in 1994.However, a closer review shows that mostof the gains in educational attainment tookplace before 1998.

Figure 2.A: Thailand Educational Attainment Profiles for Ages 16 to 19, 1994-2002

Age 1999

Table 2.1: Average Years of Educational Attainment, 1999-2003

Source: Household Socio-Economic Survey 1994, 2002

Overall, secondary education enrollment hasimproved after a period of stagnation prior tothe 1990s. Even through the financial crisis inthe late 1990s, enrollment growth remainedrelatively constant. GER rose from 68 to 77percent between 1994 and 2002, while NetEnrollment Rate (NER) also rose from 68 to 74percent (see Box 2.1 for a discussion on the

difference between gross and net enrollmentrates). However, both GER and NER haverisen at a decreasing rate in recent years.The challenge of maintaining a constantgrowth rate over time is common amongcountries as they approach universal accessto schooling, known as the çceiling effect.é

29

Box 2.1: Educational Enrollment - GER or NER?

There are several methods of measuring educational enrollment and participation. Traditional aggre-gated measures of educational enrollment include gross and net enrollment rates. These two indica-tors measure the number of children enrolled in a specific education level as a percentage of theschool age population corresponding to the same education level. GER measures the number of allchildren enrolled, regardless of age, as a percentage of the population of children in the specifiededucation level. NER includes only those children in the official age group for a particular educationlevel, again measured as a percentage of the population of children in the specified education level.In the case of Thailand, the official age group for secondary education is 12 to 17 years.

GER is widely used to show the general level of participation in a given education level. Unlike NER,it reflects the extent of over-aged or under-aged enrollment. A secondary GER higher than 100 per-cent indicates the presence of children who are either over-aged or under-aged in the system, thusexceeding the number of children in the official secondary level age group. A high repetition ratemight produce a GER higher than 100 percent, resulting in shortage of space for children whose agecorresponds to the official secondary age group. A comparison between GER and NER can, in thissense, be useful for analyzing internal efficiency of a system through the construction of elaboratedindicators based on cohort analysis. Achieving 100 percent NER is perhaps unrealistic, given that itwould require every child to enter school at exactly the official age, proceed through the educationlevel with zero repetition or disruptions, thus resulting in a 100 percent on-time completion rate. This isa highly improbable scenario, particularly in countries with constraints on on-time enrollment.

Source: Monitoring Educational Performance in the Caribbean (Di Gropello 2003)

Age 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12

121314151617

36.46%3.92%1.10%

55.02%33.48%3.46%

6.81%54.78%34.59%

1.23%6.59%

53.84%29.81%3.77%1.60%

0.47%1.23%7.02%

59.22%27.77%3.79%

8.74%58.73%28.33%

1.65%8.08%

57.49%

0.59%1.64%8.80%

Source: Ministry of Education 2002

Disparities between gross and net enrollmentrates in Thailand are minimal, suggesting lit-tle age mismatch. Unlike countries such asBrazil, where the ratio of gross to net enroll-ment rate is high (i.e. 1.63 for primary and1.24 for lower secondary), Thailandûs ratio atthe secondary level is around 1.1 (Larach2001). The gap between secondary NERand GER reflects the extent of over- andunder-age students in the education system.For most grades, while less than one third of

children attend school at the grade corre-sponding to their age, the vast majority ofchildren are within one year of their expect-ed official grade level (see Table 2.2). Thisis good news for Thailand. Often, studentswho are significantly over-aged run a high-er risk of dropping out of school for reasonsincluding the rise in the opportunity cost ofeducation to foregone income from laboras a child grows older.

Table 2.2: Age Distribution by Grade, 2002

Thailand Social Monitor : Improving Secondary Education

30

Education participation for teen-age chil-dren has expanded, but there is still roomfor improvement. The SPR of the cohortaged 12 to 17 years increased from 75 to86 percent between 1994 and 2002. Thisreveals an improvement in general accessto and permanence within the educationsystem since SPR measures the school par-ticipation level of children in a particularage group, regardless of the grade attend-ed. Given that there were about 5.8 mil-lion children in the 12 to 17 year-old cohortin 2002, this leaves about 800,000 childrenexcluded from the education system. Thechallenge for the RTG lies in reaching thelast 14 percent of the 12 to 17 year-oldcohort and successfully bringing them intothe formal education system. To achieveuniversal secondary education, it will be cru-cial to formulate appropriate strategies forreaching out-of-school youth and targetinterventions to address the obstacles theyface in attending secondary school.

Repetition is a minor problem. MOE datafrom 2002 show that while there was a slightrepetition rate (1 to 2 percent) at the pri-mary level, there was none for secondaryeducation. Dropout is relatively a source ofgreater concern. An analysis of schooldropouts in 1999, which sampled 1,157schools and included grades 1 to 12, foundthat only 2 percent of students dropped outof school. However, examining data thatfollow three cohorts from grades 1 through12, it is clear that students primarily drop outof the education system when they transi-tion from one level to another (depicted bydips in cohort enrollment between grades 6and 7, as well as 9 and 10 in Figure 2.B).Thus once students start grade 1, they tendto stay on through grade 6. From grades6 to 7, some students drop out of the sys-tem while those that continue tend to stayon through grade 9.

Figure 2.B: Transition of Three Cohorts from Grades 1 to 12, 2001-2003

Source: Ministry of Education 2001, 2002, 2003


The vast majority of secondary school stu-dents are enrolled in traditional generalacademic programs. A snapshot review ofsecondary students in 2004 using MOE datashows that out of approximately 5.8 millionyouth between 12 to 17 years-old, around74 percent are enrolled in the formal edu-cation system. About 84 percent of all stu-dents attend a school administered by theMOE. Among those who attend schoolsfacilitated by the MOE, approximately 75percent of secondary students go to institu-tions under the Office of Basic EducationCommission (OBEC). For upper secondarylevel, approximately 63 percent of studentsgo to an academic track while 37 percentgo to a vocational track. Less than 1 per-cent of students attend welfare schools thatare provided for those in need of financialassistance and less than 1 percent of sec-ondary students attend schools for the dis-abled or with special programs. The privatesector plays a small role in general second-ary education, accounting for 11 percent ofstudent enrollments in lower secondary and20 percent in upper secondary education.The highest proportion of private enrollmentsis found in the vocational education trackat the upper secondary level, accountingfor approximately 38 percent studentsenrolled in 2004.

EQUITY IN SECONDARY EDUCATION

Equity in access to secondary educationhas improved. Participation rates in second-ary education demonstrate that accessacross gender, the rural-urban divide,regions and socioeconomic status groupshas expanded, benefiting all groups in somemeasure. However, while the income andurban/rural gaps have grown smaller, onaverage the gender gap has grown signifi-cantly larger and to the benefit of girls. Incontrast to many other developing nations,

a different equity challenge - keeping boysin school - has arisen.

Girls outperform boys in secondary schoolparticipation and completion. NER for girlsin 1994 was 63 percent contrasted with 61percent for boys, while in 2002, NER for girlswas 72 percent and 64 percent for boys.Thus, while enrollment for both girls andboys is on the rise, girls outperform theirmale counterparts and this gap has grownover time (see Figure 2.C). In addition, thegrade 9 completion rate for females hasovertaken that of males between 1994 and2002. While in 1994 about half of thecohort for both females and males hadcompleted grade 9, the completion ratewas 84 percent for females and 76 percentfor males by 2002.

32

Figure 2.C: School Participation Rates, Gross Enrollment Rates and Net Enrollment Rates bySex and Gains, 1994-2002


Coverage has been expanded to ruralareas. With respect to the rural-urbandivide, net enrollment and school participa-tion rates in non-municipal, or rural, areashave pulled alongside municipal areas, andin some cases even exceeded rates of theirurban counterparts. The gradual rise inboth SPR and NER reflects improvement in

access to secondary education for ruralchildren, following massive expansion ofschools to remote locations in the early1980s. Similarly, the urban-rural gap forgrade completion has decreased from 25percent in 1994 to only 8 percent in 2002(see Figure 2.D).

Figure 2.D: Grade Completion by Urban/Rural Location, 1994 and 2002



The Northeast, the poorest region inThailand, is catching up with other regions.In the 1980s, there was great concernabout lagging enrollment rates of the mostimpoverished regions in Thailand, particular-ly the Northeast. However, SES data showthat by 1994, NER for the Northeast washigher than other regions and continued to

maintain that position through 2002 (seeFigure 2.E). Most of the growth took placebetween 1994 and 1996. Like many otherregions, the Northeast experienced a dip inNER in more recent years. More striking isthe NER trend in Bangkok, where the NERfell between 1994 and 1998, while rates inother regions continued to climb.

Figure 2.E: Secondary Net Enrollment Rates by Region, 1994-2002


Disparities exist across provinces, especiallyamong the richest and the poorestprovinces. Based on data collected by theMOE, most provinces achieved secondaryGERs around 60-70 percent by 2002, reflect-ing notable improvements but also extensiveroom for further expansion. Groupingprovinces into five quintiles according to

provincial per capita income, school partic-ipation rates are relatively consistent amongthe bottom four quintiles (see Table 2.3).However, the provinces in the wealthiestquintile achieved higher rates than those inthe bottom quintiles, across all age groups.The difference among provinces is especial-ly striking for younger children.

34

Table 2.3: School Participation Rate by Income Quintile and Provincial per CapitaIncome, 2002

Figure 2.F shows Kaplan-Meier survival curvesfor all children in the 6 to 15 year old age-group in 1994 and 2002, both overall anddisaggregated by wealth quintile. Overallsurvival probabilities through grade 6 werealready high in 1994, and are more than 98percent for 2002. In both years, the transi-tion between primary and secondary iswhere attainment drops off. Nevertheless,by 2002 overall grade 7 completion wasover 90 percent. This average masks signif-icant differences by quintile though. In1994, the completion rate gap between thepoorest quintile and other groups was lessthan 5 percent through to grade 4, andthen widened progressively: 6 to 10 percentfor grades 5 and 6, 20 to 50 percent for

grades 7 to 9. By 2002, the gap betweenthe richest and the poorest quintilesû com-pletion rates had narrowed, but persisteddespite improvements in absolute levels forboth quintiles. While the richest quintileûssurvival rate was almost 100 percent forgrade 9, it was only slightly above 80 per-cent for the poorest group. These survivalestimates confirm that overall the problemof retention is more pronounced in the tran-sition between primary and lower secondaryand only minor across each grade withinthese levels. Again, however, there is somedropout among children from the poorestgroup within both the primary and second-ary cycles, even among this most recentcohort of children.

Quintile 12-14 Years Old (%) 15-17 Years Old (%) 12-17 Years Old (%)

Q1 (Poorest) 51.73 36.47 44.03

Q2 51.84 35.40 43.58

Q3 55.49 35.81 45.59

Q4 55.04 36.69 45.74

Q5 (Richest) 66.36 41.21 53.91

Figure 2.F: Survival Curve Estimates for Ages 6 to 15 in Thailand, 1994 and 2002


Source: Estimation with data from Ministry of Education and Ministry of Interior


Urbanicity is relatively a minor factor inexplaining inequities of survival and comple-tion. Previously shown in Figure 2.D, theurban-rural gap on grade survival curves issmaller than that of household wealth (ofthe poorest and the richest) depicted in fig-ure 2.F. Survival probabilities to grade 6 ofurban and rural children were largely similarin 1994 and more so in 2002. Urban-ruraldifferences grow larger across into the lowersecondary grades, albeit less pronouncednow than a decade ago.

International comparisons show thatThailand made dramatic improvements overthe past two decades. Data from theWorld Development Indicators (World Bank2003) confirm that Thailand started out inthe late 1980s with one of the lowest sec-ondary gross enrollment rates in the region,but subsequently picked up pace in laterdecades to position itself in the top tier dueto a concerted Government effort toexpand access (see Figure 2.G).

Figure 2.G: Trends in Secondary Gross Enrollment Rates across Asian Countries, 1980-2003

Note: Data for Thailand and Philippines in 2000 are from World DevelopmentIndicators 2003Source: World Development Indicators Database, World Bank 2006

36

Figure 2.H: Percentage of Upper Secondary Graduates to the Population, 2003

Source: OECD 2005a

Thailandûs expansion of secondary educa-tion is a success story, but many childrenremain excluded from sharing in the bene-fits of school participation. For Thailand toachieve its commitment of universal second-ary education by 2015, it is necessary totease out the supply- and demand-sideconstraints to education faced by theremainder 14 percent of the school agepopulation outside the formal education sys-tem. On the one hand, there are severalsocioeconomic factors that determine fami-

ly decision-making regarding the demandfor secondary education and the level ofinvestment in human capital. On the otherhand, there are supply side variables thataffect access to secondary education.Understanding the interplay between thesevariables will allow the RTG to developappropriate strategies for better targetingout-of-school children, broadening coverageeven further and achieving universal partic-ipation objectives.

REACHING OUT TO THE EXCLUDED

GERs for the upper secondary level havealso experienced a notable increase. Theshare of upper secondary school graduatesto the population has steadily increased,reaching 59 percent in 2003. Thailand per-forms comparatively better than otherregional neighbors such as Indonesia, China

and India in this realm (OECD 2005b).Furthermore, Thailandûs share of secondaryschool graduates was largely at par or larg-er than countries with a higher GDP percapita, such as the Philippines, Argentina orMexico (see Figure 2.H).


Box 2.2: The Path to Universal Secondary Education in Korea

The Republic of Korea achieved nearly universal primary and secondary education in just four decades,following the end of the Korean War in 1953. Educational expansion in South Korea was accompa-nied by a declining Gini coefficient, indicating that equality gaps were narrowed during the sametime period. Korean students are also among the top performers in both mathematics and sciencein OECD countries, as illustrated by recent PISA and TIMSS results.

According to a case study on Koreaûs path to universal secondary education in çExpandingOpportunities and Building Competencies for Young People: A New Agenda for Secondary Educationé(World Bank 2005), several factors played a key role. First, Korea included strategies for a strength-ened and broadened education system in its national development plan as early as the late 1950s.Education was identified as a top priority area in the 1960s and a focus on secondary education wasestablished in the 1970s, followed by tertiary level in the 1980s. Second, Korea included equality andequity considerations in its educational expansion strategies. In 1968, the government abolishedentrance examination for middle schools and introduced a lottery system for student placement, whichwas intended to democratize access at this level. The High School Equalization Policy (HSEP) waspassed in 1974, which was intended to equalize schools inputs such as operating expenditures, studentintake, class size and education facilities. As a result, there is no discernible quality difference acrosspublic schools or between private and public institutions. Third, government expenditure on educa-tion has increased steadily since the 1950s. Education expenditure as a percentage of GDP increasedfrom 2.9 percent in 1970 to nearly 5 percent in 2003. Fourth, private school participation has playeda significant role in sustaining expansion. While providers of secondary education were greatly sup-ported by government tax incentives, fees, family contributions and foreign aid at first, governmentrevenues have been reinvested in education following the introduction of school-leveling policies.

MOE statistics primarily report on childrenwho are already in school. These data alsoprovide some insights on studentsû decisionmaking regarding whether to continue orabandon school. The Thai education man-agement information system, however, haslimited information on out-of-school children.Statistics (or acceptable estimates) of thesechildren from various organizations varywidely.

Children with disabilities have been a grouplargely neglected from efforts to universalizebasic education. The MOE manages 41specialized basic education schools for chil-dren with disabilities throughout Thailandthat serve approximately 13,000 students. Inaddition, the MOE has generally espousedan inclusive policy of mainstreaming chil-dren with disabilities within the regular edu-

cational system. But this policy has notbeen clearly articulated and children withdisabilities have traditionally not beenemphasized as a priority target group toreach Education for All targets. Thus, theyhave remained largely excluded from edu-cation participation. According to nationalstatistics, in 2004 there were only 175,000children with disabilities enrolled in pre-pri-mary through upper secondary school. Thetotal population between 3 and 17 yearsold in 2004 was 13,774,909. Thus, the shareof children with disabilities enrolled in schoolwas approximately 1.27 percent. Estimatesfrom other middle-income countries suggestthat the share of children with disabilitiestend to oscillate between 4 and 5 percent,suggesting that there are likely a few hun-dred thousand children with disabilities inThailand outside the school system.

38

Table 2.4: Number of Disabled and Special Students by Type and Gender, Academic Year 2004

Source: Office of Education Council 2005

Another group that has remained at themargins of inclusive education policies iscomprised of children of non-Thai citizenscurrently living in Thailand. According toMOEûs and Ministry of Interior (MOI)ûs regu-lations, non-Thai children have a right toreceive basic education with financial sup-port from the RTG. While this policy is ineffect, it has been irregularly implemented.Demand-side constraints keep a large shareof non-Thai children out of school.Language of instruction has also been aproblem as alien children may not be fluentin Thai. Efforts to reach immigrant out-of-school youth have been small in scope andmostly led by specialized non-governmentalorganizations. Furthermore, schools that doenroll non-Thai children oftentimes do notclaim their entitled governmental per capi-ta funding for these students due to igno-rance of existing policies or fail to receivetheir entitled allocation. At present, thereare approximately 45,000 non-citizens in Thaischools receiving budgetary per capita enti-tlements. A study of the Office of

Education Council (OEC) covering 250 chil-dren of alien workers in Samut Sakhonprovince shows that the provision of freeeducation has resulted in a 46 percentdecline in the number of school dropoutsand child labor abuse cases. Yet nearlyhalf of the schools which were providingfree education for alien children had notreceived state subsidies.

As noted earlier, the pattern of school par-ticipation in Thailand reveals that the major-ity of school abandonment is occurringbetween cycles. Figure 2.D suggests thattransitions between cycles tend to be sharp-er in rural areas in particular, although thesehave diminished between 1994 and 2002.Possible explanations for this phenomenonmay relate to basic supply constraints inwhich students simply do not have accessto the next education cycle and are forcedto drop out. Between-cycle abandonmentmay also be due to low perceptions of thebenefits of the subsequent education cycle.Low real or perceived returns to education,

Type Male Female Total

Seeing-impaired 5,898 5,445 11,343

Hearing-impaired 3,578 3,302 6,880

Mentally impaired 15,302 14,125 29,427

Physically impaired 8,343 7,701 16,044

Students having difficulties in learning 39,478 36,442 75,920

Speaking-impaired 5,994 5,532 11,526

Students with autism 1,965 1,814 3,779

Students with behavioral/ emotional problems 5,001 4,617 9,618

Students with more than one characteristic of disability 5,518 5,094 10,612

Total 91,077 84,072 175,149


high private costs, or high opportunity costsmay cause students not to enter highereducation cycles. Lack of relevance or poorschool quality can also play an importantrole in a household decision to keep theirchildren in school.

MOE data indicate that while financial con-straints are often identified as the mainobstacle keeping students out of schools,another important factor is student reloca-tion (without transfer to a new school) (see

Figure 2.I). Financial constraints tend tolessen as students progress to higher grades;while relocation grows in relative signifi-cance into the upper secondary level.Nevertheless, relocation also shows a dimin-ishing impact when moving along the high-er grades. The çotheré category in this sur-vey probably captures lack of knowledgeabout the reasons for dropout due to aninability to track students outside the formaleducational system.

Figure 2.I: Reasons Cited for Dropping Out, Grades 7-12, 2004


A multivariate analysis model was construct-ed to determine how demand side indica-tors affect school participation rates of chil-dren ages 12 to 17 years old. The effectof age and household composition onschooling decisions have waned. In gener-al, as children grow older, they stand ahigher chance of dropping out of school asthe direct and opportunity costs to educa-

tion weigh more heavily into participationdecisions. In 1994, there was a probabilityof 12 percent that children would dropoutof school if they were one year older. Thisprobability declined to just 5 percent in2002. Likewise, it is common that childrenfrom larger households have less of achance of attending secondary school,most likely because limited resources have

40

to be allocated among a greater numberof children. Recent household data showthat the effect is presently marginal and hasdeclined over time.

Children with educated parents tend toachieve higher secondary school participa-tion rates. The educational attainment ofadult males and females are both positive-ly associated with childrenûs participation insecondary school. The higher the educa-tional attainment of the adult in a house-hold, the likelier the children in that partic-ular household will participate in school.The effect is even stronger with females.The marginal effect of adult educationalattainment has increased over timebetween 1994 (2.5 percent) and 2002 (3.5percent).

The relationship between school enrollmentand household expenditures has remainedstrong. Relative to children from the poor-est quintile, children from the second, thethird, the forth and the fifth (the richest)quintiles have 7.3, 11.9, 17.0 and 18.3 per-centage points higher probabilities of school

participation respectively in 1994. Whileeffects have decreased over the years (andstand at 5.5, 8.0, 8.8 and 9.9 respectively for2002) they remain statistically significant. Analternative specification that replaces quin-tile dummy variables with the (natural) logof per capita household expenditure sug-gests that a 10 percent increase in month-ly real per capita expenditure is associatedwith almost a 1.5 percentage point increasein childûs school participation in 1994. Thismagnitude is about 1 percentage point for2002 data.

Direct costs to education act as a barrierto access to secondary schooling. The tran-sition from one level of education to anoth-er is heavily influenced by financial consid-erations. According to the Children andYouth Survey (CYS), regularly conducted bythe NSO, inability to pay is overwhelminglythe prime reason for children who are com-pleting an educational cycle not toprogress to the next educational level (seeFigure 2.J). Other minor reasons includehaving to work, distance from school andhave sufficient knowledge for work.

Figure 2.J: Reasons for not Continuing Lower and Upper Secondary Education, 2002

Source: Children and Youth Survey 2002


The gap between the rich and the poor forhousehold expenditures in secondary edu-cation is widening. Average householdspending on education was 3,449 Baht peryear in 2002 with vast differences acrossquintiles - from 840 Baht in the poorest quin-tile to over 7,870 Baht in the richest quintile- and across regions - from about 1,750 Bahtin the Northeast to over 9,585 Baht inBangkok. Poor households allocate on theorder of 1.5 percent of total expenditures toeducation whereas richer households allo-cate 2 or 3 percent. The SES does not col-lect information about spending on educa-tion at the student level, but estimates canbe derived indirectly by calculating theaverage increase in household expendituresassociated with an additional child enrolledat each level of education. The average

spending per student at the secondary levelwas equal to about 2,300 Baht in 2002, butagain this estimate masks wide variationsacross income quintiles (see Table 2.5).Households in the poorest quintile spentabout 860 Baht per secondary students ascompared to over 6,800 Baht in the richestquintile - close to eight times as much. Thisgap appears to have widened over time.In 1994 household per secondary studentspending in the richest quintile was onlyabout 4 times as much as that in the poor-est quintile; in 1999 it was 6 times as muchand by 2002 it had grown to 8 times asmuch. Moreover, while spending in second-ary education in real terms by the poorestquintile between 1994 and 2002 experi-enced a downward trend, spending by theother four quintiles increased.

Table 2.5: Private Expenditure Estimates on Education by Income Quintile (Real Baht), 1994-2002


42

çFreeé education for all does not truly meetthe needs of poor households. While theRTG committed to provide 12 years of freeeducation for all under the 1997Constitution, tuition covers only a small partof total expenditure that households mustbear in association with education. Datafrom the CYS show that in 2002, schooltuition and textbooks represented only 19 to25 percent of the total cost of sending achild to lower or upper secondary level (see

Figure 2.K). Meals and transportation costscombined represented about 65 percent oftotal education-related expenditures. Arecent study from the National HumanRights Commission also indicates that stu-dents often had to pay çhidden feesé to uti-lize libraries, have access to computers andsit for examinations. Other students reportbeing charged for school landscaping orafter-school tuition classes (Thai NewsAgency 2006).

Figure 2.K: Average Annual Expenditure on Education per Person by EducationLevels, 2002

Note: Average annual expenditure for upper secondary level includes both aca-demic and vocational streams.

Source: Children and Youth Survey 2002

Opportunity costs may hinder householdsfrom sending children to school. A largenumber of rural children, especially in poorhouseholds, financially contribute to theirfamilies by working inside or outside thehome. By sending these children to school,households forego these financial benefits.Opportunity costs relate to how households

perceive the impact of income foregone,which is often affected by conditions in thelabor market. For the poorest households,this indirect cost may be substantial, withseasonal variations relating to the demandfor agricultural and other labor. In Thailand,this is apparently a problem for only a verysmall fraction of children at the lower sec-


ondary level. According to the SES, childrenbegin to become involved in productivework at around 15 years of age (see Figure2.L). Data from the CYS confirms that onlya small minority of out-of-school youth citehaving to work as a reason not to enterlower secondary education. As expected,work begins to compete with schooling by

precluding school attendance at a higherrate in the upper secondary level. In 2002,17 percent of 16-year olds were engagedin productive work and 14 percent of chil-dren in Grade 9 cited work as a reason tostop their education at the lower secondarylevel.

Figure 2.L: Share of Children and Youth at School or Work by Age, 2002

Source: di Gropello 2006

44

But in order to achieve universal secondaryeducation, it is crucial to ensure not onlythat there is strong demand but also suffi-cient supply of educational services. In theearly 1990s, a school infrastructure develop-ment program was pushed forward by theDepartment of General Education (DGE).There were on average 18 public second-ary schools in every province. In addition,the Office of National Primary EducationCommission (ONPEC) expanded existingrural primary schools under its jurisdiction tocover lower secondary education.Expanding schools into the rural areasenabled students to attend schools byreducing transportation costs for households.With such heavy expansion, the enrollmentgap between children in the urban andrural areas was dramatically reduced. Butwhile secondary schools seats have grownover time, a simple analysis shows that theremay still be room for expansion. Comparingthe number of students in the official sec-ondary level age group between 12-17years old and the number of secondaryclassrooms available by province, it is clearthat more classrooms may be needed. Thestudent to classroom average ratio rangesfrom 27:1 in Pattani to 42:1 in Nontaburi andSamutprakarn. For many provinces, if allstudents in the respective age group decid-ed to attend secondary school, there wouldnot be enough classrooms to hold them.

INTERVENTIONS TO STIMULATEEQUITABLE SECONDARY SCHOOLEXPANSION

So what accounts for the extraordinarygrowth in secondary school enrollments inthe 1990s? As noted immediately above,the expansion of the schooling network,either through a new infrastructure programor the addition of lower secondary gradesto existing primary schools, is credited indramatically opening new educationalopportunities for children throughoutThailand. Studies conducted in rural areasprovide evidence that parents saw second-ary education as a means to break thecycle of poverty for their children or openup greater job opportunities in the expand-ing labor market. Bringing schools closer tothe point of demand reduced the costsassociated with schooling and minimizedconcerns about their children falling intobad company. The use of excess physicalfacilities and teachers in primary schools,resulting from the declining primary school-age population, facilitated the transition tolower secondary education. The primaryschools prioritized for expansion had to besuccessful in teaching vocational subjectswhere students could earn income whilestudying, staffed by an adequate numberof teachers and located in areas with lowcontinuation rates due to poverty (Jones2003). The number of primary schools sup-plying secondary education increased from119 in 1990 to 2,688 in 1992, 4,081 in 1994and 6,281 in 1997. Despite this very dramat-ic expansion, as the rough estimationsalready provided suggest, Thailand may stillface a supply side shortage to offer ade-quate opportunities for all children.

Financial incentives were introduced toreduce the cost burden on families. Whilethe Government has expanded its schoolnetwork and committed to provide freetuition for grades one to twelve, expendi-


tures for school-related costs such as uni-forms, textbooks and transportation arelarge and significant. In order to addressdemand-side constraints, the RTG launcheda comprehensive set of programs to assistpoor children in response to the evidencethat lack of financial support is a significantconstraint to secondary school participation.The main features of these programs aredescribed in Box 2.3 below. Among the

government-initiated programs, the studentloan program, established in 1996, receivesmore than 185 billion Baht and is the largesteducation-related intervention. More than 2million students have received loans toattend upper secondary and tertiary schoolsto date.

Box 2.3: Summary of Government-Initiated Interventions

Policy Intervention Target Population Target Level Total Budget

School Lunch ProgramObjective: The fund, established in 1992, aims toensure sufficient nutrition for pre-primary and pri-mary students across countries, including pre-pri-mary children in mosque and temple schools.Each student receives 6 Baht per day for 200 daysin each school year, totaling 1,200 Baht per per-son per school year. This program has also beenreplicated independently with community contribu-tions across the nation.

Responsible agencies: Ministry of Education

Current situation: In 2005, more than 2 million stu-dents received free school lunches

Children with nutri-tional problems, inRachaprachanukrao,in border policeschools, from hilltribes and thepoor, whichaccounts for 30percent of all chil-dren.

P r e - p r i m a r yand primarylevels

Around 4,000million Baht inFY 2005

Scholarships for Poor Children from Essay Writing Objective: Scholarships for poor children, usingGovernmentûs revenue from lottery tickets sales.Scholarships are granted to children who havesubmitted an essay describing hardships they face.Scholarships are awarded after verifying atten-dance with schools and teachers.

Responsible agencies: Ministry of Education (Officeof Basic Education Commission, Office ofVocational Education Commission, Commission onHigher Education) tracks students and monitorsproject outcomes.

Current situation: Currently, around 250,000 chil-dren have received a scholarship with 150,000applications being processed. In total, the pro-gram is currently using about 67 percent of its allo-cated resources.

Poor students All levels

46



Scholarships for Poor Students whose parents arededicated to social activities Objective: The project aims to help poor studentswhose parents have devoted their time and effortsto government and social activities.

Responsibility agencies: Ministry of Education,Office of Lottery Service

Current situation: The project started in 2004.There were 66,560 scholarships granted.

Poor children ofgovernment offi-cials and perma-nent employees ofevery ministry, vol-unteers on specialtaskforces (publichealth, anti-drugs),junior police offi-cials

All levels

Bicycle Lending ProjectObjective: Beginning in 2003, students who live inremote areas at least 3 kilometers away fromschools and whose family annual income is lessthan 300,000 Baht can borrow a bicycle to travelto schools. The borrowed bicycles are returned tothe project upon graduation.

Responsible agencies: Ministry of Education andMinistry of Industry.

Current situation: 426,734,545 Baht have been allo-cated and 75,900 bicycles have been provided onloan for students

Poor students whohave to travel longdistances to school

Primary andsecondary lev-els

Around 500million Bahthas been allo-cated.

Student Loan SchemeObjective: Established in 1996, the fund aims toprovide financial assistance to children from poorfamilies who wish to continue to upper secondaryor tertiary level on both general and vocationaltracks. This also includes learners in non-formaleducation programs who wish to further their stud-ies beyond lower secondary. The loan provides55,400 Baht per year for upper secondary and100,000 Baht for bachelor degree studies.

Responsible agencies: Ministry of Education isresponsible for loan recipients. Ministry of Financeis responsible for allocation of loans while KrungThai Public Company Limited is responsible for debtrepayment from students after graduation.

Current situation: In 2004, around 880,000 students were recipients, using around 26 billion Baht of stu-dent loan funds.

Children from poorhouseholds whosefamily total annualincome is less than150,000 Baht (forrecipients before1998 their annualhousehold incomeshould be no morethan 300,000 Baht)

Upper second-ary and terti-ary levels

26,045 millionBaht in FY 2004




One District One Scholarship ProgramObjective: The project aims to address issues ofequal access to quality education for Thai stu-dents. Scholarship applicants are poor studentswhose family income does not exceed 100,000Baht per year. In addition, these students arerequired to have a minimum of 3.00 GPA, pass thegeneral test (on mathematics, science, social sci-ence), pass an English writing test and interview.

Responsible agencies: Office of Lottery Service andMinistry of Education.

Current situation: In 2005, the first year of the pro-gram, 921 students have received scholarships, outof which 740 have studied abroad and 181 haveattended universities in country. The second batchof 2006 is in process.

Poor studentswhose familyincome is less than100,000 Baht peryear

Tertiary levelboth in-countryand overseas

Allocation of1 billion Bahton an annualbasis.

Source: Office of National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) and Ministry ofEducation

Government interventions have proliferated,but their impact could be improved. In2000, about a quarter of students at theupper-secondary level (general and voca-tional) received student loans (including 40percent of students enrolled in private voca-tional upper secondary). Yet the loan pro-gram itself did not produce the expectedboost in overall upper secondary educationenrollments. An in-depth study of theStudent Loan Scheme shows that over theperiod 1996-2000, upper-secondary educa-tion evidenced a declining overall share interms of number of borrowers and total sizeof loan disbursements (from 63 to 47 per-cent and 46 to 21 percent respectively). In1999, the loan scheme covered approxi-mately 453,000 children or 33 percent ofpoor students enrolled - that is, two thirds ofeligible poor students enrolled in upper sec-ondary schools that year did not receive

any assistance and an additional 600,000poor youth were out of school (Ziderman2003). Furthermore, more recent evidencesuggests that loans do not seem to reachits intended beneficiaries: students whowould be unable to attend schooling in theabsence of a loan. Interview data showsthat only 30 percent of borrowers woulddrop out if the loan was terminated.According to a recent study byChulalongkorn Universityûs education faculty,58 percent of secondary school recipientsdid not need financial assistance to stay inschool, while 21 percent of rejected appli-cants at all educational levels were actual-ly in a worse off financial position thanscholarship recipients (Bangkok Post, 2006).In addition, there is a problem with slowrepayment and low recovery rates.Comparing with other Asian countries,Thailand has the lowest repayment rate (21

48

percent), contrasted with 55 percent inKorea and 79 percent in China. Moreover,the recovery rate, which includes defaultand administrative costs, is at 8 percentconsidered to be very low, compared with53 percent in China (Ziderman 2004). Toensure that the student loan program is aneffective intervention, the RTG needs tourgently improve its outreach and targetingto the poorest students.

Scholarships may act as a stronger incentivefor poor families to send their children tosecondary school, while cutting down relat-ed administrative costs of the scheme.Indeed, the Government has announced anintention to replace loans for upper second-ary students by grants and use an IncomeContingent Loan (ICL) for tertiary education.The ICL is scheduled to start this academicyear 2006. Student loans for upper second-ary students are expected to be graduallyphased out and replaced by student grantsfor grade 10 students.

There are no prominent schemes for assist-ing poor students at the lower secondarylevel. Official assistance programs targetinglower secondary students in need are rela-tively small and unfocused. For instance,the bicycle lending program, which doesnot specify an education level, tends tooverwhelmingly support students at the pri-mary level. Lower secondary studentsaccount for 25 percent of recipients in thisscheme and upper secondary students foronly 5 percent. Thus, while many of theprograms do target poor households, someinterventions could be better directed orspecifically earmarked to at-risk lower sec-ondary school students in order to redressthe notable drop in enrollments in the tran-sition beyond primary schooling.

Increasing the role of alternative educationservice delivery programs may provide fur-ther opportunities for rural and poor stu-

dents. At present, Non-Formal Education(NFE) programs are prohibited to serve chil-dren under the age of 16, unless they arereferred by an ESA. The NEA encouragesschools to organize flexible classes for out-of-school youth children and youth, but thispractice is not very widespread. In 2002,over 4 million children were enrolled in NFEinstitutions at all educational levels. Most ofthese students attended schools under thejurisdiction of the MOE; hence they areincluded in counts of participation andgross and net enrollment rates collected bythe MOE as well as the SES. Unfortunately,data on specific age groups are not avail-able at the moment. It is thus difficult toestimate how many children aged between12 and 17 enroll in alternative educationprograms. Data from ONEC indicate thatapproximately 1.8 out of 4 million were atthe secondary education level. Alternativeeducation pathways provide opportunitiesfor those who cannot attend schools duringregular hours, and such students tend tocome notably from disadvantaged families.The Vocational Education Certificate Courseinvolves a community-based curriculum overa three-year period. An evaluation con-ducted in 2000 showed that only 30,000 stu-dents per year opted for this option (Jones2003). Increasing the role of credible alter-native education programs may provideenhanced opportunities for children frompoor households and further strengthen theequity dimension of the educational system.

Promoting private sector involvement mayalleviate some of the educational expendi-ture demands on the Government. Theexpansion of public schools places addition-al burden on government resources, espe-cially when the government is committed toproviding 12 years of free education for allstudents. Promoting the expansion of pri-vate schools, especially in urban areas,could potentially alleviate pressures on gov-ernment expenditure on education, allowing


Figure 2.M: Ratio of Number of Students Attending Public to Private Schools atSecondary Level, 1992-2002


the government to redirect additionalresources to rural areas or better target out-of-school children. At the lower secondaryschool level, over 90 percent of studentsattend public schools (see Figure 2.M).Public sector provision of upper secondaryeducation grew from around 72 percent of

the student population in 1992 to 85 per-cent by 2002. In other words, the privatesector share in secondary education haseither remained largely stagnant or dimin-ished over the past decade, suggesting thatthere is room for improvement.

Educational reforms have stimulated privatepartnerships. Currently various schemeshave been put in place to promote privatepartnerships in the education system. Forexample, any individual or organizationwhich establishes a school or institution ispermitted to deduct 30 percent of the prof-its from the operation on a tax free basis.Additionally, incentives such as tax rebatesor exemptions are provided for contributionsfrom non-profit organizations. A RevolvingFund for Developing Private HigherEducation Institutions was launched in 1999to provide loans to private sector agents. Acloser analysis of the impact of these meas-ures would be desirable to assess their via-bility for expanding educational opportuni-ties.

Thailand could draw lessons from severalfinancing mechanisms implemented in othercountries. Programs such as the ProgramaNacional de Educacion, Salud yAlimentacion (PROGRESA) in Mexico orBolsa Escola in Brazil have proven to beeffective mechanisms to stimulate demandfor education and encouraging householdsto send children to school. They areexpected to produce higher school atten-dance rates while lowering school dropoutrates. The most comprehensive programs,such as PROGRESA in Mexico, resulted in areduction of child labor, increased educa-tional attainment and improved health andnutrition of the most impoverished. This par-ticular program targets the poorest popula-tion in rural areas and provides monetaryassistance to each child under 18 years oldthat enroll in school between grades 3 and

,,

50

Box 2.4: Demand Side Financing Mechanisms

Demand side financing programs raise family income and reduce the cost of attending school. Theyhave also proven to be cost effective. Such programs can be targeted to specific populations iden-tified to be in greatest need, such as households below a certain income level or living farther awayfrom school. Incentive schemes are proving to be very effective in increasing access to secondaryeducation. This is true in high enrollment countries such as Mexico as well as countries where enroll-ment rates, particularly for girls, have historically been very low, as is the case in Bangladesh orCambodia.

A variety of demand side financing mechanisms include :

A stipend is a cash payment that a public agency makes to a family to offset schooling relat-ed costs for a child. By granting a poor student a tuition-earmarked stipend, for example, the localeducation authority reduces parentsû direct cost of sending this child to school. For reducing thedirect costs of schooling, the benefits of schooling will outweigh costs and the childûs family will electto send the child to school. Stipends act to increase demand for schooling by lowering the directand/or indirect costs of education and making it more likely that the utility maximizing option for afamily will be to send a child to school. Stipends can be earmarked for core expenses such as books,tuition and transport, and incidental expenses such as materials, game fees and cloths. These canalso be known as scholarships or conditional cash transfers.

A targeted voucher is a cash payment given directly to students/families, typically by a publicentity, to be used at a school that the student selects. The primary reason voucher programs aretypically considered is to increase the range of choices available to students, thereby benefiting bothstudents and school systems. By making more schooling options available to students, it is possiblethat families will be able to choose an alternative that better meets their needs.

Targeted bursaries are cash payments that may go directly to schools, municipalities or provincesand are earmarked for specific purposes, such as improving the curriculum or increasing school accessfor minority, indigenous or poor children. They are not given to students or their families but are madeavailable to financial officers or the bursars at school or relevant administrative offices. When target-ed bursaries are used to reduce or eliminate school fees, their effect is essentially the same as astipend.

Community grants are given to a community of students in a lump sum but are tied to attend-ing a community created institution. The term voucher-like is sometimes used because the amountof money is related to the number of students and the approach has an element of choice. Parentschoose to send their children to a community school, thereby making the community school eligiblefor cash payments. Payments may cover some expenses or the full cost of schooling. The grantscan be used, for instance, to address gender equity issues by giving scholarships in lump sum toschools that girls attend.

Source: A Review of Demand Side Financing Initiatives in Education (Patrinos 2002)

9. Each year the grant amounts increaseas the student progresses to the next level.This grant compensates for a householdûsforegone income as their children attendschool instead of working and contributing

to the family income. More than 97 per-cent of eligible families choose to partici-pate in the program.


Special groups of children also require addi-tional resources. Although children whohave a physical or intellectual disability aresmall in number, they often require supportas well as additional resources and tailoredservices.5 Schools have been incentivizedand supported to attract and serve childrenwith disabilities by providing increased percapita expenditures in addition to alloca-tions for the general student body under theNEA. Additionally, mainstreaming strategiesfor inclusive education within the existingcurriculum and teacher training programshave provide teachers, principals and

administrators with some basic tools to sup-port children with disabilities and strivetowards an inclusive school system. Thesehave been important first steps in the rightdirection, but a more comprehensive andclearly articulated policy to mainstream chil-dren with disabilities will be required toachieve Education for All targets. Otherbarriers to educational access include inac-cessible school infrastructure to accommo-date children with disabilities and negativesocial perceptions about disability that havetended to keep these children at home orin segregated institutions.

52

QUALITY OF SECONDARYEDUCATION IN THAILANDIII.


Accurately capturing and evaluating thevarious facets of educational quality is diffi-cult. UNESCO has defined education qual-ity around four principal concepts, (i) learn-ing to know; (ii) learning to do; (iii) learningto live together; and (iv) learning to be(UNESCO, 2005). Education quality encom-passes multiple areas of learning, rangingfrom content knowledge of both externaland local or indigenous subjects, skills toapply what is learned in the larger societyand labor market, qualities to build morecohesive, peaceful, and equitable societies,and opportunities to develop personally.Unfortunately, many of these areas of edu-cation quality are difficult to assess, meas-ure, or compare. Because of this, mostresearch is confined to the more conven-tional area of content knowledge; and asUNESCO states, çIt could be judged unfor-tunate that the quantitative aspects of edu-cation have become the main focus ofattention in recent years for policy makers.é

International assessments are attempting toameliorate this weakness, at least partially,by testing skills and practical applications ofcontent rather than content alone. One ofthe principal international assessments, theOECD Programme for International StudentAssessment (PISA), does this by measuringcontent çliteracyé, a concept that encom-passes how 15 year-old students applyknowledge and skills; how they identify,solve, and interpret problems; and how theyanalyze, reason and communicate. TheTrends in International Mathematics andScience Study (TIMSS) is another internation-al assessment. TIMSS is a curriculum-basedtest for mathematics and science adminis-tered to eighth-grade students (typically 14to 15 years of age). Together with PISA,these tests have proved to be valuable andreliable instruments for measuring educationquality comparatively across countries andexplore the reasons that affect student per-formance (see Box 3.1). Thailand has par-ticipated in TIMSS assessments in 1995 and1999 and in PISA assessments in 2000 and2003.

Box 3.1: Measuring Quality of Education across Countries

In the late 1950s, the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) wasformed. It initiated what would become a major set of studies aiming to measure cognitive achieve-ment at various levels of education in several countries and to identify the main causes of differencesin outcomes. Twelve countries joined its first mathematics study. By 2000, some 50 countries were par-ticipating in surveys covering mathematics and science (now called the Trends in InternationalMathematics and Science Study or TIMSS), reading (the Progress in International Reading Literacy Studyor PIRLS) and other subjects. Strongly influenced by the IEA experience, several other such studies, usu-ally regionally focused, have since been established. They include the Programme for InternationalStudent Assessment (PISA), set up by the OECD in 1998 and now covering 59 mainly industrialized andmiddle income countries; the Southern and Eastern African Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality(SACMEQ), which since its first survey in Zimbabwe in 1991 has expanded to 15 African countries; theLatin American Laboratory for the Assessment of Quality in Education (LLECE), which began in 1997 andcovers sixteen countries; and the survey in French-speaking Africa known as the Programme dûAnalysedes Systemes Educatifs de la CONFEMEN (PASEC). At present, both UNICEF and the World Bank aresponsoring separate East Asian regional training programs with selected countries to strengthen nation-al capacity to regularly monitor and assess student achievement.

54

The RTG has also recognized the impor-tance of educational quality in realizing thepotential of all young children and main-taining long-term economic competitiveness.Thus, it has placed improving the quality ofeducation as one of its top priorities.Thailand has adopted several nationalmechanisms for monitoring student learningand assessing progress in educationalachievement. First, every Thai student musttake a school-based mid-year examinationat the end of the first semester and a finalexamination at the end of the school yearin order to pass on to the next grade.Second, standardized national tests at theend of primary, lower secondary and uppersecondary levels were introduced in theyear 2000 by the Office of EducationAssessment and Testing Services, under theDepartment of Curriculum and InstructionDevelopment, and were carried out until2003. These tests were comparable inmeasuring student performance within andacross provinces. They were known as theGeneral Aptitude Test (GAT) and theScholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). The GATcovered Thai, mathematics, science andEnglish in grade 6; grade 9 students had tosit for an additional social studies exam;while all 12 graders had to take a Thai,English and social studies exam and addi-tional subjects such as general science,chemistry, biology, physics and mathematicsdepending on studentsû study programs.The SAT, only applicable to Grade 12 stu-dents, covered 4 skills of language, mathe-matical calculation, analytical thinking andscholastic aptitude. At present, the NationalInstitute of Education Testing Services (NIETS),founded in 2004, is responsible for the eval-uation and testing of Thai education at alllevels, including secondary education. Inacademic year 2006, NIETS introduced theOrdinary National Educational Test (O-NET)and the Advanced National EducationalTest (A-NET) at grade 12. These arerequired tests for university admission.

QUALITY OF THAI EDUCATION:LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL DATA

This section uses international assessments toanalyze education quality in Thailand com-pared to other countries in East Asia andLatin America. An important conclusionstands out from benchmarking the perform-ance of Thai students internationally:Thailand has higher scores than other coun-tries at similar income levels, suggesting thatit has been generally successful at providingeducational services of certain quality equi-tably.

The bars in Figure 3.A show the proportionof students in participating East Asian andLatin American countries divided into PISAûssix proficiency levels for the PISA 2003 examin mathematics. The line running through thefigure shows the mean test score for eachcountry. The figure groups countries accord-ing to the World Bankûs income groupings.Figure 3.B shows the same information forthe PISA 2000 exam in reading literacy. Inthis case, student scores were divided intofive rather than six proficiency levels.

In both years and in both subjects a cleartrend of lower income countries scoringbelow higher income countries is present.Thus, Thailand trails significantly behind itsAsian counterparts: Japan, Hong Kong, SARand Korea. This is not surprising. The aver-age 2003 PISA mathematics test score forlower middle income countries (381) is morethan 150 points below that of upper incomecountries (542). This indicates a real qualitygap between wealthier countries, such asJapan and South Korea, and developingcountries, like Thailand and Indonesia. Thesame pattern is true for 2000 PISA ReadingLiteracy, where the average test score forlower middle countries (385) is 139 pointsbelow that of upper income countries (524).

55



Figure 3.B: PISA 2000 Test Score Results in Reading Literacy by Income Group

Figure 3.A: PISA 2003 Test Score Results in Mathematics Literacy by Income Group


However, when analyzing the performance ofThailand against other lower middle incomecountries, such as Indonesia or Brazil, weobserve that Thailand performs better than itspeers both in terms of mean test scores aswell as proficiency level distribution. In fact,Thailand performed more than 50 points

above the other countries in its income group-ing in the 2003 mathematics test. While 20percent of Thai students scored at or aboveproficiency level 3, notably fewer Brazilian,Indonesian or Mexican students reached thatbenchmark. A similar phenomenon can beobserved in the 2000 reading literacy exam.

56

This substantial congruence in the results ofboth tests over time suggests that Thailandhas been more successful at producing bet-ter student outcomes - at least as is meas-ured by the skills and contents of the PISAexam - than other countries at similarincome levels.

This point is further buttressed when regress-ing mean PISA test scores against log GDPper capita. The trend line in Figure 3.Cshows the expected performance of coun-tries at a given income level. Thailandclearly performs above the trend line; thatis, student achievement is higher than wouldbe predicted by its GDP level.

Figure 3.C: Trend Line of PISA Test Scores against Log GDP per Capita

Source: Richter 2006


The results of the 1999 TIMSS study show avery similar pattern to the PISA results.Thailand ranked 27th in mathematics and24th in science among 38 participatingcountries (statistically equal to the interna-tional average), among the bottom tier ofparticipating countries. Yet, relative to

national income levels, Thailandûs perform-ance could be rated as adequate (seeFigure 3.D and Figure 3.E). In both mathe-matics and science, Thailand ranks abovethe trend line for its per capita GrossNational Income (GNI) level.

Figure 3.D: Trend Line of TIMSS Mathematics Scores against 2003 GNI per Capita


Figure 3.E: Trend Line of TIMSS Science Scores against 2003 GNI per Capita

Source: Richter 2006

Not only Thai students on average performwell relative to their peers in other countriesat similar income levels, but the distributionof knowledge across Thailand is fairly equi-tably distributed. Figure 3.F graphs the per-formance in mathematics of individuals fromdifferent wealth quintiles in PISA 2000, butthe basic results hold for other subjects andyears. The wealth variable is based on anindex of several household asset-ownershipand housing conditions variables.6 As

expected, there are statistically significantdifferences in test scores across wealth quin-tiles in all countries. Individuals from wealth-ier households perform better than individu-als from poorer households. But in the caseof Thailand, these differences are lesssharply marked than in other countries illus-trated, such as Argentina, Brazil and Chile.Wealth accounts for a very modest share ofthe total variation in mathematics scoresoverall.

Figure 3.F: Average Mathematics Performance by Wealth, 2000

Note: Q1 refers to the poorest quintile, while Q5 refers to the richest quintile.Source: di Gropello 2006

6 These include the availability of a dishwasher, a room of their own, educational software and a link to the Internet andthe number of cellular phones, television sets, computers, motorcars and bathrooms at home. This type of variables hasbeen used in many other studies as a good proxy for household welfare in the absence of consumption information (seeFilmer and Pritchett, 1999).

58

Differences across schools can make a dif-ference in how much students learn andhow they perform. In an equitable educa-tional system, between-school differencesare minimized; that is, all students have anequal opportunity to learn regardless ofwhat school they attend. Figure 3.G showsthat most of the variation in student per-formance in Thailand is due to within- ratherthan between-school differences. In fact,

Thailand presents the least share ofbetween-school variation in mathematics forthe countries selected. Much of thisbetween-school variation can be explainedby differences on average socioeconomicbackground of student population amongschools. But the sorting of students acrossschools by wealth is less pronounced inThailand than in most other comparisoncountries.

This finding provides an additional explana-tion for Thailandûs significant gains in educa-tional attainment across individuals from allsocioeconomic backgrounds. The growth instudent participation can be explained notonly strictly in terms of an increase in accessto schooling but also to greater equity inaccess to quality schooling, as low qualityschooling provides little incentive to remainin school. Comparing the secondary com-pletion profiles with test scores as measuredthrough the PISA assessment for the fivecountries for which we have both types ofinformation (Indonesia, Mexico, Argentina,Thailand and Brazil), there is confirmationthat higher secondary completion is gener-ally related to higher quality (as illustrated

by a correlation coefficient of 0.6).

On the other hand, while PISA and TIMSSresults suggest that Thailandûs performanceis acceptable given its income level andknowledge is rather fairly distributed, it alsounderscores that there are problems witheducation quality that demand urgentattention. First, it is clear that very few chil-dren score in the top proficiency levels. ForPISA, less than 10 percent of studentsscored beyond levels 4 in mathematics orreading. This is in stark contrast to all threeparticipating East Asian upper income coun-tries, where roughly 50 percent of studentsin mathematics and 40 percent in readingscored above this level. The same holds


Figure 3.G: Between- and Within-School Variation in Mathematics Scores, 2000

59

true for TIMSS. Only 16 percent of studentsin Thailand reached the upper quarter pro-ficiency benchmark in the mathematics test,while in Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Korea,Hong Kong, SAR and Japan at least 64 per-cent of students performed at this level.

Furthermore, a very large share of studentsis performing below acceptable proficiencylevels. Thailand had roughly 40 percent ofstudents performing at or below the PISAlevel one in literacy and over 50 percent ofstudents performing at or below the PISAlevel one in mathematics. This contrastsgreatly with the upper income countrieswhere only around 10 percent of studentsscore at or below level one. In summary,a vast proportion of students are function-ing at or below the most basic level of lan-guage, mathematics and science ability.

FACTORS AFFECTING QUALITY OFEDUCATION IN THAILAND

What do we know about school inputs thataffect educational outcomes? In the sec-tions below, selected educational input vari-ables are discussed in order to better under-stand which factors positively affect educa-tional outcomes in the Thai context.International assessments have collected

extensive background data to appraise therelationship between various educationalinputs and outcomes. We now turn ourattention to the contributions of teacher,school and household characteristics to stu-dent learning and performance.

Teacher Characteristics

Teacher quality is considered one of themost important contributing factors toimproving student achievement (Rice 2003;Rivkin, Hanushek and Kain 2005). In 2005,about 87 percent of secondary schoolteachers under OBEC had earned at leasta bachelorûs degree. Only a small minorityof teachers in lower and upper secondaryschools possessed a Masterûs degree orabove - about 4 and 11 percent respective-ly. The Bangkok Metropolitan Region (BMR)and Northern provinces tended to have agreater concentration of teachers with aMasterûs degree or higher (see Table 3.1),while teachers from other regions tended tohave comparatively less education. The dis-tribution of teachers with higher educationdegrees is also more heavily biased towardsschools that cater children of higher incomebrackets, while schools that serve lowerincome populations have teaching staff withfewer years of professional training.

Table 3.1: Percent of Teachers with Masterûs Degree or Higher, 2002

Region Lower Secondary Upper Secondary

BMR

North

Northeast

Central

South

Whole Kingdom

5.9

5.4

2.6

3.3

3.3

3.8

18.6

15.5

8.4

9.7

7.3

11.0


Source: Ministry of Education

60

What is the evidence regarding Thai teach-ersû contributions to student learning?About 80 percent of students interviewed bythe PISA 2003 test reported that their teach-ers showed an interest in every studentûslearning, gave extra help when studentsneeded it, helped students with their learn-ing, continued teaching until students under-stand and gave students the opportunity toexpress opinions (PISA 2004). These are sub-jective perceptions of teacher performance,rather than an accurate description ofteachersû attitudes and classroom practices.Nonetheless, they portray an overall positivegeneral classroom environment in which stu-dent learning can be adequately nurtured.

On the other hand, on the basis of datafrom questionnaires completed by schoolprincipals, an index of teacher adequacywas constructed reflecting perceptionsabout the extent to which teacher supplyhindered student learning. Thailand wasamongst the countries where principalsreported shortage or inadequacy of teach-ers. For instance, 37 percent of studentshad principals who believed instruction inmathematics was hampered by teacherinadequacy while 24 percent reported lackof experienced teachers (PISA 2004).Moreover, poor studentsû perception ofteacher-student relations - that is, studentswho disagree that most teachers are inter-ested in their well being, treat them fairly orprovide help when needed - had on aver-age a strong and significant negative cor-relation on mathematics performance (PISA2004).

TIMSS constructed an index based onteachersû own perceptions of their ability toteach various topics (e.g. properties of geo-metric figures, solving linear equations,earthûs features, chemical reactivity, etc.).In 1999, 55 percent of students were taughtby instructors who felt less than adequatelyprepared in mathematics and 58 percent of

students were taught by instructors who feltless than adequately prepared in science.Only 13 and 18 percent of students weretaught by instructors who felt confident intheir abilities in science and mathematicsrespectively. Higher levels of teacher con-fidence were associated with superior stu-dent scores.

Traditionally, Thai secondary classroomshave relied on a front-style lecture format,rather than on child-centered pedagogicalmethodologies or active learning environ-ments. On average, Thai students spendabout one fifth of class time each month inlecture-based classes and another one-fifthon teacher-guided student practice. Suchdistribution of class time is similar to aver-ages reported by students from other coun-tries participating in TIMSS. The distinctionbetween Thailand and others lies in the verylimited opportunities for Thai students toapply knowledge to new situations or exer-cise creative thinking during the school day.In response to a question which asked toidentify activities frequently undertaken inthe classroom, 91 percent of studentsreported that teachers actually showedthem how to do their mathematics work.

More strikingly, only 19 percent of Thai stu-dents reported working independently onclass mathematics projects, in contrast toHong Kong, SAR (67 percent) or Korea (46percent). The international average was 36percent. More than 90 percent of Thai stu-dents practice computational skills in mostmathematics lessons; yet, only 54 percent ofstudents report that their teachers explainthe reasoning behind an idea and a mere12 percent report the use of tables, chartsor graphs to represent and analyze relation-ships. While 93 percent of students reportthat mathematics teachers use the black-board for presentations, only 33 percent ofstudents get called to the front of the class,compared to an international average of 60


percent. A similar trend can be observedin science instruction.

On the other hand, science instructionappears to adequately emphasize scientificinvestigation and practical application. Amajority of Thai students report conductingexperiments in science classes. Over half ofstudents report that they spend more than25 percent of class time in practical demon-strations always or pretty often, in contrastto an international average of 38 percentand largely at par with Singapore, Japan,Malaysia and New Zealand.

Overall, these findings from TIMSS and PISAindicate that there is a need for targetedteacher support and skills upgrading policiesto complement existing shortfalls and imbal-ances in teacher performance. The hetero-geneous distribution of confidence in teach-ing capacity suggests limited opportunitiesfor professional development. Enhancingteacher professional development couldpotentially translate into significant improve-ments in student flows and learning.

There is an emerging recognition within theMOE that lasting changes in teacher edu-

cational practices do not come about fromone off workshops, but are the product ofsustained capacity development efforts. Anongoing pilot program has sought to trainleader teachers (facilitators) and subjectteachers through innovative distance train-ing models. Leader teachers and educa-tional supervisors also provide continuoussupport through roving teams. They observeclassrooms, make recommendations andprovide advice with teaching planning. Thisis a promising model. Research evidencesuggests that among alternative qualityimprovement interventions at the schoollevel, teacher training investments can havehigh payoff in terms of student retention,promotion and, particularly, student learning(see Rowe 2003 for example).

School Characteristics

The average student teacher ratio in sec-ondary education is 28:1, ranging from aslow as 12 to 1 in Phetchabun to as high as37 to 1 in Chiang Rai. Although studentteacher ratios generally stand below 30:1,class sizes in Thailand are notably larger.The average secondary school class size forThailand is 43 students (see Figure 3.H).

Figure 3.H: Student Teacher Ratio and Class Size in Secondary Schools by Region, 2002


62

The relationship between class size and stu-dent achievement is difficult to extricate.Although TIMSS and PISA data concur thatlarge class sizes do not appear to have anegative impact on student test scores inThailand, there are many other factors influ-encing higher scores achieved among stu-dents from larger classes. Class size in EastAsia tends to be larger than the internation-al average, ranging from 36 in Japan to ashigh as 50 in the Philippines. In Thailand,about 75 percent of eight grade studentstested in TIMSS enrolled in mathematicsclasses with 36 or more pupils, while lessthan 5 percent enrolled in a class with 1 to20 students. Interestingly, students from larg-er classes achieved better scores in bothmathematics and science (see Figure 3.I).This was also applicable to other Asiancountries, including Japan, South Korea,and Hong Kong, SAR where students in

large classes performed just as well or slight-ly better than their counterparts in smallerclasses. PISA results corroborate these find-ings. No negative effects of adding stu-dents could be discerned at any relevantclass size in the PISA literacy or mathemat-ics exams (PISA 2003). In Thailand, largeclasses are generally better equipped andin highly competitive schools. In thoseschools, students tend to come from highersocio-economic backgrounds, therefore,receiving better support for education athome. The number of schools with classsize larger than 40 students, as specified bythe MOE, is only about 300 secondaryschools (from approximately 10,000 schoolsin total) throughout Thailand. Most schoolswith small class size tend to be located inrural areas where students are from less priv-ileged backgrounds and cannot afford toattend large schools in cities.

Source: TIMSS 1999

Figure 3.I: Cross-National Comparison of Average Mathematics Achievement andClass Size, 1999


PISA 2000 collected extensive data on prin-cipalsû perceptions about the adequacy ofschool resources (PISA 2003). Based on theirresponses, a distinction can be drawnbetween the impact of physical infrastruc-ture (condition of buildings, the instructionalspace, and heating, cooling and lightingsystems) and educational resources (com-puters, library material, multi-mediaresources, science laboratory equipmentand facilities for the fine arts) to studentlearning. School principals perceived thequality of educational resources to be a

more important obstacle to studentachievement than school physical infrastruc-ture. Figure 3.J shows that, according toThai school administrators, the quality ofschool physical infrastructure is rated aroundthe OECD country mean, while school edu-cational resources are rated more than twothirds of a standard deviation below theOECD mean (-0.82). The marginal effectof an increase by one unit in the index ofthe quality of education resources is associ-ated with an increase by about 11 points inreading literacy scores.

Source: PISA 2003, p. 195

A key area of concern is that Thailand is inthe lowest decile among all PISA participatingcountries with regards to the difference in thequality of school resources between the topand bottom quarter of schools as character-ized by a proxy of school socioeconomicbackground (PISA 2005). Moreover, the distri-bution of school resources is inequitably distri-buted among schools. There is a statisticallysignificant performance difference betweenschools in the top and bottom quarters of thiseducational resources index.

The impact of school resources for instructionon student achievement in mathematics andscience is complex, but overall TIMSS dataalso suggest that they play an important rolein advancing student learning. TIMSS createdan index of availability of school resources formathematics and science instruction. Thisindex includes general instructional items -such as basic materials, budget for supplies,instructional space-as well as more specificmathematics and science instructional items -such as computers, library materials andaudio-visual resources. Over half of the stu-

Figure 3.J: Perceived Adequacy of Physical Infrastructure and Educational Resources

64

dents in Thailand report that shortagesaffect instructional capacity some or a lot,compared to 18 to 20 percent internation-ally. Less than 40 percent of eighth gradestudents had access to a calculator inmathematics class, compared to an interna-tional average of 73 percent. Not surpris-ingly, 85 percent of students have neverused a computer in class. Countries thattended to report shortages in the availabili-ty of instructional materials were significant-ly below the international average in math-ematics or science achievement.

A study focused on the relationshipbetween schooling inputs and student learn-ing performance in Thai public schools alsopoints in the same direction. Annual aver-age public expenditure in 2001-2002 for sec-ondary education ranged between 15,000and 16,000 Baht per student. Per studentexpenditure varies across regions, with theNortheast receiving the lowest share. A pro-duction function analysis using data fromthe Bureau of Budget and the MOE sug-gests that an increase in non-salary recur-rent expenditures per student at the provin-cial level results in a higher mean on nation-al test scores (Punyasavatsut et al. 2005).On average, for secondary education, anincrease in per pupil expenditure by 10,000Baht raises the mean of national test scoresby 4.8 points.

Thus, the evidence gathered by PISA, TIMSSand other research persuasively suggeststhat there is a shortage of resources forlearning in Thai schools and this is generallyperceived as a constraint to higher studentachievement. Greater investments in basicschool resources in order to provide a min-imum set of materials for effective use byteachers to support instructional contentcould well buttress student performance in

Thailand and translate into higher learningoutcomes.

Household and IndividualCharacteristics

It is widely acknowledged that higher fami-ly income and household resources have apositive effect on student achievement.Some of the obstacles that disadvantagedstudents face include poorly educated par-ents, greater demand to supplement familyincome through labor, peers with low aca-demic performance and lesser expectationsabout the future.

Parents with more education tend to placegreater emphasis and provide more supportfor their childrenûs education. According toTIMSS, eighth grade students with parentswho are well-educated tend to score bet-ter in mathematics and science tests. Thiswas the case across Asia, includingThailand. PISA 2003 data also support thesefindings. Students whose parents have moreeducation score higher across subjects -reading literacy, mathematics and science.For example, students whose mothersobtained an upper secondary degreeincreased their raw test scores for mathe-matics (32 points), reading (28 points) andscience (28 points), compared with thosewhose mothers only have primary or lowersecondary education (see Figure 3.K).


Source: PISA 2003

Yet, as noted earlier, the differences amongsocioeconomic groups are not as stark inThailand as in other countries. For instance,the variance in student performance on thePISA mathematics test was more than 15 percent below the OECD average variance (PISA2003). Although children from wealthierhouseholds perform better than children frompoorer households, the distribution of knowl-edge is fairly equitable across income groups.

Along these lines, parental education is notan influential factor shaping student aspira-tions for tertiary education in Thailand.Students tended to have high expectationsindependently from their parentsû educationalbackground. Although 30 percent of Thai stu-dents had a parent who did not finish primaryschool and another 40 percent had a parentwho did not complete upper secondaryschool, 55 percent of students expressed anintention to graduate from university (TIMSS1999).

Thus, it appears that efforts to improve studentperformance need not be primarily targeted

along socioeconomic lines. Low-performingstudents are not concentrated among lowerincome quintiles necessarily. Rather, givenThailandûs low levels of academic achieve-ment in absolute terms, policies to raise theoverall performance level of the general stu-dent population are imperative, such asenhancing teacher preparedness and prac-tice, providing adequate instructional materi-als, promoting performance incentives forschool staff, encouraging greater accountabil-ity for results or strengthening a formativeevaluative culture.

Early childhood care and development pro-grams are often cited in research literature asan important contributor to readiness to learnat primary school entry as well as to lateracademic success (see for example Evans2000). Evidence from PISA provides furthersupport to this body of work in the Thai con-text. Thai students who attended pre-schoolfor at least one year showed a modestadvantage in PISA test scores in mathematics,even when controlling for socioeconomicbackground factors (PISA 2004).

Figure 3.K: Mean Scores by Level of Mothersû Education

66

QUALITY ASSURANCE MECHANISMS IN THAI EDUCATION

Since the NEA was promulgated, the quali-ty of the Thai education system is officiallyevaluated both internally and externally.Internally, schools are expected to conductself-assessments of their institutional quality.This process is meant to be woven into theadministrative apparatus of each institution.Schools are expected to prepare annualreports which are then submitted to govern-ment agencies and made available to thepublic.

External assessments are meant to comple-ment and follow up on school self-assess-ments. The NEA established ONESQA as theagency responsible for overseeing qualityassessment studies of every educationalinstitution at least once every five years (seeBox 3.2). These results are shared with re-levant agencies and made available to thepublic, with the first assessments conducted

in 2001. As of March 2005, nearly 98 per-cent of primary and secondary educationschools had been evaluated. The assess-ments monitor student academic perform-ance, teacher performance, administratorsûvision and leadership as well as school lab-oratories and equipment.

The NEA authorizes ONESQA to submit cor-rective measures and actions for schoolsthat are performing poorly in order toimprove their function. If an institution con-tinues to perform poorly, a report is submit-ted to the Basic Education Commission forfurther action. But anecdotal data suggeststhat the review process, frequency andtype of the advice provided for schoolimprovement by external independent eval-uators is insufficient to generate actualchanges in schooling practices. There isroom for ONESQAûs overall supervisory func-tion to be further strengthened in order totranslate the monitoring and evaluationprocess into tangible improvements in edu-cational quality.


Box 3.2: The Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment

ONESQA is the public organization established by the 1999 NEA to serve external quality assessmentinstitutions along with support to internal quality assessments conducted by the MOE. ONESQA con-sists of an Executive Committee, the Committee for Development of an Assessment System for BasicEducation, and the Committee for Development of an Assessment System for Higher Education.ONESQA espouses the following operational principles:

i. Emphasis on quality and efficiency in functioningii. Promotion of educational institutions for their development to the highest potentialityiii. Establishing an information system for linking with concerned agenciesiv. The assessment is aimed at quality enhancement, not passing judgment for either reward or pun-ishmentv. External assessment must be transparent and supported by concrete evidencevi. Private, professional or academic organizations will be encouraged to participate in the training

of external assessorsvii. Selection of external assessors, based on the criteria of competency for accreditation and registra

tion, as well as periodic assessment of these assessorsviii. Networking with other parties concerned in order to create an awareness of the collective respon

sibility for educational quality

ONESQA also seeks to promote school self-evaluations through a variety of mechanisms, such as a dis-tance education via satellite and trainings for directors and deputy directors of education area offices.ONESQAûs budget for FY04 was approximately USD16 million.

Source: Excerpted from http://www.onesqa.or.th (ONESQA 2006)

The MOE has also spearheaded selectedresearch initiatives to further review andstrengthen Thailandûs educational qualityassurance mechanisms. A project initiatedby the ONEC, now the OEC, strives to bet-ter understand how government agenciesand schools can work together to improvestudent outcomes. In-depth data was col-lected from 250 schools in 2001 and 2002.One of the most notable findings is thateducation activities across different ministriesneed to be better harmonized. Whilerecent reform efforts have attempted tostreamline the administrative and opera-tional work of government agencies, schoolsstill consider the system confusing and lessthan adequate. This situation has been fur-ther compounded by the ongoing educa-tion decentralization process, where theroles and responsibilities for service provision

and administration are shifting and beingredefined. Sustained coordination andcooperation between government agenciesand educational institutions is vital forimproving quality assurance and enhance-ment mechanisms in Thailand.

There has also been increasing recognitionthat the school governance structure canplay an important role in school improve-ment, in particular the role that school com-munity leaders can exert (Gamage andSooksomchitra 2004). A pilot programexamining different types of school boardsto explore ways to effectively improve theefficiency of local government and its rolein supporting education development isongoing. Training modules for schoolboards and administrators have been devel-oped and are being evaluated for possible

68

implementation nationwide.

Thailandûs newly established framework foreducational quality assurance is promising,but at present it is still in an incipient devel-opment stage. Teachers and principalsneed better information about student per-formance so that they can adequatelyrespond to the educational needs of stu-dents, policymakers need to understandwhat the conditions that positively influence

learning are and timely identify shortcom-ings in education service delivery so thatinterventions can be put in place to supportthe instructional function of schools, whileparents must play a more active role inschool decision-making so that as partnersin the schooling process they can betterarticulate their needs or aspirations as wellas hold schools accountable for the qualityof educational services received.


70

EFFICIENCY OF THE THAI EDUCATION SYSTEMIV.


This chapter outlines the basic characteris-tics of educational spending in Thailand,including both public and private sectors,with a focus on secondary education.Secondary education financing in Thailandis confronted by the dual challenges ofexpanding access while improving quality.It is crucial not only to secure sufficientresources to finance the system, but also toensure that those resources are apportionedin the most productive manner. Outlinedbelow is an overview of salient issues onsecondary education financing, followed byselected recommendations for possibleimprovements in allocative efficiency.

PUBLIC SPENDING ON EDUCATION

The RTG spends more than one fifth of itstotal budget on education, but educationallocation has shown a declining trend inrecent years. Over the past decade, theThai government allocated more than 20percent of its total budget to education,accounting for 4 to 5 percent of the coun-tryûs GDP. This level of allocation was main-tained even through the economic crisis inthe late 1990s. The budget allocation foreducation as a share of GDP and totalbudget peaked in 2000 but has experi-enced a slight declining trend in recentyears (see Table 4.1). On the other hand,the share of basic education in the overalleducation budget has been steadily main-tained, with a slight upward trend.

Table 4.1: Education Budget, 2000-2005

Fiscal Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Education budget (millionBaht)

As % of totalgovernmentbudget

As % of GDP

Basic educationbudget as % oftotal educationbudget

Basic educationbudget as % ofGDP

220,621

25.7%

4.5%

67.2%

3.0%

221,603

24.4%

4.3%

68.1%

2.8%

222,990

21.8%

4.1%

68.1%

2.8%

235,092

23.5%

4.0%

69.3%

2.8%

251,233

24.4%

3.9%

71.5%

2.8%

262,938

21.9%

3.7%

70.2%

2.6%

Source: Bureau of Budget, Office of Education Council and World Bank calculations

72

More than 80 percent of the educationbudget is allocated to current expenditure.In 2003, education had the largest averageper capita current spending rate of all sec-tors. Per capita current spending was at2,425 Baht, four times more than the sectorwith the second largest current spendingrate, public order and safety affairs (NESDB2003). Sixty percent of current expenditureis used to pay for salaries for permanentand temporary staff, while the rest pays fornon-personnel items such as remunerationand other services. Education budgettrends show that increasing resources havebeen allocated toward current expenditurein recent years. Although capital expendi-tures are not made on a regular basis, itsshare has been declining over time, from 25to 6 percent between 1997 and 2002.

More than two thirds of the educationbudget is allocated to basic education, withpre-primary and primary levels receiving thelargest proportion. Education expenditure isdivided into six categories: pre-primary andprimary; secondary; tertiary; services notdefined by level; educational support; andmiscellaneous. Almost 50 percent of edu-cation resources are allocated to pre-pri-mary and primary education levels, withanother one quarter spent on secondaryeducation and 15 percent on higher edu-cation (see Figure 4.A). Resources allocat-ed to educational support have increasedrecently, rising from 6 billion Baht in 1996 tomore than 28 billion Baht in 2003.


Although basic education (primary and sec-ondary levels) received almost 70 percent ofthe education budget, it accounts for 90 per-cent of all students enrolled in the Thai edu-cation system (see Table 4.2). On the other

hand, tertiary education commands close to15 percent of the budget while only 9 per-cent of the total student population is enrolledat this level.

Figure 4.A: Share of Education Budget by Spending Category, 1997-2004


Thailand allocated approximately 28 percentof its total education budget and 1.13 per-cent of GDP to secondary education in 2003,falling behind what countries with strong sec-ondary education sectors typically spend. Onaverage, OECD countries spent 2.1 percent ofGDP in secondary education. Lower-middleincome countries allocated on average 40percent of their total education resources and1.86 percent of GDP to the secondary level.The limited resourcing of secondary educationthrough public financing is further compound-

ed by very low shares of private resourcescoming to secondary education compared toother countries. For example, while thePhilippines only invested 0.69 percent of GDPin secondary education, the share of privateresources was 84 percent or 0.58 percent ofGDP. In Thailand, private sector contributionsamounted to 0.06 percent of GDP, an equiv-alent of 5 percent of the public sector financ-ing (see Table 4.3). This is a level too low tobe efficient.

Table 4.2: Education Budget Allocation and Student Enrollment by Spending Category, 2002

Level Total (million Baht) Percentage of budget Percent of enrollment (GER)

Pre-Primary and PrimarySecondary TertiaryServices notdefined bylevel Education supportMiscellaneous

Total

98,228

64,77033,3483,377

28,868

6,854

235,444

41.7%

27.5%14.2%1.4%

12.3%

2.9%

100%

62%

29%9%

100%

Source: Office of Education Council 2004b

74

Analysis of unit costs shows that per studentpublic spending on secondary education islowest. Per student spending usually risesas students matriculate from primary to sec-ondary to tertiary levels. In East Asia andPacific, on average, putting a studentthrough secondary education during theschool year 2002-2003 was 74 percent moreexpensive than primary education. Thesecountries spent USD1,711 on each primarylevel student and USD2,409 on each sec-ondary student (in purchasing power parityconverted terms). Among OECD countries,each primary school student cost USD4,818and each secondary school student cost 39percent more at USD6,688. Yet in Thailand,the unit cost for secondary education islower than the unit cost for primary educa-tion. In 2000, the unit cost for pre-primaryand primary was 13,770 Baht, for secondary8,564 Baht and for tertiary 32,336 Baht.Similar trends persist in 2002 data: per stu-dent spending in primary was estimated at13,226 Baht and 10,011 Baht in secondary.

Local governments are reliant on subsidiesfrom the central government to financeeducation. The RTG has encouraged thedecentralization of educational manage-ment in order to improve local participationand ownership. Decentralization alsoincludes increasing the share of local gov-ernment resources spent on education.However, most local agencies still rely onsubsidies from the central government tofinance education. In general, resourcesfrom local government only comprise 20 to30 percent of education spending.Additionally, recent data from the MOEshow that subsidies from the central govern-ment have been increasing in recent years,the opposite of what should have beenobserved (Punyasavatsut et al. 2005).

Table 4.3: Total Secondary Education Expenditure as Percent of GDP by Source ofFunding, 2003

ArgentinaChileColombiaHong Kong, SARIndonesiaMexicoPhilippinesKoreaThailand

Upper-middleUpper-middleLower-middleHighLower-middleUpper-middleLower-middleHighLower-middle

1.581.491.531.500.481.520.691.831.13

0.380.701.000.750.280.400.580.600.06

Income Level Public Resources (% of GDP)

Private Resources (% of GDP)

Share of PrivateResources in all

DomesticResources

24%47%65%50%58%26%84%32%5%

Source: UNESCO 2005b


Budget allocation to local levels needs tobe more equitable. Although guidelines forhow to allocate the national educationbudget at the provincial level exist, they arenot strictly followed. In practice, provincialbudget allocations are calculated based onhow much each province received the pre-vious year. As a result, provinces that start-ed off receiving larger shares of the nation-al education budget continue to receiveproportionately more each year, regardlessof the number of schools, students or teach-ers. Additionally, findings from a study fund-ed by the Asian Development Bank pointout that budget allocation at the second-ary level favors wealthier provinces and thatthis trend has remained constant over time(Cresswell 1999). On the other hand, thegovernment tends to abide by the fundingformula for the allocation of resources toESAs, which takes into account factors suchas enrollment, number and type of schools,student teacher ratio and number of class-rooms. Yet when ESA budget allocationsare disaggregated by Gross ProvincialProduct (GPP), while average spending per

student appears to advantage the poor atthe primary level, this is not the case at thesecondary level (Punyasavatsut et al. 2005).

Bangkok and its vicinity accounts for thelargest share of total educational expendi-ture. Unlike any other region, however,educational expenditure is concentrated atthe tertiary level in Bangkok, totaling morethan pre-primary, primary, secondary, voca-tional and others combined. The Northeastregion spent the most on pre-primary andprimary levels and only about a tenth ofthat amount on tertiary education.However, a breakdown of data by per stu-dent spending paints a different picture (seeTable 4.4). Because of the large populationof school-aged children in the Northeastregion, per student cost is 2,705 Baht com-pared with 3,953 Baht for Bangkok and itsvicinity. At the secondary level, while percapita educational expenditure in Bangkokand its vicinity is as high as 764 Baht perhead, the Northeast received only 575 Bahtper head, the lowest share across regions.

Source: Bureau of Budget

Figure 4.B: Sources of Revenue for Local Governments, 1997-2004

76

While education receives the largest shareof the national budget across sectors,whether those resources are equally andefficiently distributed among differentincome groups is debatable. We have esti-mated expenditure shares by per capitaincome quintiles. The results, disaggregatedby levels of education, show that the poor-est 40 percent of the population receives 56percent of total spending in pre-primaryand primary levels, reflecting a pro-poorallocation of resources. The quintile distribu-tion for secondary level is also distributedrelatively equally and slightly skewedtowards giving more to the poor (see Figure

4.C). However, analysis of data from theSES and the Comptroller GeneralûsDepartment (CGD) shows secondary educa-tion expenditure as slightly favoring thewealthy (see Figure 4.D). Spending for ter-tiary education is clearly regressive, regard-less of which data are examined. Thewealthiest 20 percent of the populationreceives 53 percent of total spending. Thus,although Thailandûs educational expenditurepattern is proportionately distributed acrossincome quintiles as a whole, there are somenotable discrepancies in ensuring an equi-table distribution, particularly at the tertiarylevel.

Table 4.4: Per Capita Educational Expenditure by Region (Baht), 2002*

Region BMR Central Northeast North South National National Average Average

(w/o BMR)

Pre-Primaryand PrimarySecondaryVocationalTertiaryOthers

Total

706

7642511,960271

3,953

1,595

69924815196

2,791

1,737

57514218071

2,705

1,718

623214442110

3,107

1,724

76026034987

3,180

1,536

663208537118

3,062

1,699

64320025787

2,886

Figure 4.C: Incidence of Public Expenditure across Income Quintiles by Education Level, 2002


Source: Comptroller Generalûs Department

* Divided by entire cohort population, not the corresponding school-age groups.


Box 4.1: Private Participation in Education: Examples from Korea, Africa and Chile

In the Republic of Korea, the government introduced subsidies and tax exemptions in the 1970s. Suchsubsidies were based on the difference between the schoolûs own budget and a standard budget fora public school of the same enrollment size and type. Private school institutions responded to thesubsidies and tax exemptions by scaling up their capacity to reach more students. Consequently, asof 2000, private sector enrollment had reached 20 percent for middle schools and 55 percent for highschools.

In Africa, fees have been maintained at the secondary level, even in countries where free primaryeducation is provided, such as Malawi, Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya. Such fees at the secondarylevel, however, are controlled and increases beyond stated levels must be cleared with the Ministryof Education. The cost burden to poor families, as well as to those with female children or living inhard to reach areas, are sometimes subsidized through bursaries or scholarships.

Chilean schools were previously not allowed to charge fees if they were a public institution or a pri-vate school that received government subsidies. This policy was changed in the mid-1990s and nowprivate schools are able to charge fees within certain parameters and continue to receive subsidies.The Chilean system ensures that schools charging fees exempt a proportion of parents from fee pay-ment and to use some of the revenue to set up internal cross-subsidies from fee-paying parents tonon-fee-paying parents.

Source: Expanding Opportunities and Building Competencies for Young People: A New Agenda forSecondary Education (World Bank 2005)

Figure 4.D: Distribution of Public Spending on Education by Level, 2000 and 2002

HOUSEHOLD EDUCATION EXPENDITURE

The Government is not the only source ofeducational financing in Thailand.Households, the private sector, non-profitsand international organizations can all con-tribute significantly to improving the Thaisecondary education system (for examples,see Box 4.1). As already noted, public

resources comprise about 95 percent of thedomestic education budget for secondaryeducation, with only a tiny share providedby local governments, and 5 percent origi-nate from private resources (UNESCO2005b). This section focuses on the currentstate of household spending on education,with a particular focus on differencesbetween wealthy and poor families.

Note: Estimates by geographically disaggregated unit-cost.Source: Household Socio-Economic Survey (2000-2002) and CGD (2000-2002)

78

Average household spending on educationin 2002 was 3,449 Baht per year, but thisexpenditure varies dramatically acrossregions. It ranges from 1,753 Baht in theNortheast to over 9,585 Baht in Bangkok(see Table 4.5). A trend analysis over timeshows households in the Northeast consis-tently spending less on education than

those in other regions. Education as ashare of household expenditure also variesacross regions. While on average house-holds in Bangkok spend between 2.3 to 3.9percent on education, the share of house-hold educational expenditure in theNortheast ranges between 1.3 to 1.9 per-cent.

Table 4.5: Household Expenditure on Education by Region, 1994-2002

1994 1996 1998 1999 2000 2002

Expenditure QuintileBangkokCentralNorthNortheastSouth

Total

6,2782,1111,7021,4292,300

2,452

6,5642,4362,2181,5792,411

2,738

9,6663,2912,7421,8872,815

3,426

10,5533,6543,9581,9333,043

3,912

9,5853,2802,9221,7532,882

3,449

a. Average Household Expenditure on Education (per year, real Baht*)

10,4282,9792,6551,6652,948

3,394

b. Share of Total Household Expenditure (%)

Expenditure QuintileBangkokCentralNorthNortheastSouth

Total

2.31.41.41.31.6

1.5

2.31.51.71.51.7

1.7

3.61.81.91.72.0

2.0

3.91.92.51.92.2

2.3

3.71.72.11.72.1

2.1

3.21.62.01.61.8

1.9

* Prices are deflated by regional and yearly CPIs (Base region = Bangkok, Base year = 2002).Yearly CPIs: 1994 = 75.0, 1996 = 84.1, 1998 = 96.0, 1999 = 96.3, 2000 = 97.8, 2002 = 100



Poorer households spend less on education.Average household spending by per capitaincome quintile shows that the poorest quin-tile spends only 840 Baht on educationwhile the wealthiest quintile spend over7,870 Baht (see Table 4.6). The differencein spending across income quintiles isreflected not just in the absolute levels ofspending on education but also as a shareof total household expenditures. Given thatpoor households spend most of their incomeon food and other basic needs, fewerresources are allocated for education.Hence on average, poor households allo-

cate around 1.5 percent of total householdexpenditures to education, compared with2 or 3 percent in wealthier households. Thefinancial burden on poor households is com-pounded during times of economic crises.A World Bank study examining the impactof the Asian Crisis on educational spendingin Thailand finds that an increase in percapita income of one baht raised educa-tion expenditure by 0.12 baht. Largerhouseholds spent less on education percapita than smaller households (World Bank1999).

1994 1996 1998 1999 2000 2002

Table 4.6: Household Expenditure on Education by per Capita Income Quintile,1994-2002

a. Average Household Expenditure on Education (per year, real Baht*) Expenditure Quintile

Expenditure QuintilePoorestSecondThirdFourthRichest

Thailand

7771,1451,6112,4454,981

2,452

9341,3141,9392,9165,268

2,738

1,0231,4321,9283,4557,237

3,426

1,0441,5382,1083,3258,940

3,912

1,0481,4151,9303,0247,471

3,394

8401,3221,8223,2147,878

3,449

b. Share of Total Household Expenditure (%)

Expenditure QuintilePoorestSecondThirdFourthRichest

Thailand

1.31.41.51.61.8

1.5

1.51.51.61.81.9

1.7

1.61.61.72.22.7

2.0

1.71.81.92.23.3

2.3

1.81.84.82.02.7

2.1

1.31.51.52.02.7

1.9

* Prices are deflated by regional and yearly CPIs (Base region = Bangkok, Base year = 2002).Yearly CPIs: 1994 = 75.0, 1996 = 84.1, 1998 = 96.0, 1999 = 96.3, 2000 = 97.8, 2002 = 100


80

As noted already in Chapter 2, wealthyhouseholds are allocating more resourcestowards each secondary school studentand the spending gap between the richand the poor has widened over time.Results from an estimation of per studentspending from the SES show that real spend-ing per student has increased between 1994and 2002 at all levels of education, butnotably at the primary and tertiary levels(see Table 2.4). This jump is not observedat the secondary level. Furthermore, thereis a wide variation in household secondaryexpenditure across per capita income quin-tiles. In 2002, households in the poorestquintiles spent about 860 Baht per second-ary school student, compared with over6,800 Baht in the wealthiest quintile, approx-imately 8 times as much. This gap appearsto have widened over time. In 1994, house-hold expenditure per secondary school stu-dent in the top quintile was about 4.5 timesas much as that in the poorest quintile,while in 1999 it was 6 times as much.

RAISING EFFICIENCY OF SECONDARY EDUCATION FINANCING

Examining the efficiency of the Thai educa-tional system may be a key factor inimproving student outcomes. On the onehand, Thailand allocates a significant shareof its national income to the education sec-tor. On the other hand, the secondarylevel only captures less than a third of theoverall public budget, while the private sec-tor is a relatively minor player in secondaryeducation financing. It has been arguedthat lower per student expenditures for sec-ondary education, in contrast to primaryeducation, are a reflection that schoolexpenses are significantly subsidized by pri-vate contributions in the form of tuition feesor parental support. Evidence from the SESsuggests that this is unlikely. In 2002, fami-lies spent on average 1,700 Baht to edu-

cate a primary school child, while theyspent 2,350 Baht for a secondary school stu-dent. The premium paid by households forsecondary education does not make up forthe relative decline in public financing,even if primary and secondary educationhad similar per student costs. In summary,as noted in an earlier section, Thailand lagsbehind in secondary education resourcingby international standards.

Despite relatively low levels of financialresourcing, Chapter 3 documents that Thaistudents perform on average above pre-dicted levels when taking into considerationThailandûs economic developmental stage.Moreover, the distribution of knowledgeacross Thailand is fairly equitably distributed.These successes on student outcomes wouldindicate that funding for secondary educa-tion has been put to work in a relatively effi-cient manner.

Yet, it is also apparent by Thailandûs per-formance in international assessments thatstudent achievement levels are low. A vastproportion of students are functioning at orbelow the most basic level of language,mathematics and science ability. Poor aca-demic performance and low educationalquality have increasingly raised concernsregarding Thailandûs competitiveness relativeto more developed East Asian countries.Secondary education is an important toolfor growth, economic development andsocial stability. This raises the question ofallocative efficiency in the Thai educationalsystem.

Is there empirical evidence that financialresources act as a constraint for theimprovement of student outcomes?Although results from international assess-ments demonstrate that the impact ofsocio-economic background on studentperformance in Thailand is significantly lowerthan the OECD average, results from PISA


also indicate that çamong the moreadvanced group of students, home back-ground makes a greater difference to stu-dent performance in mathematics. In otherwords, the greater the socio-economicadvantage, the greater the advantage ithas in terms of student performanceé(OECD 2004, p. 182). Households from therichest quintile more than double privateexpenditures on education than householdsin the fourth quintile. According to the SES,while the fourth quintile spent on average2,960 Baht in private education expendi-tures, the richest quintile spent 6,890 Baht.International experience points to the factthat quality improvements are costlier at thesecondary level than at the primary level.Furthermore, achieving universal secondaryeducation will depend on making concert-ed efforts to redirect resources to enrollingpoor children currently excluded.

Given Thailandûs already sizable investmentsin education, is there scope for a more effi-cient allocation of resources? Evidencefrom the benefit incidence analysis of pub-lic spending on education provides clearevidence that tertiary education investmentshave disproportionately favored wealthiersectors of the population. Thus, there maybe scope for further investigation about theappropriate distribution of the educationbudget across levels in order to improve theefficiency of the Thai system.

Another important indicator that should beexamined within the context of raising effi-ciency of schools is the student teacherratio. There is a delicate balance between

lowering the overall cost of education byminimizing the number of teachers in orderto maximize teacher utility and raisingachievement through the provision of moreteachers who can then give individualizedattention to pupils. A study on the efficien-cy of expenditure in education provision bycomparing PISA 2003 results with teachersper student and time spent at school sug-gest that Thailand is performing significantlybelow the production function frontier foreducation. In other words, inefficiencies inThailand are relatively high compared toother countries. These findings hold evenwhen correcting for GDP per capita andparental educational attainment under theassumption that a wealthier and more cul-tivated environment are catalysts for betterstudent performance (Afonso and St. Aubyn2005).

The Thai government has sought in recentyears to merge small rural schools together,wherever possible, in order to maximize effi-ciency. Closer scrutiny of other utilizationratios, such as the average number of stu-dents per class and number of classestaught by teachers may also shed light onways of increasing internal efficiency (seeTable 4.7). On the other hand, teacherredeployment efforts must also take intoaccount that service delivery points mustremain within a reasonable distance fromchildrenûs home to remain accessible.Furthermore, any teacher redeploymenteffort must also consider the plea of remoterural and other disadvantaged areas thatexperience teacher shortages and rely pri-marily on volunteer teachers for staffing.

82

Conventionally, an education system is con-sidered internally efficient if it generatesmaximum output at minimal cost (Hossain1996). Outputs are often measured by indi-cators such as transition rates or cohort sur-vival rates. In Thailand, the transition rate ishigh from primary to lower secondary level,with an average of 90 percent of studentsfrom grade 6 continuing to grade 7. Therate declines for students graduating fromgrade 9 and entering into grade 10 toaround 80 percent. The majority of lowersecondary graduates continue to the gen-eral, rather than vocational, track.However, a closer examination by followingthe same cohort throughout the entire basiceducation system shows that only 40 per-cent of students entering grade 1 make itto grade 12. The RTG must continue tomonitor closely transition rates, particularlyat the junction between lower and uppersecondary level.

Retaining a larger share of students in theeducation system will lower per studentexpenditure for every secondary schoolgraduate. Annual public spending per stu-dent in 2002 was 13,226 Baht for primary

education. This means that for every stu-dent graduating from primary school, thegovernment spent approximately 80,000Baht over 6 years. As for secondary level,public spending per student was 10,011Baht in 2002, thus the total cost of produc-ing one high school graduate is over 60,000Baht. In total, this means that the govern-ment spends nearly 140,000 Baht for 12years of schooling. With only 40 percent ofstudents graduating from secondary school,however, per pupil expenditure for everysecondary school graduate comes closer to350,000 Baht.

The NEA ensures that free basic educationwill be available to all students through gov-ernment subsidies, whether a studentattends public or private schools. The fund-ing mechanism for the provision of freebasic education is driven by the number ofstudents at each school. Under the NEA,schools receive per pupil subsidies based onexpected number of students each year, inprinciple with differential formulas for differ-ent çtypesé of students to adjust for the factthat poor or other disadvantaged childrenmay require additional resources to achieve

Table 4.7: Utilization Ratios by Education Level, 2002

Number of students per class

Number of classes taught byteachers

Student teacherratio

Lower Secondary Upper Secondary - General Upper Secondary -Vocational

39

1.63

24

35

1.59

22

37

1.48

25

Source: Office of Basic Education Commission


a similar level of educational output. Thus,student counts largely drive the resourceallocation process. In addition, both privateand public schools receive additional fundsfor expenditures such as equipment, build-ings and special programs through this fund-ing mechanism. Since allocation of theeducation budget is dependent on thenumber of expected students, it is hopedthat schools will become more competitivein an attempt to attract more students.School autonomy will be further encour-aged through a proposed block grant sys-tem so that operational budgets, includingboth salary and non-salary costs, are direct-ly transferred to schools. Schools then havefull authority to determine how to allocatefunds. Block grants will continue to be cal-culated based on the number of students,giving an incentive for schools to improvequality and attract more students.

However, as noted in Chapter 3, what hasnot been fully established along with thisfunding mechanism is a functional account-ability system to act as another avenue forthe promotion of educational quality andefficiency enhancement. Maximizing theimpact of schooling inputs can entailempowering principals and administrators tomanage for results and making themaccountable for these results. Adequateinformation allows local stakeholders toreflect on existing practices, support inter-ventions to bring about efficiency changes,monitor performance and demand results.The school external assessments conductedunder the auspices of the ONESQA are inits infancy. The feedback loops to dissemi-nate information and raise communityawareness on school management issuesare at present largely notional. The pilotson school governance and communityboards are also a promising development toimprove oversight on school managementpractices that can lead to efficiency gains,but operate on a small scale basis. Albeit

steps in the right direction, the current edu-cational system lacks a coherent frameworkof checks and balances that fosters greateraccountability relations among school andlocal actors as well as central administrators.The reforms proposed under the NEA arelikely to remain incomplete until strongeraccountability measures are adequatelybuilt in.

The NEA articulates a vision for free basiceducation during 9 years of compulsoryeducation. In addition, it proposes ambi-tious targets on education service provision,including a student teacher ratio adjustedto 25:1, a new teacher compensation struc-ture, increased and better integrated use ofinformation technology, and additionalfunds to encourage more children to enrollin the system. These are worthy goals. Butthese commitments require substantial fund-ing upfront, either from the public or the pri-vate sectors. Current spending is insufficientin fulfilling these commitments. A study esti-mating the costs associated with free basiceducation, based on several different sce-narios, shows that an additional 188 to 229billion Baht would be required (ThailandDevelopment Research Institute 2000).Changes to the teacher compensationscheme, increased use of information tech-nology and the cost to attract more chil-dren into the education system would needan additional 95 to 199 billion Baht. Raisingthe cost effectiveness and performance ofthe education sector will be imperative toenhance outcomes and contain costs.Without serious considerations to efficiencymeasures, many of the commitments prom-ulgated under the NEA could remain elu-sive.

84

ADDRESSING THE NEXT GENERATION OF CHALLENGESV.


The 1999 NEA addresses critical issues andchallenges faced by Thailand with regardsto secondary education. Subsequently, theNational Education Plan 2002-2016 translatesit into a plan, guiding education-relatedagencies towards reforming Thai education-al administration and service delivery. Thischapter provides an overview of currentGovernment initiatives and policy recom-mendations to embrace MOEûs vision forgreater equitable access, better quality andmore efficiency in its secondary educationsystem.

INCREASING ACCESS AND EQUITY

Governmentûs initial policies to expand sec-ondary education focused on increasing theavailable infrastructure to accommodateclassrooms beyond grade 6. The use ofexcess physical facilities and teachers in pri-mary schools, resulting from the decliningprimary school-age population, helped pro-mote a nearly universal transition rate forlower secondary education.

In recent years, secondary enrollmentexpansion efforts aptly shifted focus fromsupply- to demand-side constraints. TheMOE introduced a variety of schemes totackle the cost barriers associated withschooling participation so as to realize thecommitment to çfreeé basic education pro-vision inscribed in the NEA. The introductionof a variety of financial incentive schemessought to reduce the cost burden on fami-lies. As described in Chapter 2, the effec-tiveness of these schemes could beenhanced through better targeting.However, a dearth of demand-side interven-tions remains at the lower-secondary level.In order to reach current excluded popula-tions, the Government will need to embarkon a concerted effort to address cost bar-riers faced by the poorest children at risk ofdropping out.

The Education Provision Policy forDisadvantaged Children lays down a visionto bring into the formal education systemtraditionally disenfranchised groups, such aschildren with disabilities and ethnic minori-ties, through specifically-targeted programs.However, a clear blueprint to translate theseideals into a step-by-step implementationplan is missing. Key agencies responsiblefor assuming a leadership role in such pro-grams should be identified and resourcesneeded for implementation appropriatelyallocated.

Existing education guidelines regarding chil-dren living in Thailand without Thai citizen-ship need to translate into on-the-groundactions. Although non-Thai children areincluded as one of the 16 disadvantagedgroups who can potentially benefit fromexisting education provision policies, actualpractice is complex and unable to reachthe majority of children outside the formalsystem. Currently, it is reported that approx-imately 45,000 non-Thai children are inschool and benefiting from per capitabudget allocations from the RTG. However,the out-of-school population is estimated tobe considerably higher.

The role of alternative education servicemodalities can be strengthened. Existingprograms, although encouraged by theNEA, are small and do not seem to satisfythe potential demand. Flexible educationarrangements can play a key role in provid-ing opportunities to disadvantaged childrenin accessing secondary education. Greaterflexibility in terms of learning sites, classschedules and curriculum can provide amore suitable environment to fit the needsof children who cannot participate in tradi-tional school settings, such as rural migrantworkers. In order to ensure that alternativeeducation enrollments contribute to reach-ing formal universal secondary educationgoals, systematic data should be collected.

86

At present, there is no available informationof students between 12-17 years old attend-ing non-traditional secondary programs.

Financial disparities between provinces andincome groups should be minimized.Resource allocation formulae should factorin conditions and different level of needsacross provinces and income groups. Policyaction should be determined based onactual data, collected at operational levels(i.e. school or ESA) rather than from smallsample groups. Resources could, therefore,be better targeted to those who are reallyin need.

More generally, in order to include theexcluded and increase school participation,efficient data collection and analysis is aprerequisite. Data and management infor-mation systems should be able to timelyestimate children outside the formal educa-tion system, enabling the design of suitableprograms and providing strong evidence forpolicy decision making. For instance,although the gender gap in secondary edu-cation participation has been increasing, tothe benefit of girls, there is a lack of clearunderstanding about the reasons that aredriving this phenomenon and virtually nopolicy discussion as to how to redress this sit-uation.

IMPROVING QUALITY

The heart of Thailandûs education reform isto improve the human capital of Thai chil-dren by providing equal access to qualityeducation. In reality, schools have varieddegrees of readiness and resources to pro-vide such education. Studentsû learningcapacity also differs. Thus, the Governmenthas emphasized the need both to ensureminimum quality standards for service provi-sion for all, while establishing a çfast trackéfor those students that can cope with amore challenging program.

The so-called çfive new school designsé pro-gram, overseen by the Bureau forInnovative Development in Education, hasbegun in late 2003 in a small number ofpilot schools nationwide on a voluntarybasis. Autonomous schools decentralizeauthority in academic, financial, personneland general administrative activities. A par-ticipatory approach among involved partiesis promoted through school committees.Buddhist Way Schools seek to apply teach-ings of çmorality, meditative concentrationand wisdomé in learners as well as in schoolmanagement. Strategic Plans for GiftedChildren emphasize science, music, sportsand Thai performing arts for high-performingchildren. Bilingual schools administer EnglishPrograms and Mini English Programs througha language immersion curriculum. Schoolscan charge additional fees from their stan-dard rates. The Information andCommunication Technology (ICT) Schoolsintegrate computers to teaching and learn-ing, distance education and university-school linkages.

In addition, the MOE has launched a sepa-rate initiative, çOne District One Lab Schooléto break away with the perception thatmost çqualityé schools are in Bangkok andother large cities. The Lab Schools aim atestablishing centers of educational quality innon-urban districts so as to reduce socialdisparities. Their methods will include learn-er-centered approaches as well as self-learning skills through the use of ICT.

All these pilot programs are commendableand can provide important insights aboutvarious methodologies and approaches toimprove educational service provision, ifproperly evaluated. But these programs areall relatively small and, while they couldclearly benefit certain groups of students,there are concerns as to how they can beimplemented on a larger scale. There isalso a question as to how these initiatives


link to other education reform efforts inThailand and a need to avoid duplicatingprevious efforts. The bottom line is that,although these meritorious initiatives trialinnovative approaches to education qualityenhancement, they do not add up to acohesive plan for educational qualityenhancement and lack an overarchingframework for systemic and progressivequality improvement.

Evidence gathered from international assess-ments indicate that there is a shortage ofresources for learning in Thai schools andthis is generally perceived as a constraint tohigher student achievement. Greaterinvestments in instructional resources andteaching aids may be warranted in order toendow schools with a minimum set of mate-rials. The development of Local LearningResource Centers can make an importantcontribution to expand availability of instruc-tional resources. However, the supply ofmaterials is not a sufficient condition tomake a difference in student learning.Teaching aids need to be put to use effec-tively by teachers to support instructionalcontent delivery.

It is widely accepted that teacher quality isamong the most crucial factors contributingto student learning achievement. TheOffice of the Teacher Civil ServiceCommission has developed a strategic planand put in place several efforts to enhanceteacher quality including pre-service and in-service development. A major task hasbeen to develop criteria and methods toupgrade teacher standards and qualitythrough a çwhole school approach,é wherecapacity building for teachers and princi-pals is tackled together. The EducationReform Program aims to provide in-depthunderstanding of education management,curricular change, child-centered teachingand classroom research. The MOE hasespoused distance learning and computer

assisted instruction as possible media forcapacity development and the creation ofa master teacher network in order toexchange experiences with direct assistancefrom çmobile support teams,é RajabhatUniversities and ESA staff.

These are innovative approaches to capac-ity development and the on-going pilotssuggest promising results. Conventionalteacher development approaches such asseminars or mass distance training haveproven to be less effective as they do notrespond to specific needs of teachers.Again, the challenge lies on the translationfrom vision to implementation of this strate-gic plan, so that it reaches a scale withtangible national results and goes beyondad hoc small scale initiatives.

Internal and external quality assurancemechanisms have been established.However, the relevance and quality of suchassessments themselves needs to be guar-anteed. Internal or self-assessment is newto Thai culture, so it will take some time forschools to assimilate this process as anorganic part of school development plan-ning and turn into a meaningful reflectiveexercise. On going capacity building effortsat school and ESA levels will contribute toinstitutionalize this process.

The proposed approach for direct but con-structive external assessment also has thepotential to improve education quality. TheMOE has adopted a cautious approach tomanage the çstakesé of this assessment, inorder to encourage school staff toapproach it openly as an opportunity forself-improvement. Again, this type of form-ative review is unfamiliar to Thai administra-tors and educators. Thus, it will take timeto de-mystify the process and assimilate it.On the one hand, recommendations madeby external evaluators must be tangible andachievable. And the quality of external

88

independent evaluators itself needs to bemonitored and evaluated for the process tobe meaningful. On the other hand, schoolstaff will need to demonstrate action to turnaround ineffective practices in order tomake a difference in student performance.Mechanisms to provide systematic rewardsfor improvements in academic or institution-al outcomes could be weaved into the cur-rent system. Performance-based incentivescould provide the necessary impetus to fueladministrative and instructional behavioralchanges.

Enhancing accountability systems for schoolperformance can also operate as a strongincentive to improve educational quality.The authority over curricula, personnel andfinance will be decentralized to ESAs oncethey have met çreadinessé criteria.Significant citizen participation is expectedto take place in the management of ESAs.Additionally, pilot programs examining differ-ent types of school boards to explore waysto enhance the relevance and responsive-ness of education service delivery to localneeds are under way. Training modules forschool boards and administrators have beendeveloped and are being evaluated forpossible implementation nationwide.

Step-by-step implementation plan fordecentralization of education provision andmanagement, however, needs to be rein-forced. The transfer process has been slowto date. Teachers have been unwilling torenounce to the terms of employment ascivil servants under the MOE for positionswith local governments. Local bodies needto build their capacity. Existing technicalassistance and institutional strengtheningschemes have been ad hoc and uncoordi-nated. As administrative and service deliv-ery functions are being devolved, a strongaccountability system must be actively nur-tured in order to foster a service-orientedculture that is responsive to local aspirations

and needs.

ASSURING EFFICIENCY

The government has adopted an ambitiousorganizational reform program to enhancethe efficiency of the national education sys-tem. The NEA specifies that the financingsystem will be restructured by providingblock grants to ESAs and schools on thebasis of a standard capitation formula inaddition to other per capita top upsaccording to poverty levels and other pro-visions for disadvantaged students.

In principle, the decentralization process isexpected to produce administrative savings.Estimates prepared under the RTG-WorldBank Country Development Partnership forGovernance suggest that if all the function-al decentralization targets of theDecentralization Action Plan are realized, asubstantial share of central governmentapportionments to local boards could bepotentially reallocated from administrative toservice delivery purposes. In practice, a sig-nificant share of local expenditures is cen-trally mandated, such as personnel expen-ditures. These central directives could infact lead to over-staffing and over-spend-ing. Moreover, ESAs are not necessarily co-terminous with local government boundariesor responsibilities generating additionaladministrative demands. The current lack ofclarity on specific duties to be conductedat different government levels also carry therisk of overlapping functions leading toresource waste. Overall, there has beenreluctance in transferring functions, so cen-tral positions have not been eliminated;while local capacity to take on new func-tions and responsibilities has been slowlydeveloping. Thus, at this stage, it is unclearto what extent decentralization will indeedmaterialize into a more efficient governmen-tal administration.


Another possible avenue for raising efficien-cy could entail a careful review of studentteacher ratios. The average studentteacher ratio in secondary education is 28:1.Yet while student teacher ratio remains rel-atively low, class sizes are relatively large.The average secondary school class size is43 students. The Thai government hassought in recent years to merge small ruralschools together, wherever possible, in orderto maximize efficiency. However, schoolconsolidation efforts must be balanced byassurances that service delivery points willremain at a reasonable distance from chil-drenûs homes and that incentives are pro-vided to staff remote rural and other disad-vantaged areas that face severe personnelshortages. A functional review of teacherdeployment and school staffing arrange-ments may also contribute to distributestaffing resources more equitably acrossschools and alleviate staffing constraints inestablishments with large overcrowdedclassrooms.

Another possibility to maximize systemic effi-ciency may entail reallocating resourcesfrom other educational levels, such as terti-ary, to secondary education. The bottomline is that secondary education access andquality are not likely to experience notableimprovements without an infusion of addi-tional resources. ESAs will also be responsi-ble for raising additional funding, but thelevel of local revenue generation is uncer-tain and, according to current estimates,likely to be low.

The private sector plays a small role in gen-eral secondary education, accounting for11 percent of student enrollments in lowersecondary and 20 percent in upper second-ary education. Its overall share has eitherremained largely stagnant or diminishedover the past decade. In terms of financialcontributions, the private sector accountedfor approximately 5 percent of overalldomestic secondary education resources.Mobilizing private resources can be animportant source of secondary educationfinancing and could free up publicresources for improved targeting to disad-vantaged populations or service deliveryquality enhancements. While theGovernment has sought to institutionalizeformal channels to encourage funding fromprivate firms, further promotion efforts areneeded to increase the flow of privatefunds into secondary education.

Thailand has achieved remarkable improve-ments in education secondary provision andparticipation. Much has been accom-plished in the last decade. The RTG hasnow embarked on finding solutions to thenext generation of challenges: consolidat-ing equitable access, improving quality andenhancing efficiency. An ambitious reformprogram is gathering momentum.Dedicated efforts and a continued focus inredressing existing systemic inefficiencies canrealize the potential to fulfill the goal of ahigh quality universal secondary educationfor all Thai children.

90


Afonso, Antonio and Miguel St. Aubyn. 2005. Cross Country Efficiency of SecondaryEducation Provision: A Semi-Parametric Analysis with Nondiscretionary Inputs. Working PaperSeries no. 494. Lisbon, Portugal: Institute for Economics and Business Administration (ISEG),Technical University of Lisbon.

Amatyakul, Poonpit, Maliwan Thammasaeng and Prayat Punong-ong. 1995. Sectoral Surveyon Special Education in Thailand: Education for Children with Disabilities. Salaya, NakornPrathom, Thailand: Mahidol University Press.

Bhangananda, Kulvitra. 2003. çEducational Development toward a Knowledge-BasedEconomy.é In Human Resource Development Toward a Knowledge-Based Economy: TheCase of Thailand, ed. Minoru Makishima and Somchai Suksiriserekul, 41-82. Tokyo: Instituteof Developing Economies (Japan External Trade Organization).

Bunnag, Sirikul. 2006. çFree Schooling Cuts Abuse.é Bangkok Post: General News.http://www.bangkok post.com (accessed 3 August, 2006).

Cawthera, Andy. 2005. Computers in Secondary Schools in Developing Countries: Costs andOther Issues. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Cresswell, Anthony M. 1999. Educational Finance in Thailand: A Review andRecommendations for Improving Allocative Efficiency. Bangkok: UNESCO-Bangkok for theAsian Development Bank Social Sector Program Loan.

de Ferranti, David and others. 2003. Closing the Gap in Education and Technology. WorldBank Latin American and Caribbean Studies. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

di Gropello, Emanuela. 2003. Monitoring Educational Performance in the Caribbean.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

di Gropello, Emanuela. 2006. Meeting the Challenges of Secondary Education in LatinAmerica and East Asia: Improving Efficiency and Resource Mobilization. Washington, D.C.:World Bank.

Evans, Judith. 2000. Early Childhood Counts: A Programming Guide on Early Childhood Carefor Development. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Institute.

Filmer, Deon and Lant Prichett. 1997. Child Mortality and Public Spending on Health: HowMuch Does Money Matter? Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Gamage, David and Pacharapimon Sooksomchitra. 2004. çDecentralisation and School-Based Management in Thailand.é International Review of Education 50: 289-305.

REFERENCES

92

Hossain, Shaikh I. 1996. Making an Equitable and Efficient Education: The ChineseExperience. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Jones, Gavin. 2003. Strategies and Achievements in Expanding Lower SecondaryEnrollments: Thailand and Indonesia. Asian MetaCentre Research Paper Series; No. 13.Singapore: National University of Singapore.

Larach, Linda. 2001. Brazil Secondary Education Profile. A Summary of Secondary Education:Time to Move Forward. Secondary Education Series no. 24555. Washington D.C.: HumanDevelopment Network, World Bank.

Mass Communications Organization of Thailand (MCOT). Thai News Agency (TNA). 2006.çFree Education Not Really Free.é http://etna.mcot.net (accessed 31 July 2006).

Ministry of Education. 2004. çNational Report.é In Quality Education for all Young People:Challenges, Trends and Priorities: Forty-Seventh Session of the International Conference onEducation, 8-11 September 2004. Geneva: International Bureau of Education, UNESCO.

Moreno, Juan Manuel. 2005. çChanges in Secondary Education: From Weakest Link toCornerstone.é In International Semimar on Growth Strategies for Secondary Education inAsia, 19-21 September 2005. Kuala Lumpur: World Bank.

National Statistics Office (NSO). 1994-2002. Household Socio-Economic Survey. Bangkok:NSO.

_______. 2002. Children and Youth Survey. Bangkok: NSO.

çNew Criteria Announced for Granting Scholarships.é Bangkok Post. 7 May 2006, 6.

Martin, Michael O. and others. 2000. TIMSS 1999 International Science Report. Hamburg(Germany): International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).

Mullis, Ina V.S. and others. 2000. TIMSS 1999 International Mathematics Report. Hamburg(Germany): IEA.

Office of Education Council (OEC). 2004a. Education in Thailand 2004. Bangkok: OEC.

_______. 2004b. Thailand Education Statistics 2003. Bangkok: OEC.

_______. 2005. Thailand Education Statistics 2004. Bangkok: OEC.

Office of National Education Standards and Quality Assessment. 2006. Functions.http://www.onesqa.or. th (accessed 27 June 2006).

Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD). 2001. Knowledge andSkills for Life: First Results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.


_______. 2003. Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow: Further Results from PISA 2000. Paris:OECD and UNESCO.

_______. 2004. Learning for Tomorrowûs World: First Results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.

_______. 2005a. çEducation at a Glance 2005-Tables.é Education and Training: Statistics.http://www. oecd.org (accessed 28 June 2006).

_______. 2005b. School Factors Related to Quality and Equity: Results from PISA 2000. Paris:OECD.

Patrinos, Harry Anthony. 2002. A Review of Demand-Side Financing Initiatives in Education.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Phongpaichit, Pasuk and Isra Sarntisart. 2000. çGlobalisation and Inequality: the Case ofThailand.é In Poverty and Income Inequality in Developing Countries: A Policy Dialogue onthe Effects of Globalisation. Paris: OECD.

Pongsapich, Amara and Peter Brimble. 1999. Assessing the Social Impacts of the FinancialCrisis in Thailand. Manila: Asian Development Bank.

Pritchett, Lant and Deon Filmer. 1999. çWhat Education Production Functions Really Show:A Positive Theory of Education Expenditures.é Economics of Education Review 18 (2):223-239.

Punyasavatsut, Chaiyuth and others. 2005. Technical Consultancy for the CountryDevelopment Partnership Program in Education-Component 1: School Finance Reform.Bangkok: Unpublished manuscript.

Rice, Jennifer King. 2003. Teacher Quality: Understanding the Effectiveness of TeacherAttributes. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Richter, Kaspar. 2006. Thailandûs Growth Path: From Recovery to Prosperity. World BankPolicy Research Working Paper; no. 3912. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Rivkin, Steven G., Eric A. Hanushek, and John F. Kain. 2005. çTeachers, Schools, andAcademic Achievement.é Econometrica 73: 417-458.

Rowe, Ken. 2003. çThe Importance of Teacher Quality as a Key Determinant of StudentsûExperiences and Outcomes of Schooling.é In Building Teacher Quality: What Does theResearch Tell Us?, 15-23. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Suwansathit, Savitri. 2002. çQuality and Equity in Education.é In The 8th InternationalConference on Education: Innovations in Secondary Education: Meeting the Needs ofAdolescents and Youth in Asia and the Pacific, 26-29 November 2002. Bangkok: UNESCOAsia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education.

94

Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI). 2000. Financing Basic Education under theNew National Educational Act. Bangkok: TDRI.

UNESCO. 2003. The 8th International Conference on Education: Innovations in SecondaryEducation: Meeting the Needs of Adolescents and Youth in Asia and the Pacific, 26-29November 2002. Bangkok: Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education, UNESCO.

_______. 2005a. EFA Global Monitoring Report: The Quality Imperative. Paris: UNESCO.

_______. 2005b. Global Education Outlook 2005. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

Witte, Ann Dryden and Helen Tauchen. 1994. Work and Crime: An Exploration Using PanelData. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Witte, Johanna. 2000. çEducation in Thailand after the Crisis: A Balancing Act betweenGlobalization and National Self-Contemplation.é International Journal of EducationalDevelopment 20: 223-245.

World Bank. 1998. Thailand: Education Achievements, Issues, and Policies. Washington, D.C.:East Asia and the Pacific Region, Education Sector Unit, World Bank.

_______. 1999. Thailand Social Monitor: Coping with the Crisis in Education and Health.Bangkok: World Bank.

______. 2000. Turkey - Economic Reforms, Living Standards and Social Welfare Study.Washington, D.C.: Poverty Reducation and Economic Management Unit, Europe andCentral Asia Region, World Bank.

_______. 2001a. çPoverty and Public Policy.é in Thailand Social Monitor Report., Bangkok:World Bank.

_______. 2001b. Thailand: Secondary Education for Employment, Volume 1. Bangkok: WorldBank.

_______. 2002. Education and HIV/AIDS: A Window of Hope. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

_______. 2003. World Development Indicators. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

_______. 2005. Expanding Opportunities and Building Competencies for Young People: ANew Agenda for Secondary Education. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

_______. 2006. ç Summary Education Profile.é EDSTATS - Global Country Data. http://devda-ta.world bank.org/edstats/cd1.asp (accessed August 30, 2006).

Ziderman, Adrian. 2003. Student Loans in Thailand: Are they Effective, Equitable,Sustainable?. Bangkok: UNESCO.


_______. 2004. Policy Options for Student Loan Schemes: Lessons from Five Asian CaseStudies. Bangkok: UNESCO.

The World Bank Office, Bangkok30th Floor, Siam Tower

989 Rama I Road, Pathumwan,Bangkok 10330, Thailand

Tel. (662) 686-8300Fax. (662) 686-8301

Comments to:Luis Benveniste

[email protected]

Ngandee Creation Co.,LtdTel. (6612) 318-7462

∫∑ √ÿª ”À√—∫ºŸâ∫√‘À“√°“√¡—∏¬¡»÷°…“¡’»—°¬¿“æ„π°“√‡ªìπ«‘∂’∑“ß‡æ◊ËÕπ”‰ª Ÿà§«“¡°â“«Àπâ“¢Õßπ—°‡√’¬π ∑—Èßπ’È‡æ√“–°“√»÷°…“ “¡“√∂æ—≤π“∑—°…–·≈–º≈‘μ·√ßß“π∑’Ë¡’§«“¡‡™’Ë¬«™“≠ ÷́Ëßμ√ßμ“¡§«“¡μâÕß°“√¢Õßμ≈“¥·√ßß“π ∑’Ë®√‘ß·≈â«°“√≈ß∑ÿπ„π°“√¡—∏¬¡»÷°…“®–‡°Á∫‡°’Ë¬«º≈ª√–‚¬™πå‰¥â¡“°‡¡◊ËÕ°“√¡—∏¬¡»÷°…“∑”Àπâ“∑’Ë‡ªìπμ—«‡™◊ËÕ¡‚¬ß∑’Ë ”§—≠√–À«à“ß°“√»÷°…“¢—Èπæ◊Èπ∞“π °“√Õÿ¥¡»÷°…“ °—∫μ≈“¥·√ßß“πÕ¬à“ß‰√°Áμ“¡°“√¡—∏¬¡»÷°…“¬—ßÕ“®‡ªìπÕÿª √√§ ”§—≠„π°“√ªÑÕß°—π°“√¢¬“¬‚Õ°“ ∑“ß°“√»÷°…“∑’Ë‡∑à“‡∑’¬¡°—π °“√¡—∏¬¡»÷°…“¢Õßª√–‡∑»‰∑¬„πªí®®ÿ∫—π°”≈—ßÕ¬Ÿà√–À«à“ß∑“ß Õß·æ√àß√–À«à“ß°“√¡’»—°¬¿“æ„π°“√ª√—∫ª√ÿß‚Õ°“ ”À√—∫‡¬“«™π À√◊Õ°“√°≈“¬‡ªìπ¢âÕ®”°—¥ºŸ°æ—π°—∫°“√æ—≤π“§«“¡°â“«Àπâ“∑“ß‡»√…∞°‘®·≈–°“√·¢àß¢—π¢Õßª√–‡∑» ¥—ßπ—Èπ®÷ß‡ªìπ‚Õ°“ Õ—π¥’„π°“√√«∫√«¡§«“¡ ”‡√Á®∑’Ë‡°‘¥¢÷Èπ„π™à«ß√–¬–‡«≈“‰¡àπ“ππ’È„π¥â“π§«“¡°â“«Àπâ“¢Õß°“√¡—∏¬¡»÷°…“¢Õßª√–‡∑»‰∑¬ μ≈Õ¥®πæ‘®“√≥“∂÷ß ‘Ëß∑â“∑“¬∑’ËÕ¬Ÿà‡∫◊ÈÕßÀπâ“

∫∑∑’Ë Ò °≈à“«∂÷ß¿Ÿ¡‘À≈—ß¢Õß°“√»÷°…“„πª√–‡∑»‰∑¬ ´÷Ëßª√–°Õ∫¥â«¬∫√‘∫∑∑“ßª√–«—μ‘»“ μ√å¢Õß°“√ªÆ‘√Ÿª ·≈–·π«‚πâ¡∑’Ë‡°‘¥¢÷Èπ„π™à«ß√–¬–‡«≈“‰¡àπ“π¡“π’È ¢Õß°“√ª√–∂¡»÷ °…“·≈–°“√Õÿ¥¡»÷°…“ ∫∑∑’Ë Ú ‡ªìπ°“√∑∫∑«π ¿“æªí®®ÿ∫—π¢Õß√–∫∫°“√¡—∏¬¡»÷°…“¢Õß‰∑¬„π¿“æ√«¡·≈–„π°≈ÿà¡ª√–™“°√μà“ßÊ πÕ°®“°π’È¬—ß¡’°“√‡ª√’¬∫‡∑’¬∫√–À«à“ß¿Ÿ¡‘¿“§Õ’°¥â«¬ ®“°º≈≈—æ∏å‡À≈à“π’È®÷ß‰¥â¡’° “ √ «‘ ‡ § √ “ –Àå ¥â “ π§ « “¡μâ Õ ß ° “ √¢Õ ß° “ √¡—∏¬¡»÷°…“ ‡™àπº≈¢Õß°“√μ—¥ ‘π„®¢Õß§√—«‡√◊Õπ„π°“√ àß∫ÿμ√À≈“π‡¢â“‚√ß‡√’¬π∫∑∑’Ë Û æ‘®“√≥“ª√–‡¥Áπªí≠À“¥â“π§ÿ≥¿“æ¢Õß°“√¡—∏¬¡»÷°…“·≈–‡ πÕ∑“ß‡≈◊Õ°∑’Ë‡ªìπ‰ª‰¥â„π°“√ª√—∫ª√ÿß§ÿ≥¿“æ¢Õß°“√∫√‘°“√∑“ß°“√»÷°…“„πª√–‡∑»‰∑¬ ∫∑∑’Ë Ù ‡ªìπ°“√ ”√«®∑“ß‡≈◊Õ°„π°“√ àß‡ √‘¡ª√– ‘∑∏‘¿“æ„π°“√„™â∑√—æ¬“°√∑“ß°“√‡ß‘π∫∑∑’Ë ı ‡ªìπ°“√„Àâ¢âÕ‡ πÕ·π–¥â“ππ‚¬∫“¬‚¥¬æ‘®“√≥“∂÷ß‡ªÑ“À¡“¬¢Õß√—∞∫“≈·≈–«‘«—≤π“°“√∑“ßª√–«—μ‘»“ μ√å∑’Ë ”§—≠¢Õß√–∫∫°“√»÷°…“‰∑¬

Date post:	01-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Public Disclosure Authorized - World Bank · Thailand Social Monitor : Improving Secondary...

Documents