Quality Issues of Education in Thailand

  • Alain MounierEmail author
  • Phasina Tangchuang
Part of the Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects book series (EDAP, volume 42)


In the present chapter, we examine the pretence of a consensus about the low quality of Thai education, which in fact conceals deep discrepancies and leads to distorted and ineffective educational policies. First, the chapter unveils that seven major pillars of education reflect major flaws which adversely affect the quality of Thai education: weak curriculum and pedagogy, diploma-oriented education, vocational logic of education, too extended private initiatives and funding, weakness of decentralized educational administration, insufficient focus on educational and social inequalities, and to social cultures derived from social hierarchy. Generally, these seven factors influencing the quality of education are analysed separately through a prevalent unidimensional approach, while au contraire they must be considered altogether in their complex interrelations through a multidimensional approach.

Second, the chapter suggests related decisive actions for improving the quality of education across the board. First, we suggest consistent and related reforms of the educational system from without, namely, reducing social inequalities, revolutionizing the social order based on social hierarchy, reinstating public education as a priority, and assuring political continuity in the educational field. Second, we argue for consistent and related reforms from within the educational system – improving the rules for climbing the educational pyramid, the criteria for recruiting and training teaching personnel, the implementation of didactics in conceiving curricula and pedagogies, and eventually a research system on education for and by strengthening the teaching-research nexus.

The ambition of bettering the quality of national education across the board requires these coordinated actions by going beyond the current Thai political divides and instability and by abandoning short-sighted, fashionable, and internationally inspired educational policies which do not fit the Thai context.


  1. Andrews, Paul, et al. 2014. OECD and Pisa tests are damaging education worldwide—academics. Theguardian, May 6.
  2. Annop Pongwat. 2011. A new breed of teachers: Thailand’s efforts to improve the quality of her teachers. CICE Series 4 (2): 155–166.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, Benjamin. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives I: Cognitive domain. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1997. The forms of capital. In Education: Culture, economy, society, ed. A.H. Hasley, 46–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean Claude Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in education, society and culture. London/Beverly Hills: Sage. (French edition 1970).Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1979. The inheritors: French students and their relation to culture. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bruner, Jerome S. 1996. The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bruns, Barbara, Deon Filmer, and Harry Anthony Patrinos. 2011. Making school work: New evidence on accountability reforms. Washington, DC: The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang, Mae Chu, Sheldon Shaeffer, Samer Al-Samarrai, Andrew B. Ragatz, Joppe de Ree, and Ritchie Stevenson. 2014. Teacher reform in Indonesia: The role of politics and evidence in policy making. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Scholar
  10. Chuachan Chongsatityoo, and Aroonsi Jitjang. 2013. Palang khruakhai nai phaendin [A network force in the country]. Bangkok: Thailand Research Fund.Google Scholar
  11. Dilaka Lathapipat. 2012. The influence of family wealth on the educational attainments of youths in Thailand. East Asian Development Network Working paper no. 56: 1–30.Google Scholar
  12. Dore, Ronald. 1976. The diploma disease: Education, qualification, and development. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fareed, Zakaria. 2015. Why America’s obsession with STEM education is dangerous. Washington Post. March 26.
  14. Fry, Gerald W. 1981. Degreeism: Disease or cure? Higher Education 10: 517–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardner, Howard. 2006. Multiple intelligences. New horizons in theory and practice. New York: Harvard: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  16. Hallack, Jacques, and Muriel Poisson 2002. Ethics and corruption in education. Paris: UNESCO Forum on Education no 15.Google Scholar
  17. Hallinger, Philip, and Darren A. Bryant. 2013. Synthesis of findings from 15 years of educational reform in Thailand: Lessons on leading educational change in East Asia. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice 16 (4): 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hallinger, Philip, and Moosung Lee. 2011. A decade of education reform in Thailand: Broken promise or impossible dream? Cambridge Journal of Education 41 (2): 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamilton, David. 1999. The pedagogic paradox (or why no didactics in England?). Pedagogy, Culture & Society 7 (1): 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kansanen, Pertti, and Matti Meri. 1999. Didactic relation in the teaching-studying-learning process. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Department of Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  21. Kantor, Harvey, and Robert Lowe. 2004. Reflections on history and quality education. Educational Researcher 33 (5): 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MOE. 2016. Khao samnakngan ratamontri 135/2559 talaeng khao kankhabkluan patirup kansueksa lae kanborihanrachakan khong krasuangsueksathikan nai phumipak [News from the Office of the Minister 135/2016 announcement propelling education reform and the local administration of education]. Bangkok: MOE.
  23. Mounier, Alain. 2001. The three logics of skills in French literature. ACIRRT Working papers no. 66. Sydney: Australian Centre for Industrial Relations Research and Training.Google Scholar
  24. Mounier, Alain, and Tangchuang Phasina, eds. 2010. Education and knowledge in Thailand. The quality controversy. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.Google Scholar
  25. OECD. 2016. PISA 2015: Results in focus. Paris: OECD Publishing. Scholar
  26. Phasina Tangchuang. 2011. Becoming a reflexive teacher. Intermediate results of a research project. Chiang Mai: Centre for Education and Labour Studies, Faculty of Education, Chiang Mai University.Google Scholar
  27. Phasina Tangchuang, and Alain Mounier. 2009. Reflexive teachers project with Rajabhat universities, schools and CELS. Chiang Mai: Centre for Education and Labour Studies, Faculty of Education, Chiang Mai University.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2012. Research programmes and research capacity building. Experiences, lessons and perspectives. Journal of Education 2: 90–113.Google Scholar
  29. Sanit Srikoon, et al. 2014. Research synthesis of research-based learning for education in Thailand. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 116: 913–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shulman, Lee S. 1999. Taking learning seriously. Change 31 (4): 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Somkiat Tangkitvanich, and Sasiwuttiwat Supanutt. 2012. Revamping the Thai education system: Quality for all. TDRI Quarterly Review 27 (2): 3–12.Google Scholar
  32. Tisana Khemmani. 1999. A comparative study of status and trends of educational research in Thailand and Japan. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.Google Scholar
  33. UNESCO. 2004. Teacher quality counts: Measuring progress towards education for all. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 2006. Education for all: The quality imperative. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  35. Voravid Charoenloet, and Alain Mounier. 2011. The concepts of social protection and welfare state, Thai Health Foundation Research Report no. 2, 1–38. Bangkok/Chiang Mai: Chiang Mai University, Faculty of Economics.Google Scholar
  36. ———. 2012. Assessing performances of health insurance schemes in Thailand. Social security versus universal coverage, Thai Health Foundation Research Report no. 5, 1–76. Bangkok/Chiang Mai: Chiang Mai University, Faculty of Economics.Google Scholar
  37. Willcoxson, Lesley, Mark L. Manning, Natasha Johnston, and Katrina Gething. 2011. Enhancing the research-teaching nexus: Building teaching-based research from research-based teaching. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 23 (1): 1–13.Google Scholar
  38. Wiwat Phanthawuthiyanon. 2013. Kowit Varapipatana. In Chachoenngsao model: Roi to thi sun hai nai wong kansueksa Thai [Chachoengsao model: The lost linkage in Thai education], 140–157. Bangkok: Pico.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EconomicsChiang Mai UniversityChiang MaiThailand

Personalised recommendations