Category Archives: Thai Education

What’s hair got to do with child rights — in Thailand?

Posted on January 15, 2013 | 8 Comments

That’s the question I was pondering during the weekend of Thailand’s 2013 National Children’s Day (Saturday, January 12). From what I’ve seen, the answer depends on whom you ask. For instance, “a great deal” if you ask Thai school children,“not at all” if the Thai National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), “maybe a little” if the Thai education minister.

Here’s the hair in question.

Thai school pupils haircuts

Source: Bangkok Post

Hair on Thai school children’s heads has become a national policy issue. The student hair debate has been simmering and finally came to a boil after a schoolboy filed a complaint with the NHRC in December 2011. The complaint said that the school regulation prohibiting all hairstyles except the crew cut for boys and ear-lobe-length bob for girls is in violation of children’s human rights and that the schools allowing selected students such as those engaged in classical art performances to wear long hair is discrimination against other students subject to the hair rule.

The ‘hair revolution!!!’

Thai school children have wanted the strict hair regulation done away with for a long time. It is probably among the most hated rules among generations of Thais students, especially those in government schools where such rules tend to be zealously enforced. So much so that a call for “student hair revolution!!!” has been made.

A 10-point hair manifesto was posted on Dek-D.com, the web board popular among students, in July 2009. Here are some of the points:

(1) The hair regulation is contrary to the Thai constitution,

(2) The military-style rule for school children is unnecessary and instills in children harmful authoritarian values, …

(4) [It] makes youth not learn how to think … only follow orders, …

(7) [It] promotes abuse of power by teachers and teaches youth to absorb such irrational power abuse…,

[8] [It] gives rise to insults on human dignity [verbal abuse by teachers given as an example]…

The response was overwhelmingly supportive on that platform, judging by the top 5 comments with hundreds of likes each. A few months earlier in May 2009 the issue was also debated on the most popular web board Pantip where a great many perspectives were shared by young Thais.

Since the student’s complaint to the NHRC in 2011 made the news, academics, policy makers, government officials and leading thinkers have weighed in with both pros and cons. The larger public recently jumped into the fray following the NHRC ruling in November 2012 and the decision by the education ministry just before Children’s Day.

There is much in the hair

Different people see different things in the hair on the young heads. Some see human rights, dignity, liberty and freedom (cut short or shaved a little too close to the skin). Others see order and discipline necessary to carry on by the new generation, a fine and unique cultural tradition worthy of preserving on the young heads, or a shield against evils always lurking and ready to harm vulnerable youth. Still others see nothing reflected in the severe haircuts but the rules that have always been there and should still be there because they are rules.

Then there are people wondering out loud what the fuss is all about with Thai kids these days. Why would they want to change the rules now — which generations of Thais have lived with? If they themselves have endured the good old Thai hair tradition with dignified acceptance, why can’t the youth of today?

Perhaps these people are oblivious to the new reality that Thailand is in the midst of change — more young Thais are now getting a taste of questioning and blind obedience can no longer be taken for granted. Today’s Thai youth are rushing headlong into the 21st century, only to be pulled back by the hair — so to speak —b y arcane rules. However, at least some Thai grown-ups are beginning to appreciate the children’s frustration. But enough to set them free?

Official obsession with rules

The NHRC ruling on the complaint speaks volume of Thai officialdom’s mentality. In short, the NHRC ruled that the hair rule is not in violation of the students’ human rights and the schools’ differential treatment by exempting some students from the rule is not discrimination.

In its ruling the NHRC refers to long, elaborate opinions of high-level education administrators, the Constitution and the Child Protection Act, and includes comprehensive excerpts from the 1972 military junta order on students’ behavior and two ministerial regulations issued under the order, and one small point from the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Other than the first 13-line paragraph giving the background of the complaint, the NHRC ruling refers to no opinions from any other school children, or their representatives (e.g. parents or child rights advocates). And of all the child rights stipulated under the CRC, the NHRC cites just this one:

Article 28:

…

2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention.

The NHRC apparently sees no contradiction between its ruling and the child rights under other articles in the Convention—especially the ones about respecting the child’s opinion and freedom of expression. As to “the best interest of the child” principle, I suspect, like most grown-ups the NHRC believes it knows best without having to ask the children, because they have “bathed in hot water” long before the child, as the Thai saying goes.

The NHRC’s own opinion on the matter is the regurgitation of the laws and rules it has cited with a conclusion that, no, the hair rule “does not” violate human rights. The NHRC blames the ministry of education for not having made the rules clearer and more instructive for the schools to enforce, hence the divergent applications of the rules by different schools. So it offers a recommendation that the education ministry should iron out any “inconsistencies” in the regulations by repealing the existing regulations and issue a new, unified and clearly instructive ministerial regulation governing students’ hair with no room for divergent application. This new regulation, it says, should also observe the child’s human dignity and best interest (Thank you very much!).

The ministry of education has taken to heart the NHRC recommendation. It set up a committee to mull over the ministerial regulations concerning students’ hair from 1972 and 1975. The 1972 regulation, which is the source of the (over)zealous control of students’ head, hair, face, dress and more, is all about prohibition. It’s not about what students can do or how they should behave but about what they cannot do. There are two main items of prohibition on dress and conduct for school pupils (at primary and secondary levels – Item 1), and students (at college and university levels – Item 2):

1972 Ministerial Regulation issued by Ministry of Education

Item 1: The following dress and conduct are considered inappropriate for school pupils…

(1) Male students wearing hair on the crown and front of the head longer than 5 centimeters and hair on the sides of the head not close to the skin, or wearing a mustache or a beard. Female students wearing hair longer than the neckline, [but] if with its own discretion the school or educational institution allows longer hair, the hair should be tied up neatly. Students wearing make-up or other products for cosmetic enhancement.

(2) Loitering in public or destroying property of the school or educational institution, or public property.

(3) Showing impolite manner, speech or conduct.

(4) Gathering and creating nuisance.

(5) Gambling as prohibited by law.

(6) Reveling at night between 22:00 hr to 04:00 hr of the next day, except when accompanied by parents or guardians or having been permitted by the school or educational institution.

(7) Smoking cigarettes [or] marijuana, or drinking alcohol, taking illegal drugs or other addictive substances.

(8) Entering a legal establishment or any other establishment resembling a pawn shop or gambling den while there are ongoing activities, unless it is the place in which the student resides or visits relatives.

(9) Entering an event or a party where there are dances or other performances unfit for students, unless the student accompanies parents or guardians or that event/party is organized by the student’s parents or guardians or school.

(10) Entering prostitution establishment, unless it is the place in which the student resides or visits relatives living therein.

(11) Associating with women engaged in prostitution, unless they are close relatives.

(12) Behaving in romantic/sexual manner.

(13) Having in possession explosive devices or personal or concealed weapons with the purpose to use in violence.

(14) Deliberately avoiding school attendance.

Item 2: The following dress and conduct are considered inappropriate for students…

(1) Male students with haircut or wearing hair on the sides and back of the head longer than the hairline, or wearing a mustache or a beard. Female students wearing skirts with the hems more than 5 centimeters above the knee, skirt waistline lower than the navel, loose belt below the skirt waistline, or inappropriate dress for Thai ladies. Students wearing make-up or other products for cosmetic enhancement.

(2) Smoking cigarettes [or] marijuana, or drinking alcohol, taking illegal drugs or other addictive substances.

(3) Conduct hostile to management authority of the school or educational institution, or forcing, emboldening or supporting students to have such a conduct, and

(4) Conduct as listed in Item 1 (2), (3), (4), (5), (8), (10), (11), (12), (13).

In 1975 ministerial regulation issued an amendment, replacing Item 1 (1) above with the following, which in effect repealed the crew cut requirement for school boys:

(1) Male students with haircut or wearing hair on the sides and back of the head longer than the hairline, or wearing a mustache or a beard. Female students with a haircut or wearing hair longer than the neckline, [but] if with its own discretion the school or educational institution allows longer hair, the hair should be tied up neatly. Students wearing make-up or other products for cosmetic enhancement.

Despite the 1975 amendment, most Thai schools still enforce the hairstyle requirement in the 1972 regulation, evident in ubiquitous crew cuts on the heads of most school boys. (In virtually all Thai public schools crew cut is mandatory for boys in primary up to lower secondary level, while boys in higher secondary school are allowed slightly longer hair unless they take the 3 years long army reserve training, although some schools may still require the crew cut regardless. Most private schools do not require the crew cut for boys and girls are allowed to wear long hair neatly tied up.)

One can only wonder why Thai schools still adhere to the hair requirement already abolished decades ago. In issuing its order to schools to stop requiring the crew cut for boys, the education ministry ensures the schools that it is not making any new rule but merely clarifying that the crew cut requirement in the 1972 regulation was already repealed and they should apply the 1975 amendment instead. To think it took the ministry almost 40 years to clarify that!

Four decades is a long time. Long enough for many generations of Thai children—perhaps more so Thai teachers and school administrators—to get used to and even like such severe hairstyles normally associated with punishment for convicts in most countries. Crew cuts are common enough for military men, but I can’t help thinking that the only other place where I have seen many women and girls with the same uniformly ear-lobe-short hairstyle is in the Tuol Sleng Museum in Cambodia, where women, men and children were brought as prisoners of the Khmer Rouge to a school converted into torture chambers. It’s a troubling thought.

Picture of female prisoners in Tuol-Sleng

Pictures of Khmer Rouge victims in the TuolSleng Museum, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Source: Travelandescape.ca

As soon as the education ministry announced its decision, the director of Bangkok Education Office told the media that schools in Bangkok won’t change any hair rules because in Bangkok schools already have “very clear rules” and “no one has complained” about the children’s hair here.

The commander of Army Reserve Command was also quick to confirm that high school boys in the army reserve training (who will be exempt from the military draft) still have to wear the crew cut, which, he added, does not violate personal freedom or human rights.

Uniform culture

There is no question that Thais adore uniforms. Military and police are still the ‘coolest’ jobs for Thai kids according to a recent poll. We have uniforms for a great many professions and most of us have grown up with uniforms from an early age and have worn various uniforms throughout our school life. Thailand is one of the only four countries in the world that require uniforms for university students (along with Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam).

Thais are by and large in favor of student uniforms. Besides equalizing uniformity, uniforms are often linked to order, discipline, and modesty. Whether these benefits are truly realized, a look at the way Thais generally board the BTS and MRT in Bangkok, keep cleanliness in public parks, drive on the roads and behave when caught with a traffic violation, may give one a pause. Considering the long unresolved school gang violence among male vocational school students, Thailand’s second world ranking in teenage pregnancy (first in Asia), and Thai university uniforms voted the “sexiest” in the world, may give one another pause. What can be said with some certainty, though, is that Thais are quite well dressed and like to dress alike.

But whether or not being well dressed or being dressed alike is a true reflection of order, discipline and modesty, Thai teachers are true believers in this and dedicate inordinate amount of attention to ensure that Thai children abide by the uniform and hair rules with such religiosity as though the future of the nation depended on correct dress and correct hair.

(Hair) crime and punishment

In the government school system children’s heads (and dress) are routinely inspected by teachers often with a pair of scissors in hand; rules violators are punished and the offending hairstyles corrected as students stand many rows deep in the school yard before the national flag. Many school girls have related a common story that if their hair is deemed a millimeter or two too long, it would meet the scissors at about the middle of the ear, to make sure the earlobes show. School boys whose sides of the head are covered with hair, skin not clearly visible, would be sent to the battalion pronto. Offenders sometimes have to pay a fine.

Some teachers can be more zealous than others and may find colorful hair clips or bows offensive (remember, no make-up or cosmetic enhancement, see (Item 1 (1)). Hair coloring is sacrilegious. And if some students have a misfortune to have incurred some teachers’ wrath, they may find themselves a particular target. Many stories have been told about overzealous homeroom teachers. In one, some girl whose hair was naturally very black was accused of dying it black, while another whose hair was naturally light brown was accused of lightening it.

Besides the humiliation of having one’s hair cut by teachers whose hairdressing skills and purpose of punishment combined often make one’s head uglier than it already is, punishment for hair and dress code violations is accumulative. After some violations and certain points deducted, students can expect a bad report card or a call for a teacher-parent meeting, and more violations would lead to a suspension. Sometimes cutting student’s hair is a punishment for offenses unrelated to hair. But too many questions or smart-mouth challenge to the teachers’ authority could land one in deeper trouble (see Item 2 (3) in the 1972 regulation). A heavier punishment or a worse grade can be expected.

It makes one wonder what the purpose of this hair rule really is, doesn’t it? What benefits are there in boys having hair shorter than 5 centimeters on top of their head and girls no longer than the earlobes and neckline? Many a Thai student have wondered the same. Here’s a video clip of interviews with many high school students in Bangkok on the hair issue from a satire show “Jow Khow Tuen: Doo Tuuk Sati Panya” (Shallow Investigative News: Insulting Intelligence). (Some comments are really quite amusing.)

(For more perspectives of students see many TV news and interviews on this thaitvnews page.)

Love of rules, head lice and Einstein

The hair rationale might actually be very simple. According to a noted historian Nithi Eiwsirwong, Thais originally got the school pupil hairstyles (along with school uniforms) from the Japanese during World War II when there was an epidemic of head lice. Given that Thai children’s heads have long been free of lice, it would appear that love for old rules is much harder to get rid of than the head lice.

And we wonder why Thai students are so impoverished in creativity and critical thinking and score so poorly in all important subjects in national as well as international tests. (I have written a 4-part series on the failure of Thai education here, here, here and here). If Thai teachers had spent less attention to the children’s hair and more on teaching them how to think, Thai children might have done much better. Rote learning combined with such a rigid, militaristic culture of control cannot be nurturing for creativity or critical thinking, or academic excellence. Young children going into the Thai education system with bright eyes, lively curiosity and creative spirit are at great risk of having their light quickly dimmed, and the future of Thai education is looking quite dim indeed.

A school girl in the video clip above said: “Thai kids have neatly short hair but are still stupid.” Harsh, but in the past several years Thailand finds itself at the bottom of one world ranking after another in students’ knowledge and scholastic abilities.

While many Thai teachers are still obsessed with the children’s hair, many Thai kids know there is little connection between what’s outside of their skull and what’s inside. A school boy helpfully pointed out: “Einstein had long hair.”

Of course, there are also many children (and many adults, the products of the same education system) who have absorbed the love of rules and learned to articulate the supposed advantages of (the appearance of) order and discipline. Here are a few comments on a conservative news website Manager:

When I was in school and had my hair shaved [by my teacher] I never felt any anger or hatred for the teacher. I’d like to thank the teacher for having taught me to be a good person in Thai society. (a 45-year-old man, Comment 151 with 97 likes)

Next it will be the uniform. Yeah, let’s have human rights. Abolish them all. Wear slippers to class. Wear jeans while we’re at it. Let’s follow the foreigners’ a**es. (Comment 4 with 31 likes)

Yet, even on this conservative online community such views are in the minority. The majority of the response is in favor of no more crew cuts. The top two comments with over 200 likes on that page want the hair rules abolished.

At present there is a group of students who call themselves The Thai Students Federation for Education Reform that has come out to oppose the existing hair rules, although their larger goal is education reform as the group name suggests.

Appearance-obsessed culture

The Thai attachment to uniforms and rules will be difficult to unravel. Uniform follows many Thais to their working life. Thailand is probably one of the few countries where physical appearance requirements for school admission and jobs are still the rule, instead of the exception. Job advertisements often have height and weight requirements, besides age, even when they are not relevant to the job. Resumes of Thais often include height and weight, as well as birth date and religion.

Applicants to nursing and medical schools must meet certain physical criteria in addition to academic and other qualifications: a narrow range of weight and height (not too short, not too skinny, not too fat), no facial marks, no crossed eyes, and no crooked teeth feature in a long list of physical qualifications and prohibited diseases.

How many disabled people are seen in the public life in Thailand? That is, apart from the blind selling lotto tickets or singing (begging) on the sidewalk? People with disabilities are still struggling to be integrated into mainstream Thai society. True, there are people with disabilities who have made it but against all odds and they have many more hurdles to climb over. For example, a lawyer with polio was not allowed to apply for a public prosecutor job because of his disability. He fought for years in court until he was finally allowed to sit in the exam but still didn’t get the job. Lawyers with disabilities are not found among judges in Thailand because judges have to look “credible” (i.e. without physical defects) to command “respect”.

These “respect” and “credibility” expectations have also made life difficult for people with diverse sexuality (gays, lesbians and transgenders). Many gays and lesbians voluntarily or are told to hide their sexual orientation at work, if they want to advance in the job because not being a “real” man or a “real” woman makes one “less credible”. (To whom is the question.) Transgenders who can’t hide their gender identity will have to comply with the rules or opt out of the system and find the few jobs allocated to them like cabaret performers, make-up artists, cosmetics sales agents, pretties, or go into sex work. For every successful (often good looking) transgender who is accepted into mainstream society, there are a dozen more who are not.

In recent years there have been more cases involving transgender people unhappy with the uniform they are made to wear. Among the most prominent cases that have gone to the NHRC are transgendered women (born male) in university or teacher’s training forced to wear male uniform despite their complete or almost complete transformation to the female sex. In some cases transgendered teacher’s trainees were even told to cut their hair short so that school children won’t be confused (although doing so usually confuses the kids even more, with their female breasts and all). The so-called toms (masculine lesbians) or transmen (born female but living as male) are likewise made to wear uniform according to their sex on the ID card. Complaints, requests, petitions made to related authorities more often than not get a negative answer and the same explanation: “Because there are rules.”

Many official rules governing the lives of many Thais are strict and fixed and allows for an extremely narrow range of self-expression, physically and in terms of gender identity. It leaves very little room for those who want to express themselves outside of what’s permitted, often by people who are long dead.

Conformity vs. rights of children

Interestingly enough, the national human rights body that sees no connection between the students’ hair and children’s rights sees a human right violation in transgender people being forced to wear uniforms inconsistent with their gender identity. Some questions arise. How does the Thai NHRC draw the line for violations of human rights for adults and for children? Can children be made to conform against their will to a higher degree than adults because they are children? What would then be the criteria to allow that (other than the existence of the rules)?

Certainly, a balance must be found between fulfilling the rights, freedom and liberty for children and protecting them from harm. In this case, though, does uniform short hair really protect young Thai children from harm? Will there be any harm if children are allowed to make their own decisions regarding their own hair?

A school administrator in Bangkok gives a scenario of a possible harm if Thai children are allowed to have longer hair.

Personally I disagree with [longer hair for school children] because the existing hair rules are already good and practical because we can distinguish between students and [adults]. [It] allows protection of children, for instance if girls are about to fall into the hands of bad people the perpetrators would stop to think about the punishment for rape of children and youth being more severe than [the punishment for rape of] adults.

I would have liked to ask this school administrator if he thinks the perpetrators in the many, many cases of sexual abuse of short-haired Thai school children ever stopped to think about the severe punishment before abusing the children anyway, so what good does short hair do in preventing children from rape? Does he think school children in most other countries who are allowed longer hair are being raped and sexually molested any more than Thai children because of their hair?

Silly rationalization is just that but it abounds in a culture where the education system discourages logical and critical reasoning but promotes conformity, control and obedience.

As Thailand goes through significant social changes and more young Thais demand more rights and freedom, Thai authorities will find themselves increasingly under pressure to justify the rules. It can only be hoped they will learn sooner rather than later that rigid conformity and control won’t always guarantee obedience, and acceptance will have to be earned.

Adults can help move the change process along by supporting and giving the children more opportunity to express themselves and participate in the decision making on matters that concern them. After all, it’s their future and learning about rights and responsibilities can never start too young.

Note: This article was first published for SiamVoices on Asian Correspondent on 13 January 2013.

→ 8 Comments

Posted in Sexuality-Gender in Thai Culture, Thai Education, Thai Society, Politics, etc.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Sorry State of Thai Education – Part 4: Dismal English-language education

Posted on March 23, 2012 | 20 Comments

One of the things PM Yingluck Shinawatra has often been criticized for since she took office in August 2011 is her English. So much fuss was made about how she spoke English at her first meeting with Hillary Clinton in November 2011 that the substance of that meeting got lost in the fight between her critics and defenders about the state of her English.

Many Thais were quick to point out that she said “overcome” instead of “welcome” to the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her welcome speech in their joint press conference. Verbal battles about the relevance of the PM’s accent and ability to read an English-language speech correctly heated up Thailand’s social media for days. Put next to the former PM Abhisit Vejjajiva’s Eton-Oxford-polished English, PM Yingluck’s often stuttering and grammatically flawed English failed to inspire admiration among certain educated urban crowds. To her critics PM Yingluck’s lack of English fluency is taken as a national embarrassment and even liability.

Given such a fuss, someone who doesn’t know much about Thailand could be forgiven for thinking that Thais must have high standards of English. Those familiar with Thais would be excused for chuckling at such a notion.

It is no secret that Thais’ competence in English leaves rather a lot to be desired. And the state of Thailand’s English-language education is such that it would make anyone who appreciates the importance of the English language feel legitimately overcome indeed.

Lackluster TOEFL performance

On the 2010Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) Thailand ranked 116th out of 163 countries. Thais’ Internet-based total score was better than those of Cambodia and Laos, a point or two above Vietnam and Burma, but trailing behind Indonesia, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, China, and Taiwan, and was left in the dust by Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore. (See Table 1)

Table 1: 2010 TOEFL Internet-based (iBT) Total and Section Score Means – All Examinees Classified by Geographical Region and Native Country

For a middle-income country, Thailand’s TOEFL score is undeniably poor. Thai students’ 75 average total TOEFL score in 2010 was below the international average of 80. The section scores for reading, listening, speaking and writing were all below average (see ETS report).

Of course, TOEFL scores are not representative of English proficiency of the overall Thai population, as it is usually taken by motivated students aspiring to continue studies overseas and young graduates seeking a good white-collar job—not masseuses, taxi drivers, waiters and waitresses who use varying degrees of English in their work. But actually, many Thai university students can be easily put to shame by the English ability of some bar girls and taxi drivers, such as this motorcycle taxi driver who just gave an interview partly in English to the BBC.

Mr. Dejchat Phuangket (who became a local celebrity after he got the first scoop of the recent Bangkok bombing) has never been to college. He taught himself English and can actually speak it with foreigners as well as write it daily in his tweets — this puts him in a small minority of Thais who can do either or both. Many English-language teachers would be happy if their Thai college students can use English at the level of Mr. Dejchat.

The level of English proficiency among the overall population of Thai students is far worse than reflected in Thailand’s TOEFL scores. It is dismal.

English: The least favorite subject

English is the least favorite subject among Thai students. And it shows. The average English test scores between 20-30% in the national standardized O-NET over the past three years mark English as the worst performed subject among primary and secondary Thai school pupils. The score distributions show even more deplorable performance with large groups of pupils getting only 10-20% in the national O-NET which is also deplorable in its own right.

Keeping the dismal record consistent, Thai university applicants scored an average 28.34% in English in the recent university entrance exams. It is little wonder that Thailand produces a “workforce with some of the world’s weakest English-language skills.” In a recent IMD World Competitiveness Report Thailand was ranked 54th out of 56 countries globally for English proficiency, the second-lowest in Asia. Singapore was third, Malaysia 28th and Korea 46th (Reuters & The Korea Herald).

Most Thai students feel about an English class the way they feel about a dentist appointment. For some it must feel like a tooth-pulling appointment. A third-year student at Srinakharinwirot University said:

[My friends] don’t study English that much because they are scared of speaking English.

English: The fearsome language

I guess it’s not so easy to be good at what you are afraid of. But why do Thais feel such an aversion to English in the first place? Do Thais really dislike English? Is it fear of the language itself, fear of the learning process, or fear of the embarrassment for not being able to speak it?

Anyone who has spent some time in Thailand would have observed the fear of speaking English among the general population in daily life. Shop assistants, service workers, even university-educated office employees can be commonly seen scrambling to find someone else other than themselves to speak English to a foreigner needing assistance. Telephone calls from English-speaking customers are put on hold or given one transfer after another. It looks as though Thais have a pathological fear of speaking English.

Of course, not all Thais have Anglophobia. There are odd Thai students who want to practice English and try their best to communicate in the language. Some fortunate ones enjoying good English instruction at (often expensive and highly competitive, elite) public or private Thai schools can conduct a reasonable conversation in English. A tiny minority whose parents can afford tuition at quality international schools learn to speak English like native speakers from an early age.

No doubt more young Thais are now able to speak English better than a decade or two ago. I have noticed more young workers in the service industry more confident and competent in speaking English. Still, only a small proportion of Thai high school and even university graduates can competently conduct a conversation with a foreigner in English.

There are many factors why Thais’ English is so dismal, I believe. Primary among them is the poor-quality and wrong-headed English-language education in the Thai school system, which is part of the Thai education failures as a whole. There are also some cultural explanations. But first let’s have a look at how Thai students typically learn English.

Thai students and English-language learning

A Thai teacher in rural Isaan was recently quoted on Twitter saying that Thai school pupils can “speak English” all right. All the important three words of it: ‘Yes’, ‘No’, and ‘OK’. It’s an exaggeration, of course, but sadly not by much.

In fact, most Thai school pupils can “speak English” in full sentences, the most typical of which are:

Good morning, teacher! How are you? I’m fine, thank you, and you?

They know these by heart and can even say them all in one breath—usually while standing up as the teacher walks into the classroom. They also often say them in such unison and intonation that you’d be forgiven for mistaking the greeting as a ritualistic recitation of a Buddhist mantra—which in a way could explain why some students might have a little difficulty switching from “good morning” to “good afternoon” if the class takes place after lunch.

English language education in Thailand is not new. It has been a core subject in Thai schools for decades. Yet, after years of English lessons from primary school most Thai students’ English lies somewhere between poor and non-existent. Most high school students, especially those in poorer rural schools, can barely string a few words together to make a coherent sentence, or write a small paragraph in English.

Rossukhon and Mr. Langlois. Source: Bangkok Post Learning

In a recent Bangkok Post report a Mathayom 6 (Grade 12) student gave her take (in Thai):

Thai students don’t speak English in their daily life, so we are not familiar with using it. We only learn [English] in the classroom. When the class finishes, we switch to Thai.

Indeed. The student, Rossukhon Seangma, is studying at Kunnatee Ruttharam Wittayakom School, which is not a remote rural school but a local public school in metropolitan Bangkok.

Rossukhon’s teacher, Mr. Guillaume Langlois, a French native who has been teaching English at the school for five years, said many Thai students were unable to speak English in real-life situations because they have seldom been prodded to do so. He gave his impression of Thai students:

Compared to [students in] other countries, [Thai] students are not very interested in foreign languages. They [can’t apply] what they learn in class to real-life situations. At school they learn grammar and vocabulary but they don’t ask questions… So when they meet foreigners they are not confident to speak.

(See a short video of the interviews with Rossukhon and Mr. Langlois in their classroom.)

Yet, the focus on grammar and vocabulary at the expense of classroom interactions and students’ speaking ability does not translate to students’ written English skills. The director of Rossukhon’s school in Din Daeng district revealed a ghastly fact.

Some Mathayom 1 (Grade 7) students still can’t write A to Z. We have to teach them the fundamentals again and again.

Surely Thai students’ aversion to English could not have helped their learning the language. But the real reason for Thai students’ terrible performance is likely not their fear of English but the wretched instruction that they have endured without any apparent benefit, which also might have contributed to their fear of the language in the first place.

Thai teachers and English-language teaching

In recent years many schools in Thailand have started to hire native English speakers and English-speaking foreigners to teach English. But foreign teachers numbering in the thousands are only a small number. Most schools still rely on Thai teachers, most of whom unqualified, to do the job. Many don’t speak the language well enough, or have sufficient English knowledge and instruction skills to guide students in their learning.

A survey carried out in February 2006 in collaboration with the University of Cambridge to gauge the qualification of some 400 Thai teachers of English revealed staggering problems.

  • Over 60% of the teachers had insufficient knowledge of English and teaching methodology; what they had was below the syllabus level they were teaching.
  • Of the 40% that had passing knowledge and teaching skills, only 3% had a reasonable fluency in English whereas 80% were not teaching the right grade of students for which there were qualified or competent.
  • Some were teaching the level of English inappropriate for the students’ age groups. For example, they were trying to teach English for 15-17 year olds to 11 year olds.
  • There were huge disparities in English proficiency among teachers and students across schools. For example, in a group of over 40 schools representing nearly 80,000 students in primary and secondary education, some primary school pupils in some schools scored higher in some random tests than the teachers in other schools!

Understandably it was hard for the teachers to accept the test results. There was an attempt to set up intensive upgrading programs for the teachers but the schools resisted the initiative. Instead the schools said their teachers had “qualified” through various Thai universities and colleges, hence such intervention was unnecessary.

However, some teachers were honest. Many primary teachers in the government schools freely admitted that they were forced to teach English although they had little or no knowledge of the language whatsoever.

Now Thailand has the National Institute of Educational Testing Service (NIETS) to help hone Thai teachers’ skills. But given the NIETS’s own performance as demonstrated in the O-NET, it is doubtful that the quality of Thai teachers will change for the better very soon.

The Thai government has recognized that something must be done with the appalling state of the country’s English language education. It has made 2012 the “English Speaking Year,” in which Thai schools are to make one day of each school week an English-speaking day. Too little but still better than nothing is my take.

Thailand’s Education Ministry is also now working with the British Council to bring 2,000 native English speakers to help. But again, like most government initiatives that tend to lack components conducive to success, the 2,000 new teachers will be hired on a part-time basis only and the schools will have to pay part of the teachers’ salary. This means poorer schools which are the neediest will be left without qualified English teachers like before.

Since 2008 Thai government increased the requirements of foreign teachers of English in an effort to curb the influx of unqualified teachers or prevent the schools from plucking any farang backpacker off Khao San Road. English-language teachers in Thailand now must have at least a bachelor degree (preferably in education or linguistics) and a teaching license. Failing the latter, the teachers must take a 20-hour Thai culture course, a one-year teaching training course, and pass four exams. A rule is one thing and reality can be quite another, however. One would like to believe that the new rule has brought in more qualified teachers of English to Thailand in recent years, but it appears that at least some foreigners teaching English in Thailand are still without required teaching qualifications.

Unmotivated and incurious – a negative side of the Thai culture

The popular site for foreign teachers of English in Thailand Ajarn.com has this answer to a question: What are Thais like to teach?

Be under no illusion – Thais can be a lot of fun to teach, and other times they can be painful.  Many of them (particularly male teenagers) have zero motivation.

Srinakharinwirot University vice president for international relations Aurapan Weerawong explained the nature of Thai students to Channel News Asia:

They are kind of passive learners, because they respect teachers, they have to be quiet, sitting, listening and jotting down—which is something teachers expect from them…. But students who need to learn English for communication, they have to be very active learners.

We all know how archaic rote learning kills curiosity and creativity. Thai students are pitiable victims of this stifling learning tradition. Still, even without rote learning being forced down their throats Thai culture has not encouraged them to be active and inquisitive. Assertiveness is not rated highly in Thai culture, especially in younger persons.

Respect for elders (which often goes hand in hand with fear of authority) means students hesitate to ask questions in class or dare to challenge the teacher when they doubt the validity of what’s being taught to them. To challenge the teacher would be to make the teacher lose face—an ultimate Thai classroom taboo. Also, students may not want to lose their own face by trying to speak English through trial and error. The Thais’ aversion to making mistakes on the other side of the coin is another obstacle.

Then there is a seeming lack of drive to succeed characteristic of students in Confucius cultures like China, Korea and Vietnam. How many Thais—students or adults—use an English dictionary regularly? How many Thais try to learn English on their own by reading any English texts they can find, practicing speaking with CDs and DVDs, or asking others to correct their mistakes? How many Thais regularly proof-read their own English writing or use spell-check? Not many that I have seen to all questions.

Not many Thais I know read English-language books, fiction or non-fiction, even those who were once English majors or have a graduate degree. I have come across several Thais capable of writing a fair amount of English who don’t want to write comments on English-language blogs because they fear they will make mistakes and subsequently be embarrassed, although nobody will care.

A reader of my blog shared his experience about his Thai friend who was completing a master’s degree. She asked him to check the grammar of her thesis she just wrote in English.

For me I feel very serious with my research…I face with some big problem I have a problem about English gramma…I bother you help to check gramma of this research……But if you are busy…..I am sorry that I bother you…..again and again.

Apparently the thesis was written in the same style of English. How a thesis adviser can deal with more than one of this kind of thesis is beyond my imagination.

One seldom meets a Thai person who is truly serious about improving his or her English. Among a handful that I have personally met and been very impressed by is a female Thai university graduate who has lived all her life in Thailand but has learned to speak English as if she had grown up in America. She learned it from Hollywood movies. Another is, well, not a Thai: my Burmese housekeeper who speaks four languages fluently and who has two years of formal schooling.

Part 5 will discuss 2012 as the English Speaking Year and how to improve English-language education in Thailand.

……

This article was first published for SiamVoices on Asian Correspondent on 21 March 2012. See more comments there.

→ 20 Comments

Posted in Thai Education

Tagged

The Sorry State of Thai Education – Part 3: PISA scores & a challenge for the 21st century

Posted on March 4, 2012 | 6 Comments

East Asian students are hailed as “superior”. Recent international test scores of students in Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong and Korea have given President Obama a Sputnik moment. America is stunned and understandably fears losing its global power house status, if it doesn’t fight to keep up with the brainy new generation in Asia that’s now outperforming their peers in Europe and North America.

Unfortunately that isn’t the kind of good news for Asia that Thailand can share. We all know that Thai students don’t belong in the same class as the world-class East Asian über-geeks. Of course Thailand has a few of our own über-geeks — we do have some stellar students who win medals at the math and science Olympiads but their scholastic achievements are at odds with the general performance of their peers in the Thai education system.

Thai students’ performance in international standardized tests is generally below average. That’s not a surprise given such appalling scores they get in national standardized tests like O-NET, although the word “standardized” may be a bit misleading in the O-NET case. Thai students’ scores in most international tests can be described as mediocre or poor. But as appalling as the O-NET scores? To answer that we’ll need to get into some details.

As the focus is on school pupils, the international test that is the most relevant and highly regarded for measuring performance of school pupils is the PISA test.

What is the famous PISA test?

PISA is the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment  which assesses 15-year-old students in Reading, Mathematics and Science. Starting in 2000, PISA tests have been given to 15-year-olds (M.3 level) in over 70 participating countries and economies every three years. Thailand has been participating in PISA since 2000. This 12:15min YouTube video gives an excellent and easy-to-follow summary of what PISA does in measuring students’ scholastic achievements around the world.)

The most recent PISA results available are from 2009 in which 65 countries and economies participated (10 more joined in 2010). PISA scores are on a scale. Students in three quarters of participating countries score between 400 and 600. Among the best performing countries in the top quarter the average scores range between 500 and 550. The poorest performers in the bottom quarter score in the low 400s or lower.

Where does Thailand stand in terms of PISA scores?

The PISA 2009 results show the following scores for 15-year-old Thai students:

  • Reading: 421
  • Mathematics: 419
  • Science: 425

These scores put Thailand at No. 50 (out of 65) in the PISA 2009 score ranking by country/economy. In other words, Thailand stands right at the top of the poorest performers in the bottom 25%.

Thailand’s scores are on par with those of Mexico, Romania and Uruguay, above 15 countries in the developing world such as Columbia, Brazil, Indonesia, Tunisia, Argentina, Kazakhstan, Albania, Peru, and Azerbaijan, and below other countries in comparable stages of economic development such as Chile, Turkey and Romania.

Figures 1-3 show the mean (average) scores of selected countries in Reading, Mathematics and Science respectively. (The histograms and other PISA score graphics here were retrieved directly from the interactive PISA 2009 Database which contains scores of all 65 countries and allows users to make tables and charts by choosing from many indicators for analysis.)

Figure 1. Mean scores in Reading of selected countries (PISA 2009)

Figure 2. Mean scores in Mathematics of selected countries (PISA 2009)

Figure 3. Mean scores in Science of selected countries (PISA 2009)

What do Thai students’ PISA scores mean?

PISA results give more than just raw or average scores. It also gives assessment of the students’ proficiency levels in each subject.

In Reading, students are tested on their ability to access/retrieve, integrate/interpret, and reflect/evaluate different types of texts. These kinds of reading skills are “more reliable of economic and social wellbeing than the number of years spent in school or in post formal education” (PISA 2009 results executive summary, p.6)

Figure 4 shows eight levels of reading proficiency achieved by the students who took the PISA test in 2009. The better performing countries have most of their score bar above the baseline (0.0). Level 2 (the blue-green color) is considered a baseline level of proficiency, at which students begin to demonstrate the reading skills that will enable them to participate effectively and productively in life. There are three levels below the baseline: Level 1a, Level 1b, and Below Level 1b. Students who read below Level 2 have difficulties locating basic information, making comparisons, drawing or interpreting meanings, or making connections between the text and outside knowledge.

Figure 4. Proficiency levels in Reading of selected countries (PISA 2009)In better performing countries/economies (where average reading scores are between 500 and 556) at least 75% of 15-year-olds read at Level 2 or above. Among the top performers (Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Canada and Australia) around 15% of 15-year-olds read at Level 5 and Level 6. Readers at Level 5 can critically evaluate information and build hypotheses drawing on specialized knowledge, develop a full and detailed understanding of unfamiliar text, or understand concepts that are contrary to expectations.

On the other hand, in the poor performer group, less than 60% of 15-year-olds read at Level 2 or higher and very few or no 15-year-olds read at Levels 5 and 6.

In Thailand’s case, 42.8% read below Level 2: 31.7% at Level 1a, 9.9% at Level 1b, and 1.2% below Level 1b. Just over one-third (36.8%) read at Level 2, and 16.7% at Level 3, 3.3% at Level 4, 0.3% at Level 5 and none at Level 6.

This means among 15-year-old Thai students, just over 4 in 10 read below the international average level, just over 1 in 3 read at the international average level, and 1 in 5 read at the slightly above average level, and almost none can read at the highest level.

Now, compare Thailand’s 421 average reading score to over 520 for the top performing Asian countries. The over 100-point difference in the average scores means Thai 15-year-olds are behind their peers in Shanghai, Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore in reading ability by at least 2.5 school years! (40 points = one school year)

Now look at Mathematics.

The PISA mathematics assessment requires students to confront mathematical problems that are based in real-world contexts. Students are asked to identify features of a problem situation conducive to a mathematical investigation and to activate the relevant mathematical competencies to solve the problem. This requires various skills, including: thinking and reasoning; argumentation; communication; modeling; problem posing and solving; representation; and using symbolic, formal and technical language and operations (PISA 2003 results executive summary, p.7).

Figure 5 shows seven mathematics proficiency levels from Below Level 1 to Level 6, again with Level 2 as the baseline. Average performers do worse as a whole in mathematics compared to reading, and much worse in the case of the poor performers. That is, more than 50-60% of 15-year-olds in poor performing countries are below the baseline level.

Figure 5. Proficiency levels in Mathematics of selected countries (PISA 2009)Slightly more than half (52.5%) of Thai 15-year-olds have below average knowledge and skills in mathematics: 30.4% in Level 1 and 22.1% below Level 1. Just above one quarter (27.3%) are in the average group (Level 2) and 1 in 5 (19.9%) in the above average group (Levels 3 and 4).

A tiny 1.3% have exceptional math knowledge and skills: 1% at Level 5 and 0.3% at Level 6. This is 1% point more than in reading, but is an insignificant fraction of the 15-year-old math wiz population in Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taipei and Korea, where up to one-third of 15-year-old students perform at the highest level in mathematics (Levels 5 and 6).

What about Science?

PISA defines “scientific literacy” as the extent to which an individual:

  • Possesses scientific knowledge and uses that knowledge to identify questions, acquire new knowledge, explain scientific phenomena, and draw evidence-based conclusions about scientific related issues.
  • Understands the characteristic features of science as a form of human knowledge and enquiry.
  • Shows awareness of how science and technology shape our material, intellectual and cultural environments.
  • Engages in science-related issues and with the idea of sciences, as a reflective citizen. (PISA 2003 results executive summary, p.13)

 Figure 6 shows also seven proficiency levels in science, like in mathematics. Poor performers in the bottom quarter seem to do particularly worse here as well, with over 50-60% below the international average (Level 2).

Figure 6. Proficiency levels in Science of selected countries (PISA 2009)However, Thai 15-year-olds have slightly higher science proficiency than mathematics. The percentage of below average students in science is exactly the same as in reading (42.8%): 30.6% at Level 1 and 12.2% below Level 1. The percentages of students performing at and above the international average level are also higher: about one-third (34.7%) at the average level (Level 2) and slightly over one-fifth above average, i.e., 17.5% at Level 3 and 4.4% at Level 4.

At the highest level, there is a mere 0.6% of Thai 15-year-olds at Level 5 and none at Level 6. This again compares very poorly to the top performing countries where 15% or more of 15-year-olds perform at the highest level.

So what do these PISA scores mean for Thailand’s future in the 21st century?

A lot. First of all, they show how ill-prepared Thailand is for the 21st century. The scores tell us that Thailand’s future generation is not being well equipped with the type of knowledge and skills that will enable them to do well in the future in which many key aspects of life will require a more demanding level of literacy.

In the increasingly information-intensive future, ordinary individuals will need an ever higher capacity to process more complex information, analytical ability, effective communication, and problem solving skills. The scores tell us that there is very little prospect that Thailand’s future generation will be among the leaders and innovators in the coming decades.

High level skills are critical for innovation, which in turn results in potential leadership and a source of greater knowledge and resources. If we look at the East Asian countries/economies that have lately risen to the top, we see something in common. They have a higher proportion of 15-year-olds performing at the highest level. It’s a stark contrast to our situation. Thailand has a mere 1.3% performing at the highest level in mathematics, 0.3% in reading and 0.6% in science, while 12.3% in Singapore and 14.6% in Shanghai attain the highest level of proficiency in all three subjects. There is no contest, not even remotely.

If you say that it’s not fair to compare the performance of 15-year-olds of the whole Thailand to those in city states like Singapore and Hong Kong, or even big cities like Shanghai or Taipei, and that it would be fairer to compare these cities with Bangkok. True, 15-year-olds from Bangkok alone would show much better and much less embarrassing PISA scores. But that is the point. Bangkok is not Thailand. China also has other provinces which most likely won’t perform as well as Shanghai. But that’s China’s problem, that it is more like a continent than a country. We have our own to contend with.

Disparities among students from poorer-rural and richer-urban areas is one of the biggest challenges for Thailand. Example: in the PISA 2009 the average reading score among the most socio-economically disadvantaged group of Thai 15-year-olds was just 373, compared to 542 of their peers in the most advantaged group. That’s more than four school years apart. According to the OECD, improving education outcome and urban-rural disparities are the top two challenges in human capital development for Thailand.

Source: Kensuke Tanaka, OECD, http://www.measuring-well-being.asia/pdf/kensuketanaka.pdf

What has Thailand done to improve the quality of education in the past decade?      

Thailand has tried to do quite a lot of things in the past decade—setting up the NIETS to organize O-NET was among them—but evidently the initiatives haven’t yielded good results. Thailand’s PISA scores over the past nine years have shown no discernable progress whatsoever:

Subject 2003 2006 2009
Reading 420 417 421
Mathematics 417 417 419
Science 429 421 425

A lot of money has been put into the Thai education system: 20% of overall national budget or 4% of GDP. That rate of spending puts Thailand among the top spenders on education—more than what Singapore and Japan spend relative to size, although other top performers such as Hong Kong and South Korea, and neighboring countries such as Malaysia and Vietnam, also spend around 4-5% of their GDP on education. Yet, as we have seen, Thailand’s results leave much to be desired.

In another comparative perspective, Thailand’s lack of progress looks a failure. While Thailand has more or less stayed at the same place for the past decade, many other countries that were at the same place as Thailand have moved ahead and still others that were already doing quite well have excelled further.

In 2003, Thailand was doing better than countries like Mexico, Turkey, Brazil and Indonesia. But while Thailand’s mathematics scores were identical in 2003 and 2006, Mexico moved up by 20 points and Indonesia by 31 points. Between 2003 and 2006, Mexico, Turkey and Brazil improved their mathematics scores considerably. Mexico managed to reduce its proportion of students performing below Level 2 from 66% to 51%, slightly ahead of Thailand’s 52.5% in 2009. Turkey reduced its own from 52% to 42%.

In reading, Chile, Korea, Brazil and Indonesia are among 26 countries that hve improved their performance since 200o. Chile, Brazil as well as Mexico saw their share of poor performers decrease. Indonesia and Chile’s performance increased at all proficiency levels. In the best performing group, Japan, Korea and Hong Kong saw even more students performing at Levels 5 and 6. Korea even doubled its share of students at the highest reading level in nine years.

In science, Turkey increased its science score by 30 points in just three years since 2006 and reduced the below Level 2 percentage by 17 points, from 47% to 30%, compared to Thailand’s below average percentage now at 42.8.

At present we are still ahead of Brazil and Indonesia, but just because their starting points were much lower. If Thailand did nothing to improve its education, in a few more PISA cycles Thailand’s PISA score bars would likely still be hanging below the baseline in company of new and poorer countries that are just starting out and still have quite a distance to go. Thailand would be like a turtle having a misplaced sense of complacency and sleeping on a marathon, while other rabbits and turtles in the race are running and lumbering by.

So what needs to be done?

Assuming they care, those who have the power to change in Thailand would have to ask themselves: What kind of human capital do we want for the next generation? Do we want high quality knowledge workers and members of society or old-fashioned drones in the mold of the early 20th century? If we want the former, then we have to change the Thai education system—drastically and immediately. If we want the latter, well, we are already doing very well for that.

Thailand already has difficulties keeping up with the human capital demand of 2012. The quality of our graduates is between mediocre and nearly useless. Employers have a tough time filling vacancies in scientific, high-tech and high-skilled areas, whereas new graduates can’t find jobs because they are under-qualified.

However, the value of human capital is not just for producing good enough workers for the job market; it’s about pursuit of meaningful life and wellbeing. It’s about long term survival of our culture, our pride and dignity as a people. It’s the responsibility that every generation has: to do the best by their children.

If we are serious about securing a good future for our children, we must do something now. Giving tablets to primary school children is all well and good; whatever downside there might be, it can only help narrow the inequity gap. But the change urgently needed is more systemic and structural, as challenges are tough and often overwhelming, from poor teachers’ quality, outdated curriculum, unequal access to resources between the rich and poor, urban and rural, to corruption, lack of transparency, and bureaucratic resistance and inertia.

What’s needed is an overhaul of system–of the way things are done. There has been much talk of “child-centered learning” but the real focus in Thai education in practice has never really shifted from the process, procedure, rules and hierarchy, to the child. Education must focus on the child first and foremost. The approach must be result-oriented and the system and those who run it must be made accountable for the results.

There are several countries that have succeeded in their version of reform; many valuable lessons are available to be learned and successful models to be adopted. But whatever promising new approach or model Thailand will adopt, the first thing that needs to be changed is the mindset. For without it, there won’t be a genuine realization of the magnitude of the problem, hence no serious aspiration or political will to push for a real reform.

Forthcoming: Part 4: Thais’ dismal English, how to improve it?

………….

This article was first published for SiamVoices on Asian Correspondent on 1 March 2012.

→ 6 Comments

Posted in Thai Education

Tagged , ,

The Sorry State of Thai Education – Part 2: Test Scores, Standards and Accountability

Posted on February 28, 2012 | 3 Comments

“F” for the explanations of ridiculous O-NET questions

This year’s ridiculous O-NET exam questions caused much kerfuffle which had the executives of the National Institute of Educational Testing Service (NIETS) come out to give their yearly explanation for their ridiculous exam questions.

In reference to the question about transvestic behavior, the NIETS Chairman Mr. Somwang Phithiyanuwat conceded that some questions might have come across as “too strong” but that “wasn’t the intention of the NIETS.” That seems to be the extent to which the NIETS executive was willing to concede. He then affirmed that the content of the question was from the curriculum and “fell within the scope which the NIETS had announced before the exam…. The question evaluated students’ memory of the content from the textbooks.”

Well, if that wasn’t good enough, try this explanation by the NIETS Director Dr. Samphan Phanphruek. “The panels that designed the questions had clear objectives… but of course, we welcome all comments.” As to the most infamous question on what to do when having a sexual urge, he confirmed that choice a) Call a friend to go play football, was the “correct” answer.

The NIETS Director said the question “was intended to check whether the students understood the nature of sexual desire and how to control or respond to it.” The question was “a part of the content about sex education and family life.” Unfortunately, the reporter did not ask if the response applies to both boys and girls and if they could go out to the same football field.

Mocking such a line of reasoning might be amusing. But there is no fun in the rate of sexually transmitted infection among Thai teenagers which has increased three-fold over the past five years and that teenagers are one of the leading risk groups for HIV infection in Thailand. Ineffective sex education has been widely blamed for Thai teens’ lack of knowledge about safe sex and risky sexual behavior.

Evidently teaching denial and suppression of sexual urges is not the kind of sex education that is helping Thai youth to live a healthy life in the present reality. Are Thai youth being well served by the Thai education system? The answer at least from the perspective of sex education is a resounding “No.”

Sex education is just one among many problems in the Thai education system. It’s just the tip of the iceberg and a symptom of problematic mindset, methodology, management, and competency.

National standardized tests’ credibility
Since its implementation the national “standardized” tests like O-NET (and A-NET – Advanced National Educational Test and others) have been widely criticized. There is much doubt whether O-NET and A-NET are effective measurement tools of students’ scholastic abilities. Thai students’ O-NET scores are so appalling that it begs the question about the validity of the test itself. How can students’ performance be so incredibly inferior, so wildly inconsistent and disperse? (See examples of O-NET score distribution at the primary P.6 and lower-secondary M.3 levels.)

The majority scoring in the 0-30% range in key subjects as was the case for M.6 O-NET is simply unacceptable and too suspicious. Scores at all three O-NET levels in core subjects have also been declining over the past three years. At the same time students have been complaining about frequent changes in styles of questions which confused them. Many students say they feel like guinea pigs in one bad experiment after another. You can’t really blame them for feeling that way if you see the kind of scores achieved in the past three academic years. (Scores given in Tables 1- 3 for O-NET are average scores out of 100%.)

Table 1. Primary-level (P.6) O-NET average scores (2009-2011)

P.6 (primary) Level

2009

2010

2011
Thai

42.02

38.58

31.22
Social Science

-

33.90

47.07
English

-

31.75

20.99
Mathematics

43.76

35.88

34.85
Sciences

51.68

38.67

41.56
Health Education

-

64.76

54.31
Arts

-

42.49

41.10
Vocational Education

-

51.69

52.52
Note: Between 800,000-950,000 students took the tests each year.

 Table 2. Lower secondary-level (M.3) O-NET average scores (2009-2011)

M.3 (lower secondary) Level

2009

2010

2011
Thai

41.09

35.35

42.80
Social Science

41.42

39.70

40.85
English

32.42

26.05

16.19
Mathematics

32.66

29.16

24.18
Sciences

39.44

56.70

29.17
Health Education

-

32.95

71.97
Arts

-

33.86

24.48
Vocational Education

-

35.35

47.07
Note: Roughly 800,000 students took the tests each year.

 Table 3. Upper secondary-level (M.3) O-NET average scores (2009-2011)

M.6 (upper secondary) Level

2009

2010

2011
Thai

46.50

46.47

42.61
Social Science

34.72

36.00

46.51
English

30.68

23.98

19.22
Mathematics

36.08

28.56

14.99
Sciences

33.70

29.05

30.90
Health Education

56.79

45.37

62.86
Arts

43.22

37.75

32.62
Vocational Education

40.02

32.98

43.69
Note: Roughly 350,000 students took the tests each year.

As seen in Tables 1-3 the scores in many subjects were quite erratic year on year. The scores differently marked represent the changes from the previous year as follows:

  • xx.xx scores = increase or decrease by 5-10% points
  • xx.xx scores = increase or decrease by >10-20% points
  • xx.xx scores = increase or decrease by >20% points.

Consider the drastic drops of scores in English and Mathematics at all three levels. The scores for both subjects suffered a steep drop in 2011:

  • English: 10% points or one-third of the score in the previous year at the P.6 level; 15% points or half of the score two years before at the M.3 level; and 11% points or one-third of the score two years before at the M.6 level.
  • Mathematics: 9% points or one-fifth of the 2009 score at the P.6 level; 8.5% points or 26% of the 2009 score at the M.3 level; and 21% points or 58% of the 2009 score at the M.6 level.

There were huge fluctuations in the Science scores especially at the M.3 level and to a lesser extent the P.6 level. The scores for Health Education also had sharp drops and sharp increases at all three levels, involving as much as 39% points or a 120% increase over the previous year at the M.3 level.

Such highly volatile scores call into question the consistency and validity of the tests. Students’ scholastic abilities were unlikely to vary so drastically (by over 10 percentage points) in just one year or two years. Given consistent numbers of exam takers in each level, such widely fluctuating average scores (up to as much as 20-39% points!) scream methodological problems.

O-NET – where are the standards and accountability?

O-NET was created to replace the old university entrance examinations (to public universities), which were considered to be tough. But as reported by The Nation:

Many universities became so worried about the O-NET ability to select qualified students for some of their fields that they allocated fewer and fewer seats for the central admission system, which has used O-NET scores as admission criteria.

So what is then the value of O-NET, if universities are weary of relying on it as a measurement standard for students’ qualification?

As we have seen in some O-NET questions, it is not only that the quality standard of O-NET is questionable, but the way the questions were framed also shows the glaring lack of skills on the part of the exam designers as well as their inability to distinguish between normative values from knowledge based on objective and scientific facts. How can Thai students be expected to develop critical learning skills necessary for their intellectual development given the kind of knowledge being taught and tested? And how will such evaluation tools help or hurt students and the quality of Thai education?

Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI) academic Dr. Dilaka Lathapipat said Thailand’s O-NET is “stuck in the 20th century.” The test designs of O-NET and PISA are very different, as seen in the graphic below.

(PISA is the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment  which assesses 15-year-old students in three key subject areas, Reading, Mathematics and Science, every three years. Part 3 of this series will discuss Thai students’ PISA scores.)

“Good tests should determine children’s ability to apply knowledge to their daily life,” said Dr. Dilaka. No argument there. “Tests are tools to evaluate not just students’ academic performance but also the performance of teachers and schools.” We might add that tests also reflect the quality of the testers and the education system as a whole.

“If the test designers cannot provide reliable and efficient tests, teachers and students will lack trusted indicators of their performance. Relevant agencies, in that case, will also find it hard to check which areas they should concentrate on to improve for the country’s educational system,” said Dr. Dilaka.

The question that’s on everyone’s mind after seeing the O-NET ridiculous questions is: how in the world did that kind of questions manage to pass through so many brains and pairs of eyes? What was the question design process?

Over the past few years both the former and current NIETS directors gave similar (defensive) explanations on the O-NET test design process. The previous NIETS Director assured the public that O-NET questions were “well designed” and went through a rigorous process. The current NIETS Director similarly explained:

[The] NIETS had designed the questions for O-NET in line with the curriculum of the Office of Basic Education Commission (OBEC) and in response to indicators highlighted by OBEC. Based on [OBEC guidelines], specialists developed test blueprints and item specifications…. School teachers, school directors, chiefs of academic subjects at schools were recruited for workshops where they could improve the test blueprint and specific items. OBEC teachers have taken part in the designing of the tests in all subjects….

OBEC chose question designers from its pool of teachers from various regions. After the teachers design the questions, university lecturers with expertise in those subjects then step in as speakers to advise and screen the questions. After that, test design and screening committees for each subject will work out the final sets of questions for the tests.

So there were a test blueprint and indicators, and design and validation processes. But the explanation didn’t tell us how the quality standard was ensured. Did the specialists who developed the test blueprints have sufficient expertise? How exactly did the NIETS recruit teachers to review and validate the O-NET exam questions. What were the criteria for selection? Were the criteria based on the necessary competencies or rank?

And what has been done with the wild score movements in the past three years? One hopes that the NIETS or OBEC would be at least secretly worried and are working hard to put this highly problematic national standardized testing business in order—if not for the sake of the children and Thai education, at least for their own credibility.

But the NIETS Director did not sound very worried. After having explained the test design process above, he assured the worried exam takers that right after this year’s O-NET exam the test design committee was given the O-NET exam again to review and double check the answer keys. He added that experts and “bright individuals” were invited to take the exam and they had “no problems at all.” He was “confident” that this time around the announcement of the O-NET test scores would be “smooth sailing and problem-free,” and there would be “no complaints about wrong answers.”

How is that for quality assurance?

The English-language brochure of the NIETS says that besides organizing testing systems and measurement tools for national education, the NIETS also provides professional capacity building services for teachers, including examinations and certification in education measurement and evaluation. (Care to imagine the types of exam questions for the teachers?)

Like the students, the schools and teachers are assessed by the Education Ministry and the NIETS. But who is assessing the assessors? Apparently the NIETS is subject to an internal audit. But has there been any proper audit? And if so, is the auditing process credible or sufficient?

Ammar Siamwalla, an economist at TDRI recently said, “A key factor behind poor education quality in this country is a lack of accountability.” And this applies to teachers, school directors, executives, all the way up to education ministers, he stressed. The Bangkok Post reported:

Mr. Ammar said almost all schools have passed external quality assessment tests conducted by the Education Ministry and teachers have higher salaries and gained academic standing from presenting hundred plus-page reports. “But the performance of students has become poorer in both national and international tests, especially in sciences and maths. A new approach is needed.”

Amen to that.

More articles in this Thai Education series:

Part 1: Ridiculous O-NET questions

Part 3: Thai students’ PISA Scores, a challenge for the 21st century (forthcoming)

Part 4: Thais’ dismal English, how to improve it? (forthcoming)

……….

This article was originally published for Siam Voices on Asian Correspondent on 27 February 2012.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Thai Education

Tagged , , ,

The Sorry State of Thai Education – Part 1: Ridiculous O-NET Questions

Posted on February 26, 2012 | 33 Comments

Thai secondary school students taking examination. Image source: http://www.skoolbuz.com/content_images/201102/images/admission3.jpg

We’ve heard much lamentation about the sorry state of Thai education and how Thai students perform so poorly compared to those in other countries far and near. Not only that Thai students rank near the bottom in international standardized test scores, they even flunk national standardized tests year after year.

Thai students need to pass the O-NET (Ordinary National Educational Test) to graduate at the primary (P.6), lower secondary (M.3) and upper-secondary (M.6) school levels. O-NET is organized by the National Institute of Educational Testing Service (NIETS). Ever since O-NET has been implemented 6-7 years ago, it has been criticized for many deficiencies, while students have performed extremely poorly on the O-NET tests. Every year, students and parents complain about O-NET and the media report how bad it is. And the next year, the same thing happens all over again.

How bad? Well, let’s look at the O-NET scores from last year among the upper-secondary O-NET for M.6 (Grade 12) students (which are the most important as they are used for university admission). The 2011 average O-NET scores for all 8 subjects tested, save one, were below 50%. The scores in the most important subjects were even worse: under 20% for Math and English and 30.90% for Sciences.

  • Thai language (42.61%)
  • Social science (46.51%)
  • English (19.22%)
  • Mathematics (14.99%)
  • Sciences (30.90%)
  • Health and physical education (62.86%)
  • Arts (32.62%)
  • Vocational education and technology (43.69%)

Still worse news, NIETS Director Mr. Sampan Phanphruek said in early 2011 that the trend showed the scores in the three most important subjects steadily declining over the past three years. For instance, in 2010, the average scores were “better” for English and Math: 23.98% for English and 28.56% for Math. In other words, the trend has been going from very, very bad, to ghastly. Statistical breakdowns of the scores will leave any Thai who cares about Thailand’s future further shaken.

Each year there are roughly 350,000 M.6 students taking the test in each of the 8 O-NET subjects. The table below shows the lowest score group, top score group, the mode (majority) score group, and the actual highest score achieved for each subject. (Maximum score for each subject is 100%.)

Table: Statistical breakdowns of 2011 M.6 O-NET scores

Subject

Bottom score group (N)

Top score group (N)

Majority score group (N)

Highest score (N)
Thai

0-10% (77)

90-100% (2)

30-34% (92,100)

92% (1)
Social Science

0% (21)

80-90% (52)

40-50% (170,252)

87% (1)
English

0% (21)

90-100% (148)

10-20% (206,611)

100% (1)
Math

0% (1,274)

90-100% (1,056)

0-10% (164,372)

100% (92)
Sciences

0% (3)

90-100% (5)

20-30% (183,055)

92% (1)
Health Education

0% (4)

90-100% (5)

60-70% (153,151)

92.5% (5)
Arts

0% (9)

60-70% (64)

30-40% (156,763)

67% (2)
Vocational Education

0% (60)

80-90% (7)

40-50% (114,228)

82% (4)
Source: Kru Nid Guide “คะแนนสูง-ต่ำ’โอเน็ต-GAT-PAT’ คณิต-อังกฤษได้ไม่ถึง20นับแสน,” 24 April 2011, http://mathurosw.blogspot.com/2011/04/gat-pat-20.html

If you think the average scores are bad, look at the majority scores. More than half (over 200K or 59%) of M.6 students who took the O-NET exam got just 10-20% of the right answers in the English subject; nearly half (47%) were in the bottom 10th percentile who got just 0-10% of the Math answers right; and just about half (52%) got 20-30% of the Sciences answers right. Now, there are usually 5 multiple choices in the O-NET questions at the M.6 level. Any guess will give you a 20% chance of getting the right answer. I can imagine how the kids in the “0” group score managed to get a perfect Zero–just fill out your name and fall asleep or day dream until it’s time to go. But to get less than 20% in any subject would take some effort.

Are Thai kids really that stupid?

Some probably are, as it is statistically inevitable. And on the other end of the bell curve there must be some extremely bright ones, as is usually the case. But looking at the misshapen O-NET bell, I suspect something other than Thai kids’ scholastic abilities is involved. Obviously, judging by the number of students that scored perfect “0” more than a few simply gave up on the exam. Quite a few excelled in all subjects except Arts (really, what’s wrong with that subject with the highest score only 67%?). But given the scores of the majority, would it be fair to say that the majority of Thai school kids are stupid as their scores suggest? What do these scores reflect in terms of quality of the Thai education? These questions are worth discussing but for now let’s look at what kind of questions Thai students have to answer in the O-NET exams.

The question most talked about this year appeared in the Health Education exam which M.6 students took just took on 19 February.

Q2: If you have a sexual urge, what must you do?

a) Call friends to go play football.

b) Talk to your family.

c) Try to sleep.

d) Go out with a friend of the opposite sex.

e) Invite a close friend to see a movie.

Lest you forget, this was a question asked to 17- and 18-year-olds. Supposedly, the NIETS Director came out, after much incredulity and mockery expressed by Thai society, and said that “a) Call friends to go play football” was the correct answer. But the former NIETS Director gave an interview, possibly before the current director gave his, and said she believed “b) Talk to your family” was the correct answer. There you go. What is an appropriate response for a hormone-raging 18-year-old Thai when he or she feels a sexual urge? Go out a play football like a good boy (if you are a girl, then pretend to be a boy), or say to mommy “Mommy I feel horny, what should I do?” Or try to sleep? Of all the five choices, 17- and 18-year-olds would more likely choose d), or c), but they’d rather be caught wearing their mother’s mumu before choosing either of the “correct” choices a) or b).

This was a question in Health Education. What exactly was this question testing? Health or sex education? Or sexual morality? If sex education, then choice c) could have been reworded to read “Masturbate and go to sleep,” which would have been a correct and realistic answer for either sex. If sexual morality, well, why was it being tested in Health Education? Even if we allow that it’s relevant, “whose morality” was it being testing? And which NIETS director’s morality would be correct?

Two more questions from the same set in Health Education:

Q1: If you are a couple, what is an appropriate behavior according to the Thai tradition?

a) Walking together hand over each other’s shoulders, shopping.

b) Going out together, eating and seeing movies.

c) Putting head on the others’ lap in public.

d) Going to the beach, staying overnight together.

e) Feed each other in restaurants.

Does anyone know what is the appropriate Thai behavior or tradition for couples? And if there is such a thing, by whose definition is it “appropriate”? Again, what kind of knowledge does this question evaluate?

Q3: What is “transvestic”* behavior? [*/lakka-phet/, this rather old Thai term is often understood as both transvestism and homosexuality, although /lakka-phet/ has obtained a more clinical definition of "transvestism", while another clinical term /rak-ruam-phet/ refers to "homosexuality"]

a) Collect underwear of the opposite sex.

b) Dress in the style of the opposite sex.

c) Love someone of the same sex.

d) Expose one’s genitals.

e) Be a peeping tom peeping on a friend of the opposite sex in the bathroom.

Have teenagers pick a transvestite or a homosexual from a lineup of perverts! A nice way to test knowledge and ensure understanding and respect for diversity in the process? Pardon me, I just can’t help it.

This type of questions is not new. The NIETS was in hot water for exactly this sort of questions two years before, for a similar set of questions in the same subject in 2009. Here it is, with a different gender angle (reported by The Nation).

Nid was a beautiful girl and many boys were after her. She rarely turned them down when asked out on a date. In the end, she had sexual relationship with a friend and showed signs of morning sickness. Worried, Nid consulted her male friend and he told her she should have an abortion. She followed his advice and died of vaginal bleeding.

Q1: Why did many boys like Nid?
a) She was beautiful.
b) She was friendly.
c) She liked going out at night.
d) She did not reject their requests.

Q2: What is the most common danger for girls going out at night?
a) Being robbed.
b) Being drugged.
c) Being raped.
d) Being physically assaulted

Q3: When running into problems, whom should Nid have turned to?
a) A male friend
b) A close friend
c) Homeroom teacher
d) Parents

Q4: What is the best way of dealing with pregnancy while in school?
a) Take maternity leave
b) Undergo abortion because it is impossible to raise a baby at this age
c) Drop out of school to find a job and raise the baby
d) Lodge a complaint with police to force those involved to take responsibility

Q5: What should Nid have done to avoid her tragic end?
a) Preserved her virginity
b) Not engaged in sex because she was not mature enough
c) Paid attention to her studies
d) Not engaged in premarital sex

In response to heavy criticisms for this particular set of “ridiculous and irrational” questions, the then NIETS Director Dr. Uthumporn Jamornmarn (who said the correct answer was “Talk to your family” if having a sexual urge) insisted that all the above questioned were “well designed.” “We checked and rechecked every question. We can explain why we asked this or that.” But hear one of her explanations: “since abortion was not allowed under Thai law, students who knew about this should have been able to choose the right answer…. It took university lecturers and teachers five to six months to come up with these questions.” (Wow! I really want to know who those geniuses were.) The former NIETS Director also said at the time that she was planning to bar people from publicizing O-NET questions in the future without receiving prior permission from NIETS. Well, she did follow up on that. The questions from this year weren’t supposed to have left the exam room. But obviously they were so irresistible. The kids couldn’t stop themselves memorizing (or copying them secretly), and shared with us more ridiculous questions that NIETS must have spent months designing.

Given the kind of questions asked in Health Education, it’s amazing that over 40% of exam takers managed to get as much as 60-70% of the answers correct. One can’t help wondering if Health Education is the subject at which Thai high school students perform best in the O-NET exam, what kind of questions are asked in other subjects which most of them flunk.

Here’s one question in the Sciences subject which was sneaked out from this year’s O-NET.

 

Q4: Locals have found a bizarre item. It is round and soft. If it is not fed water, it shrinks and becomes a hard object. This hard object, when given water, will return to its soft, bigger state. What is it?

a) Naga egg

b) Giant salamander egg

c) Quartz

d) Chaa Khaimuk “Pearl tea” (flour balls in milk tea)

e) Hydrogel

This should be an easy guess, given only two choices sound scientific. But “naga egg”? “Pearl tea”? Who says the NIETS has no sense of humor? I admit, this is my most favorite O-NET question.

I checked on the NIETS website, in search of more sample questions and got a link from there. I looked at sample questions in English subject and could imagine why many Thai students couldn’t pick the right answers. They way many questions was designed, only students with a very good understanding of grammar, high level of fluency and familiarity with colloquial English could answer correctly. Most Thai students with their level of English (judging by their teachers’), must be confused and can’t see the fine difference among the answer choices. I guess even native English speakers may be confused by some of the questions. Let’s see some.

Q: Sak goes to see a doctor. The first thing the doctor says to him is: “…………”

a) Can you tell me everything that’s wrong?

b) So what have you been doing?

c) May I help you?

d) What seems to be the problem?

Q: You are in a taxi in New York City and the taxi driver is driving too fast.
You say : “……….”

a) Step on it, driver.

b) Break the car, driver. [Wonder if the exam writers meant "break" or "brake" the car.]

c) Slow down, driver.

d) Speed less, driver.

Q: Mr. Smith has just been promoted to president of your company. You are
happy for him. When you meet him, you say :”……….”

a) Lucky for you.

b) Congratulations.

c) Fine promotion.

d) Better luck next time.

More sample questions can be seen on this page. (The link to sample Math questions is broken.)

As I am writing this, students and non-students alike are still complaining about the O-NET questions, lamenting and RIP-ing Thai education on various websites and social media. Common complaints are that the O-NET questions are too difficult, ridiculous or too vague. Many say the questions bear little relation to what they have learned in class or even in cram schools. And talking of cram schools, many have also said that their teachers don’t teach everything in class but save the best bits for “tutoring” class after school, for which they have to pay, which of course, poor kids can’t afford.

Surely, the scholastic performance of Thai students can be improved in many areas, but it appears that they aren’t being well taught or well tested. Judging by the questions asked in O-NET, it seems not only the students need to be properly tested. The O-NET exam designers need to also be given some proper exams. First, the very tests which they supposedly spent months writing, checking and agreeing on, as a committee: see what percentage they will get the answers right in each subject.  Second, they need to be tested whether they really know how to write standardized tests. These O-NET tests are churned out year after year showing terrible performance by students. But who is testing the O-NET exam writers? Or the NIETS? Given the kind of questions they ask and the scores of students shown above, it would be fair to ask about their competency, wouldn’t it?

It’s not that the NIETS has no long-term plan to improve the O-NET scores of Thai students. They do apparently. The current NIETS Director reportedly said  that the NIETS recognized students at all levels (primary, lower and upper secondary) do very poorly in key subjects. The top concerns are English and Math. “Schools must step up on improving [??],” he said. He didn’t specify what exactly the schools needed to improve. But as for the NIETS, it does have a clear goal. By 2018, the average O-NET scores of Thai students in 5 key subjects (Thai, Math, English, Sciences, and Social Science) will be above 50%. Should one feel reassured or should one shudder at the prospect of 6 more years of this type of O-NET questions?!

Compared to national tests like O-NET,  Thai students actually perform better in international standardized tests like PISA – The Programme for International Student Assessment used in OECD and many other countries – which is a worldwide evaluation of 15-year-old school pupils’ performance in mathematics, science and reading.

Part 2 of this Thai Education series will discuss  Thai students’ international test scores and what they say about the quality of Thai education.

……….

The article was originally published on February 23, 2012 for SiamVoices on Asian Correspondent (see many comments there).

→ 33 Comments

Posted in Sexuality-Gender in Thai Culture, Thai Education

Tagged , , ,