Does 'thai Culture' Have An Impact Upon The Quality Of Education In Thailand?

[elkangorito]

I chose to begin this topic as I felt it was relevant to a discussion in another thread. The other thread was about 'rote learning'.

Phetaroi has made some very interesting comments with regard to this topic. My hope is that others may also contribute without flaming. I suggest the 'rules of debating' be observed. I suggest reading the following link;

http://www.actdu.org.au/archives/actein_si...asicskills.html

In short, if you wish to shout & scream, do so 'in spirit of the thread' & not 'personally'. Our skins are quite thick here in the teaching forum. I further suggest that respondents provide 'well thought of' replies & not 'one liners', although some 'one liners' can be very provactive & must be acknowledged

As a preamble for everybody, it has been discussed that 'rote' learning could be a problem in Thailand. I have suggested that such a technique may be due to Thai Culture. I have further suggested that Thai Culture not only affects education but many other things in Thailand.

Phetaroi has questioned my comments & thus the debate/discussion continues.

I submit Phetaroi's post from the other topic as follows, to which I shall reply in blue:

Thanks for responding, and while you may have failed to communicate some thoughts well, it is just as likely that I failed to interpret what your wrote very well.

Phetaroi, this is a highly complex issue & as such, I expect that many people will fail in this area. I guess patience is needed

Of course, I can't speak for Australia, but let me say a few things about American schools. Let me preface my comments by saying I was a school administrator in Virginia...a state which lately can't quite decide if it's red or blue, and that's significant because it sort of puts Virginia education toward the middle of the American spectrum.

In terms of teaching culture, I think that while the practices have evolved and become more subtle...and more balanced...Americans still teach American culture. In fact, I think that's one of the reasons America is too America-centered. In Virginia (and many other states) it is a state law that you begin the morning with the Pledge of Allegiance. Yes, a student can quietly "sit it out", but nevertheless, as principal, I followed the law and got on the PA system every morning and led the pledge. Then most schools do a minute of some kind of "thought for the day". Of course, it's not religious. But a common theme might be "the golden rule", the value of honesty (academic or otherwise), or a mildly patriotic message. Then there's the curriculum, which though a former science teacher, I preferred observing and evaluating social studies and ESOL teachers (as well as science and English; my APs did the other content areas). Yes, there has been a cultural adjustment in the social studies curriculum since I was a kid, but you have to look deep to see it. For example, in our 7th grade program the topics began with the end of Civil War Reconstruction, on to westward expansion, WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, the Cold War, and Civil Rights. Make no mistake -- even in Virginia -- the Union wore the white hats, the Confederates the black hats (metaphorically speaking); America was justified in its treatment of the Indians during westward expansion; we were the good guys in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War; and the Civil Rights movement could only succeed because of the great nation we really are. Well, those are not new themes since my childhood (except for the Civil Rights movement), but there has been an evolution in that there is more debate in the curriculum. For example, due to a parent complaint, I sat in on a social studies classroom debate where the topic was: was the US justified in dropping the atomic bombs on Japan? In the 8th grade curriculum, students are taught the brilliance of the founding fathers in forming out government. Again, there's more room for debate now than 20-30-40 years ago, but the basic premise is what a wonderful country we Americans have.

In the same way that you can't comment upon the Australian Education System, I can't comment upon the American Education System. However, from what you say above, there is a level of indoctrination that exists at American schools. Does this indoctrination still exist now? What is 'American Culture'?

I do recall recently seeing a youtube clip about a young American boy, who refused to stand & recite the 'Pledge of Allegiance' because he thought that it was unfair (biased). Apparently, he copped all sorts of flak over this.

It is illegal in Australia to force upon any individual, any political, religious or cultural beliefs. These rules particularly apply to any government agency.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is a good example of this. It is a government owned & controlled entity but it MUST show a balanced view in all of it's news reports. If any imbalance is detected/perceived, the public is fully allowed (& encouraged) to comment as they see fit. The ABC is held responsible at parliamentary level for ALL it's programs. I used to work for them (as a contractor) so I do know this.

If this makes Australia 'cultureless' then I am all for it. I'm sure things would be quite different if Australia had a 'culture'.

Actually, there is such thing as 'Australian Culture'...it's all about freedom of expression, the freedom to be 'you' & not necessarily follow any government directive. This stems from colonialism (I believe).

When you discussed the teaching of "Thainess"...well, that interests me...I have visited only a few Thai schools. But what I was thinking was that you and I come from a very different world. Right now, America is one of the great world powers. You, I take it, are from Australia (?), and therefore there is still a connection to Great Britain (although I am just uneducated enough to not understand what that connection now is...I guess I've got some studying to do! But here's my point, on the world stage America's size and history and the British empire's size and history have given our citizenries national identities that are well formed. But here in SE Asia, you have a group of little countries that are trying not to be swallowed up by a global world culture. I've spent a little time in Malaysia, and I am quite aware of the national campaigns to definite what Malaysia "is". Suharto tried to do that in Indonesia, as well. And your reference to "Thainess" is the same thing. I don't agree with you that it is true indoctrination because I associate that word with forcing thoughts and beliefs on a people. Tomorrow, if you held a plebiscite among Thais and asked the question, "Do you think we should continue to teach Thainess in our schools?", my guess is that an overwhelming majority of the people would say yes. In fact, the only people I've heard speak against it are non-Thais.

Australia has been ultimately released from English rule, although it is still a legitimate part of the Commonwealth. This has been the case for quite some time now. The Queen (Elizabeth II) happily puts up with all comments. Why? If she didn't, it would be a sign of weakness & she would quickly lose credibility. As a result, 'monarchists' are permitted alongside of 'republicans'.

Being 'swallowed up' by western civilisation is already a major problem in SE Asia. There are a plethora of people that worship nothing else but money & they will do anything to get money. Your counter argument may be that this is the case in any society but in Thai society, where 'Thainess' is everything, how can this exist? The answer is simple...'Thainess' endorses this way of thinking. Feudal societies unfortunately have a strict 'class' system, which must be followed. Combine this with 'loss of face' & you have the answer to 'Why don't Thai students ask questions?'

Tomorrow, if I held a plebiscite amongst Thais and asked the question, "Do you think we should continue to teach Thainess in our schools?", I'd wager that you would get the following answers from sober people:

1] Yes.

2] Absolutely.

3] You mean, there is something else besides 'Thainess'?

If you asked a bunch of non-sober people (as I did, although I didn't ask this exact question), you get the following answers:

1] I'm sick of being told what to do all the time.

2] Why can't I grow my hair longer if I'm over 20 & go to a college?

3] I like you because we can ask questions without getting in trouble.

Please note that the word 'no' did not appear, although all the negatives were spelt out clearly. BTW, the negatives came from my students, who are clearly sick to death of being treated like children. The internet has opened up a whole new world for them & now they realise that the rest of the world not only exists but is very different from Thailand. In this regard, Thailand has two choices;

1] allow 'change' & slowly merge with the rest of the world.

2] block all media that comes from outside of Thailand.

Now, when you say, "The same goes for discipline & morality...these things need not be a formal part of any curriculum as they are inherent in every society all over the world", I would respond by saying:

1. Like yesterday in Bangkok?

2. Like Nazi Germany?

3. Like Pol Pot's Cambodia?

4. Like Rawanda?

5. Like Bosnia?

6. Like Darfur and the Sudan?

...and those are just cases of genocide, except for yesterday in Thailand, which certainly is not genocide but certainly is a failure of discipline and morality.

My counter argument to this is simple...if 'morality' (I hate that word) & 'discipline' are taught to 'the masses', why is there violence in BKK? Of course, the situation in BKK has little to do with morality or discipline. The same applies to all of the other countries that you listed, most of which had/have strict religious, cultural & moral codes.

As a result, such 'teachings' are wasted whilst the 'culture' not only promotes elitism but also endorses it.

Again, it's about 'culture'...particularly if it's indoctrinated.

I had the opportunity to take a series of courses in linguistics a few years ago, and I found it very interesting when we studied (albeit briefly) the number of languages that have simply disappeared as independent cultures were absorbed by more dominant cultures. I think it's important for Thailand to be different from Malaysia. For Malaysia to be different from Burma. For Indonesia to be different than the Philippines. Since 1987, most years I visited Thailand for 3-7 weeks at a time, and then around 2004 I took a break for about 4 years. The changes I see -- and I'm not even talking about the politics -- in Bangkok worry me. The younger the Thai person I see now, the more he or she looks just like a young person in Virginia. They wear pretty much the same clothes, they make their music stars look the same (even though they don't sound the same), the hair styles are...well not sure what they are...but not very Thai, they seem to prefer to eat at McDonalds and Sizzler or Japanese restaurants, etc. They have arrived in that world culture that so worries me.

I partially agree with you on this one. I also thinks it's important for countries to be different...& they will be if they treat culture truly for what it is, which is a happy rememberance of things from today back to previous years. If culture is treated as an immoveable rule, all hel_l will break lose when the rest of the world changes & they do not.

I really don't think that disabling 'cultural rule' in Thailand need result in any form of unrest. If Thailand is 'smart', it will adopt some western ideas & deny any ideas that represent any kind of downfall in western society. For example, Thailand needs to become 'smart' in business. This means not focusing on 'degrees' (bits of paper) as a sole means of qualification.

Of course, the most important thing here is education. Thailand doesn't need to copy anybody in this regard. What Thailand needs to do is focus on the ability of 'individuals who can think for themselves' in order to achieve some success. Cheap labour rates have no place in a company that requires high quality 'thinkers'. The list goes on about bad western practices...Real Estate, Banks etc.

Okay, I've rambled enough. Shot me full of holes! laugh.gif

I still firmly believe that Thai Culture plays a big part in the restriction of education within the Thai education system.

[PeaceBlondie]

I agree that Thai culture has a profound effect on education. It starts before toilet training and continues to death. You cannot avoid it or beat it. It affects all teachers and students. Western backgrounds are irrelevant.

[phetaroi]

OP said: "...from what you say above, there is a level of indoctrination that exists at American schools. Does this indoctrination still exist now? What is 'American Culture'?

I do recall recently seeing a youtube clip about a young American boy, who refused to stand & recite the 'Pledge of Allegiance' because he thought that it was unfair (biased). Apparently, he copped all sorts of flak over this.

It is illegal in Australia to force upon any individual, any political, religious or cultural beliefs. These rules particularly apply to any government agency.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is a good example of this. It is a government owned & controlled entity but it MUST show a balanced view in all of it's news reports. If any imbalance is detected/perceived, the public is fully allowed (& encouraged) to comment as they see fit. The ABC is held responsible at parliamentary level for ALL it's programs. I used to work for them (as a contractor) so I do know this. If this makes Australia 'cultureless' then I am all for it. I'm sure things would be quite different if Australia had a 'culture'. Actually, there is such thing as 'Australian Culture'...it's all about freedom of expression, the freedom to be 'you' & not necessarily follow any government directive. This stems from colonialism (I believe).

...

Australia has been ultimately released from English rule, although it is still a legitimate part of the Commonwealth. This has been the case for quite some time now. The Queen (Elizabeth II) happily puts up with all comments. Why? If she didn't, it would be a sign of weakness & she would quickly lose credibility. As a result, 'monarchists' are permitted alongside of 'republicans'.

Being 'swallowed up' by western civilisation is already a major problem in SE Asia. There are a plethora of people that worship nothing else but money & they will do anything to get money. Your counter argument may be that this is the case in any society but in Thai society, where 'Thainess' is everything, how can this exist? The answer is simple...'Thainess' endorses this way of thinking. Feudal societies unfortunately have a strict 'class' system, which must be followed. Combine this with 'loss of face' & you have the answer to 'Why don't Thai students ask questions?'

If you asked a bunch of non-sober people (as I did, although I didn't ask this exact question), you get the following answers:

1] I'm sick of being told what to do all the time.

2] Why can't I grow my hair longer if I'm over 20 & go to a college?

3] I like you because we can ask questions without getting in trouble.

Please note that the word 'no' did not appear, although all the negatives were spelt out clearly. BTW, the negatives came from my students, who are clearly sick to death of being treated like children. The internet has opened up a whole new world for them & now they realise that the rest of the world not only exists but is very different from Thailand. In this regard, Thailand has two choices;

1] allow 'change' & slowly merge with the rest of the world.

2] block all media that comes from outside of Thailand.

...

My counter argument to this is simple...if 'morality' (I hate that word) & 'discipline' are taught to 'the masses', why is there violence in BKK? Of course, the situation in BKK has little to do with morality or discipline. The same applies to all of the other countries that you listed, most of which had/have strict religious, cultural & moral codes.

As a result, such 'teachings' are wasted whilst the 'culture' not only promotes elitism but also endorses it.

Again, it's about 'culture'...particularly if it's indoctrinated.

..

I partially agree with you on this one. I also thinks it's important for countries to be different...& they will be if they treat culture truly for what it is, which is a happy rememberance of things from today back to previous years. If culture is treated as an immoveable rule, all hel_l will break lose when the rest of the world changes & they do not.

I really don't think that disabling 'cultural rule' in Thailand need result in any form of unrest. If Thailand is 'smart', it will adopt some western ideas & deny any ideas that represent any kind of downfall in western society. For example, Thailand needs to become 'smart' in business. This means not focusing on 'degrees' (bits of paper) as a sole means of qualification.

Of course, the most important thing here is education. Thailand doesn't need to copy anybody in this regard. What Thailand needs to do is focus on the ability of 'individuals who can think for themselves' in order to achieve some success. Cheap labour rates have no place in a company that requires high quality 'thinkers'. The list goes on about bad western practices...Real Estate, Banks etc.

I still firmly believe that Thai Culture plays a big part in the restriction of education within the Thai education system.

Response:

Another great post! I like your thought process. Very logical...even when you're wrong! Actually, it's not a question of right or wrong...I'm only joking about that. There are probably parts of what both of us say that are correct.

The curriculum to which I referred was the Virginia state and Fairfax County curriculum as of 3 years ago. Since there was no significant reformulation study going on at the time I left, my guess is it's still pretty much in effect.

I think the Youtube case you're referring to may be the one where the boy was refusing to participate (perhaps even stand) for the pledge because gay men were not being allowed to marry. As I recall, his father was gay...or something along those lines. It got an inordinate amount of play. The federal district courts have pretty much ruled along the lines that students may not be forced to participate in the Pledge, may not be forced to stand for the Pledge, but may be required to be silent during the Pledge, just as regular school discipline would often require silence and other students who wish to participate may not be distracted (oversimplification, but that's the basics).

Your description of how the ABC is restricted is very interesting. At first I thought...sounds good! After rethinking it, is not government therefore controlling the media, and when you're controlling the media, does that really allow for free expression? Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying it's bad...maybe it's good. And I certainly can't say that an almost totally free press and media in America is making a responsible media or helping the country. I am always reminded of how Suharto used to be so in control of things in Indonesia, and then looked at how things went into a mini-collapse when he was deposed because no one was holding the country together. I always get a little nervous when someone says the government shouldn't hold together a certain structure in a society...because society by itself is not necessarily "good" in deeds and principles.

No, I don't think Australia is cultureless, and as I think I pointed out in my previous case, strong nations (like the US and Australia) usually have a fairly strong and robust culture because they naturally have a rather strong self-identity.

I'm not sure the Thai desire to get rich is American-based culture. It may actually be more rooted in the history of Chinese culture in Thailand. Then pile the western world's consumerism on top of that.

Your comments about a "class system" here also interested me. I doubt there is any system where there is not a class system to one degree or another. I think the question is whether or not there is some mobility between classes. In the States there certainly is. In my extended family (and I do mean people I am actually related to) there is a range of class from truly poor to upper middle, yet we all came from the same ancestors. Why? The Emmons branch of the family were lazy trailer trash pigs. Period. My parents wanted to own a restaurant, my grandparents scrimped and saved to buy a very nice house, those and other things got us into lower middle. Change of class. It was always just assumed that I would go to college, and indeed, in a huge extended family, I was only the second to go to college. Change of class; by the time I retired my income was in the upper middle class range, and many people said, "Vince, you're beyond upper middle."

Now, how does that relate to Thailand? Thailand is less flexible, but not immobile. My partner is from Issan, but earned a B.S. and M.S. from Chulalongkorn, and has an excellent position in the Education Ministry. To me he's still poor, but compared to his family in a little moo bahn near Nakhon Ratchasima, he's changed class...and now the next generation are going to university at a rate of about 50%. There is an emerging middle class in Thailand...or at least in Bangkok...that was not here when I first began traveling here in 1987. Not all those people who are shopping and eating at Central World and Paragon are "rich". Consumerism has taken hold in the Thai mind...or again, perhaps I should say Bangkokian mind. In fact, that brings up an important point I wanted to mention -- one of the problems I see in Thailand (and at the heart of the Red Shirt movement) is the disparity in income and living conditions between large groups of people in Bangkok and the people upcountry.

You may be very right about what the results of my plebiscite would be, but having worked with junior high to high school students my whole life, and having lived the college life, depth of thinking may not be what you are seeing. For example, when not prompted by you, do your students focus on the desired freedoms such as to "grow my hair longer if I'm over 20", or do they ever think about something that's actually important. Young people don't always realize what's important. Similar to your students, my parents were appalled when I grew a beard after getting out of high school; there were many hot discussions about it. Looking back, we were arguing about something that was so unimportant, particularly when thousands of young men my age were dying in Vietnam...we never talked about that.

I guess the difference is whether you think culture should change quickly (and in today's world we seem to want everything to happen fast) or continue to slowly evolve. When I look back at the changes in American life since I was a child back in the 50s, I think the slower evolution in culture was preferable EXCEPT in those situations that were so very unjust -- such as Civil Rights for minorities. I think the preference to have things happen fast is why everything is today's world is perceived a "crisis", even though in reality, most things are just problems to be solved or adapted. It's always difficult to interpret the present when you are in it. I think for the 20-odd years I've been coming to Thailand, every crisis has really been a problem to be solved. Perhaps we are at a juncture that is truly a crisis.

You ask, "if 'morality' (I hate that word) & 'discipline' are taught to 'the masses', why is there violence in BKK?" Very good question. First of all, not sure why you hate morality...I'm sure you mean something different. The reason there is violence in my view is twofold. First, for the leaders of the Red Shirts, I think it is more about them wanting power now...it's "our turn". For the vast majority of the people demonstrating. it about the disparity in living standards between Bangkokians and upcountry. Second, and this goes back to my theory about abrupt versus evolutionary change...something in many Thais snapped (so to speak), and there is suddenly a feeling of desperation and "we want change now".

Getting back to education, cultural momentum affects education, and education affects cultural momentum. I think you're very right about the wage issue. If we look at the perception many people have about Thai policemen, to me a lot of it gets down to poor pay.

I also think that you are totally correct in your observation that young people in Thailand need to be taught thinking skills. This issue has been coming up more in the past year here in Thailand. I think there is a realization that the need exists. And you want it fast...and that's okay. But as I discussed in my initial post, it didn't happen quickly in the West...it took Sputnik to get the ball rolling, and even then I have seen major changes in curriculum related to teaching thinking skills in just the past decade...and that's about 50 years after Sputnik.

Okay, my human battery just ran down.

[Scott]

The term 'culture' is just the acceptable method that takes us as individual creatures to functioning members of a society. Culture is about how a group goes about doing this. For example:

1. We are by nature violent creatures. Without some sort of socialization process, we would hurt, kill and destroy things both living and non-living. Watch young children. To live with others this violence has to be tempered, but it's there in every culture in the world because it's part of human nature. Thailand today is a good example.

2. We are greedy by nature. We want and we want what we want when we want it. We even want things we don't really need or will ever use. We want things because other people have them. We covet. There is limited resources in the world and always has been. Culture lets us know who gets the greater share of these resources.

3. We are sexual creatures. We will screw anything and anybody we can and culture sets the limits on when this is acceptable. Leave a couple of teenagers alone for long enough (and that doesn't always have to be very long) and there will be an 'immoral' act.

4. Culture is dynamic and changing. Every new invention or situation results in an affect on culture and the culture must change. This can happen quickly or slowly, but it will happen.

First there's culture, then there is religion and finally there are laws to reinforce all these things. Schools have been the primary vehicle for passing on the dominant culture.

In Thailand, one of the cultural norms is to 'not question' authority. Teachers are authority and thus questioning them (and education) is not encouraged. They say it is encouraged, but it isn't. Students who do it are poorly behaved. But we now have the internet and a lot of other things which make the effect on culture much faster and greater.

Finally, nationalism and culture and different. If you wrap culture in a flag, then you have nationalism.

[phetaroi]

The term 'culture' is just the acceptable method that takes us as individual creatures to functioning members of a society. Culture is about how a group goes about doing this. For example:

...

3. We are sexual creatures. We will screw anything and anybody we can and culture sets the limits on when this is acceptable. Leave a couple of teenagers alone for long enough (and that doesn't always have to be very long) and there will be an 'immoral' act.

...

First there's culture, then there is religion and finally there are laws to reinforce all these things. Schools have been the primary vehicle for passing on the dominant culture.

In Thailand, one of the cultural norms is to 'not question' authority. Teachers are authority and thus questioning them (and education) is not encouraged. They say it is encouraged, but it isn't. Students who do it are poorly behaved. But we now have the internet and a lot of other things which make the effect on culture much faster and greater.

Finally, nationalism and culture and different. If you wrap culture in a flag, then you have nationalism.

You were doing so well till you said I would "screw anything and anybody". I am selective!

I agree that schools in most countries are the primary vehicles for passing on the dominant culture, perhaps even more so when schools are mostly connected to Buddhist temples. I don't think culture, religion, and government (you referred to it as laws) are as distinct as you imply, however, because all have an impact on the others. I imagine you're correct about in Thai schools the internet is having an effect on the questioning of authority...it certainly had such an impact in the States, where internet access has led to many attempts to micromanage schools, or at least situations that occur within schools. Again, not sure that nationalism and culture are distinctly different entities...I'd hate to have to point to a marker and say this is where one begins and the other ends.

Great post, though...very thoughtful.

[Scott]

Thanks. The remark about sex has more to do with adolescents--a point in time when there desire for experience may be more overpowering than their selectivity.

With regard to nationalism, a point that I don't want to belabor, I am referring to the dominant culture. Countries seldom have one unifying culture. In the case of Thailand, for example, the people from the deep south have a culture that is quite different from other parts of the country. Nationalism acts to try and convince people we are all the same; except those bad people right across the border.

The school I work for has been spending increasing amounts of time trying to convince students that many of the natural things they do is un-Thai. Periodically this becomes impossible without being anti-farang.

My point is many of the things Thais are starting to do is an adoption of 'western' values. They are simply human nature.

[somtampet]

I agree that Thai culture has a profound effect on education. It starts before toilet training and continues to death. You cannot avoid it or beat it. It affects all teachers and students. Western backgrounds are irrelevant.

Thai culture will effect education only 1 way.

Buy your degree or pretend to lose face and the degree will be given to you next time.

[sarahsbloke]

No education system can work where everyone passes.

People are different and have different abilities, when the system allows all to succeed mostly all that happens is everyone ends up failing.

Even a good teacher has little chance of teaching in a class where only 10 percent want to learn.

The highest achievers are usually distributed evenly across a culture, so now we have a position where only the highest achievers with wealthy parents will ever get a chance at a good education (in Thailand that is about 5 percent of the high achievers). The intelligent children from the rest of Thai society (about 95 percent) will be left in state schools with classes of 40 and mostly never reach their full potential.

In any culture there needs to be some way of selecting the brighter pupils and removing them to schools where they can be taught properly at a level to suit them and giving them the chance to move onto higher education.

In the UK during the 1970s this was done, but now in the 2000s the UK is falling back to the same level as Thailand, only the children of the rich can expect a good education.

Edited April 13, 2010 by sarahsbloke

[phetaroi]

In any culture there needs to be some way of selecting the brighter pupils and removing them to schools where they can be taught properly at a level to suit them and giving them the chance to move onto higher education.

Wow...that really sounds like social engineering.

[Scott]

In Thailand for a very long time, anything beyond basic education was available mostly to the wealthy. There were a select few who were just very, very bright and very, very motivated and who came from families that may not have been wealthy but were just connected enough to get an education for their child. This was one of the very few methods of upward mobility.

The education was paid for by people who can best be classified as the elite in Thailand. The recipient of the education then 'owed' their benefactor. This helped to reinforce the culture.

About 15 years or so ago, as the economy began to develop rapidly, there was a lot more upward mobility, a lot more students able to go to school. Along with this was the expectation that their lot in life would improve. This was the start of the 'middle class' and the middle class likes to participate in the decision making of their country. That requires questioning.

As far as the 'no fail' part was based on a number of things. Mostly, it was based on a system in which many would fail to be subservient enough, grateful enough, would lack the money etc. The system still 'weeded' out many, it was just a very different method.

[Ijustwannateach]

In any culture there needs to be some way of selecting the brighter pupils and removing them to schools where they can be taught properly at a level to suit them and giving them the chance to move onto higher education.

Wow...that really sounds like social engineering.

Most contemporary models of learning suggest it is much better to mix students of different competenices together, though I agree that the composition needs to be considered carefully for best results.

[neverdie]

I've learnt alot just from reading this thread .

[Ijustwannateach]

Personally, I think the 'rote learning' issue is tied into the cultural issue in a much bigger way which makes it harder to characterise it as 'bad' or 'good'.

I think that most Thai students- of whatever apparent academic capability as measured by outside tests- do as well in their own contexts as students do anywhere, as long as you are judging them on what they are actually judged on by their own system. In other words, they are taught to know their place, show respect, and do what they are told. This is what the system measures them on. It doesn't value academic competence, honesty, creativity, or performance- or these things would be rewarded. What is rewarded is compliance, respect, and social cohesion. Being able to give (*or to appear to be able to give*) the 'right' answers to the 'right' questions as pre-determined by 'experts' demonstrates allegiance and collective unity easily. In this context, Thai students excel.

(Of course, there are exceptions- and there are students who *do* do well in terms of competence, honesty, creativity, and performance when they have some personal motivation to do so- but the system itself does not reward these attributes).

Why do Thai students behave in this manner? Because Thai teachers and the entire Thai cultural system are set up in this manner. Thai teachers are not supposed to be academically competent, honest, creative, or high-performing- or THEY would also be rewarded for it (and generally, with exceptions, they are not). What is rewarded is compliance, respect, and social cohesion. Being able to teach (*or to appear to be able to teach*) the 'right' material as pre-determined by 'experts' demonstrates allegiance and collective unity easily. In this respect, Thai teachers also excel.

So I feel it is misleading to characterise the Thai school system as 'problematic.' It does exactly what it is supposed to do, in its own context. The problems come in with the change in the needs of Thailand and its people and in the ability and the motivation of government- ANY government- to support these changes. Without very strong leadership and a lot of money to make sure the old guard are paid off to retire while the new system is developed (slowly! not in one of these one-year knee-jerks that have happened every year of the last decade!), no change will be possible. If change does become possible, it will happen slowly, probably over 25-30 years.

However, none of this will happen before a government appears that makes real educational change (and its funding, without corruption) a real priority. As far as I am aware, Thailand has never had such a government in the 10 years I have been involved with education here.

[Ijustwannateach]

There is another, perhaps more controversial aspect to 'Thai culture,' which needs to be considered carefully in an educational context. In the 'Thai Culture Course' which a colleague was forced to pay to attend, he was told by a Thai cultural expert (a university professor) that many elements in what are now considered 'Thai Culture' were cobbled together by propaganda experts in the process of creating the 'Nation of Thailand,' which it is widely conceded by historians is a very recent construction not based on a generally shared regional history.

This propaganda has disturbingly emphasized Thainess basically as a source of all politeness, respect, and a sort of imaginary 'good old days' in which everyone showed respect and was happy- a time which, given the disturbing events of the 20th century, would have had to exist before Thailand itself was actually a national body. It supports latent racist beliefs, though it does not directly articulate them- by, for example, the notion of other regional national cultures as lacking these elements. The Thai language teachers seem to be the bastion of this kind of teaching in many schools, and frequently terrorise the students with an insistence on an over-exaggerated ritualism in shows of respect (more so than the Thai teachers of other subjects).

The students and their families are not fooled by this, nor are the teachers the only sources of historical or cultural information, of course. However, this indoctrinary approach to education in public schools reinforces the 'collective unity' aspect of the purpose of public education here as I outlined in the previous message- and has many disturbing elements which I am sure our readers can imagine for themselves in terms of nationalism gone overboard.

[Scott]

Thanks IJWT for some very informative posts. I concur completely. I am less 'down' on the educational system that a lot of posters because I see glimmers of hopes--not in the system, but in a lot of students. It's not much, but it's there and with some nurturing it will grow.

Someone once said about the American educational system something to the effect of: Students manage to learn in spite of the schools. Hopefully the same will be true here.

Every system sets up a system for weeding people out. These are not always fair and they may not be a reflection of actual learning, but they are hoops we all jump through. Unfortunately, here in Thailand these are often based on ethnic and social criteria which isn't a level playing field.

[phetaroi]

In any culture there needs to be some way of selecting the brighter pupils and removing them to schools where they can be taught properly at a level to suit them and giving them the chance to move onto higher education.

Wow...that really sounds like social engineering.

Most contemporary models of learning suggest it is much better to mix students of different competenices together, though I agree that the composition needs to be considered carefully for best results.

I agree to an extent.

When I was in junior high, the degree of tracking was ridiculous -- as I recall, I was in level "E", and there were a total of levels from A to G, with G being highest.

In my middle school where I was administrator, in addition to special programs (such as special education), the basic levels were what I'll call "general education", "gifted base", and "gifted center" (in that order). A student in the gifted base program took two classes of gifted (varying based on student strength in a particular subject area), and in gifted center all 5 core classes were at the gifted level. I understand that within the last year the two gifted categories have been merged, with a "dumbing down" (and I really hesitate to use that phrase) of the higher level of curriculum.

[somtampet]

I have met a few thai teachers,from the small private school that my stepson attends,and to be honest,they scare me to death.Only met 3 farang teachers and they scared me more.

[chadintheusa]

I have met a few thai teachers,from the small private school that my stepson attends,and to be honest,they scare me to death.Only met 3 farang teachers and they scared me more.

You should be scared of farang teachers. At one school I worked in the head English teacher interviewed a guy for a job, he told the head teacher during the interview that he just got back from Laos and had 30 women in 30 days. The Thai administration hired him. Just the sort you want around your kids.

[PeaceBlondie]

The topic is Thainess,. It is not about badmouthing farang.

[phetaroi]

Personally, I think the 'rote learning' issue is tied into the cultural issue in a much bigger way which makes it harder to characterise it as 'bad' or 'good'.

I think that most Thai students- of whatever apparent academic capability as measured by outside tests- do as well in their own contexts as students do anywhere, as long as you are judging them on what they are actually judged on by their own system. In other words, they are taught to know their place, show respect, and do what they are told. This is what the system measures them on. It doesn't value academic competence, honesty, creativity, or performance- or these things would be rewarded. What is rewarded is compliance, respect, and social cohesion. Being able to give (*or to appear to be able to give*) the 'right' answers to the 'right' questions as pre-determined by 'experts' demonstrates allegiance and collective unity easily. In this context, Thai students excel.

...

Why do Thai students behave in this manner? Because Thai teachers and the entire Thai cultural system are set up in this manner. Thai teachers are not supposed to be academically competent, honest, creative, or high-performing- or THEY would also be rewarded for it (and generally, with exceptions, they are not). What is rewarded is compliance, respect, and social cohesion. Being able to teach (*or to appear to be able to teach*) the 'right' material as pre-determined by 'experts' demonstrates allegiance and collective unity easily. In this respect, Thai teachers also excel.

So I feel it is misleading to characterise the Thai school system as 'problematic.' It does exactly what it is supposed to do, in its own context. The problems come in with the change in the needs of Thailand and its people and in the ability and the motivation of government- ANY government- to support these changes. Without very strong leadership and a lot of money to make sure the old guard are paid off to retire while the new system is developed (slowly! not in one of these one-year knee-jerks that have happened every year of the last decade!), no change will be possible. If change does become possible, it will happen slowly, probably over 25-30 years.

However, none of this will happen before a government appears that makes real educational change (and its funding, without corruption) a real priority. As far as I am aware, Thailand has never had such a government in the 10 years I have been involved with education here.

An excellent post, Scott. A+.

I think what some of our posting friends here don't quite understand about schools in virtually any country in the world, is that what is taught -- and to a large extent how it is taught -- is not really decided by teachers or, for that matter, by principals. It is decided by some political entity. Who that entity is, varies from country to country (or in the case of the US...for example...from state to state).

You've been here long enough that you may know who that entity is, but few teachers know. Back in Virginia there were "levels of entities". I knew the entities in my large system that controlled things like policy about gifted education. From time to time I would sit on some panel and know, in advance, what was most likely to happen, because I knew who the power players were and how much power they had. Very occasionally over the years I got to rub elbows with the real higher-ups -- I met with the governor once. I knew one of the state superintendents somewhat well. But the real entity was the "state board", and people like me rarely got to them. And our local school board -- well, sometimes they listened to a panel of principals, and sometimes they chewed us up and spit us out.

It is political, and there's little doubt in my mind that here in Thailand it's -- to some extent (probably a large extent) -- a patronage system.

That's sometimes good. And that's sometimes bad.

What some teachers...and some principals...and some counselors don't see is that it's easy to want to be in control. It's difficult to be in control. As a principal in the States, I knew what my power was. Within my realm of power there are times I simply made the decision (particularly if I were the one who was going to be held responsible). There were other times we would form a panel of administrators, representative teachers, and so forth, and whatever they came up with would go to a vote of the faculty. And there were other times I would just say to the faculty -- you decide. The more I would step away, the more vitriolic the debate among teachers and among factions of teachers would become. Getting roughly 80 teachers to agree on anything was rather unlikely. When I was a teacher I was a union rep for several years. In our system the vote would split on almost every issue -- high school teachers would vote one way, elementary teachers the opposite way, and middle school teachers would split somewhere down the middle. And before one of my posting friends says that there I go blaming teachers...exactly the same behaviors occurred among the principals' groups. Exactly the same behaviors occurred among the Board of Education. It's politics and its human.

So here's my question for you, Scott. If you know, what group is the entity in education here in Thailand? Not names, but titles, or something of the like???

[phetaroi]

There is another, perhaps more controversial aspect to 'Thai culture,' which needs to be considered carefully in an educational context. In the 'Thai Culture Course' which a colleague was forced to pay to attend, he was told by a Thai cultural expert (a university professor) that many elements in what are now considered 'Thai Culture' were cobbled together by propaganda experts in the process of creating the 'Nation of Thailand,' which it is widely conceded by historians is a very recent construction not based on a generally shared regional history.

This propaganda has disturbingly emphasized Thainess basically as a source of all politeness, respect, and a sort of imaginary 'good old days' in which everyone showed respect and was happy- a time which, given the disturbing events of the 20th century, would have had to exist before Thailand itself was actually a national body. It supports latent racist beliefs, though it does not directly articulate them- by, for example, the notion of other regional national cultures as lacking these elements. The Thai language teachers seem to be the bastion of this kind of teaching in many schools, and frequently terrorise the students with an insistence on an over-exaggerated ritualism in shows of respect (more so than the Thai teachers of other subjects).

The students and their families are not fooled by this, nor are the teachers the only sources of historical or cultural information, of course. However, this indoctrinary approach to education in public schools reinforces the 'collective unity' aspect of the purpose of public education here as I outlined in the previous message- and has many disturbing elements which I am sure our readers can imagine for themselves in terms of nationalism gone overboard.

Are you referring to the Pibulsonggram era?

[Ijustwannateach]

There is another, perhaps more controversial aspect to 'Thai culture,' which needs to be considered carefully in an educational context. In the 'Thai Culture Course' which a colleague was forced to pay to attend, he was told by a Thai cultural expert (a university professor) that many elements in what are now considered 'Thai Culture' were cobbled together by propaganda experts in the process of creating the 'Nation of Thailand,' which it is widely conceded by historians is a very recent construction not based on a generally shared regional history.

This propaganda has disturbingly emphasized Thainess basically as a source of all politeness, respect, and a sort of imaginary 'good old days' in which everyone showed respect and was happy- a time which, given the disturbing events of the 20th century, would have had to exist before Thailand itself was actually a national body. It supports latent racist beliefs, though it does not directly articulate them- by, for example, the notion of other regional national cultures as lacking these elements. The Thai language teachers seem to be the bastion of this kind of teaching in many schools, and frequently terrorise the students with an insistence on an over-exaggerated ritualism in shows of respect (more so than the Thai teachers of other subjects).

The students and their families are not fooled by this, nor are the teachers the only sources of historical or cultural information, of course. However, this indoctrinary approach to education in public schools reinforces the 'collective unity' aspect of the purpose of public education here as I outlined in the previous message- and has many disturbing elements which I am sure our readers can imagine for themselves in terms of nationalism gone overboard.

Are you referring to the Pibulsonggram era?

That would be the right time period for the development of Thai nationalism, I think- however, the more recent (and equally disturbing) trend has been the use of 'Thainess' by the Ministry of Culture to evoke a very bizarre and culturally and historically unprecedented (I believe) version of neoVictorianism as a myth of the Thailand of the past.

I guess they didn't learn clearly the way the Thais dressed as a rule in those 'good old days.'

[elkangorito]

The complexity & depth of the posts/replies is excellent . As a result, I'll need a little time to reply.

Edited April 14, 2010 by elkangorito

[Ijustwannateach]

Incidentally, the post above that you (Phetaroi) attribute to Scott was also written by me- and to answer your questions, I don't know the individual names of people who make the curriculum policy (and there's no telling if anyone really knows or would take responsibility- I'm sure it's attributed to a committee or department), but I know that the 'blue rinse' set in the Ministry of Culture has had a lot of recent influence on the 'blue rinse' set running parts of the MOE.

In practice, the curriculum changes so often- usually every year- that many changes are meaningless. The new curriculum cannot be written, let alone implemented, in the time frame in which it would theoretically have to be active. In practice, this means that the old curriculums get re-copied into a new set of binders which look all nice and shiny on office shelves during school inspections by ministry officials. So a lot of teachers are simply doing the redux version of what they inherited 10-20 years ago or more- which has a naturally conservative effect on education.

There is the space in many departments for innovation and control by teachers, but they would only do so if they felt comfortable and motivated to do so- and few teachers are interested in what might be regarded as 'boat-rocking' or threatening changes by other, more.. settled teachers- and of course few of them are paid well enough to take risks.

To sum up, it is possible for a well-motivated and talented student (or even teacher) who has a supportive and nurturing homelife to do well by Western standards even in Thai schools, but it is by no means necessary, nor is it the point of the enterprise.

[phetaroi]

Incidentally, the post above that you (Phetaroi) attribute to Scott was also written by me

...

In practice, this means that the old curriculums get re-copied into a new set of binders which look all nice and shiny on office shelves during school inspections by ministry officials. So a lot of teachers are simply doing the redux version of what they inherited 10-20 years ago or more- which has a naturally conservative effect on education.

...

Oops! I have to confess that I always thought that you and Scott were the same person and just posted under a different screen name...always wondered why. Oh my goodness!

Ah, so dusty binders are as important here as they are in the States. Interesting.

[Ijustwannateach]

Scott and I are a lot alike, except he has a better figure....

[PeaceBlondie]

They are separate, indeed. And look different. Neither has a blond pony-tail, but I do.

[BlackArtemis]

If saving face and the idea that the rich can do no wrong is under the idea of "Thai Culture", then I would say it has a huge impact.

Sorry it's not such an in depth answer, but I should be writing a paper right now, not reading forums >_<'

[Unfaithful]

I know about Thai education and Thai edutainment.Teachers say such profundities as "This is very sticky rice, and this somtam is very spicy."I have never had a substantial conversation about education with a Thai.Or about Thainess.

[BlackArtemis]

One of the funniest things to me was that when visitors came to my school they would ask me "do you like Thailand?" "Do you like Thai food" and then walk next door to my Filipino coworker and grill them on teaching strategies...