Access to high quality, relevant and inclusive opportunities in initial education is central to helping Thai youth acquire strong basic skills and develop positive learning attitudes. This chapter explains the importance of strengthening the skills of youth in initial education in Thailand, which can ensure that the country is able to promote good educational outcomes for all children and build strong foundations for learning throughout life. It also describes the current policies and practices to increase access to, and ensure the quality of compulsory education, technical and vocational education and training, and higher education. It then explores three opportunities to strengthen the skills of youth: (1) increasing the quality and relevance of initial education; (2) promoting the development of higher-level skills among youth; and (3) reducing inequalities in educational outcomes.
OECD Skills Strategy Thailand
Abstract
Equitable access to high-quality initial education is key to Thailand’s sustainable economic growth, social equity, technological progress, and overall national development. Acquiring strong foundational skills1 in initial education can help Thai youth obtain higher-level skills later in life, contributing to the development of a more competitive workforce. Supporting youth to access high-quality and relevant skills development opportunities can help them acquire basic skills and knowledge, foster a motivation for learning at an early age, as well as lay the ground for a culture of lifelong learning that will make Thailand an adaptable and resilient society.
Education has played an important role in Thailand’s transformation into an upper middle-income country and contributing to the economic growth of Southeast Asia. Over the past few decades, the country has considered strengthening the skills of youth in initial education as a priority, enacting major education reforms, such as the provision of free basic education for 12 years, as well as the investment of a significant share of resources into the education of Thai youth (OECD/UNESCO, 2016[1]). In recent years, the government has continued to highlight well-educated youth as drivers of future growth and as contributors to the achievement of objectives in the Thirteenth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2023‑2027) (UNICEF, 2021[2]; Office of the Prime Minister, 2023[3]).
Policy reforms and public investments in basic education have resulted in improvements in key educational indicators. Thailand has initiated many efforts to improve the teaching profession, and the country currently enjoys the lowest pupil-qualified teacher ratios at the pre-primary and primary levels in Southeast Asia (UNESCO, 2023[4]). Participation in pre-primary, primary and secondary education in Thailand is relatively high, and has remained generally stable in recent years. Based on latest available data, participation in technical and vocational programmes among 15-24 year-olds was also higher in Thailand than in many other Southeast Asian countries (World Bank, 2019[5]). Gross enrolment rates at the tertiary level have also risen steadily over the decades, situating Thailand among the top of Southeast Asian countries – only behind Singapore – in 2022 (World Bank, 2022[6]).
Despite these achievements, Thailand still faces key challenges in strengthening the skills of youth in initial education. More could be done to improve the quality of learning in schools, as Thailand’s average performance in mathematics, reading and science in the latest round of PISA in 2022 was lower than in any previous assessment since the country first participated in 2001. Prolonged school closures from the COVID-19 pandemic have exacerbated many of these challenges in skills development, as less students in Thailand were supported through virtual classes and felt confident about motivating themselves to do school work, compared to the OECD average (OECD, 2022[7]; OECD, 2023[8]). Equity in educational opportunities also remains a challenge. While Thailand has generally succeeded in increasing enrolment rates at all levels, access to educational opportunities remains highly unequal between socio-economic groups and regions (UNICEF, 2019[9]; Office of the Prime Minister, 2023[3]).
Renewed commitment to skills development of youth through a comprehensive and multi-faceted skills strategy can help Thailand address the learning losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as prepare Thai youth to remain resilient in the face of future disruptions. Such policy efforts can also help the country adapt more easily to global trends, especially the digital transformation, artificial intelligence (AI) and the green transition. Thailand has pledged to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2065, requiring massive economic and labour market reforms and highlighting the importance of skills that are needed for a technologically advanced and greener future (OECD, 2023[10]; OECD, 2024[11]).
This chapter provides a detailed assessment of the skills of youth in initial education and presents policy recommendations for three opportunities for Thailand to strengthen these skills, namely:
increasing the quality and relevance of initial education
promoting the development of higher-level skills among youth
reducing inequalities in educational outcomes.
This section provides an overview of the initial education system in Thailand, as well as an assessment of the country’s performance on key educational indicators. Initial education in the country is composed of early childhood education and care (ECEC), basic compulsory education (primary, lower secondary, upper secondary), technical and vocational education and training (TVET), and higher education. These components of initial education are supported by a framework of laws, strategies and policies, and are overseen by relevant government agencies. An assessment of Thailand’s performance on key indicators indicates that there is significant room for Thailand to improve access to, and the quality and relevance of, initial education opportunities.
Overview of Thailand’s policies and practices for strengthening the skills of youth in initial education
Strengthening the skills of youth in initial education requires political commitment, as well as strong policy co‑ordination among the various ministries and institutions involved in managing the different levels of education in Thailand. Over the years, the Government of Thailand has put forward various policies that aimed to improve the quality of education and provide equal opportunities to all groups of the Thai population. This section summarises the relevant legislation, strategies and policies that currently guide skills development in Thailand, as well as presents an overview of the country’s educational system for youth and the different types of skills development offers that are available in the country.
Relevant legislation, strategies and policies for developing the skills of youth in initial education
Various legislation, strategies and policies guide the development of young people’s skills in Thailand (see Table 2.1). The main legislation underpinning the structure of Thailand’s educational system is the National Education Act B.E. 2545 (1999), which was developed in recognition of the country’s need to reform its education system in order to respond better to domestic and global changes. The Act promoted a more decentralised education system in Thailand, allotting increased responsibilities for education financing and administration to educational service areas (ESA), local administration organisations (LAO) and schools.
Source: Office of the Prime Minister (1999[12]), National Education Act of B.E.2542 (1999), https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Thailand184.pdf; Office of the Prime Minister (2002[13]) , National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments (Second National Education Act B.E. 2545 [2002]), www.onesqa.or.th/upload/download/file_697c80087cce7f0f83ce0e2a98205aa3.pdf; The Equitable Education Fund (EEF) (2022[14]), What we do, https://en.eef.or.th/our-projects/; OECD Skills Strategy Thailand policy questionnaire; Ministry of Education (2008[15]), Promotion of non-formal and informal education act, B.E. 2551-2008 – (Vol. 125, Part 41a, Government Gazette, dated 3rd March B.E. 2551 (2008), https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/en/2008/promotion-non-formal-and-informal-education-act-be-2551-2008-vol-125-part-41a-government; Office of the Education Council (2017[16]), The National Scheme of Education B.E. 2560-2579 (2017-2036), https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/en/2017/national-scheme-education-be-2560-2579-2017-2036-thai-6635; Office of the Education Council (2018[17]), National Education Standards B.E. 2561 (2018), https://backoffice.onec.go.th/uploads/Book/1659-file.pdf.
Overview of Thailand’s education system
Thailand’s education system consists of 12 years of free basic education guaranteed by the Constitution, nine of which are compulsory. An overview of the various components of the educational system is presented in Figure 2.1. The system is composed of six years of primary education (prathom) from levels P1 to P6, and six years of secondary education (mattayom), which is further split into lower (M1 to M3) and upper secondary (M4 to M6) levels. Access to primary and lower secondary education was made compulsory in Thailand’s 1997 constitution. The National Education Act B.E. 2545 of 1999 expanded compulsory education from six to nine years, while its amendment in 2002 made 12 years of primary and secondary education free of charge, including for non-Thai children residing in the country (OECD/UNESCO, 2016[1]).
Source: Adapted from MOE (2008[18]), Towards a Learning Society in Thailand: An Introduction to Education in Thailand, www.bic.moe.go.th/images/stories/book/ed-eng-series/intro-ed08.pdf; UNESCO (2015[19]), World TVET Database, Thailand (2015[20]) https://unevoc.unesco.org/wtdb/worldtvetdatabase_tha_en.pdf; OECD/UNESCO (2016[1]), Education in Thailand: An OECD-UNESCO Perspective, www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2016/08/education-in-thailand_g1g6a08c/9789264259119-en.pdf. (2016[1]), Education in Thailand: An OECD-UNESCO Perspective, www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2016/08/education-in-thailand_g1g6a08c/9789264259119-en.pdf.
Enrolment in the basic education system begins at the age of seven, although early childhood education services are also available in the country from birth to age six (MOE, 2017[21]). The TVET track begins at the upper secondary level and has a duration of three years and may continue on to the tertiary level for an additional two years (Ministry of Education, 2008[15]).
Non-formal education, one of the three types of education officially recognised in Thailand (see Box 2.1), is also available as an alternative pathway to education in the country, especially among out-of-school and vulnerable youth, as well as adults. Non-formal basic education includes several types, such as literacy and numeracy training, equivalency programmes, life-skills training programmes, income generation or non-formal vocational training, information services offered by Regional Non-formal Education Centres, and science education (UNESCO, 2007[22]). In addition to non-formal education, Thailand also promotes informal learning as part of its lifelong learning strategy, as well as a means of providing skills development opportunities to those who do not have access to formal education (UNESCO, 2016[23]).
The National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and its amendment Second National Education Act B.E. 2545 (2002) recognise three types of education and learning in Thailand, namely:
Formal education, which is education that is structured, with objectives, teaching methods, curricula, set duration, and assessment and evaluation that would mark its completion. Formal education is provided in various formats in Thailand, including: (1) mainstream education, in both general and vocational tracks; (2) basic education for children with special educational needs; (3) education for ecclesiastics and education provided by religious institutions; (4) specialised education provided by agencies other than the Ministry of Education; and (5) international education in which a language other than Thai (e.g. English) is used as the medium of instruction.
Non-formal education, which is education that is more flexible in terms of its objectives and delivery modalities. The National Education Act stipulates that the content and curricula for non-formal education must be responsive and appropriate to the needs of learners.
Informal learning, which is learning that enables students to learn by themselves in accordance with their interests, potential and readiness. Learning opportunities come from the individuals themselves, as well as various sources of learning in their environment, such as libraries, museums, mass media (e.g. radio, television, newspapers, magazines), and local wisdom and cultures in their communities.
Source: MOE (2017[24]), Education in Thailand, www.bic.moe.go.th/images/stories/pdf/EDUCATION_IN_THAILAND_2017.pdf; Office of the Prime Minster (2002[13]), National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments (Second National Education Act B.E. 2545 [2002]), www.onesqa.or.th/upload/download/file_697c80087cce7f0f83ce0e2a98205aa3.pdf.
The responsibility for strengthening the skills of youth in Thailand is shared across multiple ministries and agencies, although the Ministry of Education (MOE) remains the principal governance body. The MOE promotes and oversees all levels and types of education offered by both the state and the private sector, as well as formulates policies, plans and standards. The ministry is also responsible for the mobilisation of resources for education, as well as for the monitoring and evaluation of educational initiatives in the country. The MOE is further divided into administrative bodies that manage each level of education (see sections below), and also supervises several agencies that form an ecosystem of educational actors in Thailand, such as teachers’ organisations, institutes for science and trade, high schools for gifted students, and scout organisations (MOE, 2017[21]).
The current structure of Thailand’s education system stems from the reforms of the 1999 National Education Act, which promoted the decentralisation of educational administration, although educational planning responsibilities remain at the central level (Ministry of Education, 2008[15]). Regional actors thus play a significant role in the provision of education in Thailand. These regional actors include local administration organisations (LAOs), which are supervised by the Ministry of Interior and oversee educational institutions at the local level, as well as about 185 Educational Service Areas (ESA) throughout the country – three in Bangkok and 182 in the provinces – that aim to facilitate the decentralisation of educational administration (MOE, 2017[21]; Ministry of Education, 2008[15]). The different levels of education in Thailand, as well as their objectives, relevant policies, and the bodies responsible for their governance, are described in detailed below.
Early childhood education and care
Early childhood education and care (ECEC) in Thailand covers all children from birth until the age of six, before children’s entry into first grade of primary schooling (MOE, 2017[21]). Thailand’s definition of ECEC also includes disadvantaged children and those with disabilities, as well as foreign children living in the country (UNESCO, 2014[25]). Thailand adopts a child-centred approach to ECEC, paying attention to individual differences and the context of their communities, and also recognises the role that various actors play in fostering children’s holistic development, including parents, families, communities, and educational institutions, among others (MOE, 2017[21]).
Several policies govern the ECEC system in Thailand. These include, among others, the 2003 Early Childhood Curriculum, which lay the foundations for assessing the physical, emotional, social and intellectual development of children as they age, as well as a National Strategic Plan for Early Childhood Development in accordance with the Government Policy 2012-2016, which aimed to ensure that all relevant agencies co‑operated to deliver ECEC objectives (Iemamnuay, 2019[26]; UNESCO, 2014[25]). At present, the Early Childhood Curriculum B.E. 2560, which was adopted in 2017, is the primary policy that guides the delivery of ECEC services. According to the curriculum, ECEC in Thailand aims to support the development of children along four dimensions – physical, emotional, social, and cognitive – as well as to fully prepare them for schooling (MOE, 2017[21]).
Several bodies are responsible for the delivery of ECEC institutions in Thailand. These include childcare centres, child development centres, pre-school child development centres of religious institutions, and initial care centres for children with disabilities or special needs (Office of the Prime Minister, 2002[27]). The management of these ECEC institutions is spread across multiple ministries but is managed by the Committee on National Early Childhood Development. The non-government sector, such as children’s foundations, and private schools, also play a significant role in the delivery of ECEC services in Thailand (UNESCO, 2014[25]; Iemamnuay, 2019[26]; Buain and Pholphirul, 2022[28]); (MOE, 2017[24]).
Compulsory education
Compulsory education in Thailand includes six years of primary education and three years of lower secondary education, spanning the ages of six to 14 years old. Compulsory education in Thailand was mandated by the Compulsory Education Act B.E. 2545 (2002), which increased compulsory education from six to nine years of schooling (Chaijaroen and Panda, 2023[29]); (MOE, 2017[24]). The national curriculum at these levels encompasses a wide range of competencies, such as the Thai language, mathematics, social studies, religion and culture, health and physical education, arts, careers and technology, and foreign language (Ministry of Education, 2008[15]). Upon completion of lower secondary education (Mattayom 1 to 3), students may pursue upper secondary education (Mattayom 4 to 6), either through the general (academic) track or through the TVET pathway (see section below) (Department of Education, 2019[30]). Thailand adopts a multiple intelligences approach to education, highlighting the different strengths and competencies that learners may naturally possess and which the educational system must strengthen.
Primary and lower secondary education in Thailand is offered by government schools, where it is free of charge, as well as by private schools, and schools under the jurisdiction of Buddhist or other religious institutions. The Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC) is a body under the Ministry of Education that is responsible for central planning activities, such as the development of policies, plans, standards and core curricula for these levels of education. As part of the country’s decentralisation efforts, the day-to-day supervision of schools in the country is conducted by local administrative organisations (LAO), such as provincial administration organisations, municipalities, sub-district administration organisations, and special local administration organisations (i.e. Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and Pattaya City) (MOE, 2017[24]).
Through the Persons with Disabilities Education Act B.E. 2551 of 3008, Thailand’s education system aims to promote access to quality education among students with special needs and disadvantaged children. Children with special needs may refer to children with visual, hearing, verbal and/or physical/health impairments, as well as children with learning disabilities, autism, and behavioural or emotional disorders. Moreover, disadvantaged children in Thailand refers to various types, such as children forced to enter the labour market, children who are sex workers, deserted children or orphans, children in observation and protection centres, street children, children with HIV/AIDS, children of minority communities, physically abused children, impoverished children, and children affected by narcotic drugs, among others. Most of these students attend regular public schools, known as “inclusive schools”, while others attend specially arranged schools called “welfare schools” and “border patrol police schools”. These specialised schools are under the supervision of the OBEC of the MOE (MOE, 2017[24]).
Technical and vocational education and training (TVET) in Thailand
Technical and vocational education and training (TVET) in Thailand starts at the upper secondary level upon completion of lower secondary, where students may choose between the vocational or general education track. Students in both tracks undergo a three-year programme at the upper secondary level and are considered equally qualified to sit for national university entrance examinations upon completion. Students in the TVET track also receive a vocational certificate. After the upper secondary level, students may further pursue the postsecondary level, leading to a diploma or associate’s degree in vocational education, or higher education, leading to a bachelor’s degree in technology (MOE, 2017[24]; OECD, 2021[31]).
The Vocational Act of 2008 regulates the TVET system in Thailand by establishing the various forms of TVET offered in the country and indicating the various institutions that may provide TVET (see Table 2.2). These institutions are governed by the Office of the Vocational Education Commission (OVEC) under the Ministry of Education. OVEC is responsible for providing recommendations for TVET-related policies, defining the budget of the TVET system, co-ordinating the improvement of VET programmes and professional standards, training VET teachers and personnel, and liaising between the government and the private sector in TVET offers (OECD, 2021[31]; UNESCO, 2015[19]).
Source: UNESCO (2015[20]), World TVET Database: Thailand, worldtvetdatabase_tha_en.pdf; SEA-VET.net, TVET platform for SEA (n.d.[32]), Thailand: Profile www.sea-vet.net/thailand.
Higher education in Thailand
Higher education in Thailand begins after the upper secondary level and has four main objectives, namely to produce graduates, conduct research studies, provide academic services, and preserve arts and culture (Ministry of Education, 2014[33]). Higher education in Thailand covers multiple types of qualifications, such as associate degrees (at least 90 credits), bachelor’s degrees (120 to 180 credits), graduate diplomas (at least 24 credits after a bachelor’s degree), master’s degrees (at least 36 credits after a bachelor’s degree), higher graduate diplomas (at least 24 credits after a master’s degree), and doctoral degrees (at least 36 credits after a master’s degree) (UNESCO, 2022[34]).
The National Education Act B.E. 2542 and its 2002 amendment indicate that higher education is provided through higher education institutions (HEIs) such as universities, institutes and colleges (Office of the Prime Minister, 2002[27]). Private HEIs also began to develop in Thailand in 1979 in order to accommodate the increasing demand for higher education and strengthen the educational development of the country (MOE, 2017[24]). Currently, private HEIs are governed by the Private Higher Education Institution Act B.E. 2546 of 2003 and its second revision of 2007, which indicates that private HEIs may award higher education degrees if their academic quality is accredited by the Ministry of Education (Office of the Council of State, 2006[35]).
Until 2020, the main governance body overseeing the delivery of higher education in Thailand was the Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC) under the Ministry of Education. OHEC had the authority to establish policies, development plans and standards for higher education, as well as co‑ordinate the mobilisation of resources (e.g. human, financial), and oversee HEIs. In 2020, the OHEC merged with the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), the National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT), and the Thailand Research Fund (TRF) to form the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation (MHESI) (UNESCO, 2022[34]). The merge was implemented to strengthen co‑operation between higher education, science, research and development, innovation and competition, in the hopes of transforming Thailand into an innovation-based economy (MHESI, 2022[36]).
Thailand’s performance in strengthening the skills of youth in initial education
While Thailand has made significant efforts to introduce policies and initiatives to strengthen the skills of youth in initial education, available data indicates that there is significant room to improve the quality and relevance of educational opportunities, as well as reduce inequities in educational outcomes among disadvantaged groups. This section presents Thailand’s performance in key education indicators in comparison to neighbouring countries in Southeast Asia and select countries from across the OECD.
While access to education has improved significantly over the last three decades, more could be done to improve the quality of education in Thailand
Gross enrolment rates2 have risen at all levels of education in Thailand over the past two decades. The enrolment rate at the pre-primary level has increased from 66% in 19973 to 74% in 2022. Gross enrolment at the pre-primary level in Thailand is higher than the ASEAN average (41%), but still lower than the OECD average (81%) (see Figure 2.2, Panel A). The country has been successful in achieving universal or near-universal enrolment rates at the primary level over the past two decades, performing close to the OECD and ASEAN averages (see Figure 2.2, Panel B). Enrolment rates at the secondary level in Thailand have also increased by around 33 percentage points over the past two decades, reaching parity with the OECD average and surpassing the ASEAN average as of 2022 (see Figure 2.2, Panel C). While enrolment at the tertiary level in Thailand remained relatively low in comparison to OECD countries at 49% in 2022, this already represents a significant increase from two decades ago, where the enrolment rate was at only 36% in 2000 (see Figure 2.2, Panel D). While this is higher than the average gross tertiary enrolment rate across the ASEAN (41%) in 2021, this is still significantly lower than the OECD (79%).
Note: Gross enrolment rates account for students of all ages, including those whose age exceeds the official age group for the specified level of education. Therefore, if there is early enrolment, late enrolment or grade repetition, gross enrolment rates can exceed 100%.
Source: World Bank (2022[37]), School enrolment, pre-primary (% gross), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRE.ENRR; World Bank (2023[38]), School enrolment, primary (%) gross, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.ENRR; World Bank (2023[39]), School enrolment, secondary (% gross), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.SEC.ENRR; World Bank (2023[40]), School enrolment, tertiary (% gross), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR.
Thailand also has one of the highest enrolment rates in TVET programmes among Southeast Asian countries, second only to Indonesia (see Figure 2.3). 14% of Thai secondary education students were in the TVET track in 2022, which is nearly double the ASEAN average of 8% (World Bank, 2024[41]). At the upper-secondary level, about one-third of students follow the vocational track, while roughly one in five post-secondary students enroll in vocational diploma programmes (OECD, 2021[31]). However, while TVET enrolment is high, the number of students enrolling in TVET tracks at the secondary level is on a downward trend (see Figure 2.10 in Recommendation 2) (World Bank, 2019[5]). Wages offered to TVET graduates are often not competitive enough to draw more learners, and many students face various constraints to obtaining higher vocational qualifications (Office of the Prime Minister, 2023[3]).
Source: World Bank (2024[41]), Vocational and technical enrolment (% of total secondary enrolment), https://genderdata.worldbank.org/indicators/se-sec-enrl-vo-zs/?gender=total.
In addition to successfully expanding access education and increasing general enrolment rates over the last three decades, Thailand also currently has among the highest completion rates4 at all levels of education among Southeast Asian countries (see Figure 2.4). The completion rate remains universal at the primary level (99%), and is significantly higher than the ASEAN average at the lower secondary (89%) and upper secondary (65%) levels. However, while Thailand’s performance in Southeast Asia is positive, its completion rates are still relatively low in comparison to select OECD countries.
However, labour market outcomes differ considerably between graduates of general education and those from TVET pathways. Concerns persist regarding the quality of TVET provision, particularly in relation to graduate competencies, which often do not align with labour market demands or employer expectations (Office of the Prime Minister, 2023[3]). This gap has contributed to weaker labour market outcomes for higher-level TVET graduates. Despite a decline in TVET enrolment (see Figure 2.10 in Recommendation 2), the demand for graduates with higher vocational certificates or diplomas remains limited at just 9% in 2013, compared to a supply of 18% in 2018 (see Figure 1.5 in Chapter 1) (OECD, 2021[31]).
While policies have been introduced to enhance the quality of education in Thailand (see Table 2.1), there remains room for improvement in the general streams of education, as illustrated by the country’s performance in the latest round of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). While performing better than neighbouring countries such as Cambodia, the Philippines and Indonesia, Thailand scored below other Southeast Asian countries, as well as below the ASEAN and OECD averages in mathematics, reading and science (see Figure 2.5). While PISA measures only certain types of foundational skills, the survey also highlight broader challenges within Thailand’s education system. For instance, many children and youth have negative attitudes towards their education and do not connect learning with life outside of school (Office of the Prime Minister, 2023[3]). For instance, a relatively small share of youth at the age of 15 has a clear idea about their future job (74% compared to 80% across the OECD). This presents a major challenge in Thailand, as students’ attitudes towards school and their sense of belonging at school are important predictors of learning outcomes (OECD, 2004[42]).
Note: Due to lack of data, the latest available year was used: 2017 (Lao PDR); 2018 (Japan, Türkiye); 2020 (Australia, Chile, Germany [primary level], Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand); and 2021 (Cambodia, Germany [lower secondary and upper secondary levels], United States, Viet Nam).
Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (2021[43]), Indicator 4.1.2: Completion rate, http://sdg4-data.uis.unesco.org/.
Source: OECD (2022[44]) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), www.oecd.org/pisa/data/.
Equitable access to high-quality education could be further enhanced
While participation in education has improved over the past few decades, there are still various barriers to achieving equity in Thailand’s educational sector. Socio-economic status is one of the strongest determiners of access to initial education. As described more extensively in Recommendation 6, children from lower wealth quintiles are more likely to be out of education across all levels of education, with the risk of dropping out increasing at higher levels of education (see Figure 2.14) (UNICEF, 2019[9]). While Thailand’s free basic education policy has helped widen access, severe poverty continues to exist in many parts of the country, with many children from low-income households unable to afford other school costs (Equitable Education Fund, 2024[45]).
In addition to socio-economic status, gender also contributes to differences in educational outcomes in Thailand. Male children aged 7-14 years-old are lagging behind their female counterparts across all measures of foundational skills development (see Figure 2.6). Only 68% of male children demonstrate foundational reading skills in comparison to 75% of female children, while only 64% of males demonstrate numeracy in comparison to 66% of female children. During the COVID-19 pandemic, only 67% of male children demonstrated digital skills by reporting online channels as their main method of attending remote classes, in comparison to 72% of female children (UNICEF, 2023[46]). Furthermore, in the latest round of PISA, boys and girls performed at similar levels in mathematics, but boys were outperformed by girls by 27 score points in reading (OECD, 2023[8]).
Note: Digital skills capture children’s ability to engage in online learning as the main type of remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic (see Table LN.5.1 of (UNESCO, 2023[4]) )
Source: UNICEF (2023[46]), Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2022: Survey Findings Report, www.unicef.org/thailand/media/11356/file/Thailand%20MICS%202022%20full%20report%20(English).pdf.
In addition to gender, inter-regional differences in educational access and outcomes are stark in Thailand, as further discussed in detail in Opportunity 5. Urban-rural divides are significant in the country, with the Northeast and Southern regions remaining relatively more rural in comparison to the rest of the country and having poverty rates nearly twice as high as the national level (World Bank, 2022[47]). Consequently, the likelihood of having children who do not have strong foundational skills is also much higher in these regions. Across all levels of education, children from rural areas also have lower completion rates than the national average and children from urban areas (UNICEF, 2019[9]). Half of the lowest-scoring provinces in Thailand’s Ordinary National Educational Test (O-NET), a high-stakes and mandatory examination administered at grades 6, 9 and 12 to determine promotion to the next grade, are found in the disadvantaged Northeast and Southern regions alone, with many of them being the provinces with the highest levels of chronic poverty (Fry, Bi and Apahung, 2018[48]).
Thailand could do more to raise the level of resources dedicated to initial education
Thailand spends 2.6% of its GDP on education, one of the lowest among Southeast Asian countries and lower than the averages across the ASEAN (2.8%) and the OECD (5%) (see Figure 2.7, Panel A) (World Bank, 2023[49]). Public spending on education has also been declining in Thailand in recent years (World Bank, 2023[50]). Increasing investment in education is advisable, but there is a concerning trend where Thai households are assuming a larger financial burden for schooling costs. In 2020, 28% of the costs of education expenditure came from households, in comparison to only 21% in 2015 (see Figure 2.7, Panel B). Educational expenses shouldered by households increase as students progress to higher levels. In 2020, educational expenses at the pre-primary level constituted 11% of total expenditure among Thai households, increasing to 19% at the primary level, 31% at the secondary level, and 38% at the tertiary level. Attending higher education entails significant financial burdens among poor households (UNESCO, 2022[51]).
Note: Due to lack of available data, the latest available year was used for the following countries: Brunei Darussalam (2016); Myanmar (2019), Chile, Mexico and the United States (2020); Australia, Cambodia, Germany Indonesia, Japan and Türkiye (2021); Lao PDR, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam (2022).
Source: World Bank (2023[49]), Government expenditure on education, total (% of GDP), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS; UNESCO (2022[51]), The financing of education in Thailand, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000384381.
This trend may be linked to an increasing share of enrolment in private schools in Thailand. Private enrolment at the primary level has been on a steady rise over the past few decades, increasing from 9% in 1990 to 22% in 2020 (World Bank, 2023[52]). The rate of private enrolment at the secondary level has been fluctuating, although still presents a slight increase from 9% in 2001 (earliest year with available data) to 12% in 2020 (World Bank, 2023[53]).
Since the launch of the first National Education Act in 1999, Thailand has intensified efforts to make the teaching profession more attractive, and, in turn, increase the supply of high-quality teachers. Retention rates are generally high, supported by relatively attractive salaries and welfare benefits. These conditions are likely sustained by the substantial share of public education funding allocated to teaching staff compensation. In 2016, for example, teacher salaries accounted for 74% of OBEC’s budget, suggesting that teacher remuneration are prioritised even amid constrained educational resources (Unesco, 2025[54]). Teachers in Thailand also benefit from access to professional development opportunities and a degree of professional autonomy. In addition, the teaching profession continues to be held in high regard within society (UNESCO, 2019[55]). The country has the best pupil-qualified teacher ratio5 among Southeast Asian countries, especially at the pre-primary level, where there are only nine students for every qualified teacher in comparison to the ASEAN average of 22 (see Figure 2.8). The ratio remains low at the primary level (14) and is better or at par with many OECD countries, such as the United States (14), Korea (16), Chile (18), and Mexico (27). However, the pupil-qualified teacher ratio increases significantly at the lower secondary (24) and upper secondary (24) levels, where Thailand starts to perform worse than the ASEAN average.
Note: Due to lack of available data, the latest available year was used.
Source: UNESCO Institute of Statistics (2023[56]), Indicator 4.C.4: Pupil-qualified teacher ratio (headcount basis), http://sdg4-data.uis.unesco.org/.
Thailand’s performance in strengthening the skills of youth in initial education is influenced by a range of factors at the individual, institutional and societal levels. Drawing on findings from a literature review, desk research, a policy questionnaire distributed to Thai policymakers, and in-depth virtual consultations with stakeholders the following opportunities for improvement have been identified for strengthening the skills of youth in initial education in Thailand:
1. increasing the quality and relevance of initial education
2. promoting the development of higher-level skills among youth
3. reducing inequalities in educational outcomes.
Opportunity 1: Increasing the quality and relevance of initial education
In order to strengthen the skills of youth in initial education, improving the quality and relevance of skills development opportunities in Thailand is of utmost importance. This can ensure that Thai youth are able to acquire the skills they need to successfully move through the educational system, participate effectively in society, and improve their labour market prospects once they have finished school. Higher quality initial education can not only provide youth with better educational outcomes, but also contribute to lower levels of poverty, improved social mobility, and increased innovation and productivity in the country (OECD, 2023[57]; UNICEF, 2019[58]).
Two key recommendations have been identified to help Thailand to increase the quality and relevance of initial education opportunities: (1) strengthening the process for reviewing and implementing a new curriculum in initial education, and (2) improving the relevance of TVET offers through high-quality work-based learning opportunities.
Recommendation 1: Strengthening the process for reviewing and implementing a new curriculum in initial education
As described in the performance section, gross enrolment rates at the primary and secondary levels have been universal or near universal over the past two decades in Thailand. Furthermore, completion rates (see Figure 2.2) are better than most Southeast Asian countries and above the ASEAN average (see Figure 2.4). Thailand also has among the best pupil-qualified teacher ratios in the region at the pre-primary and primary levels, although the ratio increases significantly at the lower and upper secondary levels (see Figure 2.8). Thailand also has good infrastructure in comparison to many ASEAN countries, with nearly all schools in the country having access to electricity, computers, and internet for pedagogical purposes (UNESCO Institute of Statistics, 2023[56]).
However, despite this performance, the quality of education remains a challenge, as evidenced by Thai students’ performance in the latest PISA round in 2022 (see Figure 2.5) (OECD, 2004[42]). Average PISA scores for mathematics, reading and science are below the ASEAN and OECD averages, which suggests that there is room for the current education system to better ensure that students acquire the foundational skills needed for success in work and life.
While the quality of education is determined by many factors, many of the challenges faced in the quality of initial education in Thailand stems from an outdated curriculum. The curriculum is one of the most important components of the educational system, as it operationalises how schools and educational providers will concretely equip children with the knowledge, skills and competencies they need to thrive in today’s world (OECD, 2020[59]).
Thailand’s Core Curriculum for Basic Education is intended to be standards-based, with students being expected to master pre-determined standards at every grade level (OECD/UNESCO, 2016[1]). These standards should, in theory, enable cross-comparability across classrooms, schools and districts. However, the curriculum places a significant amount of responsibility on teachers to interpret and implement the content. Furthermore, government representatives have reported that no adequate guidance is provided to successfully do this (OECD/UNESCO, 2016[1]).
Responding to challenges in educational quality, the Office of Education Council worked with the Independent Commission for Education Reform and academic experts to shift towards a competency-based curriculum, putting a greater emphasis on critical thinking, creativity and collaboration skills. This has resulted in a core competency framework consisting of four elements and ten core competencies to be developed among students in Prathom 1 to 3 to help them adapt to today’s rapidly changing world (see Figure 2.9) (Ministry of Education, 2019[60]; Sangwanglao (จตุพล สังวังเลาว์), 2024[61]). Similar core competency frameworks are also being developed for other levels of education. Government representatives in Thailand explained that the competency framework merely serves as guidelines from the central government. To promote a bottom-up approach, schools will be tasked to implement an area-based curriculum that takes local needs and contexts into account in order to accommodate children’s backgrounds more effectively.
Source: Adapted from Ministry of Education (2019[62]), Framework for core competencies for students at the basic education level and lower primary school level (Grade 1-3), http://backoffice.onec.go.th/uploads/Book/1674-file.pdf.
Good quality curriculum development must be a routine, ongoing and continuous process in order to ensure that educational systems are able to adequately respond to changes (OECD/UNESCO, 2016[1]). Throughout the OECD, many countries use fixed major reform cycles as an opportunity to review their curricula, ensuring that their content can remain relevant. Such fixed major reforms may be planned every 2 to 5 years in countries such as the Czech Republic; every 5 to 10 years in countries such as Australia, Chile, Finland, Japan, Korea and Singapore; or every 15 to 20 years in countries such as Denmark, Mexico, New Zealand, Türkiye and the United States. While there is no clear research evidence on the optimal frequency of curriculum reform, having set guidelines can affect how quickly education systems can reflect current and future needs. In most countries, ad-hoc reforms are also used in between major reform cycles to respond to emerging skill needs (OECD, 2020[63]).
Government representatives have reported that Thailand aims to update the curriculum every five to seven years, but in practice, this is pushed back to more than ten years per update. Before the new core competency framework, the initial education curriculum remained essentially unchanged for nearly two decades. There have been attempts to revise the initial education curriculum for the last eight years, with OBEC and OVEC co‑ordinating to change the curricula for both general education and TVET and strengthen linkages between the two tracks. While a new competency framework has been developed in recent years (see Figure 2.9), a lack of political support has prevented the official introduction of the new curriculum into schools.
Furthermore, efforts to introduce the new core competency framework have also faced pushback from key stakeholders such as teachers, who argued that the updated curriculum does not reflect their input and that they were not informed about the planned changes and how they would be affected (OECD/UNESCO, 2016[1]; Thailand Development Research Institute, 2023[64]). Stakeholders have reported that many teachers, as well as parents, do not understand the need for a new curriculum and lack awareness about the need to replace the current one, despite the context of global megatrends that are rapidly changing education systems and labour markets.
Based on these findings, it appears there is a need to pursue a more inclusive approach to curriculum development, emphasising the active role and input of key stakeholders such as teachers, as well as raising awareness among them about the need to keep educational curricula relevant. In many OECD countries where a bottom-up approach to curriculum development is taken, teachers are not considered as passive implementers at the final stage of the reform once the new curriculum is about to be introduced, but rather as active contributors throughout the entire reform process (OECD, 2020[59]). Effective planning, close consultations and consensus building with key stakeholders such as teachers and students are central to a successful curriculum reform (OECD, 2020[63]). Teachers’ input into the curriculum redesign process is critical, as they have knowledge of daily classroom realities and subject content (Finnanger and Prøitz, 2024[65]). Countries across the OECD have found different ways to involve teachers, such as conducting systematic consultations throughout the entire curriculum redesign process, reserving a seat for teacher representatives in the design team (e.g. Canada, Netherlands), and encouraging the active involvement of local levels in school curriculum development, as in Finland (see Box 2.2) (Van den Akker, 2018[66]); (OECD, 2020[63]).
Stakeholders in Thailand reported that there are some implementation challenges with introducing the new curriculum, including inconsistencies in the way the curriculum is applied across different schools and regions, leading to disparities in educational quality. In 2021, the government postponed its introduction in schools, due to inadequate resources among schools and families to purchase new textbooks, as well as insufficient training for teachers to implement it (Boonyatus, 2023[67]). Teachers reportedly do not understand their responsibilities regarding the new curriculum, and many still use outdated teaching practices that focus on transmitting content rather than fully developing students’ real-life skills, appropriate values and useful competencies (OECD/UNESCO, 2016[1]).
This highlights the importance of providing adequate training to teachers to implement the new curriculum before it is formally introduced at a full scale in schools all over Thailand. Curriculum reforms may require teachers to change existing pedagogical beliefs and practices, which may take time (Fullan, 2015[68]; OECD, 2017[69]). In educational systems where school leaders have the responsibility for curriculum, as in Thailand and its area-based curriculum approach, school leaders will play a key role in communicating to teachers the importance of the new curriculum and convincing them to implement it in the classroom. In these settings, school leaders may involve teachers more actively in the development of the curriculum in order to foster buy-in from the start (as discussed in the case of Finland in Box 2.2), as well as encourage peer learning and teacher training at the school level (OECD, 2016[70]; OECD, 2020[59]); (OECD, 2019[71]). For example, in the Philippines, the introduction of the new Kindergarten to Grade 10 (K-10) curriculum of basic education is taking place gradually and in phases (including a pilot period) to ensure that teachers have proper time to adjust and learn the new content and master the pedagogical requirements of the curriculum. The Department of Education has also implemented training sessions at the local level, where teachers engage in collaborative learning sessions to solve shared challenges in their schools (see Box 2.2) (Ombay, 2023[72]).
Finland: Co-creation of the Finnish National Curriculum
The Finnish National Agency for Education (EDUFI) leads the curriculum development process every 10 years. The latest Finnish National Curriculum was launched in 2016 and was the first successfully co-created educational policy, marking a shift from a bureaucratic curriculum development requirement to a stakeholder-led process. In the country, curriculum work is seen as an ongoing dialogue and learning cycle that helps educational stakeholders identify issues to be improved and promote their commitment to curriculum renewal. The new curriculum took 2.5 years to develop, with each municipality in Finland having their own curriculum working group to discuss how the national curriculum could be adapted to local contexts. Teachers also worked in sub-working groups that covered either a school subject or a transversal competency of the curriculum. Stakeholders were regularly involved in the renewal process, with EDUFI asking educational authorities and schools to comment on the curriculum document through surveys. Schools were encouraged to include parents and students’ feedback. Three rounds of comments were also provided to the public through EDUFI’s website, and over 4 000 comments were received from individuals and 180 organisations or communities.
Philippines: Teacher training to implement the new K-10 curriculum
The Department of Education announced the official launch of the new Kindergarten to Grade 10 (K‑10) curriculum of basic education to further develop foundational skills (e.g. literacy, numeracy, socio-emotional skills) among students. The department plans to introduce the curriculum gradually and in phases from the School Year 2024-2025 to School Year 2027-2028. Before the full implementation of the curriculum in schools, a pilot stage was conducted in select areas across the country, the findings of which are informing the phased implementation of the new curriculum over the next few years. The participating schools and government division offices played an active role in monitoring the implementation of the new curriculum. In addition, the Department of Education also conducted training sessions to strengthen the expertise of teachers and in preparation for the new curriculum. Through Learning Action Cells, groups of teachers engaged in collaborative learning sessions to share challenges in their school, exchange knowledge, improve attitudes, and gain new competencies needed for the new curriculum and its instruction and assessment requirements. The training sessions promoted not only collaborative learning among teachers, but also self-directed learning and reflective pedagogical practices, facilitating self-evaluation and actionable improvements.
Source: Lähdemäki, J. (2019[73]), Case Study: The Finnish National Curriculum 2016 – A Co-Created National Education Policy, https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/22996/1007165.pdf - page=407; Ombay (2023[74]), DepEd launches revised k-10 curriculum, www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/878503/deped-launches-revised-k-10-curriculum/story/; Ombay (2023[75]), Teachers training for pilot run of revised k-10 curriculum completed – DepEd, www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/883115/teachers-training-for-pilot-run-of-revised-k-10-curriculum-completed-deped/story/; Ombay (2023[76]), DepEd: Pilot run of revised K-10 curriculum to begin Sept. 25, www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/882407/deped-pilot-run-of-revised-k-10-curriculum-to-begin-sept-25/story/.
Strengthening the process for reviewing and implementing a new curriculum in initial education can help Thailand ensure that students develop the skills, knowledge, and competencies they need to thrive in a rapidly changing world of work. The process of curriculum reform must actively involve key stakeholders in the educational system, such as teachers, not only to reflect the daily realities in Thai classrooms but also build buy-in for the successful implementation of the new curriculum. Furthermore, allotting adequate time to training teachers and school personnel to implement the new curriculum can help ensure its success.
Thailand could undertake the following specific actions to strengthen the process for reviewing and implementing a new curriculum in initial education:
1.1. Adapt the curricula in initial education based on the new framework for core competencies and with regular review periods. As the current curriculum for initial education has remained unchanged for nearly two decades, Thailand should move forward with introducing it in schools to improve the relevance of the education system, although not without ensuring that adequate support (e.g. guidelines, training for school personnel, development of new teaching materials) is provided for proper implementation. Thailand must ensure that the new curriculum is reviewed regularly and as planned (i.e. every five to seven years as reported by stakeholders), or as deemed necessary in between designated review periods.
1.2. Actively involve key stakeholders such as teachers in the curriculum reform process. As the new curriculum is regularly reviewed and updated, teachers should be involved in the process in order to ensure that their input is reflected in the curriculum’s content and that there is adequate buy-in to ensure the effective implementation. This could be done through establishing systematic consultation mechanisms with teachers (e.g. surveys distributed to schools), or ensuring they have representation in governance bodies responsible for curriculum reform (e.g. working groups).
1.3. Provide adequate training and support to teachers and educational staff to implement the new curriculum. To address previous concerns among teachers and educational staff that they are unprepared to implement a new curriculum, training must be allotted in order to fully explain the contents of the new curriculum and the new roles that teachers are expected to play. Adequate time for training must also be accounted for in order to help teachers grow accustomed to the changes, as well as to update their pedagogical skills and provide them with the necessary resources and classroom management techniques to help them adapt to the new curriculum. Thailand may consider implementing a pilot phase in selected schools to test the effectiveness of the new curriculum before introducing it at full scale across the country (see Philippines in Box 2.2).
Recommendation 2: Improving relevance of TVET offers through high-quality work-based learning opportunities
As new global production supply chains take shape, production facilities (e.g. in the semiconductor and parts manufacturing sector), are expected to relocate to Thailand, impacting the demand for new skills. This highlights the increased need to promote the development of industry-relevant skills among youth in Thailand, particularly by ensuring that TVET opportunities are accessible and of high quality (SCB Economic Intelligence Center, 2023[77]; OECD, 2021[31]).
Thailand already has a good base to begin with, as the country enjoys one of the highest enrolment rates in TVET programmes among ASEAN countries, second only to Indonesia. In 2022, 14% of Thai secondary education students were in the TVET track, surpassing the ASEAN average of 8% (World Bank, 2019[5]). TVET graduates also have relatively strong labour market outcomes in Thailand, as post-secondary vocational diploma holders have employment rates that are nearly as high as those with a tertiary education degree, while vocational certificate holders have stronger employment outcomes than graduates with a general upper secondary education degree (OECD, 2021[31]).
Many of these improvements stem from Thailand’s long-standing efforts to improve the relevance of the dual TVET system by increasing the supply of work-based learning opportunities (as guaranteed by the Skills Development Promotion Act B.E. 2545 and its Amendment (No.2) B.E. 2557) and promoting linkages with industry partners (Office of the Prime Minister, 2023[3]). Government representatives have reported putting in place various projects and programmes to ensure relevance, such as the Learn to Earn programme, which aims to foster students’ careers through vocational and work-based learning, provide them with life skills, and prepare them for the world of work; The New Breed Graduate programme, which emphasises practical work experience in S-Curve industries6 in support of the Thailand 4.0 strategy; the Cooperative and Work Integrated Education (CWIE) programme, which strengthens university-employer engagement to provide students with access to opportunities to develop their practical working skills; and the STEMPlus Platform, which analyses data from educational providers and industry players to match manpower supply and demand, helping inform workforce planning activities (Minister of Education, 2023[78]). To encourage employers to promote the dual TVET system, the Thai government implemented a 100% tax exemption for expenditures incurred for apprenticeships, as well as introduced subsidies to help students shoulder the expenses of training, transportation, accommodation, uniform and safety equipment, and insurance (OECD, 2021[31]).
In addition to improving relevance, Thailand has also established governance bodies that are dedicated to improving the quality of TVET, such as the Professional Qualification Institute, which aims to improve co‑ordination across ministries concerning TVET, as well as the Public-Private Committee for Vocational Education Development, which promotes partnerships with industry stakeholders (Chalapati and Chalapati, 2020[79]; ASEAN, 2022[80]).The dual TVET system is also covered by quality assurance mechanisms in the country, which are overseen by the Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA) (Office of the Prime Minister, 2002[27]; ONESQA, 2021[81]), as well as the Thai National Qualifications Framework, which sets out unified standards for qualifications and clear learning outcomes (UNESCO-UNEVOC, 2022[82]).
However, despite these many efforts to improve both the quality and relevance of the TVET system, TVET enrolment as a share of all secondary-level enrolment has been declining over the years (see Figure 2.10). In 1971, TVET students comprised 26% of all enrolment at the secondary level, but this has declined to 12% in 2019 (World Bank, 2019[5]). Despite this steady decline in the supply of TVET graduates, the demand for higher vocational certificate or diploma graduates is even lower (see Figure 1.5 in Chapter 1) (OECD, 2021[31]), demonstrating challenges in the ability of Thailand’s TVET system to not only attract students, but to also to assure employers of the quality and relevance of their graduates’ skills.
Note: Due to lack of available data, figures for the following years are not available: 1970, 1983, 1999, 2000, 2003 and 2014.
Source: World Bank (2019[83]) Vocational and technical enrolment (% of secondary enrolment), https://genderdata.worldbank.org/en/indicator/se-sec-enrl-vo-zs?view=trend&geos=THA.
The skills of TVET graduates do not always meet the requirements of employers, who have difficulty finding graduates with vocational qualifications and the right set of skills, including computer skills and other technical skills (World Bank, 2022[84]). In 2014, 53% of employers in Thailand reported struggling to fill job vacancies within three months (OECD, 2021[31]; Chalapati and Chalapati, 2020[79]). Among employers who are able to hire graduates, they are often unsatisfied with the performance of new hires, including those coming from vocational tracks (OECD, 2021[31]; World Bank, 2022[84]). Employers have reported that new graduates are weak in both cognitive skills (e.g. problem solving) and non-cognitive skills (e.g. leadership, social skills) (Chenphuengpawn and Rukkiatwong, 2018[85]).
Work-based learning opportunities are key to improving the relevance of the TVET system and ensuring that graduates have high-quality skills that meet the needs of the labour market. Empirical evidence from various countries confirms that such opportunities are more effective than school-based TVET in facilitating transitions into the labour market upon graduation, helping youth find jobs more easily and supporting companies to build the workforce they need (GIZ, 2022[86]; OECD, 2023[87]). Thailand recognises the importance of work-based learning and provides TVET students in school-based TVET programmes with the opportunity to participate in internships and apprenticeships in companies for at least one semester (OECD, 2021[31]).
However, in practice, the length and the quality of work-based learning opportunities depends on the willingness of employers to provide high-quality placements to TVET students (OECD, 2021[31]). Many of these work-based learning opportunities in Thailand still suffer from quality and relevance issues, which stem from multiple factors. Some vocational providers face severe resource constraints, including outdated equipment and lack of access to the latest industry technologies, which diminish the quality of TVET opportunities. Many enterprises in Thailand, lack equipment or machines for efficient production, and do not have enough staff with high levels of skills (Numprasertchai, Srinammuang and Skuna, 2018[88]), which can affect their ability to supervise apprentices and provide them with valuable work-based learning opportunities.
Since TVET provided through government-run institutions does not always provide students with the right skills, it is often not the education system, but instead industry actors (through individual employers) who are taking on the main responsibility for training TVET graduates and making them job-ready in Thailand (Australian Department of Education, 2021[89]). However, co-operation between industry and TVET schools varies considerably across sectors and firm sizes, and the provision of work-based learning opportunities is highly dominated by large employers (OECD, 2021[31]). Several large, multi-national companies in Thailand have established their own training colleges and sector-specific vocational programmes, revealing the insufficient inability of the national TVET system to match the needs of the labour market (Chalapati and Chalapati, 2020[79]).
The fact that most work-based learning opportunities are offered by large companies presents a major policy gap in Thailand’s TVET system, as this limits the number of students who can be enrolled in dual TVET programmes (OECD, 2021[31]). Given that micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) constitute 99.5% of all enterprises in the country, a significant share of employers are currently unable to reap the benefits of hiring apprentices. Moreover, students are unable to apply their skills in workplaces that are most commonplace in the Thai economy. Many of these MSMEs in Thailand are also in found in key sectors, such as accommodation, food and tourism (Asian Development Bank, 2023[90]).
MSMEs often face multiple barriers to not only recruiting apprentices, but also providing them with high-quality work-based learning opportunities. MSMEs may not always be able to afford the costs involved in fulfilling the formal requirements of the apprenticeship system, and they generally do not allot large proportions of their gross annual income on training (ILO, n.d.[91]; Thassanabanjong, Miller and Marchant, 2009[92]). There is also a lack knowledge or information on how to promote new training modalities for apprenticeships among MSMEs (ILO, 2018[93]). MSMEs found in rural areas, such as those in northern Thailand, struggle the most, as industry is limited in these regions and there are less high-quality TVET colleges in rural areas in comparison to those found in cities.
These are challenges that are also present in many OECD countries, though governments have introduced several solutions in response. For example, in Germany, demographic changes have posed challenges in the ability of MSMEs to recruit skilled trainees. With more limited financial and human resources, less experience in effective recruitment practices, and less visibility, SMEs struggle to attract talented youth in comparison to larger companies. In response to this challenge, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action initiated the programme Passgenaue Besetzung (“perfect match”), which aims to support SMEs to find suitable trainees and job candidates (see Box 2.3) (OECD, 2024[94]). Similarly, in Switzerland, an innovative approach using training networks has helped MSMEs overcome limitations in equipment and staff when training apprentices and TVET students. Training networks allow MSMEs to pool their resources and maximise their training potential (see Box 2.3).
In addition to enterprise-level barriers to ensuring the relevance of work-based learning opportunities, other TVET system-level challenges also exist in Thailand. Skills mismatches are prevalent in the country, as the TVET system does not sufficiently use skills data and intelligence, nor inputs from stakeholders, in order to design TVET opportunities (OECD, 2021[31]). Skills assessment and anticipation (SAA) exercises are central to determining the supply and demand of skills in the labour market and adjusting skills development opportunities accordingly. However, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, the use of SAA exercises in Thailand is fragmented and sporadic (World Bank, 2021[95]). At the country level, there is also a clear need to promote the systematic collection, management and use of skills data to inform the content of skills development opportunities and reduce skills mismatches (see Chapter 4).
Germany: Matching of youth apprentices to MSMEs in need
The German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action initiated the programme Passgenaue Besetzung (“perfect match”), which aims to support SMEs to find suitable trainees and job candidates. In the programme, a network of advisors reaches out to MSMEs and support them to fill their vacant apprenticeship positions. The advisors are employed through the programme and are based in local business organisations, such as Chambers of Industry and Commerce, Chambers of Skilled Crafts, and Chambers of Liberal Professions, among others. The advisors help determine the MSMEs’ hiring needs, identify requirement profiles, and search for potential candidates. To match apprentices with MSMEs, they organise “apprentice-speed-dating” initiatives, conduct vocational training fairs, accompany young people at job interviews, and use various channels for outreach and consultation (e.g. social media, virtual meetings, face-to-face). A counterfactual impact evaluation of the programme determined that it was successful, exceeding the number of MSMEs that it aimed to support, with many of the supported MSMEs consulted to better integrate foreign youth and skilled workers. Support for micro-enterprises was a strong achievement – amounting to 50% of all consultations – as this group faces the most difficulties in finding suitable apprentices and workers.
Switzerland: Host company networks to support MSMEs in providing training
In Switzerland, host company networks (Lehrbetriebsverbünde) group together enterprises that cannot or do not want to train apprentices on their own. Through this arrangement, enterprises can share the responsibilities of apprenticeship training, offer a bigger range of learning opportunities, and maximise the training potential of those that are too small and/or specialised to singlehandedly cover all the competencies specified in the VET curriculum. This arrangement helps guarantee that learners can obtain a comprehensive training programme, even when they are placed with small companies. Host company networks are covered by quality assurance mechanisms as specified in the Vocational Training Act and are required to have the necessary instruments and processes in place to routinely ensure the quality of training in the enterprises.
Several structures are possible. In the small network model (see Panel A in Figure 2.11), two or more companies join forces and provide complementary training, although one of them is considered the lead company, who is responsible for the apprentice. The partner companies cover training areas that the lead company cannot teach or could be taught better by partner companies. The costs for the apprenticeship are contractually regulated between the lead company and the partners companies. In the large-scale network model (see Panel B in Figure 2.11), an external and separate organisation is tasked to lead and carry out administrative functions, such as managing the training contract, ensuring compliance with quality assurance requirements, as well as organising the coaching, training and rotation of apprentices between the different enterprises. In this model, financing for the external lead organisation must be secured when the network is established.
Source: Berufsbildung (n.d.[96]), Training company association: Possible solutions for smaller companies, www.berufsbildung.ch/de/grundlagen/lehrbetriebsverbund; ILO (n.d.[97]), Adapting apprenticeships to the needs of SMEs, www.ilo.org/topics/apprenticeships/publications-and-tools/digital-toolkit-quality-apprenticeships/innovations-and-strategies/innovations-and-emerging-trends-apprenticeships/adapting-apprenticeships-needs-smes/; OECD (2024[98]), A perfect match – supporting SMEs in filling their vacant apprenticeship positions, www.oecd.org/en/publications/2023/04/providing-local-actors-with-case-studies-evidence-and-solutions-places_20b385f4/a-perfect-match-supporting-smes-in-filling-their-vacant-apprenticeship-positions_126f584a.html.
Improving the relevance of TVET offers is central to ensuring that students in Thailand’s vocational track develop the skills they need to fully contribute to their workplaces, as well as meet the standards of employers, helping promote the TVET track as a competitive option for students. High quality work-based learning opportunities can help improve the relevance of TVET by allowing students to apply their skills in real-world settings, facilitating their school-to-work transitions, and supporting them to find jobs more easily.
Thailand could undertake the following specific actions to improve the relevance of TVET offers through high-quality work-based learning opportunities:
2.1. Leverage the large number of MSMEs in Thailand to increase the supply of work-based learning opportunities. Thailand should tap on the potential of millions of MSMEs in the country to provide more high-quality work-based placements for TVET graduates. Relevant ministries and agencies, such as the Office of the Vocational Education Commission and the Office of SMEs Promotion, should collaborate to inform them about the benefits of work-based learning opportunities such as apprenticeships, raise awareness about available government support measures for work placements (e.g. Learn to Earn Programme, New Breed Graduate Programme, CWIE, STEMPlus Platform), identify the recruitment needs of enterprises (e.g. qualifications, skills and competencies, number of students sought), and match these with potential trainees and apprentices enrolled in dual TVET programmes.
2.2. Build training networks to help MSMEs gain access to high-quality equipment and learning opportunities for TVET offers. Thailand may work with enterprises to establish company training networks in order to fill the gaps in the capacity of MSMEs to offer high-quality vocational training. Through such networks, apprentices assigned to MSMEs, especially those in Thailand’s rural areas, can have access to better facilities and equipment in partner companies, as well as gain additional skills and expertise that small companies cannot always singlehandedly provide. Additionally, this arrangement can help provide apprentices with a wider range of work-based learning opportunities, enabling them to develop a more comprehensive set of skills.
2.3. Use SAA exercises more systematically to determine the content of work-based learning opportunities. As discussed in more detail in Chapters 3 and 4, the supply of work-based learning opportunities in Thailand must be underpinned by reliable and timely data about which skills are needed in the labour market. SAA exercises must be conducted by both government and private sector actors alike, and subsequently used by TVET providers and training companies to inform the set of skills to be developed among trainees and apprentices.
Opportunity 2: Promoting the development of higher-level skills among youth
While Thailand has succeeded in raising gross enrolment rates in primary and secondary education over the past few decades, enrolment at tertiary education still remains low in comparison to OECD countries (World Bank Group, 2023[99]). In order to support Thailand’s ambitions of transitioning towards an innovation-based economy, promoting the development of higher-level skills among youth should be a critical priority. It is important to ensure that these initiatives are accompanied with efforts to raise the supply of jobs requiring higher levels of skills, in line with priority sectors in Thailand’s socio-economic development strategies (e.g. Thailand 4.0, 13th National Economic and Social Development Plan), to avoid creating skills imbalances. Higher education systems play a key role in fostering the development of these skills, whether they be transversal higher-order and cognitive skills such as creativity and critical thinking, or specialised and industry-specific skills, such as those related to science and technology (e.g. artificial intelligence, coding, data management) (Office of the Prime Minister, 2002[27]; OECD, 2024[100]).
Two key recommendations have been identified to help Thailand to promote the development of higher-level skills among youth: (1) promoting informed educational choices by increasing the supply of well-qualified career guidance counsellors in schools; and (2) increasing access to high-quality higher education programmes.
Recommendation 3: Promoting informed educational choices by increasing the supply of well-qualified guidance counsellors in schools
Efforts to raise enrolment in higher-level educational programmes must take into account students’ interests, as well as the needs of the labour market. Career guidance services play an important role guiding students’ decisions, providing them with relevant, personalised and timely information on what skills are in demand in the labour market (see Box 2.4). Such services help students assess their current skills set, identify opportunities for further educational development, and provide advice on where to obtain skills development opportunities (CEDEFOP et al., 2019[101]); (OECD, 2023[102]).
Career guidance includes services and activities that aim to assist individuals to make educational, training and occupational choices, as well as to help them prepare their transitions into the labour market and manage their careers. Career guidance has two main elements:
Career education, where students learn about the world of work and develop career management skills through a combination of classroom-taught lessons and work experience.
Individual career advice provided on a one-to-one basis by a career guidance professional, who shares specific advice on further education and training choices and career decisions.
These two elements of career guidance are underpinned by (increasingly web-based) career information on training courses, occupations and career pathways. These services may be delivered face-to-face, at a distance or in blended mode, and either pro-actively (e.g. school-mandated interviews for all students) or reactively (e.g. on demand). They may be provided to students through primary and secondary schools, vocational training centres, and tertiary and higher education institutions, as well as through public and private employment services and public and private career guidance centres.
Career guidance could take the form of mentoring and coaching. In a mentorship, an older and more experienced individual typically gives advice to students (or younger employees) based on their own personal and professional experiences. Coaching, on the other hand, uses students’ pre-determined goals as a starting point and helps them work towards these goals through improved behaviours and thinking patterns, thereby increasing their performance and productivity levels.
Source: OECD (2024[103]), Challenging Social Inequality Through Career Guidance: Insights from International Data and Practice, https://doi.org/10.1787/619667e2-en; OECD (2010[104]), Learning for Jobs, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264087460-en; UNESCO (2019[101]), Investing in Career Guidance, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000378215; Indeed (2024[105]), Mentoring, Coaching and Counseling: What’s the Difference?, www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/mentoring-coaching-and-counseling.
In Thailand, career guidance services are provided by the government, as well as non-government actors such as the private sector and civil society. Within government, the Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC) under the Ministry of Education plays a key role in developing career guidance curricula from primary to high school levels, including in the vocational track. Other key government actors include the Thailand Professional Qualification Institute, as well as the Department of Employment and the Department for Skill Development of the Ministry Labour, which provides career guidance services to adolescents and youth who have dropped out of school through Provincial Labour Offices. In addition, the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation also manages the Further Education Planning website (https://gotouni.mhesi.go.th/), which provides information on the curricula provided by Thai HEIs, the number of expected students, tuition fees, scholarships, career options after graduation, and living conditions (e.g. dormitories). Beyond government, social enterprises and NGOs also offer a variety of career guidance services, such as skills assessment, the provision of career information (UNICEF, 2022[106]; Equitable Education Fund, 2023[107]).
However, many challenges still exist in Thailand when it comes to the provision of career guidance, resulting in the lack of information about in-demand skills and qualifications in the labour market, and therefore significant skills mismatches. Field-of-study choices in Thailand are often mismatched with labour market needs, particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields, where there are low levels of enrolment despite the fact there is high demand for STEM graduates by industry. Conversely, there is a disproportionate oversupply of tertiary-educated workers in non-STEM career fields (OECD, 2021[108]) (Somsathan et al., 2022[109]).
As described in Recommendation 2, and in Chapters 3 and 4, one of the main policy gaps contributing to the low relevance of educational opportunities in Thailand is the absence of SAA exercises to support the alignment of supply and demand for skills development programmes. As Thailand currently lacks a national database that consolidates information about what skills are required by industry, schools and higher education institutions (HEIs) lack important information needed to support the design of curricula that can equip graduates with the competencies required by employers (NESDC, 2023[110]; Office of National Higher Education, 2022[111]).
Furthermore, many schools have inadequate human resources dedicated to providing career guidance services to students and helping them make informed choices about higher education programmes. In Southeast Asia, Thailand has one of the lowest shares of students with access to one or more counsellor(s) who provide career guidance, regardless of whether they are found in an advantaged or disadvantaged school (see Figure 2.12). Only 12% of students in advantaged schools in Thailand have access to career guidance services, which is significantly lower than the ASEAN average of 45% and the OECD average of 66%. The situation is even worse in disadvantaged schools, where only 7% of students in Thailand have access to career guidance services. This rate is also significantly lower than the ASEAN (35%) and OECD (61%) averages for disadvantaged schools (OECD, 2019[112]). These disparities between advantaged and disadvantaged schools were confirmed by government representatives in Thailand, who reported that students in remote or underserved areas in the country have limited access to up-to-date information about educational pathways, labour market trends, and career options.
Source: OECD (2019[112]), "How school systems prepare students for their future", in PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed, https://doi.org/10.1787/31156087-en.
In addition to a low supply of career guidance counsellors in the country, the quality of career guidance services is also a concern. In many cases, teachers in Thailand double as guidance counsellors, but they often do not have the necessary knowledge and resources to perform this function (OECD, 2020[113]; UNICEF, 2022[106]; OECD, 2019[114]). Many counsellors in Thai schools thus provide career guidance as an additional task on top of their primary responsibilities, which affects their ability to provide personalised and comprehensive information on labour market needs, and detracts from their primary role of teaching. Most schools in the country allocate only less than one hour per week for students to attend guidance counselling sessions. Furthermore, even when prospective guidance counsellors want to have formal qualifications to formally practice the profession, programmes in psychology and counselling do not open for admission every year (UNICEF, 2022[115]).
There is a clear need for Thailand to increase the supply of career guidance counsellors in schools to help students make informed choices about which higher education programmes to take. This would entail recruiting more individuals into the guidance counselling profession, for instance by supporting more individuals to take up formal qualifications in counselling studies and providing the profession with a range of attractive benefits. For instance, in New Zealand, the government introduced the Guidance Counsellor Training Study Award to reduce cost barriers and incentivise prospective guidance counsellors to take up formal qualifications (see Box 2.5). Increasing the supply of qualified guidance counsellors can thus lower Thailand’s counsellor-student ratio, reduce the current workload of counsellors, and avoid the need to have teaches perform career guidance tasks on top of their teaching responsibilities (UNICEF, 2022[106]).
Increasing the supply of career guidance counsellors in Thailand also involves making the profession more attractive. Career pathways for career guidance counsellors are not as well-defined and competitive as those for teachers. Furthermore, the practice of career guidance lacks recognition and is considered as unimportant by many in the country, with many practitioners believing that any teacher can perform the tasks of a guidance counsellor (UNICEF, 2022[106]). While attitudinal barriers are more complex to address, providing guidance counsellors with professional support and a wide range of benefits can help improve perceptions of the profession in Thailand. For example, in Singapore, the Ministry of Education provides comprehensive support to school counsellors, such as opportunities for skills development and collaboration with other educational professionals, as well as clear pathways for career advancement (see Box 2.5).
Realistically, it might take time for Thailand to adequately increase its supply of career guidance counsellors with professional qualifications. For instance, in nearby Philippines, where there is also a severe shortage of career guidance counsellors, policymakers estimate that it will take up to 14 years to produce the supply of qualified career guidance counsellors needed to fill all vacancies across the country (see Box 2.5) (Esguerra, 2024[116]). Thailand’s provision of incentives for individuals to take up formal qualifications in career guidance must thus be accompanied by efforts to train teachers to provide these services in the meantime. This would entail allotting additional resources to OVEC’s Counselling Service Unit, which provides training to teachers to conduct guidance counselling. Thailand must reinforce these training initiatives in order to ensure that teachers are equipped with adequate knowledge of training opportunities, labour markets, and career pathways, and are trained to identify and use reliable sources of labour market information to provide evidence-based advice to their students (OECD, 2010[104]). Additionally, career advice given to students must be in line with Thailand’s multiple intelligences approach, and must build on students’ interest, aptitudes, and needs.
New Zealand: Study grants to incentivise prospective guidance counselling students
New Zealand’s Ministry of Education launched the Guidance Counsellor Training Study Award to incentivise prospective students to complete a master’s qualification in counselling studies. Every year, the programme offers four full-time teacher equivalent study awards to untrained guidance counsellors, as well as teachers who want to become qualified guidance counsellors. The award is open to individuals working in secondary schools and who have applied to study a Master of Counselling or Counselling Studies at an approved tertiary education institution. The award provides up to four years of part-time study or two years for full-time study, coverage of tuition fees, and contributions towards travel or relocation costs. In addition, award recipients will continue to receive their normal salary while on study leave.
Philippines: Training for teachers on guidance counselling
The Philippine Department of Education’s Bureau of Learner Support conducts month-long training sessions for teachers throughout the country to prepare them for the implementation of the Career Guidance Programme (CGP). The CGP aims to provide secondary-level students with support in choosing their career tracks. With the help of resource speakers such as licensed guidance counsellors and experts, the training sessions aim to equip teachers with a concrete understanding of what career guidance services are and how they can perform career guidance tasks effectively for learners. The content of the training modules includes the legal framework for career guidance in the Philippines, the basics of career guidance provision, and trends and updates in the field of career guidance.
Singapore: Benefits and professional development support for school counsellors
Singapore’s Ministry of Education recognises the value that school counsellors play in nurturing students’ socio-emotional and mental health development by providing a wide range of support services. Before being recruited as a school counsellor, prospective applicants are enrolled in a foundational training programme that equips them with the necessary skills and knowledge to conduct counselling activities, and then graduate with a professional accreditation. The Ministry of Education provides their full salary during the foundational training programme.
Among many benefits, school counsellors receive tailored professional development opportunities throughout their career to strengthen their counselling skills and build their expertise (e.g. workshops, seminars), as well as participate in networking and collaboration opportunities with school, ministry officers and other professionals from diverse domains to exchange best practices and collaborate. The Ministry of Education also provides clear pathways for career advancement for school counsellors, allowing them to progress in their role by leading counselling initiatives or mentoring junior counsellors. They may also take on leaderships positions within the school or at the ministry level, enabling them to contribute to the development of policies regarding school counselling and student well-being.
Source: Ministry of Education (2024[117]), Guidance Counsellor Training Study Award, https://workforce.education.govt.nz/current-teachers/sabbaticals-study-awards-and-study-grants/guidance-counsellor-training-study-award; Ministry of Education (2024[118]), School Counsellor (Trained/Untrained), www.moe.gov.sg/careers/non-teaching-careers/allied-educators/school-counsellor; Department of Education (2017[119]), DepEd trains teachers on career guidance, www.deped.gov.ph/2017/02/17/deped-trains-teachers-on-career-guidance/; Department of Education (2021[120]), Career Guidance Program (GCP) for S.Y. 2021-2022, https://caraga.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/CAREER-GUIDANCE.pdf.
Promoting informed educational choices by increasing the supply of well-qualified guidance counsellors in schools can help ensure that Thai students choose higher education programmes that are in line with their own interests and abilities and, at the same time, are reflective of the skills and qualifications that are high in demand in the labour market. This can help ensure that students’ investments in their education are well-rewarded with good employment opportunities and commensuration, as well as contribute to reducing skills mismatches in Thailand.
Thailand could undertake the following specific actions to promote informed educational choices by increasing the supply of well-qualified guidance counsellors in schools:
3.1 Provide incentives for guidance counsellors to obtain formal qualifications, as well as competitive benefits and support for practicing professionals. Thailand can increase the supply of well-qualified guidance counsellors by introducing financial incentives (e.g. scholarships, study leaves) to encourage prospective students to take up guidance counselling studies and obtain formal qualifications that certify that they have the necessary skills, knowledge and competencies to provide career guidance services. In addition, Thailand can raise the profile of guidance counselling as a profession by providing competitive working conditions to guidance counsellors. This could be done by putting policies in place to ensure that school administrators assign career counselling posts to individuals with formal qualifications, provide continuous professional development opportunities (e.g. networking, training on newest career guidance tools and techniques), and clear pathways for career advancement.
3.2 Provide career guidance training to teachers. As Thailand works over the long term to fill the shortage of qualified career guidance counsellors, the country can adopt the interim measure of training teachers on the provision career guidance services. OVEC, which is already active in training teachers in this area through its Counselling Service Unit, must reinforce its efforts to provide teachers, especially those found in disadvantaged schools (e.g. in rural areas), with basic career guidance skills, up-to-date knowledge of labour markets, and the latest effective practices in the career guidance profession. Teachers must also be trained to maintain Thailand’s multiple intelligences approach in the provision of career advice.
Recommendation 4: Increasing access to high-quality higher education programmes
Access to higher levels of education promotes the development of higher-level skills among youth, which can improve their ability to thrive in an increasingly complex world of work, as well as support the productivity and innovative capacity of the country’s workforce. Higher education is playing an increasingly important role in boosting countries’ economic development and improving overall social well-being. Given these benefits, higher education institutions (HEIs) are accounting for an increasingly large share of national income in OECD countries and are facing greater public scrutiny to ensure value for money and high-quality performance (OECD, 2020[121]).
Similarly, in Thailand, the government is making substantial investments in higher education to produce a highly skilled workforce capable of driving its ambitions for innovation-based growth. Initiatives such as the Thai KOSEN project, which partners with Japan’s National Institute of Technology (KOSEN), have been put in place to promote engineering education in specialised knowledge and skills; the New Breed Graduate Programme, which provides work-based learning experiences in strategic sectors outlined in Thailand 4.0; and the Cooperative and Work Integrated Education (CWIE) programme, which strengths university-industry engagement and allows students to gain practical working skills through work-based learning opportunities.
Although gross enrolment rates have risen across all levels of education in Thailand over the past two decades, enrolment in tertiary education has remained relatively low. This is despite the “massification” of higher education – defined as the expansion of access beyond the nation’s elite (Crocco, 2018[122]) – in the country (OECD, 2020[113]; World Bank, 2023[123]). Many HEIs in Thailand are struggling to fill their available spaces. Government representatives attribute this to the country’s rapid demographic shift toward an ageing society and a shrinking youth population, which has led to a steady decline in student enrolment. This trend presents significant financial challenges for HEIs and increases the risk of downsizing or closure for many institutions (OECD, 2020[113]; Scott and Guan, 2023[124]; ICEF Monitor, 2017[125]). This issue underscores Thailand’s urgent need to address its demographic challenges while simultaneously expanding access to tertiary educational in priority fields such as information and communication technology (ICT), artificial intelligence, robotics and engineering, and digital medicine, among others (Australian Department of Education, 2020[126]; Office of the Prime Minister, 2023[3]).
Improving the efficiency of current quality assurance mechanisms for higher education
Addressing the challenge of low demand for tertiary-level programmes and making them more attractive to prospective students will require enhancing the quality of higher education. Existing regulations govern both internal and external quality assurance systems for training institutions, including HEIs. Section 48 of the National Education Act of 1999 stipulates that internal quality assurance (IQA) is considered the responsibility of training providers, including HEIs. These institutions are required to integrate quality assurance mechanisms into their management practices, submit annual reports to relevant government agencies, and make these reports publicly accessible. IQA is overseen by the Office for Higher Education (OHEC) under the Ministry of Education (Office of the Prime Minister, 2002[27]; OHEC, 2014[127]).
In addition, external quality assurance (EQA) is conducted by the Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA), who sends a panel of assessors to gather qualitative data through observations and compare these against a set of criteria and standards, which differ for each level of education (ONESQA, 2021[128]). External quality assurance mechanisms evaluate HEIs based on 32 indicators, including employment outcomes of graduates within one year of graduation, employers’ satisfaction of graduates, and share of research and creative work out of HEI activities, among others (ONESQA, 2021[128]). In addition to these quality assurance mechanisms established by law, the Thai government has set additional regulations to guarantee the quality of the higher education system (see Table 2.3).
Source: OECD Skills Strategy Thailand policy questionnaire.
While Thailand has a quality assurance system in place with numerous regulations and controls, existing mechanisms are perceived as bureaucratic, and resources to implement them are inadequate (Hemthong, Thanasatchawat and Savatsomboon, 2023[129]; Scott and Guan, 2023[124]). There is a lack of capacity among higher education providers to conduct comprehensive internal quality assurance, such as self-assessments, and many of them are reluctant to comply due to the large amount of paperwork involved.
Nonetheless, government representatives in Thailand still recognise the need to have mechanisms in place to monitor and ensure the quality of HEIs. In response to this need, Thailand could consider adopting digital tools to facilitate the conduct of quality assurance mechanisms for HEIs, helping to streamline procedures and make them more systematised and accessible for higher education programmes. For example, in some OECD countries such as Finland (see Box 2.6), quality assurance for higher education is done through a digital platform, which offers a joint online space for conducting both internal (i.e. through a self-evaluation template filled out by HEIs) and external quality assurance (i.e. assessment conducted by an external audit team). The introduction of the platform has helped streamline the quality assurance process for all relevant parties, as it allows HEIs to upload documents needed for the audit, as well as allows the audit team to write the audit report directly into the platform itself. After the audit, the report is also published on the platform, rendering evaluations by FINEEC more transparent and participatory (FINEEC, 2018[130]; FINEEC, 2019[131]). Adopting a similar digital platform can help Thailand reduce the amount of paperwork involved in quality assurance processes, such as by allowing HEIs to answer evaluation questions and/or assess their performance on indicators on the platform itself and upload supporting documents onto it, as well as by allowing external auditors to compose and publish their write-ups digitally on the same platform.
Strengthening digital higher education programmes through comprehensive quality assurance mechanisms and improved digital competencies among educators
In addition to improving quality to enhance the attractiveness of existing higher education programmes, more online modalities and distance learning options can contribute to widening access to higher levels of education among the Thai population, helping address inter-regional differences and increase educational attainment levels in disadvantaged rural areas. This can also support the country’s efforts to attract more international students, promote digital learning in higher education, and become a digital university of the future that offers standardised online and hybrid education options (Office of National Higher Education, 2022[111]). If designed and used effectively, standardised online higher education options could help educators reach a larger number of students, as well as maintain education provision at scale despite a shortage of qualified educators. Online higher education could help transform teaching and learning practices, use more differentiated learning approaches, better detect students at risk of failure, and lead to faster completion times for students in higher education (OECD, 2023[132]; OECD, 2024[133]). There is also some evidence to suggest that higher education programmes offered in blended formats or fully online have been able to provide similar learning outcomes as in-person courses at significantly lower cost (Chirikov et al., 2020[134]).
In Thailand, online forms of learning are gaining ground, as evidenced by the introduction of the Thailand Massive Online Open Courses (Thai MOOC) platform, which was launched in 2016 to expand access to education (see Box 3.3 in Chapter 3). The platform currently offers over 700 non-formal courses in 12 areas: education and training; food and nutrition; mathematics and science; computers and technology; life skills and development; business and management; language and communication; engineering and architecture; arts, culture and religion; society, politics and governance; health and medicine; and agriculture and environment (Thai MOOC, 2024[135]). In addition, OVEC is prioritising digital literacy and ICT training in schools to make students more proficient in using digital tools for learning, while the Ministry for Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation (MHESI) is HEIs to develop digital platforms for learning and online short courses, which are also available to adult learners.
The increasing popularity of online education options in Thailand is in line with trends observed in many OECD countries, where digital education technologies have now become a key resource and where fully online HEIs are emerging and growing (OECD, 2023[132]). As of 2023, at least 17 OECD countries have recognised fully online higher education providers within their educational system, which may either be public or government-dependent, or independent non-profit or for-profit. In some cases, traditional HEIs have partnered with private educational technology companies to either integrate online learning material into their formal online programmes, help them manage their delivery of online education options, or completely outsource the development of online programmes (Broberg and Golden, 2023[136]).
However, despite its many benefits, there is also evidence to suggest that fully online programmes can lead to poor learning outcomes (Escueta et al., 2020[137]; OECD, 2023[132]), which underlines the need to ensure that careful attention is paid to ensuring the quality of online higher education options (OECD, 2023[138]; OECD, 2024[139]). Online higher education programmes must thus be carefully approached in Thailand, and a comprehensive set of quality assurance processes – covering both the design or development and implementation phases – must be put in place to guarantee their quality and relevance (see Table 2.4).
Source: Broberg, N. and G. Golden (2023[136]), “How are OECD governments navigating the digital higher education landscape?: Evidence from a comparative policy survey”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 303, https://doi.org/10.1787/93468ccb-en; European Commission (2024[140]), Quality assurance in higher education: Finland, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/finland/quality-assurance-higher-education; FINEEC (2024[141]), Audit register for higher education institutions, www.karvi.fi/en/evaluations/higher-education/audit-register-higher-education-institutions; FINEEC (2018), 3rd cycle: Audits of higher education institutions 2018-2024, www.karvi.fi/en/evaluations/higher-education/3rd-cycle-audits-higher-education-institutions-2018-2024; OECD (2023[138]), Ensuring quality digital higher education in Hungary, https://doi.org/10.1787/5f44fd6f-en; OECD (2024) (2024[142]), OECD Workshop: Enhancing Quality Assurance in Digital Adult Education Summary of Discussions, www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/skills-strategies/centre-for-skills-peer-learning-events/OECD-Workshop-Enhancing-Quality-Assurance-in-Digital-Adult-Education-Summary-of-Discussions_240718_1707.PDFO.pdf; OECD (2024[139]), Quality Matters: Strengthening the Quality Assurance of Adult Education and Training, https://doi.org/10.1787/f44a185b-en.
Thailand can adopt proactive measures from the outset of programme design and development to strengthen the quality of its digital higher education offerings. These efforts should prioritise alignment with Thailand 4.0 priority sectors, ensuring that new higher education programmes are thoroughly reviewed by Thai national educational authorities for their quality and relevance before officially being offered to learners. For instance, in Hungary (see Box 2.6), the government permits HEIs to introduce new programmes only when they have been evaluated by the Hungarian Committee and approved by the Educational Authority and the Ministry of Culture and Innovation (OECD, 2023[138]).
Moreover, once online programmes are operational and are being implemented, Thailand’s existing quality assurance mechanisms could be refined by tailoring them to online and digital formats. This could include introducing digitalisation-specific indicators in self-assessments and external audits, such as those that pertain to ensuring the quality and effectiveness of course design (e.g. integrating active learning and interactive content), ensuring staff are competent and have adequate training for digital contexts, ensuring student verifiability and educational integrity (e.g. preventing cheating and plagiarism), safeguarding data and personal privacy, and providing adequate infrastructure and technical support (OECD, 2024[139]; Broberg and Golden, 2023[136]).
In addition to internal quality assurance, external mechanisms, such as the use of quality labels, are also used as a tool to guarantee digital education programmes’ quality. Quality labels and certificates are provided by external bodies (i.e. separate from the training provider seeking certification; e.g. governmental or non-governmental organisations) who conduct audits using pre-determined requirements for quality. When training providers meet these requirements, they are given quality labels, such as a logo, emblem or symbol that they may use and advertise to the public (OECD, 2021[143]; OECD, 2023[144]). In Estonia, the Quality Label of Digital Education has been used since 2008 to assure learners of the quality of individual online courses. More specifically, the label assures that the courses apply digital technologies effectively to improve their learning processes, and that education materials follow best practices for the creation of digital learning materials (see Box 2.6).
One policy measure, distinct from but closely related to the quality assurance of digital higher education, is the provision of digital skills training to teaching personnel in Thailand. Educators must be trained with digital pedagogical skills, or the ability to use digital platforms, resources and practices to teach, communicate with, and assess students (World Bank, 2023[145]). Countries in the OECD use various practices to this end, such as developing toolkits or guidelines to help HEI teaching staff develop their digital pedagogical skills, providing training on the use of specific digital software or tools, and establishing platforms for teachers to share educational materials and exchange the best digital pedagogical practices (Broberg and Golden, 2023[136]). For example, Korea operates an education training centre to strengthen teachers’ digital competencies. The Korea Education and Research Information Service (KERIS) Comprehensive Education Training Institute is a training centre specialised in digital education, offering a wide variety of educational technology courses on artificial intelligence and other emerging tools in education. The centre also allows teachers to share their digital skills with one another through real-time video lectures (KERIS, 2023[146]).
Finland: Digital platforms for quality assurance
In Finland, the Universities Act and the Universities of Applied Sciences Act state that HEIs have the primary responsibility for evaluating the quality of their educational programmes, research, and artistic activities (i.e. internal quality assurance). In addition, the acts also state that HEIs must regularly participate in external evaluations, which are conducted by the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC). In 2018, FINEEC renewed its audit model and introduced a digital platform, which functions as a template for both the self-evaluation conducted by HEIs themselves, and the external audit process. Once the audit has been conducted, the audit team proposes to the Higher Education Evaluation Committee that the HEI has either passed, or must undergo a re-audit. After passing the audit, the HEI will receive an audit certificate and an electronic quality label, and will also be displayed in the Audit register for higher education institutions, which presents a list of HEIs who have been quality assured. All in all, digital quality assurance tools have made the process more transparent and interactive, has made results easier to use, and has promoted participatory and an open quality culture in Finnish higher education.
Hungary: Accredited fully online distance learning programmes
In Hungary, digital higher education, including distance learning, is an important way to increase participation in tertiary education and improve attainment rates, especially among disadvantaged socio-economic students and international students. Distance learning in Hungary is defined as a form of training in which the theoretical aspects of learning are taught within a digital curriculum, and in which co-operation between the teacher and the student occur in a closed distance virtual learning environment or learning management system (VLE/LMS) via the internal IT network of the HEI (Internet/Intranet). To assure quality and relevance, Hungary has adopted a regulation stipulating that HEIs can only launch programmes in registered fields of study, once they have submitted an application to – and have been evaluated by – the Hungarian Accreditation Committee (MAB), as well as approved by the Educational Authority (OH) and the Ministry of Culture and Innovation (KIM). In their application, HEIs must justify the establishment of the new programme in the context of existing higher education offers in Hungary and internationally, as well as present the programme’s proposed education plan and learning outcomes. Approved applications are then included in the official Higher Education Qualifications Register. More recently, Hungary has been taking steps to allow HEIs to move towards self-accreditation in order to further enhance their responsibility for quality. Moreover, Hungary also aims to simplify the existing programme accreditation process and make better use of digital technologies to improve the efficiency of quality assurance procedures. For instance, MAB has developed a new information system that allows HEIs to submit all accreditation documents into an integrated online platform.
Estonia: Quality labels for digital education
In Estonia, the Quality Label of Digital Education was introduced in 2008 to respond to education providers’ request to be recognised for their high-quality online courses. The label assures that online courses effectively apply digital technologies to enhance the learning process based on the ADDIE model, which stands for Analysis, Design, Develop, Implement and Evaluation. While the ADDIE model is applicable to in-person courses as well, additional criteria have been introduced specifically for digital learning, such as the use of technological tools to support the learning process, and the conformation of digital learning materials with best practices. The quality criteria are regularly updated by a working group of experts (e.g. instructional designers, technologists, academic staff), and also incorporate feedback from HEIs to ensure relevance. In addition, the working group also develops guidelines for online courses and provides training to educational providers.
The label is completely voluntary and free of charge. The application process involves the following elements: (1) a self-evaluation by the applicant using a standard template; (2) a review of the online course at the institutional level (e.g. by the programme manager, head of department); and (3) an evaluation of the online course by an expert panel, based on pre-determined criteria and clear grading guidelines. The expert panel then makes the decision to award the quality label to the education provider, and may also award outstanding e-courses with the label “Excellent e-course”. After the application process, applicants continue to receive constructive feedback from the working group on how to improve their provision. Once the label has been provided, education providers gain access to a wide variety of benefits, including access to a community of practice where best practices are shared, as well as permission to use the label for marketing purposes. Courses with the label can be credit towards a bachelor’s or master’s degree, or can be made available to learners that are not enrolled in higher education. Renewing the label every three years is recommended but not required, although the date the label was received is indicated.
Source: European Commission (2024[140]), Quality assurance in higher education: Finland, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/finland/quality-assurance-higher-education; FINEEC (2024[141]), Audit register for higher education institutions, www.karvi.fi/en/evaluations/higher-education/audit-register-higher-education-institutions; FINEEC (2018[147]), 3rd cycle: Audits of higher education institutions 2018-2024, www.karvi.fi/en/evaluations/higher-education/3rd-cycle-audits-higher-education-institutions-2018-2024; OECD (2023[138]), Ensuring Quality Digital Higher Education in Hungary, https://doi.org/10.1787/5f44fd6f-en; OECD (2024[142]), OECD Workshop: Enhancing Quality Assurance in Digital Adult Education Summary of Discussions, www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/skills-strategies/centre-for-skills-peer-learning-events/OECD-Workshop-Enhancing-Quality-Assurance-in-Digital-Adult-Education-Summary-of-Discussions_240718_1707.PDFO.pdf.
Increasing access to high-quality higher education in Thailand can be achieved by strengthening quality assurance processes and promoting online and distance learning options. These measures would help to broaden access, boost tertiary attainment rates, and support the country’s internationalisation efforts. Online higher education, in particular, offers significant advantages, including more cost-efficient training solutions for HEIs in Thailand, many of which are facing financial challenges arising from declining student enrolment.
Thailand could undertake the following specific actions to increase access to high-quality higher education programmes:
4.1. Support HEIs in implementing more efficient and digitalised quality assurance processes. To reduce the bureaucratic burden associated with conducting internal quality assurance for all higher education programmes, including both in-person and online offerings, Thailand should consider introducing a digital platform (see Finland in Box 2.6) to streamline and standardise the process. Such a platform could be designed to reduce the need for extensive paperwork, which is currently a significant barrier to HEIs’ compliance with internal QA requirements. The platform could incorporate self-assessment indicators, as outlined in the Manual for Internal Quality Assurance for Higher Education Institutions (OHEC, 2014[127]), into an easily accessible and user-friendly template for HEIs to complete. Additionally, the platform could include functionality for submitting accreditation documents, further simplifying the reporting process for institutions.
4.2. Establish robust internal and external quality assurance mechanisms specifically tailored for online and digital higher education programmes. These criteria should include elements such as effective course design for digital delivery, provision of training for staff in digital methods, measures to ensure student identity verification and educational integrity, safeguards for data protection and personal privacy, and the availability of adequate infrastructure and technical support. These criteria must be included in internal quality assurance mechanisms, such as HEI’s self-assessments conducted via the digital platform (see Recommendation 4.1). Additionally, they should also be included in external quality assurance mechanisms, namely as criteria for external assessments overseen by ONESQA and for the awarding of quality labels to deserving digital higher education programmes (see Estonia in Box 2.6).
4.3. Support HEIs in offering a greater number of online courses and distance learning modalities. Thailand should encourage HEIs to offer online versions of their existing course offerings or develop new online programmes in priority areas, that could lead to formal qualifications. These efforts could build on existing good practices, such as the Thai MOOC platform (see Box 3.3 in Chapter 3). Relevant authorities in Thailand should actively review the content, quality and relevance of new online higher education courses prior to their official launch. This process would ensure that courses are supported by effective educational plans and are designed to achieve positive learning outcomes for graduates (see Hungary in Box 2.6).
4.4. Support educators in HEIs to deliver online learning through tailored pedagogical practices and curricula. HEIs that offer online programmes should ensure that educators are well-equipped with the necessary digital pedagogical skills. This can be achieved by developing and disseminating basic guidelines on how to deliver online courses and use digital education technologies, communicate with students through digital platforms, assess students’ performance in online learning settings, and troubleshoot common technical issues. In addition, Thailand could provide more comprehensive training on specific software or digital learning tools, as well as specialised topics such as the use of artificial intelligence in education. To complement these training initiatives, educators should also have opportunities to share knowledge and exchange best practices with their peers. Such efforts would help to build a collaborative learning culture and further strengthen educators’ capacity to deliver high-quality online education.
Opportunity 3: Reducing inequalities in educational outcomes
In Thailand, inequalities in educational outcomes remain widespread in Thailand, particularly among disadvantaged groups. Children from low-income households, rural areas, ethnic minorities, and migrant backgrounds, as well as girls and students with disabilities, consistently face barriers that hinder access to high-quality and relevant skills development opportunities. These disparities are influenced by various factors; however, government representatives have identified geographic location and socio-economic status as the most significant contributors to these inequalities. By prioritising equity and inclusion in Thailand’s initial education system, all students are empowered to achieve their full potential , irrespective of their personal or social circumstances (OECD, 2024[148]).
Two key recommendations have been identified to help Thailand to reduce inequalities in educational outcomes: (1) bridging regional gaps in educational outcomes through enhanced access to high-quality teaching; and (2) supporting students from low-income households to access initial education through financial and non-financial incentives.
Recommendation 5: Bridging regional gaps in educational outcomes through enhanced access to high-quality teaching
In Thailand, stark inter-regional disparities persist in both access to and the quality of initial education. Those least likely to gain access to education, especially at higher levels, and to complete it include children living in remote rural areas, particularly in the northern, north eastern and southern parts of the country (OECD/UNESCO, 2016[1]). In these rural areas, students’ completion rates at the upper secondary level are 18 percentage points lower than those of their counterparts in urban areas (UNICEF, 2019[9]). Inter-regional disparities in the quality of education are also a challenge, as evidenced by the performance of students in the O-NET, a high-stakes and mandatory examination administered at grades 6, 9 and 12 to determine promotion to the next grade. Half of all lowest-scoring provinces are found in the economically disadvantaged northeast and southern regions. In contrast, nearly all the top-scoring provinces are found in cities in the central region (e.g. Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Pattaya) (Fry, Bi and Apahung, 2018[48]; UNESCO, 2014[149]).
In the north, north-eastern and southern regions, where the poverty rates are almost double the national level (World Bank, 2022[47]), the likelihood of having children who complete their schooling is much lower than in other regions (see Figure 2.13). Students from these regions are much less likely to finish any level of schooling in comparison to students from Bangkok and the central region. Inter-regional differences are most stark at the upper secondary level, where only 63% of students in the northern region and 65% of students in the north-eastern and southern regions finish their schooling, in comparison to 80% of students in Bangkok (UNICEF, 2023[46]).
Source: UNICEF (2023[150]), Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2022: Survey Findings Report, https://www.unicef.org/thailand/media/11356/file/Thailand%20MICS%202022%20full%20report%20(English).pdf.
Regional differences in educational outcomes in Thailand may be due to a wide variety of factors, including uneven access to high-quality infrastructure and learning materials, as well as inconsistencies in the implementation of the curriculum. Government representatives have confirmed that there is an uneven distribution of resources between urban and rural schools, with urban schools often having better facilities and greater access to learning materials (including digital tools).
The Thai government has implemented a series of measures to improve the quality of education in rural areas. These include merging small schools to concentrate resources and focus on fewer high quality but in-need schools, matching rural teachers with local universities to improve their skills in math, physics, and use of digital tool, and offering scholarships to teachers to complete their education. A condition of these scholarships is that recipients return to their local communities to provide service, thereby addressing local education needs. However, despite these efforts, schools in rural areas still face many challenges.
One of the most important challenges is the shortage of highly qualified teachers in rural areas. Although the Thai government has made targeted investments in underserved areas to improve infrastructure and provide better learning materials, there remains a significant imbalance in teacher deployment between rural and urban areas. Rural schools struggle to attract and retain teachers, while urban schools generally do not face such shortages and may even have a surplus (UNESCO, 2019[55]). This has a strong impact on the quality of education in rural schools. There is evidence that even when controlling for school size, location and type (public or private), Thai schools with teacher shortages tend to have poorer educational outcomes than those without shortages (Pholphirul, Rukumnuaykit and Teimtad, 2023[151]).
Shortages are particularly concerning among mathematics teachers and science teachers, who play a key role in developing the skills and knowledge necessary to develop a highly innovative economy in Thailand (Buain and Pholphirul, 2022[28]). Teachers in rural schools suffer from heavy workloads and are often forced to teach beyond their own fields of specialty (OECD/UNESCO, 2016[1]). However, since the COVID-19 pandemic, various organisations in Thailand have supported teachers with pedagogy and new teaching techniques – such as OBEC’s Online Platform, IPST’s Online Educational Resources, Distance Learning Television (DLTV) by the Distance Learning Foundation under The Royal Patronage, and the Professional Learning Community (PLC).
Government representatives also confirmed that due to the shortage of teaching personnel, there is also a higher student-teacher ratio in rural areas and teachers often have to resort to multi-grade teaching, which affects pedagogical quality (World Bank, 2016[152]; Pholphirul, Rukumnuaykit and Teimtad, 2023[151]); (OECD, 2024[153]). While perceptions of the merits of multi-grade teaching varies across countries, Thailand considers it as an important strategy for improving the quality of education in small rural schools, as it is considered too costly to provide a teacher for every grade level (SEAMEO-INNOTECH, 2012[154]). However, despite multigrade teaching being a common practice in many schools. there is currently no mandatory pedagogical training for managing multi-grade classrooms. There is thus a need for Thailand to incorporate this into pre-service teacher training and offer ongoing professional development opportunities for teachers. This would enable the more effective application of multi-grade teaching as a strategy to mitigate teacher shortages and large class sizes in the short to medium-term (Buaraphan, Inrit and Kochasila, 2018[155]).
In the longer-term, increasing the supply of highly qualified teachers in rural areas must be a priority. This has already been identified as a priority by government representatives in Thailand. Providing incentives specifically for teachers in rural schools may be helpful in increasing prospective teachers’ motivation to relocate and stay in rural areas. For example, in Australia, multiple states, such as New South Wales and Queensland have introduced attraction and retention incentives specifically for teachers in rural regions (see Box 2.7). In a similar vein, government representatives in Thailand have reported adopting a multifaceted approach that includes financial incentives, comprehensive benefits, and continuous professional development opportunities.
While incentives for teachers in rural areas have been introduced in the past, uptake has been low and implementation has proven difficult due to limited administrative capacity at the school level. Teachers are frequently required to balance their teaching responsibilities with additional work as financial managers and administrators, making the management of incentive schemes more challenging. This underscores the need for Thailand to complement teacher incentives with measures to strengthen school-level administrative capacity – for example, by offering similar incentives to encourage school administrators and support personnel to relocate to rural areas. For example, the state of Western Australia’s attraction and retention benefits for teachers are also available for school administrators at the secondary level (see Box 2.7) (Western Australia Department of Education, 2022[156]).
Careful policy design and continuous policy monitoring and evaluation is essential to ensure that such incentives are well-targeted and effective in addressing the challenges faced by teachers and administrators in rural areas. While evidence from high-income countries such as Australia provides useful insights, experiences from developing countries also demonstrate that, even under financial constraints, well-designed financial incentives can be effective. Their success, however, depends on several factors. These include effective targeting, strategic differentiation of incentive levels according to community characteristics (e.g. urban, semi-urban, rural, remote), as well as the complementary provision of non-financial benefits, such as teaching material and others resources, and direct access to supervisors) (UNESCO, 2011[157]; Lentini, Gimenez and Valbuena, 2024[158]).
The introduction of such incentives should be accompanied by initiatives to raise awareness of the benefits of living and teaching in rural areas. This approach has been employed in New South Wales and Queensland, Australia, where awareness raising materials – such as promotional videos – were developed to communicate the benefits and incentives available to teachers in rural schools (see Box 2.7). When well-designed, such campaigns can serve as a cost-effective means of disseminating information on the broader benefits of rural living, including closer engagement with communities and more opportunities for students to participate in local projects and businesses. These efforts can contribute to improving perceptions of rural schools among both teachers and the wider public (OECD, 2024[133]).
In addition to providing incentives to attract qualified teachers to rural areas, Thailand could leverage digital technologies – including artificial intelligence (AI) – to expand access to high-quality education for students in rural areas. Globally, digital and AI-driven solutions are playing an increasingly important role in education systems, offering a range of potential benefits. These include promoting inclusion and equity, enabling more personalised learning, broadening access to high-quality learning resources, and improving the efficiency of key processes such as grading, assessments and homework monitoring. Moreover, integrating such technologies can help ensure that education remains relevant by strengthening digital competencies among both teachers and students (OECD, 2023[159]; UNESCO, 2021[160]).
In line with Thailand’s efforts to provide high-speed internet to every village in the country through the Net Pracharat project (Net Pracharat, 2018[161]), digital technologies could be strengthened in order to virtually bring qualified teachers into rural schools and deliver classes. This is already being practiced in some countries across the OECD, where rural schools also face a shortage of qualified teachers and are turning to digital solutions for providing high-quality education. In Lycksele in Sweden, a rural municipality with a Sami community, a severe shortage of Sami language teachers was addressed by virtually co‑operating with other schools to organise joint Sami language courses. This strategy helped pool resources and teaching expertise to ensure that students can have access to high-quality education in their native language (European Commission, 2023[162]). In addition, the EU-funded EU Rural Virtual Classroom is a collaborative virtual platform where rural schools can support each other, fill teacher shortages, and exchange content and activities in real time. The platform offers a virtual classroom, an online space where teachers can deliver classes, facilitate breakout rooms, upload and share materials, and use an interactive blackboard. It also features a digital repository of lesson plans and learning materials that other rural teachers can use, as well as a virtual exchange channel where teachers can get in contact with each other to share experiences (EU Rural Virtual Classroom, 2024[163]).
Beyond pedagogical applications, digital and AI technologies are increasingly used to streamline educational administration, including processed such as admissions, timetabling, and school inspections. These efficiencies can help free up teachers’ for core instructional responsibilities (UNESCO, 2021[160]). However, the deployment of AI in education must be approached with caution to avoid exacerbating existing disparities, particularly between urban and rural areas. Using AI to enhance Thailand’s education system should be accompanied by sustained efforts to strengthen the foundational conditions in rural schools. This includes addressing persistent gaps in teacher supply and improving critical infrastructure, such as internet connectivity and access to digital devices (UNESCO, 2021[160]).
Australia: Attraction and retention scheme for rural teachers and school administrators
Several states in Australia have introduced a package of incentives to encourage teachers to relocate to rural schools. New South Wales provides the Rural Teacher Incentive amounting between AUD 20 000 and AUD 30 000 per year, an Experienced Teacher Benefit of AUD 10 000 gross for a maximum of five years, and an annual retention benefit of AUD 5 000 gross for a maximum of ten years. In addition, New South Wales also offers rental subsidies, additional personal leave and training leave, and transfer points. In Queensland, teachers in rural and remote communities have access to a range of additional benefits on top of their salary. These include generous payments for teachers and their families through the Recognition of Rural and Remove Service (RoRRS) scheme, additional leave days and extra school holidays, relocation assistance, subsidised housing, opportunities for professional development, and wellbeing support. If teachers decide to extend their stay in a remote community, they may also become eligible for a reduction in their Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) debt. In Western Australia, the Regional Attraction and Retention Incentive is available to both teachers and school administrators. It provides a financial benefit varying from AUD 5 000 to AUD 17 000 depending on the location. 25% of the total amount is paid at the start of the assignment, while the remaining 75% is paid to teachers and school administrators who stay until the end of the school year.
To accompany the introduction of the incentives, both New South Wales and Queensland have developed awareness-raising materials, such as promotional videos, to motivate prospective applicants to discover life as a rural teacher. In these materials, they explain not only how living in rural areas could help teachers access a range of additional opportunities for their professional development, but also form part of local communities and gain access to bigger living spaces for their families.
Source: New South Wales Government (2023[164]), Choose rural, https://education.nsw.gov.au/teach-nsw/find-teaching-jobs/choose-rural; Queensland Government (2024[165]), Rural and remote benefits, https://teach.qld.gov.au/teach-in-queensland-state-schools/pay-benefits-and-incentives/rural-and-remote-benefits; Western Australia Department of Education (2022[166]), Attraction and retention incentive for remote and regional schools, www.education.wa.edu.au/attraction-and-retention-initiative.
Bridging regional gaps in educational outcomes requires enhancing access to high-quality teaching. By incentivising highly skilled and qualified teachers to relocate to and remain in rural schools, or by facilitating direct connections between these educators and students, youth in underserved areas can develop the skills and knowledge necessary to bridge the gap with their urban counterparts and thrive in an increasingly dynamic and competitive world of work.
Thailand could implement the following targeted actions to bridge regional gaps in educational outcomes by enhancing access to high-quality teaching:
5.1. Provide specialised training teachers on multi-grade teaching methodologies as an interim solution to address teacher shortages in rural areas. The Ministry of Education should collaborate with teacher training institutions to provide training, including pre-service training, on effective practices for multi-grade classrooms. Considering the importance of multi-grade teaching in mitigating teacher shortages, particularly in disadvantaged rural areas, it is essential to equip teachers with the necessary pedagogical skills and knowledge for multi-grade teaching, tailored to different education levels and subject areas. Furthermore, the Ministry of Education should ensure that teachers in rural areas have access to continuous professional development opportunities on multi-grade teaching, enabling them to stay updated with the latest pedagogical practices.
5.2. Introduce incentives to attract and retain teachers and school administrative staff in rural areas. The Ministry of Education should consider introducing a package of incentives to attract and retain teachers in rural schools. These incentives could include higher salaries or bonuses, annual retention benefits, and additional leave days for personal or professional development. Support for relocation and living costs should also be provided, such as relocation assistance, housing subsidies, and well-being programmes. To maximise the impact of these measures, the Ministry of Education should develop targeted awareness-raising materials, such as video explainers and brochures, to raise awareness of the advantages and opportunities of teaching in rural schools.
5.3. Strengthen the use of digital technologies to connect qualified teachers with rural schools. Build on its progress in expanding high-speed internet access to villages, Thailand should expand access to virtual learning opportunities. This could include establishing a digital platform that rural schools can join free of charge to connect with teachers across the country – and potentially from abroad – to offer joint classes. Such a platform would enable rural students to benefit from the expertise of highly qualified teachers, who are often concentrated in urban areas. Additionally, the platform could feature a digital library where teachers can upload lesson plans and learning materials, as well as a real-time communication function to facilitate the exchange of best practices and collaborative problem-solving among educators.
Recommendation 6: Supporting students from low-income households to access initial education through financial and non-financial incentives
In Thailand, socio-economic status is a significant determinant of access to initial education alongside geographic location. Children from the lower wealth quintiles are disproportionately more likely to be out of school across all levels of education (see Figure 2.14). This disparity is particularly pronounced at the upper secondary level, where there is a 27 percentage-point gap in the out-of-school rates between the poorest (29%) and richest (2%) quintiles (UNICEF, 2023[46]). Despite the introduction of a policy guaranteeing free basic education until the upper secondary level, severe poverty persists in many parts of the country. As a result, children from low-income households often struggle to afford other costs associated with schooling, leading to higher dropout rates (Equitable Education Fund, 2024[45]).
Source: UNICEF (2023[150]), Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2022: Survey Findings Report, www.unicef.org/thailand/media/11356/file/Thailand%20MICS%202022%20full%20report%20(English).pdf.
Uneven access to education disproportionately impacts the educational outcomes of disadvantaged children, as evidenced by the 2022 PISA results, which show that socio-economic status accounted for 10% of the variation in Thai students’ mathematics performance. While this figure is slightly lower than the ASEAN (11%) and OECD (15%) averages (OECD, 2023[8]), this difference likely reflects weaker performers in the ASEAN region and lower variability among OECD countries, rather than an indication of low inequality within Thailand. Students from high-income families often have greater access to high-quality public education institutions and consistently outperform their peers. Conversely, children from intergenerationally poor households often enter the labour market as low-skilled or semi-skilled workers, perpetuating low income levels low and reinforcing the cycle of poverty (Office of the Prime Minister, 2023[3]).
In response to these challenges, Thailand has put in place several initiatives aimed at providing additional support to economically vulnerable children at risk of dropping out, as well as providing alternative skills development opportunities for those who are already out of school. For instance, the government is implementing the Zero Dropout pilot project, which seeks to identify and support at-risk children from low-income households, migrant backgrounds, and those with disabilities (Equitable Education Fund, 2024[167]). Additionally, Regional Non-formal Education Centres offer a range of programmes to vulnerable populations, including out-of-school youth. These include literacy programmes (e.g. for Thai, sign language), equivalency programmes that cover a wide range of educational topics from curricula at the primary and secondary levels, life skills training for youth and early adults (e.g. environmental preservation, sex education, health), and non-formal vocational training for income-generating activities (UNESCO, 2007[22]; Yenjai, 2014[168]). Additionally, the Ombudsman, together with several ministries, including the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security, are co‑operating to provide upskilling opportunities for students who did not pursue further education after completing compulsory levels.
In addition to these initiatives, the Equitable Education Fund (EEF) was established under the Equitable Education Act of 2018, in order to provide financial support to children and youth in greatest need, conduct research on financing for equity, and establish support centres for children in crises (Equitable Education Fund, 2022[169]; Equitable Education Fund, 2019[170]). The EEF aims to supplement the cost-per-head formula used to allot school budgets, thereby helping channel more resources to students who need additional support due to their socio-economic vulnerability. One of the biggest initiatives implemented by the EEF is a cash transfer programme, where they provide 569 000 of the poorest primary and secondary-level students with educational resources needed (Equitable Education Fund, 2019[170]).
However, it is unclear how EEF’s cash transfer programme works in practice, including what the specific target groups are and how much the transfers cost. Furthermore, evidence of the effectiveness of cash transfer programmes in Thailand has been mixed. Evaluations of a similar programme in Thailand, specifically a large-scale unconditional cash transfer programme (the State Welfare Card scheme), introduced in 2017 and targeting over 20% of the population, showed that it was unsuccessful in reducing monetary poverty, as it was not targeted carefully (Durongkaveroj, 2022[171]). On the other hand, the introduction of a universally covered social pension scheme (equivalent to 2-3 days of minimum wage) was found to increase the likelihood of teenage boys living with male pensioners to enrol in secondary school, although results for teenage girls were inconclusive (Herrmann, Leckcivilize and Zenker, 2017[172]). Evidence of cash transfer programmes in other countries have yielded more positive outcomes, although studies of their effectiveness highlight the need for the careful targeting of beneficiaries (Özler, Loeser and Premand, 2021[173]). There is thus a need for Thailand to gather rigorous evidence on the EEF’s cash transfer programme to ensure that it is appropriately targeted and represents the most cost-effective option for the government.
In addition to financial barriers, attitudinal and knowledge barriers also hinder children from low-income households from remaining in school. Household poverty, exacerbated by livelihood losses during the COVID-19 pandemic, has compelled many Thai youth to enter the workforce to support their families. This economic strain has negatively affected their mental health, further disrupting their ability to continue their education. One of the commonly cited reasons for dropping out of school is low motivation to continue studying once they have completed compulsory education, as well as a lack of awareness of available skills development opportunities (UNICEF, 2024[174]).
There is strong evidence suggesting that Thailand would benefit from raising awareness among low-income students about further education options, the benefits of participating, and support measures available. For example, an impact evaluation study in Peru (see Box 2.8) has found that providing information about the social and financial benefits of education can help students consider finishing higher levels of education and motivate parents to support their children more in their schooling. Moreover, an impact evaluation in Canada also showed that explaining the benefits of post-secondary education (e.g. increased earnings in comparison to individuals with lower levels of educational attainment) and providing information about available financial aid options increased the likelihood that low-income students would attain post-secondary education (Dunn and Oreopoulos, 2009[175]). Similarly, in Chile, low-income students were provided with information on their higher education options and available financial aid measures, which increased school attendance (particularly among medium- and high-performing students) and increased enrolment in college preparatory schools (Dinkleman and Martinez, 2009[176]).
In addition to increased awareness, parental support is a strong determiner of the level of motivation to learn. Thai children from low-income households who have supportive parents tend to develop positive attitudes towards education and perform well in school (Equitable Education Fund, 2022[169]). There is a large body of evidence demonstrating the positive impacts of parental involvement on students’ attendance and their educational outcomes (OECD, 2019[177]). In Thailand, some local studies have supported these findings; students with highly involved parents (e.g. communication, support for learning at home, collaboration with the community, expectation setting) had better academic performance and higher test scores than their counterparts who had less involved parents (Naite, 2021[178]); (Yawman et al., 2019[179]) Supportive parents are also more likely to have tertiary and post-graduate degrees (Naite, 2021[178]), suggesting a bi-directional relationship between parental involvement and educational attainment.
However, on a broader level, Thai society tends to have higher trust in the ability of school and teachers to develop their children’s skills. In many cases, the roles of the school and the family are still separate when it comes to education. Many parents also believe that, in comparison to teachers, they do not have the skills and knowledge necessary to adequately develop their children’s skills. At present, Thailand still lacks a clear strategy for increasing parents’ involvement in their children’s education (Nomnian and Thawornpat, 2015[180]), unlike the case of several OECD countries, such as Scotland (United Kingdom) (see Box 2.8), which officially recognises the role of parents in their children’s education through the Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act of 2006.
Peru: Information campaign on the returns of education
In Peru, children from disadvantaged backgrounds spend less time in school and enter the labour market much later. This stems from a lack of information among students and their parents about the available educational tracks or fields of study, as well as what financial aid programmes they can avail of. To address this challenge, the Ministry of Education worked with impact evaluators to run a campaign that provided information about the social and financial benefits of education to improve families’ knowledge about the returns to education. The campaign used telenovela-style videos whose plot communicated the social value of education, which students watched in school as part of their curriculum. In addition, an app-based intervention also delivered similar messages and was accessed by students and their parents either at home or in school. In the app, a survey was accompanied by infographics, interactive activities and in-depth presentations about the value of education. The impact evaluation revealed that the intervention helped reduce school drop-out rates by 1.8 percentage points over the span of two years, with parents and students improving their educational plans after receiving new information about available learning offers and their benefits. Children considered finishing higher levels of education, and parents tended to be more willing to support their children in their schooling.
Scotland (UK): Laws, policies and initiatives to promote parental involvement in education
Across multiple levels of policy, Scotland acknowledges the role that parents play in their children’s learning. The Scottish Schools (Parental Involvement) Act of 2006 recognises the duty of the government in promoting the involvement of parents in students’ attendance in public schools, requiring each educational authority to prepare their own strategy for parental involvement. The strategy must highlight how equal opportunities could be attained by collaborating with parents. In addition, on a policy level, Scotland has also developed the Strategic Framework for Parental Involvement, Parental Engagement, Family Learning and Learning at Home based on research gathered through several years, including through national mapping exercises conducted by Education Scotland. The framework aims to streamline initiatives to train schools and other childhood education providers on how to engage with parents for students’ learning at home. In addition to these laws and policies, Scotland developed a comprehensive online toolkit for practitioners to guide them on how to engage parents and families. The resource provides tools to measure and evaluate schools’ practices in involving parents in learning at home and in early childhood settings.
Source: Education Scotland (2017[181]), Engaging parents and families – A toolkit for practitioners, https://education.gov.scot/resources/engaging-parents-and-families-a-toolkit-for-practitioners/; Education Scotland (2022[182]), Strategic Framework for: Parents’ Involvement, Parental Engagement, Family Learning and Learning at Home, https://education.gov.scot/media/4w3lkhnd/strategic-framework-for-pi-pe-fl-lah-august-2024.pdf; Gallego, Molina & Neilson (2018[183]), Role of information on the returns of post-primary education on school dropout, www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/role-information-returns-postprimary-education-school-dropout.
Supporting students from low-income households to access initial education through financial and non-financial incentives can help to create a more equitable and inclusive educational system in Thailand. Reducing cost barriers by providing adequate financial support can help children stay in school and avoid the risk of dropping out. Furthermore, non-financial incentives, for instance support for parents to become more involved in their children’s schooling, can help maintain high levels of motivation for learning and make students more resilient despite financial constraints.
Thailand could undertake the following specific actions to support students from low-income households to access initial education through financial and non-financial incentives:
6.1. Ensure that financial incentives for low-income students are well-targeted. Thailand has promising initiatives in place to provide additional financial support to students in need, such as a cash transfer programme implemented through the Equitable Education Fund. An evaluation should be conducted of the fund’s effectiveness, including the extent to which the programme has been able to improve student attendance, as well as reduce inequalities in educational outcomes.
6.2. Encourage greater parental involvement in their children’s schooling. Thailand should explicitly recognise the crucial role parents play in their children’s academic success, even when they experience socio-economic disadvantages. This could be achieved by adopting an official law, policy or strategy specifically focused on encouraging parental involvement in education. Such measures would raise the issue’s visibility as a political priority and allocate resources for initiatives to support this goal, such as training school personnel to better engage with parents or developing informational materials targeted towards parents themselves.
6.3. Implement awareness raising initiatives targeted specifically to disadvantaged groups to inform them about skills development opportunities. Thailand should reach out to disadvantaged groups, such as low-income students and their parents (especially those at risk of dropping out), in order to inform them about the benefits of education, available learning offers, and the financial support measures that they can avail of. Thailand can employ cost-effective strategies to raise awareness, such as incorporating short promotional videos into children’s learning activities (see Peru in Box 2.8) or engaging disadvantaged groups through partnerships with community-based organisations that serve and work with them.
References
[62] Adapted from Ministry of Education (2019), “Framework for core competencies for students at the basic education level and lower primary school level (Grade 1-3)”, http://backoffice.onec.go.th/uploads/Book/1674-file.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[18] Adapted from MOE (2008), “Towards a Learning Society in Thailand: An Introduction to Education in Thailand”, https://www.bic.moe.go.th/images/stories/book/ed-eng-series/intro-ed08.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2025).
[80] ASEAN (2022), Country Report Thailand, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/20221006-9.Country-Report_Thailand.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[90] Asian Development Bank (2023), Asian Development Bank - Thailand, https://data.adb.org/media/11916/download (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[89] Australian Department of Education, S. (2021), Thailand: Vocational Education and Training, https://internationaleducation.gov.au/international-network/thailand/PolicyUpdates-Thailand/Documents/Thailand%20Education%20Policy%20Update_VET_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[126] Australian Department of Education, S. (2020), “Higher Education Thailand”, https://internationaleducation.gov.au/International-network/thailand/PolicyUpdates-Thailand/Documents/Thailand%20Education%20Policy%20Update_HE_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[96] Berufsbildung (n.d.), “Training company association: Possible solutions for smaller companies”, http://www.berufsbildung.ch/de/grundlagen/lehrbetriebsverbund (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[67] Boonyatus (2023), Why Thai Education Reform is a Flop, https://world.thaipbs.or.th/detail/why-thai-education-reform-is-a-complete-flop/0 (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[136] Broberg, N. and G. Golden (2023), “How are OECD governments navigating the digital higher education landscape?: Evidence from a comparative policy survey”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 303, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/93468ccb-en.
[28] Buain, O. and P. Pholphirul (2022), “Early childhood education and child development outcomes in developing countries: empirical evidence from Thailand”, International Journal of Early Years Education, Vol. 30/2, pp. 369-386, https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2020.1733937.
[155] Buaraphan, K., B. Inrit and W. Kochasila (2018), “Current policy and practice concerning multigrade teaching in Thailand”, Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 39/3, pp. 496-501, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2018.06.008.
[101] CEDEFOP et al. (2019), “Investing in Career Guidance”, https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/2230_en.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[29] Chaijaroen, P. and P. Panda (2023), “Women’s Education, Marriage, and Fertility Outcomes: Evidence from Thailand’s Compulsory Schooling Law”, https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/273574/1/GLO-DP-1314.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[79] Chalapati, N. and S. Chalapati (2020), “Building a skilled workforce: Public discourses on vocational education in Thailand”, International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training, Vol. 7/1, pp. 67-90, https://doi.org/10.13152/IJRVET.7.1.4.
[85] Chenphuengpawn, B. and N. Rukkiatwong (2018), “The role of private sector in human capital and skill development in Thailand”, https://aric.adb.org/pdf/attn/Paper_Boonwara%20Chenphuengpawn_ATTDF%20Session5.pdf (accessed on 4 June 2025).
[134] Chirikov, I. et al. (2020), “Online education platforms scale college STEM instruction with equivalent learning outcomes at lower cost”, Science Advances, Vol. 6/15, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay5324.
[122] Crocco, O. (2018), “Thai Higher Education: Privatization and Massification”, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7857-6_9.
[120] Department of Education (2021), “Career Guidance Program (GCP) for S.Y. 2021-2022”, https://caraga.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/CAREER-GUIDANCE.pdf?appgw_azwaf_jsc=IfSj98CRL2jTb_-Qxo3fvGEbI2DAhSlRhfZEYmy87T4 (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[119] Department of Education (2017), “DepEd trains teachers on career guidance”, http://www.deped.gov.ph/2017/02/17/deped-trains-teachers-on-career-guidance/ (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[30] Department of Education, S. (2019), School Education Thailand, https://www.education.gov.au/download/12566/thailand-education-policy-update-schooling-sector/23704/document/pdf (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[176] Dinkleman, T. and C. Martinez (2009), Examining the Effect of Information About Financial Aid for Higher Education on Schooling Outcomes in Chile, J-PAL, https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/examining-effect-information-about-financial-aid-higher-education-schooling-outcomes (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[175] Dunn, R. and P. Oreopoulos (2009), Information and College Access in Canada, https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/information-and-college-access-canada (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[171] Durongkaveroj, W. (2022), “Cash subsidies for the poor: Evaluating Thailand’s welfare card scheme”, https://ideas.repec.org/p/pas/papers/2022-10.html (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[182] Education Scotland (2022), “Strategic Framework for: Parents’ Involvement, Parental Engagement, Family Learning and Learning at Home”, https://education.gov.scot/media/4w3lkhnd/strategic-framework-for-pi-pe-fl-lah-august-2024.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[181] Education Scotland (2017), “Engaging parents and families – A toolkit for practitioners”, https://education.gov.scot/resources/engaging-parents-and-families-a-toolkit-for-practitioners/ (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[45] Equitable Education Fund (2024), Breaking Barriers: The EEF’s Innovative Financing Transforms Thai Education Funding, https://en.eef.or.th/2024/02/25/breaking-barriers/ (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[167] Equitable Education Fund (2024), Eleven Agencies Sign MOU to Launch’ Thailand Zero Dropout’ Initiative: July Kickoff to Support 1.02 Million Out-of-School Children and Promote Flexible Lifelong Education, https://en.eef.or.th/2024/08/19/eleven-agencies-sign-mou-to-launch-thailand-zero-dropout/ (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[107] Equitable Education Fund (2023), Thailand’s Career Readiness at the Middle School and Vocational Education Levels — An Evaluation of Available Career Guidance Services in Thailand, https://en.eef.or.th/2023/05/06/thailands-career-readiness-at-the-middle-school-and-vocational-education-levels/ (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[169] Equitable Education Fund (2022), Children dropping out of the education system are still worrisome. Parents’ income is the most important factor., https://en.eef.or.th/2022/11/29/children-dropping-out-of-the-education-system-are-still-worrisome/ (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[170] Equitable Education Fund (2019), “Opening Door of Opportunity”, https://www.eef.or.th/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/eef_brochureEng.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[137] Escueta, M. et al. (2020), “Upgrading Education with Technology: Insights from Experimental Research”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 58/4, pp. 897-996, https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191507.
[116] Esguerra, D. (2024), DepEd: Omit master’s degree requirement for guidance counselors, Philippine News Agency, https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1231055 (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[163] EU Rural Virtual Classroom (2024), Virtual Learning Rural Space, https://ruralvirtualclassroom.eu/ (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[140] European Commission (2024), “Quality assurance in higher education: Finland”, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/finland/quality-assurance-higher-education (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[162] European Commission (2023), Innovative practices in rural schools: fostering community and digital learning, https://school-education.ec.europa.eu/en/discover/practices/innovative-practices-rural-schools-fostering-community-and-digital-learning (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[141] FINEEC (2024), “Audit register for higher education institutions”, https://www.karvi.fi/en/evaluations/higher-education/audit-register-higher-education-institutions (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[131] FINEEC (2019), “Audit Manual for Higher Education Institutions 2019-2024”, https://www.karvi.fi/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/documents/FINEEC_Audit-manual-for-higher-education-institutions_2019-2024_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[147] FINEEC (2018), “3rd cycle: Audits of higher education institutions 2018-2024”, https://www.karvi.fi/en/evaluations/higher-education/3rd-cycle-audits-higher-education-institutions-2018-2024 (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[130] FINEEC (2018), 3rd cycle: Audits of higher education institutions 2018–2024, https://www.karvi.fi/en/evaluations/higher-education/3rd-cycle-audits-higher-education-institutions-2018-2024 (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[65] Finnanger, T. and T. Prøitz (2024), “Teachers as national curriculum makers: does involvement equal influence?”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 56/2, pp. 220-234, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2024.2307450.
[48] Fry, G., H. Bi and R. Apahung (2018), “Regional Educational Disparities in Thailand”, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7857-6_14.
[68] Fullan, M. (2015), The New Meaning of Educational Change, https://books.google.fr/books?id=YxGTCwAAQBAJ (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[183] Gallego, F., O. Molina and C. Neilson (2018), “Role of information on the returns of postprimary education on school dropout”, https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/role-information-returns-postprimary-education-school-dropout (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[86] GIZ (2022), Work-Based Training: Companies are key, https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2022-en-work-based-training-companies-are-key.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[129] Hemthong, N., N. Thanasatchawat and G. Savatsomboon (2023), “Higher Education Quality Assurance in Thailand: A Help or Hindrance in Improving Quality?”, https://www.ojed.org/hepe/article/view/5404/2612 (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[172] Herrmann, T., A. Leckcivilize and J. Zenker (2017), “The Impact of Cash Transfers on Child Outcomes in Rural Thailand: Evidence from a Social Pension Reform”, https://ideas.repec.org/p/pui/dpaper/77.html (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[125] ICEF Monitor (2017), Thailand’s growing supply-demand gap in higher education, https://monitor.icef.com/2017/10/thailands-growing-supply-demand-gap-higher-education/ (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[26] Iemamnuay, S. (2019), Early childhood curriculum in Thailand: An investigation into perceptions of the cultivation of Thainess in young children, Open Access Victoria University of Wellington | Te Herenga Waka, https://doi.org/10.26686/wgtn.17142233.v1.
[93] ILO (2018), “Apprenticeships in Asia and the Pacific”, https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@asia/@ro-bangkok/documents/publication/wcms_701534.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[91] ILO (n.d.), Adapting apprenticeships to the needs of SMEs, https://www.ilo.org/topics/apprenticeships/publications-and-tools/digital-toolkit-quality-apprenticeships/innovations-and-strategies/innovations-and-emerging-trends-apprenticeships/adapting-apprenticeships-needs-smes (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[97] ILO (n.d.), “Adapting apprenticeships to the needs of SMEs”, http://www.ilo.org/topics/apprenticeships/publications-and-tools/digital-toolkit-quality-apprenticeships/innovations-and-strategies/innovations-and-emerging-trends-apprenticeships/adapting-apprenticeships-needs-smes/ (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[105] Indeed (2024), “Mentoring, Coaching and Counseling: What’s the Difference?”, http://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/mentoring-coaching-and-counseling (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[146] KERIS (2023), About, https://www.cet.keris.or.kr/usr/info/greeting.do?menuNo=20100 (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[73] Lähdemäki, J. (2019), “Case Study: The Finnish National Curriculum 2016—A Co-created National Education Policy”, https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/22996/1007165.pdf#page=407 (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[158] Lentini, V., G. Gimenez and J. Valbuena (2024), “Teachers’ preferences for incentives to work in disadvantaged districts: A discrete choice experiment in Costa Rica”, Economic Analysis and Policy, Vol. 82, pp. 831-845, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2024.04.014.
[36] MHESI (2022), About, Office of the Permanent Secretary, https://www.ops.go.th/en/inter-about-ops-mhesi/inter-about (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[78] Minister of Education (2023), “Education Policy of Police General Permpoon Chidchob”.
[117] Ministry of Education (2024), “Guidance Counsellor Training Study Award”, https://workforce.education.govt.nz/current-teachers/sabbaticals-study-awards-and-study-grants/guidance-counsellor-training-study-award (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[118] Ministry of Education (2024), “School Counsellor (Trained/Untrained)”, https://www.moe.gov.sg/careers/non-teaching-careers/allied-educators/school-counsellor (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[60] Ministry of Education (2019), Core Competencies of Learners, https://backoffice.onec.go.th/uploads/Book/1674-file.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[15] Ministry of Education (2008), “Promotion of non-formal and informal education act, B.E. 2551 - 2008”, Government Gazette, Vol. 125.
[33] Ministry of Education, O. (2014), “Manual for The Internal Quality Assurance for Higher Education Institutions”, http://dqe.mhesi.go.th/bhes2/56-12-27%20Manual%20for%20the%20Internal%20Final.pdf (accessed on 4 June 2025).
[21] MOE (2017), Early Childhood Curriculum, https://academic.obec.go.th/images/document/1572317446_d_1.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[24] MOE (2017), Education in Thailand, https://www.bic.moe.go.th/images/stories/pdf/EDUCATION_IN_THAILAND_2017.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2024).
[178] Naite, I. (2021), “Impact of Parental Involvement on Children’s Academic Performance at Crescent International School, Bangkok, Thailand”, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Vol. 690/1, p. 012064, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/690/1/012064.
[110] NESDC (2023), The Thirteenth National Economic and Social Development Plan (2023-2027), Government of Thailand, https://education.gov.mt/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/NATIONAL-EDUCATION-BOOKLET-DEC-2023-2030.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[161] Net Pracharat (2018), Description, https://netpracharat.com/Netpracharat_EN/one-page/ (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[164] New South Wales Government (2023), “Choose Rural”, https://education.nsw.gov.au/teach-nsw/find-teaching-jobs/choose-rural (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[180] Nomnian, S. and M. Thawornpat (2015), “Family Engagement on the Promotion of Thai Learners’ English Language Learning in Public Secondary Schools in Bangkok”, https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/download/102673/82220/259772 (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[88] Numprasertchai, H., P. Srinammuang and J. Skuna (2018), CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS OF THAI SMEs IN THE NEW PRODUCT AND SERVICE DEVELOPMENT SECTOR, https://toknowpress.net/ISBN/978-961-6914-23-9/papers/ML2018-097.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[94] OECD (2024), “A perfect match – supporting SMEs in filling their vacant apprenticeship positions”, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2023/04/providing-local-actors-with-case-studies-evidence-and-solutions-places_20b385f4/a-perfect-match-supporting-smes-in-filling-their-vacant-apprenticeship-positions_126f584a.html (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[98] OECD (2024), “A perfect match – supporting SMEs in filling their vacant apprenticeship positions”, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2023/04/providing-local-actors-with-case-studies-evidence-and-solutions-places_20b385f4/a-perfect-match-supporting-smes-in-filling-their-vacant-apprenticeship-positions_126f584a.html (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[103] OECD (2024), Challenging Social Inequality Through Career Guidance: Insights from International Data and Practice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/619667e2-en.
[148] OECD (2024), Education Equity, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/education-equity.html (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[100] OECD (2024), “Fostering higher-order thinking skills online in higher education: A scoping review”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 306, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/84f7756a-en.
[133] OECD (2024), Hidden assets of small and rural schools, https://oecdedutoday.com/hidden-assets-of-small-and-rural-schools/ (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[11] OECD (2024), “OECD Skills Outlook 2023”, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-skills-outlook-2023_27452f29-en.html (accessed on 27 February 2025).
[153] OECD (2024), OECD stakeholder consultations for the OECD Skills Strategy Thailand.
[142] OECD (2024), “OECD Workshop: Enhancing Quality Assurance in Digital Adult Education Summary of Discussions”, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/skills-strategies/centre-for-skills-peer-learning-events/OECD-Workshop-Enhancing-Quality-Assurance-in-Digital-Adult-Education-Summary-of-Discussions_240718_1707.PDFO.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[139] OECD (2024), Quality Matters: Strengthening the Quality Assurance of Adult Education and Training, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f44a185b-en.
[87] OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
[57] OECD (2023), Education GPS - economic and social outcomes, OECD, https://gpseducation.oecd.org/revieweducationpolicies/#!node=41761&filter=all (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[138] OECD (2023), Ensuring Quality Digital Higher Education in Hungary, Higher Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5f44fd6f-en.
[159] OECD (2023), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en.
[10] OECD (2023), OECD Economic Surveys: Thailand 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4815cb4b-en.
[102] OECD (2023), OECD Skills Strategy Southeast Asia: Skills for a Post-COVID Recovery and Growth, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/923bfd03-en.
[8] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I and II) - Country Notes: Thailand, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i-and-ii-country-notes_ed6fbcc5-en/thailand_6138f4af-en.html (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[144] OECD (2023), Quality Matters: A Comparative Analysis of Quality Assurance Mechanisms in Adult Education and Training in OECD Countries, OECD, https://one.oecd.org/document/DELSA/ELSA/WD/SEM(2023)20/en/pdf (accessed on 9 December 2024).
[132] OECD (2023), Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en.
[7] OECD (2022), Education and skills policy area, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/education-and-skills.html (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[44] OECD (2022), “PISA data and methodology”, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/pisa/pisa-data.html (accessed on 11 October 2024).
[143] OECD (2021), Improving the Quality of Non-Formal Adult Learning: Learning from European Best Practices on Quality Assurance, Getting Skills Right, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f1b450e1-en.
[184] OECD (2021), OECD Skills Outlook 2021: Learning for Life, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0ae365b4-en.
[108] OECD (2021), OECD Skills Strategy Implementation Guidance for Korea: Strengthening the Governance of Adult Learning, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f19a4560-en.
[31] OECD (2021), Vocational Education and Training in Thailand, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cc20bf6d-en.
[59] OECD (2020), “Curriculum reform: A literature review to support effective implementation”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 239, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/efe8a48c-en.
[121] OECD (2020), Resourcing Higher Education: Challenges, Choices and Consequences, Higher Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/735e1f44-en.
[113] OECD (2020), “Thailand’s education system and skills imbalances: Assessment and policy recommendations”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1641, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b79addb6-en.
[63] OECD (2020), What Students Learn Matters: Towards a 21st Century Curriculum, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d86d4d9a-en.
[71] OECD (2019), “Future of Education and Skills 2030/2040”, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/projects/future-of-education-and-skills-2030.html (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[114] OECD (2019), Multi-dimensional Review of Thailand (Volume 2): In-depth Analysis and Recommendations, OECD Development Pathways, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307674-en.
[112] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en.
[177] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en.
[69] OECD (2017), Systems Approaches to Public Sector Challenges: Working with Change, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279865-en.
[70] OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.
[104] OECD (2010), Learning for Jobs, OECD Reviews of Vocational Education and Training, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264087460-en.
[42] OECD (2004), PISA - About, OECD, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/programmes/pisa.html (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[1] OECD/UNESCO (2016), Education in Thailand: An OECD-UNESCO Perspective, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264259119-en.
[111] Office of National Higher Education, S. (2022), “REINVENTING THAILAND’S HIGHER EDUCATION”, https://www.nxpo.or.th/th/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/REINVENTING-THAILANDS-HIGHER-EDUCATION.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[35] Office of the Council of State (2006), Private Higher Education Institution Act, B.E. 2546 (2003), https://www2.austlii.edu.au/~graham/AsianLII/Thai_Translation/Private%20Higher%20Education%20Institution%20Act.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[17] Office of the Education Council (2018), “National Education Standards B.E. 2561 (2018)”, https://backoffice.onec.go.th/uploads/Book/1659-file.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2025).
[16] Office of the Education Council, O. (2017), “The National Scheme of Education B.E. 2560-2579 (2017-2036)”, https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/en/2017/national-scheme-education-be-2560-2579-2017-2036-thai-6635 (accessed on 12 June 2025).
[3] Office of the Prime Minister (2023), The Thirteenth National Economic and Socail Development Plan (2023-2027), Office of the National Economic and Social Development Council, Bangkok, https://www.nesdc.go.th/nesdb_en/ewt_dl_link.php?nid=4500 (accessed on 10 January 2024).
[27] Office of the Prime Minister (2002), “National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999)”, https://www.onesqa.or.th/upload/download/file_697c80087cce7f0f83ce0e2a98205aa3.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[13] Office of the Prime Minister (2002), “National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) and Amendments (Second National Education Act B.E. 2545 [2002])”, https://www.onesqa.or.th/upload/download/file_697c80087cce7f0f83ce0e2a98205aa3.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2025).
[12] Office of the Prime Minister (1999), “National Education Act of B.E. 2542 (1999)”, https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Thailand184.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2024).
[127] OHEC (2014), Manual for The Internal Quality Assurance for Higher Education Institutions : Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC, http://dqe.mhesi.go.th/bhes2/56-12-27%20Manual%20for%20the%20Internal%20Final.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[74] Ombay (2023), “DepEd launches revised k-10 curriculum”, https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/878503/deped-launches-revised-k-10-curriculum/story/ (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[76] Ombay (2023), “DepEd: Pilot run of revised K-10 curriculum to begin Sept. 25”, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/882407/deped-pilot-run-of-revised-k-10-curriculum-to-begin-sept-25/story/ (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[75] Ombay (2023), “Teachers training for pilot run of revised k-10 curriculum completed – DepEd”, https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/883115/teachers-training-for-pilot-run-of-revised-k-10-curriculum-completed-deped/story/ (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[72] Ombay, G. (2023), Teachers training for pilot run of revised K-10 curriculum completed –DepEd, https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/883115/teachers-training-for-pilot-run-of-revised-k-10-curriculum-completed-deped/story/ (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[128] ONESQA (2021), Guidelines for the Fourth Round EQA for Higher Education, https://www.onesqa.or.th/en/profile/1291/ (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[81] ONESQA (2021), ONESQA About, https://www.onesqa.or.th/en/profile/1221/ (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[173] Özler, B., J. Loeser and P. Premand (2021), “What have we learned about cash transfers?”, World Bank Blog, https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/impactevaluations/what-have-we-learned-about-cash-transfers (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[151] Pholphirul, P., P. Rukumnuaykit and S. Teimtad (2023), “Teacher shortages and educational outcomes in developing countries: Empirical evidence from PISA-Thailand”, Cogent Education, Vol. 10/2, https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2243126.
[165] Queensland Government (2024), “Rural and remote benefits”, https://teach.qld.gov.au/teach-in-queensland-state-schools/pay-benefits-and-incentives/rural-and-remote-benefits (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[61] Sangwanglao (จตุพล สังวังเลาว์), J. (2024), “Competency-Based Education Reform of Thailand’s Basic Education System: A Policy Review”, ECNU Review of Education, https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311241240486.
[77] SCB Economic Intelligence Center (2023), Charting the future of the global semiconductor industry and Thailand’s next moves, https://www.scbeic.com/en/detail/product/9279 (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[124] Scott, T. and W. Guan (2023), “Challenges facing Thai higher education institutions financial stability and perceived institutional education quality”, Power and Education, Vol. 15/3, pp. 326-340, https://doi.org/10.1177/17577438221140014.
[154] SEAMEO-INNOTECH (2012), Quality Indicators of Multigrade Instruction in Southeast Asia, https://www.seameo-innotech.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/PolRes_QualityIndicatorsOfMultigradeInstructionInSea.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[32] SEA-VET.net, T. (n.d.), “Thailand: Profile”, https://www.sea-vet.net/thailand (accessed on 17 June 2025).
[109] Somsathan, P. et al. (2022), “Addressing the Skills Gap between Thai Educaiton and Industry in the Face of COVID-19 and Lifelong Learning”, https://sea-vet.net/images/seb/e-library/doc_file/1329/6884-21903-1-pb.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2025).
[135] Thai MOOC (2024), Directory, https://thaimooc.org/ (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[185] Thailand Board of Investment (n.d.), Thailand 4.0 – a new value-based economy, https://www.boi.go.th/upload/content/Thailand,%20Taking%20off%20to%20new%20heights%20@%20belgium_5ab4e8042850e.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2024).
[64] Thailand Development Research Institute (2023), Make education keep up with change, Thailand Development Research Institute, https://tdri.or.th/en/2023/09/making-education-keep-up-with-change/ (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[92] Thassanabanjong, K., P. Miller and T. Marchant (2009), “Training in Thai SMEs”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 16/4, pp. 678-693, https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000911000992.
[14] The Equitable Education Fund (EEF) (2022), What we do, https://en.eef.or.th/our-projects/ (accessed on 12 June 2025).
[186] UN Statistical Commission (2022), “SDG indicator metadata”, https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/Metadata-04-01-02.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2025).
[4] UNESCO (2023), Global education Monitoring Report Summary 2023, Southeast Asia: Technology in education: A tool on whose terms?, GEM Report UNESCO, https://doi.org/10.54676/ESLN1861.
[34] UNESCO (2022), “Higher Education Report: Thailand”, https://web.archive.org/web/20240229045408/https:/whec2022.net/resources/Country%20report%20-%20Thailand.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[51] UNESCO (2022), The Financing of Education in Thailand, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000384381/PDF/384381eng.pdf.multi (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[160] UNESCO (2021), AI and education: guidance for policy-makers, UNESCO, https://doi.org/10.54675/PCSP7350.
[55] UNESCO (2019), Teacher Career Reforms in Thailand, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370862/PDF/370862eng.pdf.multi (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[23] UNESCO (2016), National Report of Thailand, Office of the Non-Formal and Informal Education and Ministry of Education, Bangkok, https://uil.unesco.org/fileadmin/multimedia/uil/confintea/pdf/National_Reports/Asia%20-%20Pacific/Thailand.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[19] UNESCO (2015), World TVET Database Thailand, https://unevoc.unesco.org/wtdb/worldtvetdatabase_tha_en.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[20] UNESCO (2015), “World TVET Database, Thailand”, https://unevoc.unesco.org/wtdb/worldtvetdatabase_tha_en.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2025).
[149] UNESCO (2014), Central Data Catalog - Thailand, https://nada.uis.unesco.org/nada/en/index.php/catalogue/172 (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[25] UNESCO (2014), Thailand EFA 2015 review, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000229878 (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[157] UNESCO (2011), “Improving the conditions of teachers and teaching in rural schools across African countries”, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000216062 (accessed on 4 June 2025).
[22] UNESCO (2007), Thailand Non-formal education, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000155581 (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[54] Unesco (2025), Capital expenditure as a percentages of total expenditure in public institutions, https://databrowser.uis.unesco.org/browser (accessed on 13 May 2025).
[56] UNESCO Institute of Statistics (2023), “Indicator 4.C.4: Pupil-qualified teacher ratio (headcount basis)”, http://sdg4-data.uis.unesco.org/ (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[43] UNESCO Institute of Statistics (2021), Indicator 4.1.2: Completion rate, http://sdg4-data.uis.unesco.org/.
[82] UNESCO-UNEVOC (2022), Thailand, https://unevoc.unesco.org/home/Dynamic+TVET+Country+Profiles/country=THA (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[174] UNICEF (2024), In-Depth Research on Youth not in Employment, Education, or Training (NEET) in Thailand, https://www.unicef.org/thailand/media/10746/file/In-depth%20research%20on%20youth%20NEET%20in%20Thailand.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[150] UNICEF (2023), “Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2022: Survey Findings Report”, https://www.unicef.org/thailand/media/11356/file/Thailand%20MICS%202022%20full%20report%20(English).pdf (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[46] UNICEF (2023), Thailand Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey 2022, https://www.unicef.org/thailand/media/11356/file/Thailand%20MICS%202022%20full%20report%20(English).pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[115] UNICEF (2022), “Mapping of Career Guidance Serviced and Inteventions for Adolecants and Youth in Thailand”, https://www.unicef.org/thailand/media/9171/file/Mapping%20of%20career%20guidance%20services%20EN.pdf (accessed on 8 July 2024).
[106] UNICEF (2022), “Mapping of Career Guidance Services and Interventions for Adolescents and Youth in Thailand”, https://www.unicef.org/thailand/media/9171/file/Mapping%20of%20career%20guidance%20services%20EN.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[2] UNICEF (2021), Youth Voices on Thailand’s Draft Five-Year Plan for Social and Economic Development, https://www.unicef.org/thailand/stories/youth-voices-thailands-draft-five-year-plan-social-and-economic-development (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[58] UNICEF (2019), Addressing the Gaps: Key Results from the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey Thailand 2019, https://www.unicef.org/thailand/media/6726/file/Addressing%20the%20Gap%20(MICS6).pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[9] UNICEF (2019), Thailand Education Fact Sheet 2019, https://www.unicef.org/thailand/media/8961/file/Thailand%20Education%20Fact%20Sheets%202019%20EN.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[66] Van den Akker, J. (2018), “Developing curriculum frameworks: A comparative analysis”, Dublin: NCCA.
[166] Western Australia Department of Education (2022), “Attraction and retention incentive for remote and regional schools”, http://www.education.wa.edu.au/attraction-and-retention-initiative (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[156] Western Australia Department of Education (2022), “Incentives and allowances”, https://www.education.wa.edu.au/incentives-and-allowances#:~:text=Attraction%20and%20retention%20incentive%20for,and%20school%20administrators%20in%202025. (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[41] World Bank (2024), Vocational and Technical enrolment (% of total secondary enrolment), total, https://genderdata.worldbank.org/en/indicator/se-sec-enrl-vo-zs?gender=total (accessed on 22 April 2025).
[49] World Bank (2023), Government expenditure on education, total (% of GDP), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS (accessed on 22 April 2025).
[52] World Bank (2023), School enrollment, primary, private (% of total primary) - Thailand, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.PRIV.ZS?locations=TH (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[53] World Bank (2023), School enrollment, secondary, private (% of total secondary) - Thailand, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.SEC.PRIV.ZS?locations=TH (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[123] World Bank (2023), School enrollment, tertiary (% gross), https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[38] World Bank (2023), “School enrolment, primary (%) gross”, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.ENRR (accessed on 12 June 2025).
[39] World Bank (2023), “School enrolment, Secondary (% gross)”, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR (accessed on 12 June 2025).
[40] World Bank (2023), “School enrolment, tertiary (% gross)”, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR (accessed on 12 June 2025).
[145] World Bank (2023), “Teachers’ Digital Skills & Digital Competency Frameworks for Teaching and Learning”, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099118004132238882/pdf/P1742521615db3006194221dcbb0af52257.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[50] World Bank (2023), Thailand Public Revenue and Spending Assessment: Promoting an Inclusive and Sustainable Future, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099052523201515270/pdf/P17715706b8dee0540b1d10b6c2c1a8bd5c.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[84] World Bank (2022), Creating Markets in Thailand, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/468721645451588595/pdf/Creating-Markets-in-Thailand-Rebooting-Productivity-for-Resilient-Growth.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[6] World Bank (2022), School enrollment, tertiary (% gross) SE Asian Countries, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR?locations=TH-BN-KH-ID-MY-MM-PH-SG-VN (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[37] World Bank (2022), “School enrolment, pre-primary (% gross)”, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRE.ENRR (accessed on 12 June 2025).
[47] World Bank (2022), Thailand Rural Income Diagnostic: Challenges and Opportunities for Rural Farmers, World Bank Group, https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/thailand/publication/thailand-rural-income-diagnostic-challenges-and-opportunities-for-rural-farmers (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[95] World Bank (2021), “An assessment of Thailand’s social protection and labor market systems”, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/637711622718440573/pdf/Towards-Social-Protection-4-0-An-Assessment-of-Thailand-s-Social-Protection-and-Labor-Market-Systems.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[83] World Bank (2019), “Vocational and technical enrolment (% of secondary enrolment)”, https://genderdata.worldbank.org/en/indicator/se-sec-enrl-vo-zs?view=trend&geos=THA (accessed on 13 June 2025).
[5] World Bank (2019), Vocational and Technical enrolment (% of total secondary enrolment), total, https://genderdata.worldbank.org/en/indicator/se-sec-enrl-vo-zs?view=trend&geos=THA (accessed on 16 April 2025).
[152] World Bank (2016), Thailand’s small school challenge and options for quality education, https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/eastasiapacific/thailand-s-small-school-challenge-and-options-quality-education (accessed on 18 April 2025).
[99] World Bank Group (2023), “Data, School enrollment, tertiary”, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR (accessed on 4 June 2025).
[179] Yawman, M. et al. (2019), “Teachers’ Perception of Parents’ Involvement and Students’ Performance in English in Rural Schools in Nakhonratchasima, Thailand”, International Journal of Scientific Research and Management, Vol. 7/03, https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v7i3.el04.
[168] Yenjai, P. (2014), “Community Learning in... Thailand”, https://www.dvv-international.de/en/adult-education-and-development/editions/aed-812014-communities/community-learning-in/community-learning-in-thailand (accessed on 18 April 2025).
← 1. Foundational skills refer to skills that are necessary for the acquisition of higher-level skills and include basic literacy and numeracy (OECD, 2021[184]).
← 2. Defined as the ratio of total enrollment, regardless of age, to the population of the age group that officially corresponds to a given level of education.
← 3. Data from 1997 was considered, as it is the closest year to 2000 with available data.
← 4. Defined as the percentage of a cohort of children or young people (aged 3 to 5 years above the intended age for the last grade of a given level of education) who completed the grade (UN Statistical Commission, 2022[186]).
← 5. Defined as the average number of pupils per qualified teacher (i.e. having at least the minimum academic qualifications required for teaching their subjects at the relevant level) at each level of education in a given academic year (UNESCO Institute of Statistics, 2023[56]).
← 6. Under the Thailand 4.0 strategy, S-curve industries are promoted by the government to accelerate investments and drive innovation-driven growth. These industries include the following: biofuels and biochemicals; digital economy; medical hub; automation and robotics; aviation and logistics; agriculture and biotechnology; smart electronics; affluent medical and wellness tourism; next-generation automation; and food for the future (Thailand Board of Investment, n.d.[185]).