Under the support of the Equitable Education Research Institute (EEFI) of the Equitable Education Fund (EEF), the Center for Research on Inequality and Social Policy (CRISP), Faculty of Economics, Thammasat University, hosted a seminar titled “Monitoring and Understanding the Thai Education Policy Situation” on September 23, 2025, at the Aswin Grand Convention Hotel in Bangkok to present the findings of a study examining the dynamics of the educational equality policy situation in Thailand.
The goal of the study, “Monitoring Education Policy’s Role in Creating Educational Equality,” is to monitor the advancement of policy advocacy for educational equality in order to gain insight into the dynamics and ecosystems that surround the policy-making process. Asst. Prof. Dr. Vong-on Phuaphansawat from Thammasat University’s Faculty of Learning Sciences and Education, Ajarn Chanon Techasunthornwat from Thammasat University’s Faculty of Economics, and Asst. Prof. Dr. Thorn Pitidol from Thammasat University’s Faculty of Economics, and Asst. Prof. Dr. Chalermpong Kongcharoen from Thammasat University’s Faculty of Economics. From 2023 to the middle of 2025, the study tracked four policy areas:
1. Lessening the workload for educators
2. Educational subsidies per capita
3. Technology
4. Policies to deal with the problem of young people not attending school (Thailand Zero Dropout).
Successful measures, including the Thailand Zero Dropout policy, which can unify child status tracking data across all provinces, and the elimination of teacher duty, which somewhat reduces teachers’ workloads, have been identified through monitoring. In the meantime, the Anywhere Anytime technology policy—which calls for the distribution of digital devices and the development of a learning platform—continues to be postponed and is ill-prepared for its actual advantages, like providing guidelines for teachers to set expectations for students’ use of devices and platforms.
On the other hand, several policies deserve implementation but lack support. These include restructuring the per capita education subsidy to promote equality between poor and general students; amending regulations regarding teachers’ administrative responsibilities to reduce their burden; and promoting adequate internet and computer access, particularly for underprivileged students in remote areas.
The research also found that key factors influencing the progress of education policies stem from both the political and bureaucratic systems. Support for policies by political leaders, including the Minister of Education and even the Prime Minister, is a crucial step towards policy success. However, the research team’s observations indicate that political parties focus on implementing policies that achieve short-term results (quick wins). As a result, policies that require time to achieve results are rarely selected for implementation.
Another observation suggests that the Ministry of Education’s bureaucracy often imposes conditions that may hinder policy advocacy. Certain system characteristics, such as its reliance on regulations and routine duties, make it inflexible to advance new policies. The structure, which separates power and function, cannot coordinate policy implementation. Centralized command often results in policies lacking participation from local stakeholders. However, within these constraints, the bureaucracy can play a role in policy advocacy, such as accumulating knowledge and preparing data for policy advocacy.
Key strategies for education partners to effectively advance educational equality policies were identified by the research team’s analysis:
1. Creating shared issues: This entails working together to get political parties interested in and supportive of the concerns, especially those with substantial advantages but sluggish outcomes.
2. Acquiring knowledge: Political parties may not have a thorough understanding of the programs they want to support, despite their involvement in education policy. As a result, they must constantly prepare information to assist policy advocacy activities, such as gathering information to comprehend the problem condition and creating pertinent laws for policy implementation.
3. Pushing for long-term change: Policies with sluggish effects, especially those centered on structural change, are frequently not pushed forward due to the political environment in which education ministers frequently hold office for short periods of time. In order to prevent long-term change from vanishing with political upheaval, partners should work together to underline its significance. Additionally, they must work together to advocate for modifications to governmental processes, such as the enactment of laws or the establishment of organizations that will contribute to long-term reform.
4. One important strategy for promoting policy change is network creation, especially with organizations that are not part of the political and bureaucratic systems. This entails growing the network of collaborators whose objectives are to advance the Thai educational system. This entails organizing networks to collaborate closely. In order to raise awareness of the issues and share policy viewpoints with those directly involved in policy implementation, civil service and political individuals must be included in the network.
5. Creating avenues for involvement to overcome the shortcomings of the Thai education policy process, which depends on centralized command and thought but lacks avenues for listening to and addressing issues from local actors, including parents, teachers, and students. The strategy that should be promoted is to increase the degree to which local actors can participate in the Thai education policy process, from policy conception to policy implementation and improvement.
Additionally, Asst. Prof. Dr. Adisorn Juntrasook, Dean of Thammasat University’s Faculty of Learning Sciences and Education; Dr. Wirayut Kanchanachuchat, Deputy Leader of the People’s Party and Advisor to the Economic Development Committee; and Teacher Thiw Thanawat Suwanpal, from the Teachers Who Want to Teach group, participated in a panel discussion on the study’s findings, which highlighted the power-based nature of educational policy, which has traditionally placed a strong emphasis on technicality.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pathamawadi Pochanukul, Advisor to the Equitable Education Research Institute (EEFI), concluded by saying that this seminar offered a crucial forum for addressing the variety and complexity of the problems, resulting in the development and resolution of educational obstacles. The dearth of policy-oriented scholars, especially in the area of teacher production, is a major obstacle in the academic community.
She also talked about the Ministry of Education’s methodical initiative, the Thailand Zero Dropout Initiative. Since the National Education Act of 1999 has not yet been fully implemented, this initiative, which started by advocating for flexible educational techniques, has not yet been put into effect as a policy. This makes it possible to change the Thai educational system and pave the way for the development of an important mechanism for future educational activity in partnership with network partners.
