1. Improving Equity & Quality of Education in Thailand Using the results from International and National Assessments [PISA, TIMSS, & National Test]

2. Summary In conclusion  The youth of Thailand are not been well prepared to meet the challenges in later life and to compete in the international & regional community.  The Impact of school factors gives information to the system level where to attack the weakness.

3. Findings From PISA : The following slides summarize schools factors that associated with science performance Only some selected factors, and their gross effect on performance are presented.

4. School factors : PISA looked at Admitting, selecting and grouping School management and funding Parental pressure and choice Accountability policy School autonomy School resources

5. School management At School level Ability grouping for all subjects associates with negative effect (-10 score points) Student learning time for regular lessons in school (+ 14 score points/ 1 additional hour) Student learning time for-out-of-school lessons, e.g. coaching schools(-13 score points/ 1 additional hour) Index of school activity to promote learning (+7 score points/ 1 S.D. of the index)

6. Out of school time classes with non school teachers

7. Out of school time classes with school teachers

8. Effect of Resources and Funding  More public funding- negative effect (- 3 score points for additional 10% of public funding)  Lack of qualified teachers (-3.5 points for additional unit of index)  Availability of quality educational resources: (+ 3.9 score points for additional unit of index)

9. At System level  Schools have higher degree of autonomy in budgeting (+ 22.5 score points for one additional standard deviation).  Schools have higher degree of autonomy in educational content (+ 20 score points for one additional standard deviation). Data say that: Education systems where:

10. Implication for policy Improving equity/ Raising performance  Target factors that have impact on learning quality. Use research results as the base for decision making.  Target low performance: low performing schools / low- performing students within schools  Targeting disadvantage children / disadvantage schools – More assistant scheme is needed to gear towards this target.  Allocation of schools resources (w ith precaution that computers do not show positive enhancing on learning.)

11. Resource: Do we target the disadvantage? Data show that Big schools shortage decreased; small schools unchanged

12. Thailand: Top and Bottom performers From PISA 2000 to PISA 2006

13. From the Studies of Computer for Instruction Results did not support the positive impact of computer on learning. Students most frequent use of computers did not score higher than the least users.

14. Source: OECD (2005) Are students ready for a technology-rich world? What PISA studies tell us, Figure 4.6, p.65. ICT & Performance (OECD)

15. Frequent use of computer and score (Thailand) The moderate users scored higher 405 410 415 420 425 430 435 440 Bottom quarter 2nd quarter3rd quarteTop quarter mathread

16. Implication for policy: At system level : What is needed to rethink !  Schools autonomy in budgeting & education content. need to master  Standards for all students. [ All students need to master reading and mathematics which are basics to any other learning.]  Quality time

17. Where do we go from here?

18. Que sera, sera! What ever will be, will be. The future’s not ours to see. Que sera, sera! Will we see rainbow day after day? Here was she said to me:

19. Sa-buy-dee Thailand

20. Back up slides Empty

21. PISA 2006 East Asian countries performed on top group. But Thailand, Indonesia were on lower end 0f the scale.

22. Change in Reading performance from PISA 2000 to PISA 2006

23. Change in Mathematics performance

24. Change in Science performance

25. By TIMSS results (Science & mathematics) the countries are separated: High and low performers

26. TIMSS Math from 1995 - 2007

27. TIMSS Science from 1995 – 2007 [ Countries in Asia]

28. Trend: Thailand compared to Hong Kong (in TIMSS 1995 the two performed equally well)

29. Thailand: The National tests from 2000 to 2008 show no improvement but decline

30. Sa-buy-dee Thailand