The Implementation of the Learning Reform Policy: Case Studies of Public Secondary Schools in Thailand

Pattama Harn-asa
Thailand

Education reform is undeniably a global phenomenon. Whether it is officially announced or not, many countries all over the world are experiencing some changes within their education systems. In Thailand, education reform emerged officially with the National Education Bill, which was proclaimed in 1999. The Bill was divided into nine chapters. Each proposed changes in one particular aspect of education. Among them, the chapter on learning reform is "regarded as being at the heart of the educational reform" (Sub-Committees on Learning Reform of the National Education Commission, 2000).

According to the Bill, all educational agencies, no matter what level, whether public or private, have to implement this policy. Educational ministries as well as their agents have to plan and provide sufficient resources in order to support implementation at the institutional level. Educational institutions have to support individual teachers to apply the learner-centered approach to their classes. In response to the implementation of the policy, some evaluations have been undertaken since then. Nevertheless, most of them were rendered official, quantitative, and national. To obtain knowledge of what was actually happening in institutional level-where learners are-needs qualitative researches conducted by outsiders without authority.

This paper presents the implementation of the learning reform policy in two public secondary schools: one in Bangkok, and the other in a remote area of a province in Thailand. The findings derive from three qualitative research approaches-document analysis, participant observation, and interviews. They were conducted in both schools during their first semester of the education year 2001. The observation was undertaken for a four-week period. At the last week, two key administrators and five extreme case teachers were interviewed. Data gained from these procedures are categorized in relation to purposes, staff's opinions about why the implementation was important; process, any support for and obstacles acting against the implementation; and outcomes, details of the implementation as well as other unanticipated impacts of the implementation to the school and its staff.

The two schools have many conditions alike. For example, they are both serving poor community that can hardly provide them financial support, and poses the schools to have students-in average-who are less academic competitive, and have less academic opportunities. At the time of the research conduct, they both have been encountering similar problems that caused by policies of the central agencies such as the workload problem, the curricular problem, the shortage of financial and personnel resource. However, the implementation of both schools is incomparable because of two reasons. Firstly, they are in different context-different location, politics, leadership, and culture. Secondly, they have been doing different pace of implementation. Consequently, their staff have different reactions and viewpoints towards the policy at the time.