Reform goes beyond exams

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva wants to see the university entrance exam system revamped within three years. That is good news. But only the incurably optimistic will believe this is going to happen.

Echoing the frustration of many parents, the prime minister harshly criticised the country's education system and the university admissions system in particular, in a speech at Thammasat University recently. The system, he said, focuses too much on rote-learning and competition instead of encouraging self-discovery and a zest for learning. The varsity entrance exams put students under too much stress and financial burden while failing in their function as an effective screening mechanism. Due to the high rate of dropouts, many universities had opted for direct admissions.

The PM was spot on. Indeed, the admissions system needs changing. Since the so-called education reform 10 years ago, the system has become unnecessarily complex. The Council of University Rectors keeps introducing new rules and more sub-exams, treating high school students like guinea pigs for their poorly-designed system.

The PM's criticism gives hope to those who advocate a return to the old system, which required Mathayom 6 students to take only one nationwide university entrance exam. Although this one-shot system was far from perfect, it was more transparent - a very important feature in a society ridden with nepotism and corruption. The old system was also much cheaper because the students paid for only one examination. Under the new system, students must take as many examinations as they can, despite the high fees, to get the best scores. Consequently, poor students who cannot afford the fees for extra exams find themselves greatly disadvantaged.

But the chances for a swift return to the simpler, cheaper and more egalitarian system were immediately quashed by Jurin Laksanavisit, the education minister. Mr Jurin, apparently giving in to bureaucratic resistance, has made it clear that the new system could be "amended under consultations" with the Council of University Rectors and other education agencies. But reverting back to the old system would be next to impossible.

Without a systematic attempt to heed the grievances of students and parents, any top-down efforts to rectify the admissions system will definitely fail to untangle the knots. Interestingly, the attempt to amend the entrance system has been described as an effort in education reform. It most certainly is not.

Our education system suppresses children's questioning minds and creativity with school authoritarianism and a top-down curriculum that makes students look down on their local cultural roots and turn a blind eye to the reality of racist nationalism. Anything short of redressing these problems cannot be called education reform. Anything short of a system which makes parents, students, local communities and schools equal partners in the decision-making process cannot be called education reform, either.

Thailand is plagued with inequalities while struggling with excessive materialism harmful to both the soul and the environment. Education alone cannot tackle these ills. But it can help people see that something must be done. Unfortunately, the present system largely perpetuates the cultural values that legitimise injustice.

To equate education reform with the revamp of the university admissions system is just a ploy to divert public attention from the crux of the problem. We must not be fooled.

Bangkok Post