The education reform plan seeks to transform the country's outdated, inefficient and badly run educational system into a progressive, adaptable and well-functioning one. The ultimate goal is an education system that produces citizens who can contribute to and engage in a market-driven, global economy with a high level of competitiveness.

Even before Thaksin was struck and paralysed by a credibility crisis, there were questions about his sincerity in translating the lofty ideals of education reform into reality. Education reform has been a start-stop affair because the government allowed the process to be politicised.

Instead of pushing for a drastic change, the reform process was invariably bogged down by bargaining between hesitant politicians and teachers fighting to maintain the status quo. Politicians, who were supposed to provide the strong leadership to bring about change, feared repercussions from offending the 400,000-strong teachers' union.

Teachers and local administrators have to learn to get along for the sake of our children's future. No one ever said education reform would be uncontroversial or easy to implement, especially when the proposed changes are so drastic and the goals so ambitious. Complicating matters, the plan to modernise the outdated education system is supposed to be executed in conjunction with the overall decentralisation of government, which is no less contentious or difficult to carry out. What happened was a fiasco that compromised education reform to the point where it can no longer be relied on to deliver the intended results. It is tantamount to a betrayal of the noble intentions of education reform.

In the six years since education reform was introduced, the government has managed to change the form, such as institutional structure and legal framework of education agencies, but failed miserably in its attempt to change the substance, particularly the thinking and attitude of teachers. The teachers tend to stick to the old corruption-prone patronage system instead of a meritocracy, and often have an outdated mindset that discourages adoption of innovative teaching methods.

The Education Ministry and University Affairs Ministry were merged and then divided into five independent agencies - Office of the Permanent Secretary for Education, Office of the National Education Council, Office of the Basic Education Commission, Office of the Higher Education Commission and Office of the Vocational Education Commission. The problem is that without strong leadership at the top government level, the five agencies hardly communicate with one another - let alone coordinate their work.

The only big improvement has been the substantial salary increase for teachers. But the government failed to use the pay adjustment to motivate them to be more innovative in their teaching techniques and adopt the new student-centred learning style.

In the meantime, the majority of schoolteachers remain as confused as ever as to the direction reform is taking. Yet the lack of progress can also be blamed on stiff resistance from dogmatic teachers worried about drastic changes. Although the majority of teachers have by now learned to parrot the principles, approaches and objectives of education reform, they have yet to revitalise themselves. This is partly because the government has been using carrots to persuade them to reform instead of a stick to penalise those who resist change.

Another big setback occurred late last year when tens of thousands of teachers held mass protests to try to stall the plan to put state schools under the administrative purview of local governments.

Education reform is in tatters, little different from the current state of our political reform. As political parties and civil society prepare to reintroduce political reform to combat and eliminate the abuses and excesses of Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai Party, they must not overlook the need to find ways to restart education reform, which has fared so poorly under their watch.