Lifelong learning for Thailand: rhetoric versus reality

Lifelong learning was introduced in the National Education Act of 1999 as a new guiding principle for Thai education that would ensure economic competitiveness and ascertain sustainable development. Ten years later there is a consensus that progress has been limited and much work remains to be done. Under the auspices of the National Education Council, there is an urgent call for a second generation of education reform. The new proposal is the product of five participatory forums and surveys done nationwide and calls for greater emphasis on quality education, qualified teachers and increased access to education.

As with its predecessor, it is lifelong learning that remains the crux of the new reform. Having acknowledged that lifelong learning is still a distant reality in Thailand, the new proposal calls for more learning opportunities, new libraries and learning centres to be established across the country. The call is polemic: lifelong learning must serve our students, workers and the underprivileged population.

Creating more libraries and putting more books on the shelves is only the tip of the iceberg. Lifelong learning requires a new way of thinking about education that must be more integrated and flexible. The European Union's National Qualification Framework is the most ambitious example. It attempts to accredit learning outcomes from various sectors and levels. Built on the concept of labour mobility and market flexibility, the Framework attempts to establish a comparable standard to encourage learning across levels within the EU community. Additionally, the EU has set up Lifelong Learning Fund to provide substantial financial incentive to establish more diversified learning opportunities across Europe. A less ambitious lifelong learning policy is seen in the Nordic countries, which have strengthened their adult education system to create a new momentum, where anyone can learn at any age.

In the case of Thailand, the lifelong learning strategy should be a two-pronged approach. On the one hand, it should address the problem of skill deficit by providing a "second chance" for our adults to re-enter the education system. On average, the Thai workforce age between 15 to 59 years old has approximately 8.7 years of education, and only 13.9 per cent of the Thai labour force has attained tertiary education. In contrast, various sectors such as electronic appliances, food processing and tourism continue to demand a more educated workforce. The Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) suggests that the Thai labour market has the highest demand for workers with an equivalent of secondary education (67.3 per cent), tertiary education (17.4 per cent) and associates degree (9.5 per cent) respectively.

On the other hand, a comprehensive strategy must provide more diversified learning opportunities for Thais to continuously upgrade their skills or change career. Open universities with flexible class schedules, or the Credit Bank's concept, which allows learners to accumulate their learning credits from various sources during a certain period of time, would provide opportunities to be re-trained or re-skilled. Thailand's two Open universities, Ramkhamheang and Sukhothai Thammatirat have been pioneers in this process. Nevertheless, there is a danger that the lifelong learning concept will be used to justify "quantity" rather than "quality" learning opportunities.

To begin the road to reform, our policy-makers must share a similar vision of what lifelong learning means for Thailand. Currently, it is at best just an elusive concept with an obscure future. While some refer to lifelong learning as a synonym for "continuing or adult education", others treat it as the equivalent of learning for pleasure, non-formal learning or local knowledge. Such flexibility makes lifelong learning convenient political rhetoric for policy talks but a difficult policy to implement. Although the Office of Non-formal and Informal Education (ONIE) has played a pivotal role in pushing for a lifelong learning agenda, a successful strategy needs everybody to be involved.

At the national level, a greater dialogue between government agencies, private sectors and social groups would help formulate a comprehensive framework. At the institutional level, educational institutions should establish Credit Bank or a credit transfer system to ensure that learners are given more choices, opportunities and the flexibility to learn. More financial resources are essential to make lifelong learning opportunities feasible. Without revamping the current structure and re-allocating resources, it is plausible that the lifelong learning concept will be hijacked by various interest groups - replacing existing practices with a new name without offering any policy reform.

Most importantly, a sustainable lifelong learning strategy rests upon our learners. Without their having the will to learn, any reform remains rhetoric and a distant reality.

(The author is a PhD student at Columbia University.)