Two decades after a government initiative to promote fairer access to education, only 2% of schools have been transferred to Local Administrative Organizations (LAOs). Yet small groups of local school administrators are proving the policy’s potential.

Suansanuk Municipal School, now under the administration of the Khon Kaen Municipality. (Photo by Samanachan Buddhajak)

Imagine you have a twin, sharing the same genetics and a modest upbringing in a small rural town. However, circumstances led to a split: you moved to the city with your father, while your twin stayed back home with your mother. In the city, you attended a well-resourced school with experienced teachers and ample opportunities. Meanwhile, your twin’s rural school struggled with limited resources, fewer teachers, and scarce support. Both of you worked hard, but by graduation, the gap was painfully clear. You went on to pass the university entrance exams and secure a stable, well-paying career, while your twin faced greater struggles to get ahead.

This type of story is true for many people and reflects the urban-rural divide common in many countries, including Thailand. This urban-rural disparity is not just a matter of individual effort or potential but is deeply influenced by systemic inequalities.

Research in 2020 by Chaiyuth Punyasavatsut  which examined the O-Net basic assessment scores of various institutions, found that larger schools with more students in urban areas have significantly higher average scores than smaller schools with fewer students in rural areas. Schools located within municipal areas tend to achieve better scores than those outside municipal boundaries. This disparity arises because larger urban schools often receive more resources, which positively impacts teaching quality compared to smaller rural schools operating on limited budgets. The gap in scores becomes even wider when comparing secondary schools to one another.

The urban-rural divide in education is closely intertwined with economic inequality. As children in rural areas receive lower-quality education, they tend to secure lower-paying jobs, perpetuating the cycle. A 2021 study by Thanakorn Worapitaksanond found that the most significant factor affecting Thai students' ability to pursue higher education is their family’s economic status, followed by the quality of their school and the selection system for higher education. High-income families can choose quality schools for their children and provide additional learning resources, whereas low-income families have far fewer options.

The Ministry of Education has received the largest budget allocation in almost every year, accounting for 20% of the national budget since 1999. In 2018, Thailand’s total public and private education investment amounted to 816.463 billion baht, or 5% of GDP, which is slightly higher than the OECD average of 4.9%. However, the quality of distribution remains a concern. The allocation system provides the same budget per student for all schools, without accounting for differing needs, with higher per-student costs for smaller schools compared to larger ones.

Thailand produces more teachers than required, yet some areas still face teacher shortages. With 357,209 teachers and 6.6 million students, Thailand has a teacher-to-student ratio of 5.4 teachers per 100 students, which exceeds UNESCO's recommended ratio of 4 teachers per 100 students. However, a report by the 101 Public Policy Think Tank indicates a shortage of 47,927 teaching positions, primarily in small schools. The distribution of teachers is uneven; urban schools have expanded and gained more resources, while rural schools have shrunk, face budget cuts, and serve various vulnerable student groups.

Expanding opportunities

Parts of the Thai government have long recognized this problem. In 1932, as part of Khana Ratsadon’s initiative aimed at expanding public education, newly built schools were assigned to their respective municipalities. Later, in 1966, public schools outside municipal areas were transferred to Provincial Administrative Organizations, created to collect local revenues and share the responsibilities of Provincial Governors delegated from Bangkok.

Following broader decentralization efforts in 1997, LAOs were given increased responsibilities. Since 2004, the Thai government has committed to transferring schools under the Office of the Basic Education Commission (OBEC) of the Ministry of Education to LAOs, acknowledging that these organizations and local schools play crucial roles in addressing inequality.

"Local schools absorb inequalities because they cannot choose which students to admit. Children from poor families or children from deprived families must receive education equally," said Prof Wuttisarn Tanchai, former Secretary-General of King Prajadhipok's Institute, speaking for the Equitable Education Fund.

"Localities can solve problems better because they are closer to the people and understand better the problems that occur " said Wuttisarn.

“The fact that the Ministry of Education has a policy like 'Zero Drop Out,' may be good in terms of policy. But in practice, the Ministry cannot know about individual students who leave the education system. However, the local [administrative organizations] can know why each student leaves the system and can solve the problem more easily.”

Prof Direk Patamasiriwat, Chair of the Sub-committee on the Transfer of Educational Responsibilities to LAOs, said that as the Ministry of Education cannot adequately oversee small and remote institutions, the target should be for 50% of all schools to be transferred to Local Administrative Organizations (LAOs).

However, between 2004 and 2009, only 431 schools were transferred. In the next 12 years, the number increased by just 107, bringing the total to 538 out of more than 30,000 schools nationwide. This figure is not only very low—amounting to just 2% of the total number of schools—but also reflects a significant slowdown in the transfer process. Currently, only 10% of schools are managed by LAOs, including both those that have been transferred and those established independently.

Restrictive budget

One reason for the very low number of local schools transferred to Local Administrative Organizations (LAOs) is the lack of governmental impetus in recent years after the late 2000s. Following coups in 2006 and 2014, the decentralization plans could not be implemented as intended.

The Act on Determining Plans and Process of Decentralization to Local Government Organization stipulates that the revenue share of Local Administrative Organizations (LAOs) in relation to government revenue should have been at least 25% by 2007, with a target to increase this to 35% to match their expanding responsibilities. However, as of now, this share falls short of the target. Academics are also concerned that the current budget is not well-distributed, leaving smaller LAOs behind, despite their need for more resources to catch up.

The estimated revenue of local administrative organizations (fiscal year 2018-2023)

Source: Parliament Website

Many LAOs fear that their budgets will be insufficient if they accept the transfer of schools; however, the problem extends beyond just financial concerns. Smaller LAOs not only receive less budget but are also faced with more restrictive regulations.

Manich Tha-ai, the director of Tonkaewphadungpittayalai School under the Chiang Mai Provincial Administrative Organization (PAO) and the current president of the Association of School Administrators under Provincial Administrative Organizations of Thailand, said that in Bangkok, where there is greater autonomy, funding for education is well-supported from kindergarten through high school.

Larger economies, such as Bangkok and Rayong, enjoy greater freedom in budget management. In contrast, LAOs in smaller economies are constrained by Ministry of Interior regulations, which are often ill-suited for managing school budgets.

The primary source of revenue for LAOs often comes from earmarked funds provided by the central government, designated for specific purposes. For example, per capita funding and the school lunch programme, which were previously managed by the Ministry of Education, are now transferred to local authorities in the form of earmarked payments.

While earmarked budgeting can be useful for prioritizing specific policy initiatives, it limits local administrations' ability to design spending plans or adjust budgets based on their communities' actual needs. Consequently, schools under smaller LAOs often suffer from numerous regulations and cumbersome reimbursement processes.

The funds that enable these LAOs to support schools primarily come from their own revenue collection, which constitutes a relatively small proportion of their overall funding. This situation creates disparities between localities with smaller and larger economies. The 2020 study by Chaiyuth indicates that these subsidies significantly impact the quality of education, with schools that receive higher subsidies generally achieving better educational outcomes.

A Breakdown of FY2023 revenue shows that a significant portion of the revenue of local administrative organizations (LAOs) comes from the central government. Combined with rigid regulations, this results in Bangkok having dominant power over local budgets.

This regulatory issue extends to other areas. For example, regulations imposed by Bangkok prohibit LAOs from conducting their own teacher recruitment exams. Moreover, their access to teacher recruitment lists from the Ministry of Education was also restricted after the coup. As a result, localities have struggled to meet their teacher staffing needs.

The resources are always available; yet LAOs are discouraged or even prohibited by regulations from using them. This often results in what locals perceive as neglect or delay. In the worst-case scenario—bizarrely—fixing the roof of a house takes only a week, while repairs for a school roof can take several months.

"A summer storm blew away the roofs of houses in the community. But within a week, the Sub-District Administrative Organization was able to completely repair the roofs of the houses,” said Suphachok Piyasan, Director of Ban Huairaisamakkee School in Mae Fa Luang District, Chiang Rai, and an advisor for the network of education administrators in remote mountainous areas. “But the school had to wait for two months before getting repaired. In the meantime, the ceiling of the school had already collapsed."

Khorat’s Success

Among the LAOs that have taken over schools from the central government, the Nakhon Ratchasima Provincial Administrative Organization (PAO) manages 58 schools, making it the LAO with the highest number of schools under its jurisdiction, excluding Bangkok.

Adun Phuphattharang, the former president of the Association of School Administrators under the Provincial Administrative Organizations of Thailand, recounted that in 2007, the large-scale transfer of schools in Nakhon Ratchasima resulted from the Ministry of Education's management failures. This included the merger of primary and secondary education districts, which prompted discussions among school administrators.

It wasn't easy initially, but 17 years later, they have found that transferring schools to LAOs with shorter lines of command facilitates easier management. Now, they are thriving and outperforming their counterparts in the province who remain under the Ministry of Education. Through trial and error, they have gained hard-earned lessons along the way.

“In the beginning, the problem was that the local management regulations were outdated. Like school administrators had the authority to approve expenditures of only up to three thousand baht. To do anything, they had to run to ask the President [of the PAO],” said Adun.

“If it were a school under a nearby municipality, it might have been manageable, but we were under the PAO, Most schools were located on the outskirts. If we had to run to the city for the President to sign approval for everything, we wouldn’t get anything done.”

Research in 2013 by Duangnet Samranwong and Chaiyan Rajchagool analyzed the first five years following the transfer of schools to the Nakhon Ratchasima PAO. The study found that the transferred schools faced several challenges, including the PAO's lack of readiness due to limited knowledge and experience in education management.

In the initial stages, the Nakhon Ratchasima PAO managed a small number of transferred schools, allowing for effective oversight. However, as a large number of schools were transferred simultaneously, management complexity increased, and the PAO lacked sufficient qualified personnel for comprehensive oversight.

Additionally, ministry agencies equipped for education did not take on a mentoring role during this critical period, leaving school administrators and staff feeling abandoned. Moreover, the ministry's evaluation programs were no longer permitted after the transfer.

As a result, local schools experienced numerous shortcomings. Outdated local regulations led to several issues. Although school personnel reported no decrease in pay—with some bonuses and benefits even increasing—challenges arose concerning welfare. For instance, staff were required to submit receipts for medical expense claims, and other reimbursements were frequently delayed.

Additionally, even for small-budget activities or trips to other provinces, permission was required to use vehicles, complicating management. These challenges were particularly difficult in Nakhon Ratchasima, given its vast area.

The initial phase of the transfer encountered numerous challenges, with local regulations hindering effective school management. This led to the formation of a group of school administrators under local governance, dedicated to proposing improvements and advocating for the rights of schools and personnel. As a result, the situation has since improved, and they are now passing on their knowledge.

"We try to fight so that when schools are transferred, they must not receive less than before," Adun explained regarding his association’s mission. "Education management is not like other types of administration because it is building people. It’s not just about adding money in and expecting immediate results."

“In the beginning, it was all over the place. The education division was still new, and there were no education supervisors to oversee the schools,” said Chawalit Koetklang, the principal of Sikhiu Sawadphadungwittaya School in Sikhio District, Nakhon Ratchasima. “The schools had to help each other to make do.”

Chawalit continued, “When there’s people who create plans for budget spending, we can coordinate more easily. If we want to develop something, we can talk directly to the education division and propose it for the President’s approval without having to go through the Educational Service Area and then sending it to the Ministry like before.”

The development of personnel is another area that has seen positive changes. The PAO conducts regular training, resulting in a higher number of promotions for administrators and staff in local schools compared to Nakhon Ratchasima schools under the Ministry of Education.

This aligns with research in 2016 by Thidaporn Pengnoo , which found that transferred schools have experienced improvements in several areas, including access to equipment, teaching materials, and budgetary support. These improvements are due to their ability to secure funding from various sources and mobilize resources more easily.

Currently, administrators can now approve expenditures up to 100,000 baht themselves. However, some aspects of the management regulations still require improvement.

Since schools under LAOs do not have legal entity status, they cannot manage their own funds and make purchases independently and must process everything through the PAO. This reliance sometimes results in receiving equipment that does not meet their needs. Additionally, challenges in personnel management persist, such as difficulties in opening new positions.

“We live in the same Thailand”

Meanwhile, other LAOs must catch up with Nakhon Ratchasima. Although there are precedents for LAOs to take over schools from the central government, some still lack effective management capacity. Suphachok recommends amending the law to grant local governments greater freedom and flexibility in utilizing their budgets.

"'We live in the same Thailand, and we need to work together,” said Suphachok. “You cannot let the law dictate that local funds cannot be used to support schools, even if those schools are not under local administration.”

The government in Bangkok must shift its role from being a gatekeeper to becoming a supporter. Prof Direk noted that the limited number of school transfers to LAOs is partly due to outdated assessment criteria and complicated conditions set by the Ministry of Education, which has vested interests in the process. If the assessment system is revised and an impartial committee is established for evaluations, many schools will likely express a desire to request a transfer.

Manit proposed that the central government should encourage LAOs to take over more schools by offering incentives. He suggested guaranteeing minimum funding and support as a standard procedure, which should be included in the annual budget for the LAOs to facilitate a smoother transition process.

While success in reducing these disparities depends on support from the central government, LAOs have demonstrated that they possess some agency to make meaningful improvements. Reducing educational disparities in Thailand requires loosening regulations, enhancing local capacities for managing education, and redistributing resources to rural areas to help them catch up with their urban counterparts.