The implementation of the local content provision in Thai basic education

2009

CELS Discussion Papers, 2009/1

“The implementation of the local content provision in Thai basic education”

Audrey BARON-GUTTY

Supat CHUPRADIT

CELS Centre for Education and Labour Studies, Faculty of Education, Chiang Mai University

ศูนยวิจัยเพื่อการศึกษาและแรงงาน คณะศึกษาศาสตร มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม

1

CELS Discussion Papers 2009/1

“The implementation of the local content provision in Thai basic education”Audrey Baron-Gutty and Supat Chupradit

Abstract:This paper is based on questionnaires submitted by the CELS in schools located in poor areas of Northern and North-Eastern Thailand. The aim is to assess to which extent the schools have implemented the so-called ‘local curriculum’ that they have been put in charge with. This field survey was also a way to evaluate the content of this curriculum and the hurdles towards its implementation.This paper supports the research project launched in December 2008 and named ‘Education, Identity and Economy. Ten Years of Educational Reform in Thailand’.

2

3

Content

Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 51. Rationale of the study ................................................................................................. 52. Objective of the study ................................................................................................. 63. Methodology ................................................................................................................ 64. Paper outline ................................................................................................................ 7

Chapter 2: Sampling presentation and research questions ............................................... 91. Presentation of the sample ......................................................................................... 92. Field work: some explanations................................................................................ 123. Background Information and Research Questions .............................................. 13

a- Background Information .............................................................................................. 13b- Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 14

Chapter 3: Findings ............................................................................................................... 171. Overview of the implementation of the local content provision / teachers’ view ..................................................................................................................................... 172. Overview of the implementation of the local content provision / directors’ view ..................................................................................................................................... 213. Exploring the attitude of teachers regarding local curriculum .......................... 23

a- Gender .......................................................................................................................... 23b- Age ............................................................................................................................... 24c- Years spent in school .................................................................................................... 26d- Teaching Level ............................................................................................................. 28e- Field taught .................................................................................................................. 30

4. Some elements of interpretation ............................................................................. 32a- An education given back to community? .................................................................... 32b- Local curriculum geared towards vocationalism? ....................................................... 33c- Localism and local content provision: a populist approach of education? ................... 34

Chapter 4: Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 35References ............................................................................................................................... 37

4

5

Chapter 1: Introduction

1. Rationale of the study

In 1999, the National Education Act (NEA) was voted in Thailand and shall be considered as the starting point of an attempt to widely reform the educational system of the country. It has dealt with different aspects of education, including learning and teaching methods, organisation structure (mainly decentralisation), quality assessments and standards (ONEC 1999).

By focusing on a reform dealing with community empowerment, teachers’ upgrading and a child-centred approach, Thailand was not acting very differently from other East Asian countries (Townsend and Cheng 2000). However the NEA and the following legislative texts gave an even more specific emphasis on the “local” dimension of education.

In that sense, the writers of the reform and of the following Basic Education Curriculum launched in 2001 were following the path drawn by thinkers of the localist school of thought. Localism in Thailand has been represented by Prawase Wasi and Sanek Jamarik, and hasaimed at correcting a top-down approach towards policy making and at giving the power back to the communities (UNDP 2003).

The localist approach emerged in the late 1970s with the activity of NGOs in village development and was articulated in the 1980s by Chatthip Natsupa (Chatthip 1991). It gained a major importance in the aftermath of the 1997 crisis that put in question the way of development that Thailand had followed for more than 20 years. “Emerging alongside and associated with the nationalist reaction, localism distinguished itself from simplistic nationalism by denigrating the capitalist triumphalism of the boom and by drawing attention to perceived weaknesses in the country’s development path from the mid-1950s”(Hewison 2002).

Further visibility was given when localists, and especially Prawase Wasi (Prawase 1999),linked the idea of community with the sufficiency economy concept (setthakit pho piang)presented by King Bhumibol in his birthday’s address in 1997 (Bhumibol Adulyadej 1997),and the notion of self-reliance (phung ton eng) proned by Buddhist tenants.

It is therefore not surprising to find the localist discourse in the documents related to education reform since 1999. Starting from the idea of buttressing an ailing Thai wisdom, the reformers have indeed diverted their intentions towards reinforcing local wisdom and ensuring community’s self-sufficiency and self-reliance, and therefore joining the stream nurtured by localists.

The NEA insists that every sector of the society and every member of the community shall participate in and benefit from the provision of education, for instance in section 24 (item 6):

“(…) [c]ollaboration with parents, guardians, and all parties concerned in the community shall be sought to develop jointly the learners in accord with their potentiality”

The National Education Act also mentions that basic education institutions themselves can design their own curricula. This is shortly explained in section 23:

6

“The Basic Education Commission shall prescribe core curricula for basic education for purposes of preserving Thai identity, good citizenship, desirable way of life, livelihood, as well as further education.In accord with the objectives in the first paragraph, basic education institutions shall be responsible for prescribing curricula substance relating to needs of the community and the society, local wisdom and attributes of desirable members of the family, community, society and nation”.

This is the core of what is known as the local content provision, meaning that parallel to the core curriculum, schools themselves shall design a local curriculum matching the needs and using the learning resources of the community to their full potential.

Launched by the NEA in 1999, this measure has been reinforced by the National Scheme of Education 2002-2016 (ONEC 2002), the Basic Education Curriculum 2001 (Department of Curriculum and Instruction Development 2001) and different ministerial decrees. One of the decree promulgated by the then Minister of Education, Pongpol Adireksarn, in January 2003 (Minister of Education 2546) mentioned namely that the share of local curriculum regarding core curriculum should be 30:70, explaining why it is often referred to as the 30% provision.

The development of local curriculum needs to be understood bearing in mind that it was thought parallel to the sufficiency economy discourse. The Ministry of Education indeed launched the “Strategies to Drive the Sufficient Economy Philosophy to Educational Institutions (2007-2011)”, putting the emphasis on morality and wisdom (OEC 2008). The report clearly mentions that sufficiency discourse shall be integrated into the basic education curriculum.

Often presented as a response to globalisation, it is now interesting to study how this local curriculum articulates itself with core, “global knowledge”, what the achievements and issues of its implementation are, and how it has promoted the so-called local wisdom.

2. Objective of the study

Drawing out from this, we wanted to investigate to what extent the local content provision has changed Thai educational system. It was therefore necessary to see and examine how it has been implemented in reality.

This is the purpose of the study we have carried out and, without questioning the validity of the local curriculum provision launched in Thailand, we want to analyse its implementation.

3. Methodology

In 2007, the CELS (Centre for Education and Labour Studies), based at the Faculty of Education at Chiang Mai University, has been designated by the NRCT (National Research Council of Thailand) to carry out a research programme named “Education and Poverty”. This 2-year programme is still on-going (Oct.2007-oct.2009) and aims at studying the links between education and poor family background, and the impact of education on poverty alleviation.

7

As part of the overall research, questionnaires were submitted to primary and secondary schools, both general and vocational, situated in poor areas. Pupils, teachers, directors, parents and community stakeholders were interviewed.

Some questions asked to teachers and directors were specifically linked with the implementation of the local content provision. We used the answers given as primary sources for this Discussion Papers.

4. Paper outline

This paper is divided into 4 chapters. Chapter 1 is devoted to introducing the reader to the rationale and outline of the study. Chapter 2 presents the sampling and the research questions that have led this study. Chapter 3 is in charge of presenting the major findings from the field and in linking it with analytical thinking. Chapter 4 concludes this publication.

8

9

Chapter 2: Sampling presentation and research questions

1. Presentation of the sample

From the questionnaires available, only schools in general education were considered as they are liable to the local content provision implementation.

Basic education refers to education before higher education, therefore including primary education and secondary education (upper and lower).

This study does not intend to give a representative sample of schools or teachers’ views, it is firstly intended at providing a qualitative overview of the implementation of the local content provision. The observations will be only indications of perceived trends in education in Thailand.

SchoolsRegion Province Primary Secondary Primary

and Secondary

Teachers Directors

North Lampang 1 2 2 49 5Chiang Mai 3 3 0 33 5

North-East Uttaradit 1 2 2 50 5Sakhon Nakhorn 0 5 0 51 5Udon Thani 3 1 1 49 5

8 13 52 5 26 232 25

Number of TeachersPrimary 90Secondary 142Total 232

TeachersAge Primary Secondary Total

20-30 11 11 2231-40 13 17 3041-50 26 62 8850+ 40 52 92Total 90 142 232

In the sample we took, we found it interesting to test whether the age and gender could be a factor explaining the attitude of teachers and directors regarding the reforms. The number of years spent in the school, the field taught and the level of teaching (primary or secondary)might also have an impact on the attitude regarding the local content provision.

To put these assumptions into question, it was therefore not only necessary to state the age and gender of the interviewee, but also to state how long they have been working in that school. However we assumed that the province where the school was located in was not a

10

factor to be taken into account and therefore we have not done any breakdown according tothe provinces.

TeachersGender Age Years spent in this school*

Total 20-30 31-40 41-50 +50 0-2 2-10 10-20 >20Male 74 8 5 28 33 7 23 24 20Female 158 14 25 60 59 22 51 25 60Total 232 22 30 88 92 29 74 49 80

0-2 means until 2 included; 2-10 means 2 excluded and 10 included; 10-20 means 10 excluded but 20 included; >20 means 20 excluded but all figures after 20 included.

Age structure / overall, primary and secondary (teachers interviewed)

0 20 40 60 80 100

OVERALL

PRIMARY

SECONDARY

Nb of teachers

20-30 years 31-40 years 41-50 years more than 50

TeachersAge Overall Age Primary Age Secondary

20-30 years old 22 20-30 years old 11 20-30 years old 1131-40 years old 30 31-40 years old 13 31-40 years old 1741-50 years old 88 41-50 years old 26 41-50 years old 62more than 50 92 more than 50 40 more than 50 52

232 90 142

TeachersAge Years spent in this school

Total 0-2 2-10 10-20 >2020-30 22 9 13 0 031-40 30 4 16 9 141-50 88 6 19 25 28+50 92 10 16 15 51Total 232 29 74 49 80

11

Years spent in this school / overall, primary, secondary (teachers interviewed)

0 20 40 60 80 100

OVERALL

PRIMARY

SECONDARY

Nb of teachers

up to 2 years up to 10 years up to 20 years > 20 years

TeachersOverall Primary Secondary

up to 2 years 29 up to 2 years 17 up to 2 years 12up to 10 years 74 up to 10 years 24 up to 10 years 50up to 20 years 49 up to 20 years 18 up to 20 years 31> 20 years 80 > 20 years 31 > 20 years 49

232 90 142

Regarding the sample of directors, all directors interviewed were male.

The average age was 53.5 years old, with a minimum of 49 and a maximum of 59.

The “years spent in school” item does not make the distinction between the years spent as a teacher only and the years holding the director position.

DirectorsGender Age Years spent in this school

Total 20-30 31-40 41-50 50+ 0-2 2-10 10-20 20+Male 25 0 0 6 19 4 16 1 4Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 25 0 0 6 19 4 16 1 4

DirectorsAge Years spent in this school

Total 0-2 2-10 10-20 20+20-30 0 0 0 0 031-40 0 0 0 0 041-50 6 1 4 1 050+ 19 3 12 1 3Total 25 4 16 2 3

12

At the secondary level, each course is taught separately. This is not the case at the primary level. Below are mentioned the courses the teachers that were interviewed are in charge with.

Teachers at secondary levelThai Maths Science SSRC* HPE** Arts Career/

Techno.Foreign

LanguageOthers***

142 25 14 17 22 13 12 19 12 8100% 18% 10% 12% 15% 9% 8% 13% 8% 6%* SSRC: Social Studies, Religion and Culture** HPE: Health and Physical Education*** Counselling, Library

Teachers at secondary level

AgeThai Maths Science SSRC* HPE** Arts Career/

Techno.Foreign

LanguageOthers***

20-30 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 131-40 1 2 3 2 2 3 3 141-50 13 7 5 10 8 4 10 4 150+ 10 2 7 9 3 4 5 7 5Total 25 14 17 22 13 12 19 12 8

The breakdown regarding age, gender, years spent in that school, course taught and level of teaching will be used to see if there is a correlation between these variables and the attitude towards the implementation of local curriculum (see Chapter 3).

This attitude will be tested through the answers regarding whether they think 30% for local curriculum is enough, should be more or should be less, and which field of the local wisdom they mentioned.

2. Field work: some explanations

Out of the questionnaire, we analysed the answer given to three questions. These questions were part, as mentioned before, of a long questionnaire on varied issues and they were only asked at the end of the document. This can explain why sometimes there was no comment for these questions, maybe out of boredom or lack of time. This dimension has to be taken into account together with the fact that the questionnaires were not primarily designed to give information about the local content provision.

Here are the questions related to local curriculum that were asked to teachers and directors.

Teachers- How do you integrate 30% of local content in the curriculum?- Do you think that local content should be more than 30% or less than 30%? Explain why.- Do you think that adding up local content to the curriculum has improved or deteriorated

educational achievement of students? Explain your answer.

Directors- What kind of local wisdom do you integrate in the 30% of the curriculum you are in charge

with?- Who decided in fact about the contents?- What are your comments about this provision?

13

Interviews in Uttaradit, Lampang, Sakon Nakhorn, and Udon Thani were conducted by a team of interviewers from Rajabhat Universities1, headed by one interviewer in chief (from CELS) that took part in the elaboration of the questionnaire.

The whole questionnaire was in Thai. Each team of interviewers was different from one province to another.

In Chiang Mai province, 2 schools were interviewed by the same CELS team, whereas the interviews conducted in the four other schools were done by one of the interviewers in chief only (from CELS) as part of an in-depth field survey conducted over a long period.

3. Background Information and Research Questions

a- Background Information

The OEC defines Thai wisdom as “the national heritage which helps solve problems and improves the quality of life of Thai people in line with their environment” (OEC 2008).

Dr. Nantasan Srisalab gives the following definition:“Thai Wisdom means the body of knowledge, ability, outstanding value and skills of the Thais inherited from experiences that are respectively preserved and transmitted through generations. Thai Wisdom is accumulated as a common asset of the nation to help younger generations solving problem, improving their quality of lives and at the same time, creating the appropriate balance between their way of lives and their environments” (Srisalab 1999).

Nine fields of knowledge are stipulated as being part of Thai wisdom: 1) agriculture; 2) industry and handicrafts; 3) Thai traditional medicine; 4) natural resources andenvironmental management; 5) community trusts and enterprises; 6) fine arts; 7) language and literature; 8) philosophy, religion and traditions; and 9) nutrition.

Drawing out from that, experts called “Teachers of Thai wisdom” have been named, on the basis of their command of one of the above mentioned field. This recognition has been done locally, and they are mostly known as “Teacher of Local wisdom”. It is a recent “creation” that has evolved parallel with the demand from educational institutions for local resources and local wisdom experts. The schools were indeed willing to (they were also bound to) integrate local wisdom in the knowledge transmitted in school but they were not expert themselves in local knowledge and heritage. Many teachers do not teach in the region they were born and therefore have little knowledge of the local resources and specificities.

This can explain to some extent why the Ministry of Education has deliberately promoted and searched for so-called Thai local wisdom experts. A policy was issued “to giverecognition of and honour for Teachers of Thai Wisdom, to support them in being the living examples or role models for others, guiding the thinking/learning process and way of life as well as transferring the local wisdom through education of all types and at all levels” (OEC

1 Rajabhat Universities: Udon Thani Rajabhat University, Sakon Nakhorn Rajabhat University, Lampang Rajabhat University, Uttaradit Rajabhat University.

14

2008). The role of Teacher of Local Wisdom in education is indeed to be played in formal, non-formal and informal educations (OEC 2008).

The 2001 Basic Education Curriculum specifically emphasises that educational institutions do not solely rely upon “global” knowledge but also develop knowledge in line with the community: “Educational institutions are encouraged to include into their curriculum a learning unit based on Thai wisdom in line with the local needs” (OEC 2008).

Therefore, it is often made reference not to Thai wisdom but to Thai local wisdom or justlocal wisdom (bhum pun ya chao baan).If we want to define local wisdom, it could be as follows:

1. Thai wisdom applied locally, or2. knowledge genuinely developed locally

These two aspects of local wisdom co-exist in the documents related to education without a clear definition being given. Local wisdom, in the mind of the policy-maker, therefore mixestwo distinctive goals: valuing traditions, and empowering communities, as stated by Junck and Kajornsin: “The projects illustrate what is involved in honouring local wisdom and developing a more locally relevant and empowering curriculum” (Junck and Kajornsin 2003)

The focus on local wisdom and the desire to integrate it into formal education emanates as we mentioned earlier from the localist discourse. Its defenders argue that education should be given back to the baan (this Thai word can be translated into house but also community), away from the Western approach that has prevailed since the education reform implemented by King Chulalongkorn in the late 1880s (Ongsakun 2000).

The possibility for educational institutions to develop part of their curriculum also stems from the desire to preserve traditions. It is particularly interesting in the case of the restive South in Thailand. There the population is from Malay background and the dominant religion is Islam.

“The challenge is to find means of enabling the people of the South to continue to impart their culture, language, and religious traditions to the younger generation while at the same time providing students with necessary skills so as to become productive and educated adults with equal opportunity to prosper in the competitive job market and to advance economically and socially in the greater Thai society” (OEC 2008).

This is also particularly relevant in the case of hill tribe communities, mainly located in Northern Thailand. They do not speak Central Thai and have different ethnic and cultural background. By giving schools the opportunity to integrate local knowledge and resourcesinto formal education, it is hoped that cultural and language diversities will be preserved.

Local wisdom is not the prerogative of minorities, either ethnic, linguistic or religious. It is argued that local wisdom can be found in every so-called community, either urban or rural.

“Thus communities will be capable of providing education and training; searching for knowledge, data, and information; and be able to benefit from local wisdom and other sources of learning for community development in keeping with their requirements and needs” (section 29, NEA 1999)

b- Research Questions

1. Has the local content provision been implemented in the surveyed schools?

15

2. What is the attitude of teachers and directors regarding local curriculum?

3. Which areas of local wisdom have been emphasised in the implementation of the local curriculum in formal education?

4. What are the major achievements and hurdles towards the implementation of the local content provision?

5. Do the age, gender, years spent in the school, course taught and level of teaching have an impact on the attitude regarding the implementation of the local content provision?

16

17

Chapter 3: Findings

The following chapter will first present the major findings from our research. Then we will interpret them at the light of wider ideas and concepts.

1. Overview of the implementation of the local content provision / teachers’ view

The large majority of teachers answered “yes” when asked if they integrate local wisdom in what they teach. Only 9% of the overall interviewed teachers replied “no”. However, this answer should be adjusted by the fact that most teachers then specified that they integrate just little bits of local wisdom and that it is difficult to do it.

Some teachers answered “yes” but then mentioned that colleagues do not understand or do not want to integrate the concept of local curriculum. One even mentioned that: “The director does not know how to apply the local content provision”.

Some difficulties in understanding what the local curriculum is about are visible in answers given by teachers: “Local wisdom is not integrated in teaching, for instance, there is nothing about folk music”; according to this teacher, local wisdom is only related to folk music.When asked how he integrates local wisdom into its course, a teacher answered: “Students would for instance search the Internet about local wisdom resources”.

However some teachers have a clear idea of what the local curriculum should be about, and how, they think, it was designed by policy makers.“It is like an OTOP2 project for schools: Innovation for schools and community and preservation of community features”

The local content provision is applied in the surveyed schools in different ways. We have ranked them from 1 to 5 according to the frequency they occurred in the interviews:

1. it is applied in all core courses2. it is applied in a separate course designed for local wisdom3. it is a unit within one core course only4. special student activities5. it is applied in some core courses

When it is taught within a specific core course, it is usually in the “Career and Technology”Course, and in some rare cases in “Arts”. This limits the scope of the Career and Technology Course and as a teacher put it: “Career and technology course should not be limited to local wisdom only, it should be wider”.

It appears that as far as the teaching/transfer of local wisdom is concerned, teachers are the ones mostly involved.

We have tried to calculate the contribution of teachers, teacher of local wisdom and people from the community to the teaching of local curriculum. The results are the following.

2 Referring to the « One Tambon One Product” programme launched by the Thaksin administration to help tambons (districts) develop their production.

18

People involved in the teaching / transfer of local wisdom into school

80%

4%

16%

Teachers People from the community Teacher of local wisdom

People from the community are mostly monks from the village temple. The teaching of local wisdom is mainly devoted to teachers.

Area of local wisdom mentioned by the teachers interviewed (total: 232)

87

32

6

107

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

vocational skills arts and culture others Not mentioned

In that breakdown, we used the answers given by interviewees in any of the three questions. Limited interpretation was done. “Not mentioned” means that no area of local wisdom was clearly stated by the interviewee.

In “vocational skills”, we integrated replies related to industry, handicraft, agriculture, food, cooking, and skills related to daily life. In “arts and culture”, we put answers related to fine arts, language and literature, philosophy, religion and traditions. The field “others” covers Thai traditional medicine, natural resources and environment management.

19

Feeling regarding the 30% local content expressed by teachers interviewed (total: 232)

101

85

40

6

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Should

be >

30%

Should

be <

30%

Appro

priat

e/Eno

ugh

No com

men

t

At first, the questionnaire did not mention the option “enough/appropriate”. However, many interviewees felt it necessary to answer that way, their view not fitting in the two options proposed.

We compiled the answers of those saying “it should be more than 30%” and put in the fore the reasons why they thought that way.We pointed out 8 major reasons, listed below from 1 to 8 (1 being the most frequent reason, and 8 the least frequent). The first four items represent 82% of the overall elements gathered.

1. To have more links between school and community2. To improve local knowledge sharing and understanding3. To have more vocational skills4. To get more skills related to daily life5. To design a school curriculum that fits the community needs6. Some students will not go to higher education7. To support core courses8. To counterbalance globalisation

The following quote epitomizes well the answers we got in that respect: “School should promote occupational skills for children so that they can work in the future”

We compiled the answers of those saying “it should be less than 30%” and underlined the reasons why they thought that way. We pointed out 6 major reasons, listed below from 1 to 6 (1 being the most frequent reason, and 6 the least frequent). The first three items account for 91% of the elements taken into account.

1. It is a waste of time at the expenses of the core courses; focus should be on core courses

2. National tests do not include local content3. Local curriculum is a hurdle towards university entrance4. Children can learn local wisdom directly from the community, they do not need

to learn it at school5. Local curriculum is not relevant to future job6. Students are not interested in it

20

Below are some quotes taken out from the questionnaires to exemplify the above mentioned items.

“They should focus on core courses because they are growing up in a context of urbanization”

“School should not train pupils for work”

“Students can learn from the community by themselves because that is the place they are growing up in. Core courses should be given more time”

“Local content is integrated in teaching but just a little: Children are not interested in it“

Another output from the questionnaires is the presentation of the perceived achievements of the local content provision, either future or already attained.7 items were identified, presented below from 1 to 7, 1 being the most frequent and 7 the less frequent.The first 4 items account for 81%.

1. Children have more knowledge about and can conserve their local knowledge2. It will increase love, pride, ownership of local culture and integrate children in it3. Pupils can learn by doing, get more practise from vocational skills related to the

community needs4. Community resources are more valued and used5. It will be easier for children to get a job in the community6. It has improved teaching skills and management, and enhanced children learning

or child-centred approach7. With the handicrafts made in the local wisdom related course, families and school

can get some revenues

Here are some quotes related to the achievements of the local content provision.

“Students learn from the diversity of the community”

“Students will have more awareness about their community. They will love it. Nowadays when students finish their studies, they do not want to come back, they want higher income and so they stay in urban areas to get it”

Parallel to that, we analysed the problems related to the local content provision. If some teachers pointed out issues, they also most of the time mentioned that it can increase the love and pride of children regarding their local community. 7 main fields were taken out from the answers to reflect the problems. However there is no clear picture: They all get around 15% of the overall replies.

We have however ranked them from 1 to 7.1. Lack of budget2. It increases differences in education regarding quality and content3. Difficult to involve the community (Teachers of Local Wisdom, Community

resources, either human or material)4. Difficult to integrate local wisdom into teaching5. Not enough details on how to implement the local content provision6. Teachers do not understand/do not want to integrate the local content provision7. More workload for teachers and for pupils

21

Regarding the problem of lack of information and training about the local content provision, one teacher said: “But educational policies come from the centre and cannot be applied properly in reality”. Another teacher was more practical and argued that: “There should be a package for teaching local wisdom so that each school uses the same pattern”.

Teachers mentioned the lack of budget as a major hurdle towards the implementation of the local curriculum. This is reflected in the following quotes:

“Lack of budget to pay community participants and teacher of local wisdom”

“Community and families should also support the school to pay for field trips and invite teacher of local wisdom”

When they mentioned the risk of a rise in the differences of education, they pointed out that communities do not have the same resources and endowment. “There are some improvements in some courses and in some communities, but in others it is inappropriate”

“Each student and each community have different learning style and resources”

“Each community has its culture. If children move from one community to another, they will be confused at school and cannot value the local wisdom they gained before”. But, also, as one teacher put it: “If students cannot compete with other schools, they can come back to their home village”.

Only few teachers proposed some ideas to develop local curriculum. They include the following:

- local wisdom should be taught in a specific course;- assessment regarding children’s knowledge of local wisdom should be carried out,

and done by students, the community (Teacher of Local Wisdom) or teachers;- get training from the MOE on how to integrate local wisdom in the curriculum;- local content should be integrated into core courses only.

2. Overview of the implementation of the local content provision / directors’ view

A large majority of the directors (88%) that were interviewed stated that local curriculum is integrated in their school. However, this should be moderated especially with directors saying: “Local wisdom is not really integrated into curriculum but still the school must show some results” or “School has to follow educational reform”, implying that away from the official discourse the reality is different.

When asked who has been in charge of developing the local curriculum, they mentioned the following (1 is the most frequent, 9 the less frequent). Items 1, 2 and 3 were mentioned in 65% of the answers we got.

1. Teachers2. School committee3. Parents4. Director5. Teacher of Local Wisdom6. Community representatives and leaders7. Students/pupils

22

8. Local Administrative Authorities (orbortor)9. School Board

Teachers were therefore a major part of the development of the local curriculum.

“Teachers of the 8 courses were involved, there was a brainstorming session to create local curriculum”

No relevant information regarding the area of local wisdom emphasised in the local curriculum was collected.

Regarding the attitude of directors about the local content provision, most of them did not make any comments (44%), 36% made positive comments, 12% neutral comments, and 8% negative comments.

From the answers we analysed, the directors mentioned the following major achievements of the local content provision. The first two items account for 58% of the overall replies.

1. Children have more knowledge about and can conserve their local knowledge2. It will increase love, pride, ownership of local culture and integrate children in it3. Pupils can learn by doing, get more practise from vocational skills related to the

community needs4. Community resources are more valued and used5. It has improved child-centred approach

Regarding the problems related to the local content provision, 6 fields were shortlisted, ranked below from 1 to 6. Fields 1 and 2 got 50% of the overall replies.

1. Lack of budget2. Not enough details on how to implement the local content provision3. Difficult to involve the community (Teachers of Local Wisdom, Community

resources, either human or material)4. Difficult to integrate local wisdom into teaching5. Teachers do not understand/do not want to integrate the local content provision6. More workload for teachers and for pupils

One director, deploring the lack of budget, mentioned the scarcity of means dedicated to the implementation of the 30% local content provision: “Now budget from government is only 1,000 baht for this provision”. And one director confessed simply: “How do we integrate local curriculum?”

Proposals from directors to develop local curriculum are scarce. They include the following:- bring IT into classroom;- give more time to local curriculum;- collaborate with private sector to find funding for local curriculum development;- integrate local content into core courses;- get more training from the MOE on how to integrate local wisdom into the

classroom.

The following quotes show the differences of opinions among the directors that were interviewed.“Local content should not ne more than 30% because it is at the expenses of core courses”

23

“Local curriculum should be improved to be integrated in every course, we should decrease unnecessary content in core courses”

“The local wisdom learnt at school should be integrated in pupils’ daily life, it should not just be a command from MOE”

3. Exploring the attitude of teachers regarding local curriculum

a- Gender

Attitude towards 30% local content provision according to the gender of the interviewee

49%

35%

15%

1%

41%37%

18%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Should be > 30% Should be < 30% Appropriate No comment

Male Female

The attitude towards the 30% local content provision from male interviewees is not significantly different from the one expressed by female interviewees.

Area of local wisdom mentioned, according to the gender of the interviewee (teachers)

45%

18%

1%

36%34%

12%

3%

51%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Vocational skills Arts and Culture Others Not mentioned

Male Female

The high proportion of the “not mentioned” item, especially for female interviewees, leads us to build another graph that does not take into account this item.

24

Area of local wisdom mentioned, according to the gender of the interviewee (teachers) and excluding the ‘not mentioned’ item

70%

28%

2%

69%

24%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Vocational skills Arts and Culture Others

Male Female

This graph illustrates that the attitudes of male/female is similar. It indicates that gender isnot an explicative variable for diverging opinions on that topic.

b- Age

Attitude towards 30% local content provision according to the age of the interviewee (teachers)

73%

18%

5% 5%

43%

37%

20%

0%

42% 43%

13%

2%

38%35%

24%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


20-30 31-40 41-50 +50

The attitude towards the 30% local content provision is different as far as the age is concerned. 73% of teachers between 20 and 30 years old agreed upon the idea that the local curriculum should represent more than 30% of the total curriculum. This is the highest share compared with the other groups: 43% for teachers between 31 and 40 years old, 42% for teachers between 41 and 50 years old, and 38% for teachers aged more than 50 years old.

25

This would indicate that young teachers are more willing to create new curriculum, or have more energy for this task, and this trend could be representative of a new style of teaching. This is questionable as we will see later on.

In the other hand, the item “should be less than 30%” gathers more answers among older teachers. What can be the explanations for that?

This could show that older teachers want to focus on core courses at the expenses of locally oriented courses. This could be a way of demonstrating that they think local curriculum is not relevant.

A second explanation could be very different: Those teachers do not want to develop local curriculum because they are against changes, they do not want to alter their teaching routine. They might find it too difficult to implement.

The item “appropriate” was created by the interviewees, as mentioned earlier. It is especially high for the groups “31-40” and “+50”. The success of this item could be explained by a relative passive attitude, linked with the culture (“di laeo”), “that’s fine”, “no need to change anything”.

Area of local wisdom mentioned according to the age of the interviewee (teachers)

45%

0%5%

50%

43%

13%

3%

40%

31%

15%

3%

51%

39%

16%

1%

43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


20-30 30-40 40-50 +50

Once again, the very high proportion of “not mentioned” leads us to another chart that does not take into account this item.

The following graph shows us two ideas:- The attitude of teachers aged between 20 and 30 regarding the content of local

wisdom is very narrow with 91% of those teachers focusing on vocational dimensions only.

- One third of teachers over 40 years old mentioned “Arts and Culture” as part of their teaching of local wisdom

26

Area of local wisdom mentioned according to the age of the interviewee (teachers) and excluding the ‘not mentioned’ item

91%

0%9%

72%

22%

6%

63%

30%

7%

69%

29%

2%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


20-30 30-40 40-50 +50

These results have to be linked with the ones about the attitude towards the 30% local content provision implementation. Though younger teachers are very willing to implement the provision, they solely focus on the vocational dimensions at the expenses of other aspects of local wisdom.

c- Years spent in school

Attitude towards 30% local content provision according to the years spent in that school by the interviewee (teachers)

55%

17%

24%

3%

49%

35%

15%

1%

39%

49%

12%

0%

38% 38%

20%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



The item “should be more than 30%” decreases when the amount of years spent in that schoolincreases.

We can explain it by assuming that the longer teachers are in a school, the more job becomes routine and the less teachers are willing to create new curriculum and make changes in their teaching habits.

27

This could be counterbalanced by the high percentage of young teachers (55%) willing to apply local content. This shall be put in correlation with the age dimension mentioned in point b.

The item “should be less than 30%” shows that teachers that have been in that school for up to 20 years widely (49%) says it should be less. This is the only group where “should be less than 30%” is higher than “should be more than 30%”.

This is the same trend as the one observed when taking into account the age of the interviewee (point b).

The “appropriate” and “no comment” items are interesting in two ways:- 24% of the teachers that have been in that school for up to 2 years answered

“appropriate” and 3% did not make comment. This could be seen as a sign that they do not have a clear idea of what the local content provision is about. This idea should be studied deeply in another research project.

- Only 12% of the teachers that have been in that school for up to 20 years had no comment or answered “appropriate”. Though we have pointed out that their lack of enthusiasm regarding the local content provision could be a sign of low motivation, we can moderate this by assuming that they do not want to waste time in that implementation because they know the system too well. Their experience might have led us to that attitude.

Area of local wisdom mentioned, according to the years spent in that school by the interviewee (teachers)

38%

7%

0%

55%

36%

19%

4%

41%37%

12%

2%

49%

39%

13%

3%

46%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



The “not mentioned” item is especially high for teachers that have been in that school for up to 2 years.

28

Area of local wisdom mentioned, according to the years spent in that school by the interviewee(teachers) and excluding the ‘not mentioned’ item

85%

15%

0%

61%

32%

7%

72%

24%

4%

72%

23%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%



The trend that was observed when taking into account the age of the interviewees is similar to the one here. Teachers that have been in that school for up to 2 years put a strong emphasis on vocational skills. The longer the teachers have been in the school, the more they emphasize “Arts and Culture” as being part of local wisdom.

d- Teaching Level

Attitude towards 30% local content provision according to the level of teaching of the interviewee (teachers)

39% 39%

18%

4%

46%

35%

17%

1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

should be > 30% should be < 30% Appropriate No Comment

primary secondary

Nearly all secondary level teachers gave an answer (only 1% with no comment). There is no clear difference between the two levels.

29

We have been surprised by this result. We would have thought that secondary level teachers would be less inclined towards implementing the local content provision than primary level teachers. Many answers indeed reflected the fear of teachers regarding the waste of time for core courses or the inability for students to compete for university entrance.

The following quote however reflects the point of view of one primary level teacher, thus supporting the figures mentioned above:“It should be less than 30% because local content is not integrated into university entrance exam. Local content is not important and does not prepare students for work”

Area of local wisdom mentioned, according to the level of teaching of the interviewee (teachers)

42%

18%

3%

37%35%

11%

2%

52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Vocational Arts and Culture Others Not mentioned

primary secondary

Area of local wisdom mentioned, according to the level of teaching by the interviewee (teachers)and excluding the ‘not mentioned’ item

67%

28%

5%

72%

24%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Vocational Skills Arts and Culture Others

primary secondary

72% of secondary level teachers focused on vocational skills and this trend needs to be put in parallel with high proportion of those teachers saying that local curriculum should represent more than 30%. We can therefore assume that they think it should be more than 30% and it should focus on vocational dimensions of local knowledge.

30

This is reinforced by this quote:“Students have lots of economic problems; school should promote occupational skills for them so that they can work in the future”

e- Field taught

Attitude towards 30% local content provision according to the field taught by the interviewee (teachers)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Thai Maths Science

SSRC HPE Art

Career & Technology Foreign Languages Others

Should be > 30%

Should be < 30% Appropriate No comment

Thai 48% 44% 8% 0%Maths 29% 57% 14% 0%Science 47% 35% 12% 6%SSRC 50% 18% 32% 0%HPE 69% 15% 15% 0%Art 42% 33% 25% 0%Career & Technology 44% 33% 22% 0%Foreign Languages 25% 58% 17% 0%Others 63% 25% 0% 13%

The above mentioned data shows that the item “should be more than 30%” is especially high for Health and Physical Education teachers (69%). An explanation could be that they find many opportunities to apply local content into their teaching, especially because the school focuses on festival-related activities in the design and application of the local curriculum. Many schools indeed link local wisdom with traditional dances or folk drums, and HPE teachers are asked to integrate them into their courses.

On the opposite, two core courses (Maths and Foreign Languages) have a relatively high proportion of “should be less than 30%”: Maths (57%) and Foreign Languages (58%). It is consistent with the following quotes that give us some leads to explain this attitude: “30% is enough because some courses are appropriate to apply local content into them, but some other courses are not” (Maths teacher) or “It should be less than 30%. It is difficult to apply it in Maths. Focus should be on global and basic knowledge to go to higher level” (Maths teacher)

31

Area of local wisdom, mentioned according to the field taught by the interviewee (teachers)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

THAI

Mat

hs

Science

SSRCHPE Art

Career

& T

echno

logy

Foreig

n La

nguag

es

Other

s

Vocational Skills Arts and Culture Others Not mentioned

THAI Maths Science SSRC HPE ArtCareer &

TechnologyForeign

Languages OthersVocational Skills 20% 0% 35% 41% 46% 42% 58% 0% 38%Arts and Culture 12% 0% 12% 18% 8% 17% 11% 13% 13%Others 0% 7% 6% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Not mentioned 68% 93% 47% 36% 46% 42% 32% 88% 50%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

The “not mentioned” item is especially high for Maths teachers and Foreign Languages teachers. It is low for Career and Technology teachers. We have already mentioned that thisspecific course concentrates the teaching of local wisdom so that data is not surprising.

Area of local wisdom mentioned according to the field taught by the interviewee (teachers) and excluding the ‘not mentioned’ item

0%

20%

40%

60%80%

100%

120%

THAI

Mat

hs

Science

SSRCHPE Art

Career

& T

echno

logy

Foreig

n La

nguag

es

Other

s

Vocational Skills Arts and Culture Others

32

THAI Maths Science SSRC HPE ArtCareer &

TechnologyForeign

Languages OthersVocational

Skills 63% 0% 67% 64% 86% 71% 85% 0% 75%Arts and Culture 38% 0% 22% 29% 14% 29% 15% 100% 25%Others 0% 100% 11% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Foreign Language teachers only mentioned the “Arts and Culture” dimension of local wisdom, and Maths teachers only see local knowledge as been related to the “others” field.

4. Some elements of interpretation

The data gathered on the field shall be considered to give further hindsight of the educational system and educational reform in Thailand. Following are some very succinct leads for further investigation.

a- An education given back to community?

Boonreang Kajornsin from the Faculty of Education at Kasetsart University carried out a participatory action research to develop a locally-based curriculum (Kajornsin, Potisook et al. 2004) in line with the NEA and highlighted that “community members should participate in developing local curriculum as well as the teaching learning process” (p.2).

Their participatory action research had three objectives, including designing a local curriculum through collaboration with the school and community. According to the results presented, the school and the community built ties with each other, for instance community members and local organisations acted as “visiting lecturers” (p.6). “Community members were willing and proud to participate in the teaching-learning process” and “developed closer relationships with the schools and teachers”.

The last recommendation from that paper was that “university academics use participatory action research to help schools to develop locally-based curriculum”. We think this puts in question the overall process. If community and schools are not fit to design and implement the local curriculum on their own, and if each of them needs the support from academics, the situation is indeed critical!

This leads us to the following question: To what extent has education been truly given back to local community through the local content provision? One of the intentions of the reform was indeed to empower schools but also communities, including the self-administration of academic affairs.

As presented in Chapter 2, teachers are the people mostly in charge of the implementationand development of the local curriculum. Though the design of the local curriculum might have involved community stakeholders or teacher of local wisdom, the teaching and transfer of local knowledge is mostly in charge of teachers.

It looks to us as contradictory. Adding up to that the above mentioned findings from Kajornsin and his team, we can wonder how fit communities are in taking in charge the

33

design and the implementation of local curriculum. It seems they need major support from central entities and outside actors, however it is not sure that most schools can access it. The lack of budget and means devoted to the implementation of the local curriculum epitomises well the issue.

Therefore we argue that the local content provision has failed in empowering communities and giving them back the role they used to play in traditional education. It is hard to find relevant activities and suitable persons from the community to teach and share local wisdom. This has implied the local curriculum to be narrowed down to the participation of schools in festivals or the productions of small handicrafts.

Moreover another issue that is linked with the above mentioned ideas is that the equity implications of the local curricular development seem to have been overlooked. According to the data we gathered from the field, the implementation of the local content provision depends greatly on the resources, either human or material, of the community but also of the school, for instance the academic training of teachers or the school finance.

The reasons of this failure, either structural or political, need to be scrutinised but it is far beyond the scope of this Discussion Papers.

b- Local curriculum geared towards vocationalism?

When developing local curriculum in Watsamankit School, Kajornsin et al. considered a curriculum based on “A Systemic Approach to Integrated Agriculture” (Kajornsin, Potisook et al. 2004). By focusing on agriculture, they were not acting very differently from the schools that were interviewed in our study.

One of the intentions of the local content provision was to promote and preserve traditions and traditional knowledge. But, as presented in Chapter 3, most teachers assimilate local wisdom with capabilities related to vocational skills, mostly in agriculture and handicraft making. This vision is very restrictive and does not take into account the variety and resources of local knowledge. They border local wisdom on vocational occupations.

We see three explanations for that. First, it appears easier and more convenient for teachers to reduce local wisdom to the scope of vocational dimensions. Therefore they can fit the local wisdom in one specific course, namely the “Career and Technology” one.

The second explanation we can see is that local wisdom means for many teachers the emphasis on agriculture and small handicrafts that are part of a sufficient community. This underlines what we have sensed and presented in Chapter 1 that the local curriculum development shall be considered in parallel to the renowned sufficiency discourse.

The third explanation, we argue, is that this gear towards vocationalism is in line with a contextualised discourse over education, which means that knowledge shall be put in context and education be driven away from general knowledge. This is mainly explained by the desire of schools to provide economy with workers that are fit and ready for their job.

The debate “contextualisation / de-contextualisation” of education is far beyond the scope of this paper.

34

c- Localism and local content provision: a populist approach of education?

Lastly, we have found interesting to put the answers gathered from the field in parallel with the analysis made by Kevin Hewison on localism (Hewison 2002, p.155). He argues that the localist discourse in Thailand is clearly a populist discourse and, drawing out from Kitching (Kitching 1982), points out some elements that make up populism:

- a reverence for tradition- a preference for organic models- a conservatism where change is seen to derive from the inner growth of community

institutions and practices;- the past is seen as a ‘golden era’, with modernization having diluted the idyllic

village and its traditions;- agricultural development is privileged;- if industrialisation is even considered, then it must be labour intensive;- justice, equity and equality are considered central aspects of society;- outsiders are seen as exploiters, and urban-based exploiters are held responsible for

removing the rural surplus.

How do these characteristics fit with what we have gathered from the field regarding local curriculum?

Regarding the points mentioned by Kitching (1982), we argue that the reverence for tradition and the past is clearly seen in the replies given by the interviewees. Most of them mentioned that children shall “love, cherish, conserve, be proud” of the knowledge and resources of their community. Only one teacher mentioned that children can develop and change the knowledge of the community, therefore gearing their activity towards the future and not the past.

“Agriculture development is privileged”: this is clearly stated in the replies gathered by the CELS, together with the idea that industrialisation shall be labour-intensive. The focus of local curriculum is mainly on small handicrafts for instance.

Regarding the attitude towards urban centres, some teachers mentioned that students are attracted by cities in order to get higher salaries, and, as a consequence, cities drive away the best human resources from local and rural communities.

The dimension of justice, equity, and equality of localism is put in question as some teachers mentioned local curriculum development can increase differences between children, and the education they get. But as we stated earlier, one teacher argued that if students cannot compete with the others they will still have the chance to come back to their home town....

35

Chapter 4: Conclusion

This study aimed at showing how the provision related to the development of a local curriculum has been implemented in public schools located in poor areas.

Here are some answers to our research questions, asked in Chapter 2.

1. Has the local content provision been implemented in the schools surveyed?

Yes, if we listen to the official discourse of the teachers and directors. It has been mostly integrated into existing core courses or in separate activities (field trips, for instance). However, many teachers mentioned that only small bits of local knowledge have been inserted in the teaching.

Some of the interviewees implied that the local curriculum is only shown in documents supporting the Quality assurance report made by the school. Some activities or field trips are organised to meet the criteria but that is it. Eventually, we will face a “fake” local curriculum, just designed to match standards’ requirements.

We have also noticed that teachers have played a major role in the implementation of the local content provision, and that teachers of local wisdom have been asked for support. This has therefore created a new actor in formal education (the teacher of local wisdom, that asks for payment when serving at school), and we can wonder to what extent the community has been truly involved in the local curricular development and implementation.

2. What is the attitude of teachers and directors regarding local curriculum?

They have a positive attitude, but they do not have a clear idea on how to implement it. They want to do it, but do not know how to do it properly. This is why special activities or field trips are emphasised together with the participation of the school in festivals. This can also explain why local wisdom has been mainly confined into the “Career and Technology” course.

3. Which areas of local wisdom have been emphasised in the implementation of the local curriculum in formal education?

Vocational dimensions have been broadly emphasised, that is to say agriculture and small handicrafts. This is in line with the idea of a traditional society. Arts and culture are somehow represented but environment or natural resources management is completely left aside.

Small handicrafts made in the local wisdom dedicated courses or activities are often a source of revenues for the school or the family. This is something very interesting we learnt from these questionnaires and it was certainly not excepted by the policymaker in the first place.

4. What are the major achievements and hurdles towards the implementation of the local content provision?

Teachers and directors think the development of local curriculum can be a way for children to love, cherish and be proud of their home community. They think it has increased the use

36

and understanding of local resources and has also been a way of improving (creating?) links between school and the surrounding community stakeholders.

The hurdles towards the implementation can be defined as structural, with the issue of insufficient budget, inappropriate training, lack of time and motivation/incitation.

There is also the fear that local curriculum might increase the differences in education, and especially be a discriminatory factor towards university entrance.

5. Do the gender, age, years spent in the school, course taught and level of teaching have an impact on the attitude regarding the implementation of the local content provision?

The gender of interviewees is not an explicative variable for a difference of attitude regarding local curriculum.

The age and the years spent in school have a similar impact on the attitude towards the 30% provision. The younger interviewees were and the less years they have spent in the school, the more they tended to think that local curriculum should be devoted more time. The older they were and the more years they have spent in the school, the less enthusiastic towards local curriculum they were.

Maths and Foreign Languages teachers were not turning a kind eye towards local curriculum, this could be explained by the idea that these courses are mainly seen as “global” knowledge and it might be hard to integrate “local” bits into it.

As a conclusion, we would say that though there has been some enthusiasm from teachers and directors regarding local curriculum, structural issues have made it hard for them to implement it properly. But this is not the only issue. Right from the beginning there has been confusion over the achievements of the local content provision with the mix of two up-hill objectives: preserving Thai cultural features and traditions, and empowering communities. This confusion, coupled with no clear instructions and no devoted means, has hampered the implementation of the provision.

To support the local curriculum implementation the way they thought it ought to be, the schools have emphasised vocational aspects and involved new actors in the provision of education, the Teachers of Local Wisdom. But the schools have maybe missed the chance they were given to improve education.

With the local curriculum as a “tool”, schools could have indeed seized the opportunity to seriously and efficiently take into account what scientists in education call “previous knowledge” of students, and improve the learning outcomes of the learner by relying on his/her strengths, specificities or beliefs, epitomised in the so-called local wisdom. In that respect, local curriculum could have been used as a strong didactical tool to improve learning in the classroom and enhance interaction between students and teachers. This has not been the case so far.

37

References

Bhumibol Adulyadej, K. (1997). Royal speech given to the audience of well-wishers on the occasion of the Royal Birthday Anniversary. www.kanchanapisek.or.th/speeches/1997/1204.en.html, The Golden Jubilee Network.

Chatthip, N. (1991). The "Community Culture" School of Thought. Thai Constructions of Knowledge. M. Chitkasem and A. Turton. London, School of Oriental and Asian Studies: pp.118-141.

Department of Curriculum and Instruction Development (2001). Basic Education Curriculum B.E. 2544 (A.D. 2001). Bangkok, Ministry of Education.

Hewison, K. (2002). Responding to Economic Crisis: Thailand's Localism. Reforming Thai Politics. D. McCargo. Copenhagen, NIAS Publishing: pp.143-161, Chapter 10.

Junck, S. and B. Kajornsin (2003). 'Thai Wisdom' and Glocalisation: Negotiating the Global and the Local in Thailand's National Education Reform. Local Meanings, Global Schooling Anthropolgy and World Culture Theory. K. Anderson-Levitt. New York, PalgraveMacmillan.

Kajornsin, B., P. Potisook, et al. (2004). Local-based curriculum development: A case study of Watsamankit Elementary School, Thailand. Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Melbourne, Australia, KAJ04082.

Kitching, G. (1982). Development and Underdevelopment in Historical Perspectiv. London, Methuen.

Minister of Education (2546). Annoucement from the Ministry of Education. Details on 2001 basic education curriculum [in Thai]. Ministry of Education.

OEC (2008). Education in Thailand 2007. Bangkok, OEC-Office of the Education Council, Ministry of Education.

OEC (2008). Nayobye Song-serm Poom Pan-ya Thai Nai Karn Jud Karn Suk-sa [Policy to Promote Local Wisdom in Education Management]. Bangkok, Ministry of Education.

ONEC (1999). National Education Act of B.E. 2542 (1999). Bangkok, Office of the Prime Minister.

ONEC (2002). Synopsis of the National Scheme of Education B.B. 2545-2559 (2002-2016). Bangkok, Office of the National Education Commission, Office of the Prime Minister.

Ongsakun, S. (2000). "House" Role in the National Education Act of 1999. Chiang Mai University, Faculty of Education.

Prawase, W. (1999). Setthakit pho piang lae prachasangkhom [The Self-sufficient Economy and Civil Society]. Bangkok, Rural Doctor's Publishing.

38

Srisalab, N. (1999). Thai Wisdom and Education. Broadcasted on Radio Thailand FM 95.5 & 105.0 MHz on Saturday 14, July 1999 at 7.00-7.30 a.m, Available on http://www.onec.go.th/move/news/aug99/aug14.htm.

Townsend, T. and Y. C. Cheng, Eds. (2000). Educational Change and Development in the Asia-Pacific Region: Challenges for the Future. Lisse, Swets & Zeitlinger.

UNDP (2003). Thailand Human Development Report 2003: Community Empowerment and Human Development. Bangkok, United Nations Development Programme.

Documents

The implementation of the local content provision in Thai basic education