The basic objective of this report is to synthesize seven reports on education reform by international and local consultants engaged through a grant from the Asian Development Bank in support of Thai education sector reforms. A major goal is to identify key insights, understandings, and policy suggestions embedded in the various reports. Another important aspect of the report is its integration of findings from these documents. The report also reviews education sector policies in general and sub-sector policies in detail, in light of sector reforms recommended under TA 3585-THA described below. Major sector and sub-sector educational challenges are identified and a policy and strategic framework is presented for facilitating the success of educational reform in Thailand. Also included as an attachment is a project feasibility study for consideration by the Thai government related to enhanced educational quality, equity, and efficiency, particularly at the upper secondary level.

The objective of the TA is to strengthen the capacity of the Royal Thai Government to carry out the education reforms mandated by the August, 1999 National Education Act (NEA), including measures to improving teaching and learning, administrative leadership, and community accountability. The TA provides funding to enable ONEC to introduce its education improvement model on a pilot basis in 250 schools nationwide. Three key components of the project are 1) refinement of strategies to promote student-centered learning, 2) continuous assessment, and 3) school-based management. Capacity building at the local level is a major feature of the project. The project also enables the empirical testing and assessment of the feasibility and readiness of Thailand for the decentralized educational management system called for in the NEA. To facilitate implementation of the project, funding was provided to engage three international and four local consultants in the areas of school reform policy, teacher education, information technology in education, learning process reform, evaluation and assessment, decentralization management, and research and reform implementation respectively.

In compiling this synthesis report, four basic methods have been used. In essence this is an informal, non-statistical meta analysis (that is, research about research, namely, in this case the seven basic reports by the project international and local consultants. Second, it involves an informal content analysis of the reports, seeking to identify common themes and issues. Third, to make the report as current as possible, supplementary materials are used such as the minutes of the National Education Commission (NEC) meeting of May 13, 2002 and various multi-media reports on the progress of educational reform in the Kingdom of Thailand. Finally, as a guiding framework, Wolcott's DAI (describe, analyze, and interpret) approach has been useful in synthesizing and integrating the seven reports and related materials.

In analyzing and studying contemporary policy issues, important historical and political context is often ignored. Actually, there have been four major periods of educational reform in Thailand:

      1) King Chulalongkorn (Rama V) (late 1800s/early 1900s was a great and visionary reformer whose policies transformed Siamese education into a modern secular system.

      2) A student revolution in October, 1973, ushered in an era of educational reform characterized by an emphasis on equity, unity, and freedom of expression.

      3) In the early and mid-90s, another attempt at educational reform emphasized Thailand's need to adapt to the challenges of globalization and internationalization.

      4) Thailand's current educational reform initiatives stem from the shock of the Asian economic crisis and subsequent political reforms such as the new October 1997 Constitution, which mandated educational reform and decentralization. Thus, Thailand as part of its strategic path to economic recovery, initiated new education sector reforms, which have been supported by a technical assistance project from the ADB, which is synthesized in this report.

As background for considering educational reform policies, it is critically important to understand Thailand's changing economic landscape. Four major trends should be noted:

      1) Agriculture now represents only 13 percent of the Thai economy and the service sector has now grown to a high 47 percent. Thus, Thailand is increasingly booming a society in need of knowledge-workers.

      2) The Gini coefficient for income distribution in Thailand is now 52.1, which is quite high reflecting a serious degree of income inequality.

      3) The Thai economy has become increasingly international with (exports + imports)/GDP exceedingly 100 percent, a strong indicator of internationalization.

      4) GDP/capita has now reached an impressive $6,700 (PPP), reflecting the rapid economic and material development of Thailand during the past several decades. Thus, Thailand has the economic power and potential to support a quality educational system.

Thailand's social and educational development has lagged considerably behind its level of economic development. The 2001 World Competitiveness Yearbook ranks 49 countries on both overall competitiveness and on numerous more specialized indicators. In terms of expenditures on education as a percent of government spending Thailand ranks an impressive second. However, in terms of general competitiveness its rank is only 38th and it also ranks 38th in academic competitiveness. With respect to the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Thailand's rankings in both science (25th out of 38 countries) and math (27th out of 38 countries) also lag behind. These data suggest that Thailand "is not receiving adequate bang for its baht." Thus, there is a clear need to enhance the efficiency of Thailand's educational system.

Thailand has achieved a number of impressive accomplishments in education. It has dramatically increased the size of its system at all levels. Literacy rates are at an impressively high 95 percent rate and universal primary education has been basically achieved. Over 80 percent of all teachers have received a bachelor's degree or higher. At the Ministry of Education itself, there are over 400 individuals with doctorates.

Despite these quantitative successes, several key problems persist. The educational system remains over-centralized and bureaucratized, with much duplication in educational services and related inefficiencies. There has been a neglect of science and mathematics reflected in the test scores mentioned above. There have been inadequate incentives to promote good teaching and teacher learning. Problems related to access and equity, particularly at the upper secondary level persist. Finally, there has been the problem of traditional learning methods and their emphasis on rote learning.

Many in Thailand view learning reform as the heart of educational reform. Key scholars and thinkers in Thailand, encouraged and supported by the Office of the National Education Commission (ONEC), have contributed to a major rethinking of Thai approaches to learning reflected in the National Education Act (NEA) which emphasizes student-centered active learning. Among these individuals are Dr. Prawase Wasi, Dr. Montri Chulavatnatol, Professor Sumon Amornvivat, Dr. Tisana Khemmani, Dr. Chai-Anan Samudavanija, and Dr. Sansanee Chatkupt. Interestingly a number of these individuals are coming, not from education, but from fields such as medicine, chemistry, and political science.

International consultant Dr. Hitendra Pillay of Queensland University of Technology in Australia has identified a number of the major issues in teacher development related to learning and educational reform. These can be briefly summarized as follows:

       Inadequate dialogue among institutions involved in teacher training

       Authoritative top-down system of supervision

       Teachers' inadequate access to international dimensions of their profession and to become familiar with the latest trends, innovative research, and best practices in teacher education.

       Overly theoretical and abstract approaches to teacher education.

Given the serious problems related to teacher education, there have been a number of new initiatives to strengthen teacher development and teacher education. In this executive summary, there is only space to highlight several of these endeavors with a focus on the most recent ones. A new teacher licensing system was approved by the Thai Cabinet on May 29, 2002. Earlier in the month the Teaching Profession Development Association of Thailand was launched on May 4, 2002, and already has 55 Networks/Centers/Associations. It is anticipated that the number of members of these 55 Networks/Centers will be approximately 40,000.

Among the major recommendations made by Dr. Pillay to improve teacher education are the following:

       The new educational management model is integral to improving learning outcomes for students.

       A Manual of Policy and Procedures (MOPP) is needed to delineate clearly The respective roles, functions, and responsibilities of the various Organizations and agencies involved in teacher education.

       Teacher learning and development should be school-based, facilitated by the effective use of ICT.

       It is important to create Local Learning Centers to facilitate learning reform and life-long teacher learning.

       He urges careful consideration of distributed learning as a model to foster the use of diverse and multiple approaches to pedagogy, which should not be limited to only student-based learning.

This section of the Report is based primarily on the work of consultant, Dr. John H. Stamper, of Pacific Learning Services in Hawai'i. Based on his fieldwork in Thailand, he first notes several constraints related to ICT adoption. They are primarily lack of funding for ICT equipment and its maintenance and the lack of experience of many administrators and teachers in the use of ICT. He also notes the problem of the under-utilization of existing ICT resources and resources that are "sheltered" to prevent their misuse or damage.

He then provides basic data on the IT situation in Thailand. He notes that normally the school use of IT follows that of the society in general. Currently in the rural areas of Thailand less than one percent of the population uses the Internet and only 21 percent of primary schools have telephones. Despite these constraints, it is fortunate that approximately 12,000 Thai schools have receptors to receive transmissions from the Thai-Com 3 Satellite, the footprint of which covers all of mainland Southeast Asia.

After providing a valuable summary of a number of education-related network projects currently underway, Dr. Stamper then goes to propose a visionary new Asian Education Network (AEN), which would utilize Thai-Com 3 as a source of diverse ICT learning materials. He strongly emphasizes that ICT is far more than computers and the Internet, but also includes CD ROMs, television and radio broadcasts, and diverse audiovisual material. He suggests that Thailand develop this project through a three year pilot project. Following that the project could be potentially expanded to improve the quality of education in neighboring countries such as Laos and Cambodia. The proposed project could be implemented with differing levels of technology and Dr. Stamper provides detailed cost information for doing the project with state-of-the-art technology.

The key component of this TA was to pilot the new model of learning and school reform around the country. Nearly 4,000 applications from schools were received. 250 schools of diverse types around the country were selected for participation. Several key operating assumptions of the project were:

       Readiness of schools around the country to implement learning and educational reform in accord with the 1997 Constitution and 1999 NEA.

       A bottom-up rather than top-down approach to change

       Use of a new model of collegial, collaborative, and consultative "supervision" involving 44 local R & D teams to assist participating schools.

       Emphasis on an integrated approach to curricular change.

Local ADB Thai consultants developed a rigorous and systematic design for evaluating the project using an inductive method, maximum variation sampling, and extensive triangulation, using a variety of quantitative and qualitative research methods such as focus groups. A massive amount of data about the pilot project was collected in only eight months

In numerous workshops, schools were provided broad guidelines related to the conduct of the project. However, they were given total discretion to develop their own distinct and creative ways to achieve student-center learning reform and school-based management. A PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) model was provided as a general guide to implement learning and school reforms.

The mechanism for providing funding to participating schools was designed to test some key ideas related to decentralization. Targeted "mini-block grants" were made to schools. The smaller more remote schools generally received twice the funding of the larger more well-to-do schools. Such target funding is important to address persisting regional disparities and was certainly appreciated by the schools affected.

Professor Sumon Amornvivat in a book already published by ONEC, based on her assessment of the pilot project, provides extensive and detailed examples through various case studies and concrete examples of the diversity of creative learning activities that emerged. Many of the projects developed related to environment and/or cultural preservation. Responsive to the 1999 NEA, many projects also involved the use of local knowledge/wisdom and moral education. Some common themes and constructs identified in various projects were empowerment, diversity, creativity, partnerships, links to real life (authentic learning), integration, teamwork, and reflexivity.

Dr. Nonglak Wiratchai, another local consultant conducted numerous quantitative analyses, based on pre- and post- project results, looking at gain scores on various indicators based on the NEA and key elements of learning reform. On every indicator significant gains were found and interestingly, the variation in outcomes, declined for every indicator, indicating greater equality. She also found important variations according to various types of disaggregation. For example, perceived change was greatest among ONPEC and BMA schools.

Dr. Laeka Piya-Ajariya found that approximately 25 percent of the schools were quite successful in carrying out reforms and ready for sustainable continued efforts without special assistance. Another 65 percent of schools were somewhat successful but still need some external assistance. Finally, there are about 10 percent of schools that are just starting the reform process.

Standard demographic and administrative factors such as region of school, size of school, and administrative authority were not significant factors in explaining the success of school-based management. Instead what was critically important was the motivation and capabilities of the school administrators and their use of the principle of distributive leadership, that is sharing power broadly with others. Another important factor was school-community relations, which were generally stronger in the more remote rural areas.

From the Pilot Project and various consultant reports, six tetrahedrons were developed to synthesize key elements in this TA. The tetrahedron is taken from physics (Dr. Sippanondha Ketudat 1981) and is a special figure to show four complex and deeply interrelated factors. The first tetrahedron is a model of leadership derived from the Pilot Project emphasizing four keys to leadership: namely, distributive leadership, servant leadership, diversity leadership, and accountability leadership. The second tetrahedron synthesizes the key interrelated dimensions of successful educational reform, namely, structural changes, quality of leadership, quality of teachers, and ICT. The third tetrahedron summarizes a holistic approach to educational and learning including, whole system, whole school, whole teacher, and whole student. The whole student concept is elaborated in the fourth tetrahedron. The fourth tetrahedron represents the pedagogy of the whole person and related software of the mind, involving heart (moral education), left brain (analytical, critical, and cognitive thinking), right brain (aesthetics, creativity, arts), and body (exercise and health). The fifth tetrahedron represents the important relationship of culture to education and progress, an important point emphasized in the consulting report of Dr. Rie Atagi. The final tetrahedron relates to the importance of autonomous learning and its potential for improving educational productivity and encouraging life-long learning.

In general, the Thai situation reflects "reform energy" not "reform fatigue." Extensive activities have been carried out by diverse groups and agencies in support of the NEA and educational reform. The full report provides a detailed assessment of progress to date. Pilot projects involving the new approaches to learning, school-based management, and curricular decentralization have gone extremely well. The new pilot project experiment with LEAs in five provinces appears to confirm the major recommendations made in an earlier ADB TA focusing on the management and financing of education. The major remaining problem area is policy gridlock related to the exact nature of the restructuring of the Ministry of Education.

To enhance its quality of life and standard of living a nation must improve the productivity of its people. The primary means for doing this are education and human resource development broadly defined. During the period, 1960-1990, the productivity of the Japanese people increased dramatically, primarily as the result of having a quality K-12 basic educational system that ensured that nearly all Japanese had a good solid educational foundation, giving them solid potential for trainability. Indicated below are the major issues and challenges currently facing education and human resource development in Thailand:

Human resource development and education in Thailand remain fragmented with a multitude of institutions and organizations involved, with little overall coordination. Dr. Rie Atagi, for example, identifies 11 different pilot projects currently being conducted related to learning reform, ICT in education, and the decentralization of educational administration and management. Her list is not exhaustive, as there are also numerous other important pilot projects going. No single agency has responsibility for coordinating these diverse pilot projects.

Thus far, much of the education reform efforts have focused on learning reform and related curricular decentralization. With respect to this domain, a strong and growing consensus has emerged with important changes in organizational cultures. Experimentation with Local Education Areas thus far has focused on structural issues and administrative coordination, rather than on any significant budget or personnel decentralization.

Rie Atagi (2002: 24) in her report documents that Thai students are receiving much less instruction time in science and mathematics compared to students in many other countries.

The major progress in this area is the requirement of the Constitution and the NEA to make nine years of education compulsory and to guarantee 12 years of free education to all Thais. With the near achievement of universal primary education, the access and equity issue is now most pertinent at the secondary level where considerable regional disparities continue to exist. The northeast of Thailand, the most disadvantaged and the region with the largest population tends to lag significantly behind on all major socioeconomic indicators. Many schools in the most disadvantaged areas still face teacher shortages. The existence of extensive coaching schools in urban areas such as Bangkok for the elite further exacerbates educational regional disparities.

In her report, Atagi (2002: 23) mentions the large amount of funds devoted to new buildings and land. Dr. Silaporn Buasai of the Thailand Research Fund laments that in terms of funding for research "buildings and offices come first." The key to improving both national productivity and the quality of education is to give high priority to an investment in people, teacher learning, and creative innovative research.

Friedman in his important work on globalization argues that those countries which do not adequately train their people for the new knowledge economy will be left behind and won't be able to compete effectively in the global economy.

This was an important theme of Dr. Pillay's report. Many Thais are not adequately interconnected with the global knowledge system, largely because of language limitations.

In some ways, despite its many painful and tragic human costs, the Asian economic crisis represented a "wake-up call" to Thailand and it inspired much needed reform initiatives in numerous arenas. Despite a partial economic recovery, Thailand fortunately has not suffered from reform fatigue. In fact there is an impressive degree of reform energy in the education and human resource development arena. However, the clock is quickly ticking. Thailand is already some 10-15 years behind where Korea was in the early 1980s, in the area of science, research, and development (see Matichon 6/1/02: 2; Ghani 2002: 51). Korea has launched an ambitious Brain Korea 21 project to create high quality human resources for the 21st century knowledge-based society (MOEHRD 2002a,b, and c). Their target is to produce 1,300 doctorates per year in the fields of natural sciences and engineering by 2006. While Thailand still has a substantial lead over potential economic competitors such as China, Vietnam, and India in numerous economic areas, such countries are devoting significant priority to enhance their human resource development to try to close the gap and surpass countries such as Thailand.

The National Pilot Project supported by the ADB clearly confirms the important theme of realizing unrealized potential. Given the opportunity, schools from around the country demonstrated impressive creativity in developing more student-centered learning curricula. Students also had many opportunities to demonstrate their ability to be innovative and creative. Another encouraging recent example is the Thai high school student who competed with more than a million youth around the world to win the 1st prize of an Intel competition in computer software development (The Nation 5/21/02: 3A). Given Thailand's long tradition of strength in aesthetics, the country has special potential in the area of computer graphic design and e-commerce.

In addition to the recommendations associated with the issues identified above, the following are key elements integral to Thailand's successfully implementing educational reform and improving the productivity of its people.

       With respect to the promotion of learning reforms, the National Pilot Study has demonstrated the importance of holistic approaches. Whole school, whole teacher, and whole student approaches should be actively promoted and supported. As emphasized by His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the promotion of moral education as part of the whole student approach is critically important (Sumon 2002a :1). The value of integrated across-the-curriculum innovations has also been demonstrated. To implement the new 2001 curriculum, it is important to mobilize wisdom and knowledge from all sources (Sumon 2002b: 6). There must also be a holistic approach with respect to policy, planning, and implementation.

       With respect to pedagogy related to learning reform, both Sumon (2002a,b) and Pillay (2000) emphasize the need for a distributed learning model, which emphasizes multiple and diverse pedagogical strategies to encourage active, dynamic learning. There is no simple, single formula for effective teaching (Sumon 2002b: 6). The metaphor of a teacher being like the conductor of a symphony with the various instruments representing the diverse repertoire of teaching strategies and approaches may be useful to symbolize the distributed learning model. Teachers must be empowered to enable them to develop their own creative teaching models appropriate for their context and situation. To implement this distributed learning model, the educational supervisory system must also be transformed so that supervisors support those already engaged in distributed learning and to encourage and assist others in moving in this new direction.

       It is critically important to align the new standards and quality assurance evaluations with the new curricula and learning approaches being emphasized with major learning reform and curricular changes. With the merger of the MUA and MOE, the critical university entrance examination must also be reviewed to ensure that it is consistent with the learning reforms being implemented. This will require sincere and serious cooperation between the new Ministry and the universities at the policy level. If new models of assessment are not congruent with the new methods of teaching and learning, unanticipated serious adverse effects may emerge.

       In terms of teacher development, given the large number of teachers already in service, this needs to be a priority group. Critical to the success of educational reform is teachers' "solid understanding of the concepts, principles and processes involved in the new approaches of teaching and learning" (Pillay 2002: 49). Innovative models of delivering training must be explored which will involve hybrids of school-based training, intensive workshops, and use of ICT (Pillay 2002: 50). The emphasis should be on the development of life-long teacher learning.

       The National Pilot Study has demonstrated the value of classroom-based collaborative action research to improve learning outcomes. Budgetary support for such research should be a priority (Lekha 2002: 23).

       To facilitate implementation of the new learning reforms and teacher learning, there is also a need to develop Local Learning Resource Centers with diverse resource learning materials relevant to the new student-centered learning process (Pillay 2002: 52-53; Atagi 2002: 63-67). The Department of Curriculum and Instructional Development (DCID), for example, has already developed an extensive and valuable manual related to the teaching of religion and morality under the new 2001 curriculum. With respect to such materials developed by various units of the Ministry, traditionally there has been a tendency for teachers to view such materials as blueprints and mandates which must be mechanically followed. Under the new decentralized curricular system, it is important to stress that teachers must have independence to use their own creativity in developing curricula most responsive and relevant to local conditions and needs.

       With respect to teacher development, it is critically important to strengthen both Faculties of Education in universities and at the Rajabhat Institutes. Their teaching and curricula need to be more closely aligned with both Thai local educational realities and international best practices (Pillay 2002). It is critically important to have teacher education students become involved with local communities and schools. They must seek to achieve an important balance among international, national, and local approaches. Incentives must be developed to mobilize local academic resources in support of educational reform. The National Pilot Project has clearly demonstrated the potential of such local institutions, if provided the opportunity to engage with local schools and communities..

       It is extremely important to change the system for evaluating administrators and teachers to provide more systematic rewards for those who are successful in improving student outcomes. The need to establish new incentive systems is emphasized by Laeka (2002), Pillay (2002), and Atagi (2000: 68-69). It is important that these new incentive systems be performance-based. The evaluation system needs fundamental reform to shift away from an emphasis on power and control. Instead the emphasis should be on self-evaluation and the role of local communities in ensuring accountability for their schools (Sumon 2002b: 6). The evaluation system should be characterized by kalayanamitr (an amicable approach emphasizing the three Cs: consultation and collaboration for creativity).

       Related to incentives, it is important to provide rewards to effective reformers such as national teachers, master teachers, lead teachers, Thai local wisdom teachers, and master administrators. These dedicated and committed individuals need reinforcement and empowerment. The research reports on the National Pilot Project of both Prof. Sumon and Dr. Laeka emphasize the critically important role of such local change agents in promoting educational reform and innovation This network needs to be significantly expanded to reduce the excessive burden on many current teachers with such stature (Sumon 2002c: 42).

       Related to teacher utilization, each LEA should develop an EMIS which provides a clear profile of teacher distributions across the LEA. Every effort should be made to minimize the number of schools with inadequate teachers to cover every class. From the previous TA2996, this was shown clearly to have adverse effects on the quality of learning outcomes. In cases in which it remains impossible to provide a teacher for every classroom, the innovative activity-based learning tested in the National Pilot Project should be utilized as a strategy for improving learning in such difficult situations. As part of the LEA's EMIS, there should also be an emphasis on examining the extent to which learning outcomes are equalized, a key and valuable indicator used in Dr. Nonglak's report and evaluation.

       Related to teacher development, a new program of volunteer teachers should be introduced to assist the most disadvantaged LEAs which have the most serious shortages of teachers. This may be a way of attracting some bright students in the sciences, mathematics, and English language to the teaching profession. Students successfully completing assignments should be provided fellowships to pursue a Master's in teacher education. As demonstrated by the 44 R & D teams in the National Pilot Project, this is also a way to enhance consciousness about the educational problems of remote rural areas. This strategy also deals with the problem of unemployed university graduates, which is still a lingering, though now less severe, aspect of the 1997 Asian economic crisis.

       Also related to teacher development, the Thai government, first on a pilot basis, should experiment with the concept introduced by TERO and Dr. Montri Chulavatnatol of issuing training coupons or vouchers as a way to foster continued teacher learning. Perhaps the new Association for the Development of the Teaching Profession or the newly reorganized Teachers' Council could monitor this process. This approach represents a highly innovative and individualized approach to continued teacher learning, crucial to the success of education reform.

       In terms of ICT, the Thai government must leap frog (quantum leap) but focusing on only appropriate high technology. ICT must be a tool, not an end. Thailand's excellent strength in satellite technology infrastructure gives the country special opportunities and advantages to play an important lead role in the proposed Asian Education Network. Thus, through appropriate ICT utilization, Thailand has considerable potential to reduce its own significant digital and information divide and to prepare its students, teachers, and administrators to have solid ICT capabilities to facilitate their becoming autonomous, life-long learners.

       Visionary leadership with strong political will is critical. Improved management for change is important at all levels. Funds going to education must be more efficiently used. The newly restructured Ministry of Education must become a visionary "leader which thinks big" while leaving the basic management of education to the new Local Education Areas.

       It is important to announce formally the decision to have 295 Local Education Areas, based on the joint research of the MOE, ONEC, and ONPEC. This recommendation is based on pilot local field research confirming the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of this mode of decentralization. It is also consistent with the earlier recommendations of TA 2996 THA supported by the ADB.

       Also related to leadership, the National Pilot Study clearly demonstrated that distributed leadership is a highly effective model that needs to be promoted at all levels since it leads to empowerment and maximal participation. This approach should be emphasized in administrative and leadership training, based upon the solid empirical support from the National Pilot Study. Also educational management training must be aligned with the promotion of the new student-centered learning approaches and the role of educational leadership in promoting curricular innovation and support for reform-minded teachers. Given the importance of school leadership as a key factor in the National Pilot Study, leadership training is critically important (Atagi 2002: 62). As Pillay (2002: 47) emphasizes, it is critically important "to inform all stakeholders why a new management model is necessary and how it will improve the learning outcomes of students."

       It is critically important to both sustain and expand networks of targeted schools, academic associations, and other groups in support of educational reform. Such a movement can play an important role in building local level community support for education and learning reform (Lekha 2002: 23-24). Many schools in the Pilot Project have attempted to create and expand networks, but thus far there has been inadequate administrative and community support for such efforts (Sumon 2002c: 42).

       Related to this important leadership theme, the government needs to establish a small but high quality interdisciplinary think tank on national human resource development strategies that transcends individual ministries and reports directly to the Prime Minister, while thinking only strategically in terms of the national interest. Involved in this think tank should be quality strategic futurist thinkers from, for example, the Ministry of Education; the Ministry of Science and Technology; NESDB; the universities; several key private sector individuals; key NGOs with an interest in HRD; and TDRI. Thailand clearly has the talent to staff such a think tank. Since people are a country's most important resource, having such a supra-agency could play a valuable policy role in assisting the government to invest wisely and effectively in human resource development. Such a think tank might be called the Thailand Human Resources Development Institute (THRDI). This organization should be independent, free from partisan political influence. This strategic unit should be a research think tank to influence educational and human resource development strategies. It should also serve as a clearing house to integrate and synethesize research related to educational development.

       Coalition building is also crucial to the success of educational reform. Though considerable progress has been made in this arena, particularly in developing public support and understanding of the need for educational reform, further bureaucratic coalition building is still imperative. This has certainly been hindered by the maze of organizations and stakeholders involved in educational reform and by some major differences in thinking about new administrative structures.

       As the National Pilot Study is extended nation-wide, it is extremely important that the targeting element in the pilot project be significantly expanded by emphasizing block grants (as part of budget decentralization) that put "the last first" to try to reduce regional educational disparities and to ensure that the equity principles guaranteed in the 1997 Constitution and 1999 NEA are met. To pursue such a policy is not only right and just, but is also good politics, since the most disadvantaged Northeast has the largest population. Such targeting will also importantly built further sustainable rice-roots support for educational reform. Such a strategy will also help to identify talent in the populous Northeast. For Thailand's future it is important that all its talent be realized.

       Continuity in leadership is important at all levels. Frequent changes in administrators are highly disruptive of the reform process. Having the top civil service leadership in the Ministry of Education change nearly every year is not conducive to producing visionary leadership for change.

       As emphasized by Professor Sumon Amornvivat and Dr. Lekha Piya-Ajariya, it is critically important to have unity among the diverse agencies and organizations responsible for education and human resource development. Continued fragmentation in the administrative area will adversely affect chances for successful educational reform (Sumon 2002c: 41-42).

       Finally and perhaps most importantly, it is imperative that bureaucratic vested interests not be allowed to block critically important structural changes mandated by the 1997 Constitution and the 1999 NEA essential for Thailand to improve the productivity of its educational sector and strengthen its international competitiveness.