ASKED about Thailand’s sovereign risk rating last week, Mr Tan Kim Eng, senior director and analytical manager for global rating agency Standard & Poor’s in the Asia-Pacific, made an interesting observation. One of the reasons Thailand’s sovereign risk rating remained stuck at the BBB+ level, he told The Nation newspaper, was that prolonged political uncertainties were drawing the government’s attention away from long- term problems such as infrastructure and education reform.

For risk rating agencies, Thailand’s strength is based on its solid external position, relatively well-developed financial markets and low net general government debt. But its BBB+ rating implies that the country has good rather than high credit quality. BBB is the lowest of Standard & Poor’s investment grade rankings.

That Standard & Poor’s should be concerned about the economic impact of looming infrastructure deficiencies as a result of the government’s focus on pressing political issues is understandable. But must the state of Thailand’s education system also figure in the calculations of such agencies?

Apparently so. Research by Mr Eric Hanushek, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, shows countries such as Thailand whose students do badly on standardised international tests generally have economies that stagnate. The reverse, he believes, is also true.

Mr Hanushek came to his conclusions by comparing economic growth with Pisa scores. Pisa, which stands for Programme for International Student Assessment, is a widely respected test which assesses the comparative ability of 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics and science in 65 countries. It is carried out by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development every three years.

Finland is an example of a country that has grown strongly while climbing to near the top of the Pisa test table. This contrasts with the disappointing economic performance of Italy, which is near the bottom of the table.

According to Pisa scores for 2010, 15-year-olds Thai students are well behind their peers in the more prosperous parts of East and South-east Asia, notably Singapore, Shanghai in China and South Korea. Worse, while Thailand’s Pisa scores have shown no discernible progress since its students began participating in the tests in 2000, those of other developing countries have improved markedly. In 2003, Thailand was doing better than countries such as Mexico, Turkey, Brazil and Indonesia. But while the scores of Thai students have remained virtually unchanged since then, student scores in these four countries have improved markedly.

What all this suggests is that Thailand’s workforce does not have the skills necessary to meet the demands of a more developed economy. Already, observers have begun to express concern about how Thai professionals will compete after 2015, when the 2009 Asean mutual recognition agreement comes into effect. This accord requires Bangkok to recognise standardised Asean qualifications in a wide range of professions without the need for additional testing.

Beginning in 2001, successive Thai governments have attempted various reform measures. Under prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the education ministry developed new national curricula, introduced computers into schools and increased the number of qualified native-speaker teachers of foreign languages. Student loan funds were also initiated in an attempt to increase access to universities for lower- income groups.

Many other reforms, however, proved ineffectual. Critics also accused successive governments run by Thaksin and his supporters of focusing on populist educational policies dictated by short-term political considerations.

More seriously, education policy has lacked direction because ministers have changed so frequently over the past decade. In January, Education Minister Woravat Auapinyakul lost his job in a Cabinet reshuffle after only five months in office.

Professor Gerald Fry of the University of Minnesota argues: “The main problems in Thai education are the overemphasis on material concrete outcomes, like buildings and school entrances, discontinuous education policy; and a huge civil service”. Prof Fry lived in Thailand for 45 years, teaching at five universities including the prestigious Thammasat University in Bangkok.

Class sizes in secondary schools are large, with staff shortages resulting in some containing as many as 60 students. Teaching by rote is commonplace.

Thailand spends about 20 per cent of its budget on education. According to a World Bank report published in 2010, this was the equivalent of 4 per cent of its GDP, more in relative terms than both Singapore and Japan.
Clearly, this money is not being spent wisely. No wonder Standard & Poor’s has good reason to be concerned about the possible implications for the country’s economic future.

(C) Singapore Press Holdings Limited