Bangkok’s latest education forum felt a bit like a cinematic wake-up call: dignitaries in crisp suits, spirited panel debates and, tucked between coffee breaks, a stark reality check — Thailand’s students are drifting toward the lower half of international performance tables. That sobering message came into sharp focus at the Beyond Assessment: Driving Educational Change Forum last week, and it has stirred educators, policymakers and parents into an urgent conversation about what comes next.
The numbers that won’t sit still
According to the World Population Review 2025, Thailand’s literacy rate sits at 94.1%. It’s respectable, yet it’s trailed by regional peers: Brunei (97.6%), Singapore (97.5%), the Philippines (96.3%), Indonesia (96%), Vietnam (95.8%) and Malaysia (95%). Meanwhile, Thai students continue to underperform in the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which tests maths, science and reading literacy — an issue that can no longer be papered over with platitudes.
“We need to rethink our approach. Reform is essential if we are to empower Thailand’s future through stronger evaluation,” said Ong-art Naiyapatana, Director of the Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA). It’s a simple, blunt invitation: adapt or risk being left behind.
From policing to partnering: ONESQA’s new playbook
One of the forum’s most eyebrow-raising announcements was ONESQA’s shift from Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) to External Quality Assurance (EQA). In plain terms, the agency is transitioning from the role of inspector to that of “supportive coach.” Instead of top-down checklists, schools will be encouraged to produce Self-Assessment Reports (SARs) and work with external experts to tackle their particular weaknesses.
This pivot is practical and, crucially, human: schools know their classrooms best, but they don’t always have the tools to translate problems into solutions. The new model promises collaboration, bespoke problem-solving and — perhaps most importantly — a mindset shift. Evaluation, officials insist, should be a catalyst for genuine improvement, not a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise.
“Assessment is a tool for policy transformation. ONESQA is a strategic partner in ensuring Thailand’s education system becomes competitive on the global stage.” — Linthiporn Varinwatchararoj, acting Deputy Education Minister
Digital skills: a glaring gap with a tight deadline
If literacy and PISA rankings weren’t enough to worry about, Thailand faces another giant: digital skills. The OECD Skills Strategy Thailand report, released in July, flagged a severe shortage of advanced digital capabilities. The Digital Council of Thailand has set an ambitious target — boosting overall digital literacy to 70% by year’s end — but the reality is stark: only about 1% of the population currently holds advanced digital skills.
That mismatch feels like preparing for a marathon after training on a treadmill. Without rapidly expanding both basic and advanced digital education, Thai students risk missing out on future job markets and digital economies that reward technical fluency and problem-solving agility.
Technology as a fast-track to better quality assurance
ONESQA is also leaning into technology. The agency unveiled an Automated QA Platform that gives schools real-time feedback and, in doing so, aims to shorten evaluation cycles dramatically — from the traditional five-year slog to much tighter loops of improvement. Faster feedback means quicker fixes and less time perpetuating ineffective practices.
Where reform actually works
Piriya Pholphirul, Director of the Centre for Development Economics Studies, reminded the audience of a simple truth: reforms succeed where quality is high and inequality is low. The flip side is obvious and painful — regions that are already struggling will lag further without targeted support. Piriya advocated for redirecting resources to lift baseline standards in underperforming provinces, arguing that raising the floor will do more for national competitiveness than polishing the ceilings of an already well-resourced few.
What needs to happen next
The forum wasn’t just about naming problems — it sketched a pragmatic route forward. Key moves that emerged:
- Reframe assessment as a coaching tool rather than a punitive audit;
- Scale digital literacy programs, from foundational skills to advanced competencies;
- Use ONESQA’s Automated QA Platform to accelerate feedback and fix cycles;
- Target funding and expert support to low-performing regions to reduce inequality;
- Encourage school-led Self-Assessment Reports (SARs) and cross-school collaboration.
A national project, not a ministerial memo
Thailand’s education challenge is more marathon than sprint — but the pace has to pick up. The forum showed that the leadership recognizes the urgency and is assembling tools to respond: new quality-assurance models, digital platforms for faster improvement, and public calls to reskill educators and students alike. Now, the heavy lifting moves to implementation: teachers in classrooms, administrators in provinces and policymakers in Bangkok must translate forum talk into learning outcomes.
If reform is to stick, it must be practical, equitable and relentless. Thailand has the institutional ingredients to do better — what’s required now is the sustained commitment to ensure every child, in Bangkok or the most remote province, gets a shot at the skills future economies will prize. The next PISA cycle is not just a scoreboard; it will be the mirror that shows whether this conversation turned into real change.
Forum takeaway: ONESQA’s pivot to coaching is bold but implementation will make or break it; rhetoric is easy, changing school culture is not.
Sounds nice, but schools in rural Isan don’t even have stable internet, how can they do digital SARs and automated QA?
Exactly, infrastructure is the silent bottleneck; funding has to follow the policy or this becomes a Bangkok-only show.
We heard that at the forum — officials promised targeted funding for underperforming provinces, but timelines were vague and that’s the worry.
As someone running rural programs, I can say promises without local training are worthless; you need boots on the ground and simple tech solutions.
Shifting to SARs and EQA is smart, but won’t teachers just game the self-assessments to look good?
They will, unless external experts are empowered to verify and there are real incentives tied to improvement rather than just reports.
Incentive design is crucial; combine peer-review, transparent metrics and capacity-building rather than punitive compliance to reduce gaming.
I agree with Dr. Carter, but who pays for experts and training? Budgets are always tight and political cycles short.
If only 1% have advanced digital skills, this target to 70% this year sounds impossible and a little dishonest.
Piriya here: raising the floor in poor provinces matters more than boosting elites; equity must drive resource allocation.
Totally — sending gadgets to wealthy schools is PR, not reform. Invest in teachers and basic connectivity first.
But what about vocational routes? Not every student needs advanced coding, practical digital literacy for trades matters too.
Agreed; diverse pathways and local labor market alignment are essential, otherwise we create mismatched skills.
Automated QA platform is creepy and cool at the same time; real-time feedback sounds great but who audits the auditors?
Transparency in the algorithms is necessary; otherwise the system simply encodes existing biases and widens inequality.
As a data scientist, I can say algorithmic transparency and human oversight must be built in from day one, not after mistakes happen.
So let’s demand open-source tools and localizable metrics that schools can inspect; otherwise trust will evaporate quickly.
Parents will freak out when schools stop being audited like cops; many see inspections as protection, not punishment.
That’s cultural; you need a long campaign to reframe assessment as coaching, not overnight change.
Agreed, communication and visible success stories are the only way to change perceptions among parents and local officials.
I’m excited about faster feedback loops; five-year cycles are archaic and encourage complacency.
Fast loops are good but only if schools have the capacity to act on feedback; otherwise it becomes constant noise.
True — feedback must be paired with modular, affordable interventions and follow-up coaching visits.
Also measured outcomes should be locally relevant, not just PISA-style tests that ignore vocational skills.
Why is PISA the golden standard for everything? Our culture and economy are different, maybe we’re measuring the wrong things.
PISA matters because global economies compare skills; but I agree we need broader indicators of success beyond the test.
Exactly, celebrate local knowledge and community resilience too. Not every student needs to be a tech worker.
Fair, but if we don’t meet global benchmarks, our youth might lose mobility and job prospects abroad.
As a parent and teacher I feel squeezed; more programs keep piling on without replacing old, ineffective ones.
Why don’t they make school more fun and less boring tests? I hate tests and they don’t show what I can really do.
Kids speak truth; assessments should include projects and problem solving, not just multiple choice drills.
The reform’s success will hinge on teacher professional development and changing pre-service training standards.
As a trainee teacher, we get theory but little coaching on classroom tech or differentiated instruction, so I worry.
Then invest in mentorship programs, continuous CPD and integrate tech pedagogy into core teacher education.
Mentorship costs money and requires senior teachers willing to adapt; we can’t assume they’ll volunteer for free forever.
I’m skeptical of top-down platforms designed in Bangkok for the whole country; local customization is vital.
Local teachers should co-design dashboards and indicators so the tools reflect classroom realities, not admin fantasy.
Exactly — otherwise schools will game the system or just ignore the platform entirely.
As acting Deputy Minister I can say we aim to be a strategic partner, but policy moves must be practical and evidence-based.
Nice words, but where’s the timeline and accountability? Promises get recycled every election cycle.
Accountability measures are being drafted and will include public progress dashboards; skepticism is healthy and expected.
Digital literacy targets feel politically convenient; jump to big numbers quickly, then claim victory while substance lags.
From a teacher’s view, quick numbers are demoralizing — we need staged targets, realistic training hours and follow-up support.
Agreed, set phased milestones and fund them properly rather than announce a headline figure for media.
Transparency on how ‘digital literacy’ is measured would help — does it mean using email or building cloud infrastructure skills?