Thai MP: Education Budget Increase Does Not Guarantee Progress
Thailand’s education system finds itself at a familiar, yet increasingly fraught, inflection point. Year after year, the Ministry of Education receives the lion’s share of the national budget. For 2026, that amounts to 355 billion baht, a 3.8% increase over the previous year. But is this influx of capital translating into tangible improvements in educational outcomes? According to People’s Party MP Parit Wacharasindhu, the answer is a resounding no, and the problem isn’t the amount of money, but how it’s being spent, as reported in this detailed analysis of the opposition’s concerns.
Wacharasindhu’s critique, delivered during the House of Representatives' debate on the 2026 fiscal budget, underscores a deeper systemic challenge: the persistence of inefficiency despite consistent financial injections. He argues, echoing a familiar refrain in education debates globally, that incremental adjustments and further funding increases are insufficient to address the core issues plaguing the system. Instead, he calls for a complete reset. What does this “reset” entail? It’s a multi-pronged approach, addressing curriculum, teacher workload, educational inequality, and workforce development.
One central point of contention is the recently launched 2025 curriculum, which Wacharasindhu decries as hastily and carelessly designed. He champions building upon the existing competency-based curriculum, which already represents years of research and investment. This is where the debate moves beyond simply more resources to smarter resources. Are the current expenditures strategically aligned with evidence-based practices? The MP suggests they are not.
The challenges facing the Thai education system, as illuminated by Wacharasindhu’s arguments, echo broader systemic debates about education reform. They speak to the complexities of translating financial inputs into meaningful educational outputs, and the importance of evidence-based policy. The issues raised require moving beyond surface-level solutions and addressing fundamental structural issues. To illustrate this point further:
- Curriculum Development: Transitioning from a poorly designed curriculum to one that builds on existing research and teacher training is critical.
- Teacher Workload: Addressing unnecessary administrative burdens to allow teachers more time for lesson preparation will have a direct impact on student learning.
- Educational Inequality: Focusing on strategic distribution of resources, rather than solely relying on scholarships, can help to better address the financial challenges faced by small schools and underprivileged students.
- Workforce Development: Shifting away from government-led initiatives to a model where the private sector identifies training needs and the government provides financial support for learners, the core model of “Private Sector Chooses, Learners Train, Government Pays”.
The focus must be on the incentives and structures that shape the system, rather than simply pouring more money into it and hoping for a different result. The MP’s critique of the “One District One Scholarship” (Odos) initiative as a “two-digit lottery win” perfectly encapsulates the problem with scattershot approaches to tackling inequality. While well-intentioned, such programs lack the scale and strategic focus to truly address the underlying issues.
Money alone cannot solve the crisis in education. A true transformation requires a systemic reset, a re-evaluation of priorities, and a commitment to evidence-based practices that empower teachers, support underprivileged students, and align educational outcomes with the demands of the modern economy.
The MP also questions the proposed investment in educational platforms like “Anywhere Anytime,” arguing that such massive spending requires close scrutiny to avoid wasteful outcomes. Similarly, he calls for a fundamental reset of university degree structures to better align with future job market needs, highlighting the disconnect between traditional degree programs and the evolving skills demanded by employers. The debate around workforce development also points to the inherent risk of top-down, government-led initiatives, as evidenced by the struggles of the “One Village, One Thai Dish Chef” program in the face of a struggling restaurant sector.
Ultimately, Wacharasindhu’s critique is not simply a rejection of the budget allocation, but a call for a more systemic and strategic approach to education reform in Thailand. It is a call that echoes through education debates across the globe and underscores the importance of not just how much we spend, but how wisely.
