The Paradox of Education

The Paradox of Education
By Amp Lao

Recently, I had an opportunity to attend an interesting talk on “Global and Local Perspectives on Education and Social Activism”, organized by the Peace Education Network (PEN) at Teachers College. The talk featured two speakers, one from an international school, which serves Latino immigrants here in New York City. Another speaker was Kovit Boonjear, a social activist from Khon Kean, Thailand, who serves the land-fillers and undocumented youth from deprived households. World apart, they both questioned the myth of modern education.

Can education be a force for change?

Sitting amongst the privileged TC kids, P’Ko said it outright: modern education is a myth, damaging the poor and enlarging the ugly inequality in Thailand. According to P’Ko’s world view, modern education encourages kids from the countries to go into the cities, working in factories, doing meaningless jobs and living meaningless lives. Many of them become construction workers in large cities, lived under the railways and been considered the illegal citizen in their own country. Despite the fact that many of these workers build schools in the province, their kids have no right to education.

He does not speak English and does not need to attend our Doctoral Seminar to encounter development of the modern world. To P’Ko, the myth of qualification is real, the symbolic violence is disgusting and the exclusion of the least privilege is a daily reality.

Under the name of “individualism”, the current education discourages teamwork and encourages extreme selfishness, he said.

He apologized for being blunt, yet continued: “the more education we get, the stupider we become”.

We need an alternative education, he said. An education that educates the poor to survive, self-sustain and succeed.

This story resonates with one of the classic books I read: “Learning to Labor: How working class kids get working class jobs” by Paul Willis. In his book, Willis conducted qualitative, ethnographic research to follow 12 working class lads in their school. Willis argues that the persistent inequality of working class kids continue to have working class jobs is a result of a complex interplay between the role of school in modern capitalist society, the working class culture, and the lads’ subjective construction. To the lads, being  anti education and going against the myth of modern qualifications were celebrated and boosted their self-esteem. They refused to be docile. They viewed teachers as oppressive authority and tried every way they could to object. After graduation, these kids continued to work in shop-floors and low-skilled jobs. Despite this, Willis argues that school is not utterly- useless. Rather, schools enable the lads to develop their identity and group culture, albeit a working class one.

The question remains: what kind of educational institution that is conducive to these children? While the middle-class version of education is interpreted as subjecting the individuals under the dominant ideology, would working-class tailor-made education not further reinforce class differentiation and segregates the haves from the have-nots?

These conditions are deeply rooted, not only in the case of 1970s Britain but today’s Thailand.

After the discussion ended, I went up to P’Ko. So much that I agree that modern education has failed so much and served so few, I told him I am interested in industrial policy and how education could be better linked to serve the need of Thai industries, growth and the ugly development he hates. To me, Thai education has failed because we have yet to produce the workers we need for our economic development. We claimed to be the Asian Tiger and aspired to be the Detroit, yet we have too littler engineers and too few qualified mechanicians. Despite the polemic campaign of “Education for All”, we have obsessively focused on the selected few while the populated and skilled mass is the real engine of our sustainable growth.

He smiled, so I continued.

It is unfair to blame everything on the system that is barely able to educate children to meet minimum literacy and arithmetic skills. We are behind those we started off with forty/ fifty years ago and we are trying hard to even be in par with those who just declared independence.

An hour long discussion provokes the kind of reflection that none of the ‘reflection’ papers have ever done to me.

What kind of education is conducive to Thailand development?

I am still in search of the answers- the paradox of education this is.

Written on Sunday, 15th February 2009



7 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by ปราชญ์ วิปลาส on March 17, 2009 at 4:39 am

    อ่านแล้วก็ประทับใจคุณ P’Ko ให้ความรู้สึกว่าก็ยังมีคนที่เข้าใจว่าการศึกษาที่พยายามผลักดันกันมากมายนั้นแท้จริงแล้วนำปัญหาอะไรมาบ้าง

    โดยส่วนตัวแล้ว ผมคิดว่าปัญหาหนึ่งของการศึกษาในไทยก็คือมันไม่ตอบโจทย์การดำรงชีวิตในแต่ละพื้นที่ กล่าวคือมันไม่สอดคล้องกับรูปแบบวิถีชีวิตความเป็นอยู่ของประชาชนซึ่งย่อมแตกต่างกันไปในแต่ละท้องถิ่น

    ในขณะที่ประชาชนในประเทศมีความแตกต่างกันไปในขนาดนั้น ไทยกลับมีการศึกษาแบบเดียวกันทั้งประเทศคือแบบที่เหมาะสมกับสังคมในเขตเมือง ซึ่งนั่นก็นำมาซึ่งปัญหามากมายดังที่คุณ P’Ko ได้กล่าวไปแล้วในบทความข้างต้น

    บางทีการออกแบบการศึกษาที่ดีก็น่าจะเป็นการศึกษาที่ตอบโจทย์/สอดคล้องกับสภาพวิถีชีวิตในแต่ละท้องถิ่น และในขณะเดียวกันก็ยังต้องมีตัวเลือกให้สำหรับคนที่ไม่ต้องการจะดำรงชีวิตในแบบนั้นด้วย


  2. Posted by amp on March 17, 2009 at 10:47 am

    Dear Khun Praj (my apologies if the spelling was wrong),

    This problem is complex and various viewpoints are necessary if Thai education is to be reformed.Thank you for sharing your thought with us ja.



  3. Posted by อัพ on April 10, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    บทความน่าสนใจมากค่ะ ดีใจที่ได้อ่าน 🙂
    ปัญหาการศึกษาไทยมันซับซ้อนจริงๆ ค่ะ มีสาเหตุเป็นลูกโซ่ ไม่แน่ใจเหมือนกันว่าปมมันอยู่ตรงไหนแน่ ควรจะแก้อะไรก่อน อีกทั้งก็ไม่แน่ใจอีกว่า ควรจะแก้ระบบการศึกษา หรือเนื้อหาที่ใช้สอนกันแน่ คิดไม่ออกบอกไม่ถูกเหมือนกันค่ะ

    แต่อย่างน้อย อยากจะบอกนักเรียนที่เลือกเข้าครุศาสตร์ ขอให้เลือกเพราะมีใจจะเป็นครู อย่าเลือกเพราะมันเป็นตัวเลือกสุดท้ายเลย



  4. Posted by Fai on April 11, 2009 at 5:48 pm


    thanks for sharing this naka. I stumbled up on this site by chance and am very glad to read an article written by you.


  5. What about the teaching methods of the late Brazilian writer and educator Paulo Freire? These are used among the rural poor who are members of the Landless Peasants Movement there, with great success, extending both basic literacy and politically aware education.


  6. Posted by Amp on June 16, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    Dear Khun Augusta Dwyer,

    Than you for your response. While Freirian pedagogy has much to offer to the conventional way of education, it is not a panacea to address all the problems. Researches show that Freirian pedagogy is much more effective when it is down in a small scale. If one promotes Freire in a large scale like those in Latin American countries, it is possible that we are repeating the same mistake of providing top down education that might not be suitable to that local.


  7. We need an alternative education, An education that educates the poor to survive, self-sustain and success

    <a href=""


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: