Breaking the Controversies behind Thailand’s “No Fail” Policy

The “no fail” policy has become an unending topic among online ‘forumers’ in the teaching industry. Some foreign teachers fear that this policy is lowering Thailand’s quality of education; others believe that it is killing students’ motivation to aspire for competence, and to strive harder in mastering the skills needed in preparing themselves for the next level of learning. On the other hand, there are those who think that this policy actually brings more psychological benefits to the learners in parallel to their culture. Thai teachers, meanwhile, as always are very loyal and obedient to their superiors. They are expected to follow what they’ve been told no matter how difficult the process could be.

Surprisingly, it appears that the so-called “no fail” policy created confusion and indifference to foreign teaching staff, and brought negative impression to Thailand’s educational system. Is this a result of the Ministry of Education’s poor information dissemination to the foreign teaching staff? Does this policy truly exist? And if it does, is the name of the policy just a terminological glitch? Or Are the controversies behind the policy a product of unprofessional opinions and culture shock?

One of the problems that Thai schools especially public schools need to be more sensitive about is the need to include their foreign teaching staff in any information dissemination and discussions on new MOE policies. Many foreign teachers are just told what to do and never given valid reasons why the need to do them. Naturally, some foreign teachers question its processes; and unfortunately, Thai teachers later find themselves wondering as well. The MOE has probably provided some measures to properly implement any of its policies. If the “no-fail” policy is real, the MOE might have provided its rationale and implementing strategies. Sadly, due to lack of information, the term “no fail” policy served as the rationale itself and teachers regard it as very self-explanatory; thus, they assume all possible implementing strategies aiming at one goal: no elementary or secondary student shall fail. This situation is a result of poor communication protocol. To avoid misunderstanding and misinformation between foreign and local teachers, the MOE needs to extend the courtesy of furnishing English copies of its policies that directly affect the foreign teaching staff.

Many even doubt the existence of this policy. Some Thai teachers believed that this was in fact a policy way back in the late 1990’s; others believed that it was first promulgated during former PM Thaksin’s administration; and still a big number of Thai teachers believed that there was no exact written policy but such is a constant topic in local, regional and nationwide seminars until it had become a tradition among Thai schools to ensure all students pass to the next level. With or without any official document to prove its authenticity, one thing is most certain, Thai schools practice a very lenient educational system. Above all, it is the question of HOW is the policy being implemented that raised some eyebrows and brought defiance to its implementation at the school level.

The “no fail” policy is most probably a product of erroneous terminology. Not realizing its impact to its readers, Thai educators probably conveniently translated a sensible Thai terminology to a dreaded English translation. Many Thai teachers reason out that the idea of this policy is to help the “weak” learners cope with the lessons. If this is so, they are most probably utilizing some sort of a remedial class as a strategy where the teacher needs to sacrifice some time to review, re-teach and re-evaluate “weak” learners until they are ready to proceed to the next lesson. This is most likely the process that every teacher undergoes. “Remedial class” policy may be the appropriate term and not the controversial “no fail” policy.

However, whatever term the policy would be, it is the practice of the school which is more evidently important. In relation to language education, test or evaluation should be properly selected and well described. Some foreign teachers experience situations where they are not required to evaluate and grade their students. Others are later told to fill up a grading system right after the school term is about to end. There are schools that have well-written grading system but they fail to give solutions to the common problems of students affecting their classroom performance resulting to low or failing grades. One clever solution teachers and coordinators do is to simply make grade “adjustments”. Some schools give “failing” students a second chance by simply requiring them to re-take the final test. Others provide “review” tests a week before the “real” examination comes to facilitate high number of passers. All of these are utilized to secure 100% passing rate.

In contrast, there are schools that painstakingly follow the “lesser evil” way of helping the students pass the required school competencies. It goes back to the realities in the classroom instruction. In language education particularly teaching EFL or ESL, it is important that the language teacher clearly understands not to treat EFL or ESL a subject matter or a content subject. Otherwise, the language teacher is concerned on the “academic” achievement of the learner. To exemplify, a learner who cannot do language tasks will most probably get a zero score. And if the language teacher continues to give more weight on grades, there is no doubt a long list of failed students is waiting to be submitted. However, a language teacher who sees the learning process as more important than its end result will do anything to help the “weak” learner cope with the lessons. Thus a remedial class is set in place. Moreover, designing a suitable activity based on the learners’ needs and language proficiency will also help in encouraging and boosting their confidence. Normally, a language learner feels more comfortable if they are not threatened with scores or grades. The focus lies on the accomplishment of language tasks rather than the achievement of a passing grade. Having this attitude on the part of the language teacher makes the “no fail” policy a no threat to language learning. In principle, a language teacher needs to demonstrate to the learners the many practical reasons in learning the target language and not just simply for the purpose of finishing a “subject” or getting a passing score in national tests.

In retrospect, there are foreign teachers who insist that this “no fail” policy has become a deterrent to Thailand’s language education. They claim that it affects learners’ motivation, and so failing “undeserving” students may help them realize the importance of education. Furthermore, it paves way to laziness, unchallenging tasks, and tedious teacher work. Students with low motivation feel safe that they can earn a high school diploma with ease without necessarily striving. Schools taking advantage of this policy would result to the poor attainment of academic standards. Teachers who find easy ways to pass the students corrupt the proper evaluation system. Meanwhile, over-loaded teachers who provide remedial classes sacrifice more time and effort. And “weak” learners may cope with the lessons by attending remedial classes but still it does not guarantee if they’re all meeting the academic standard. Some believe that this “policy” is the culprit of low number of passers in national tests, and the cause of much stress of incoming first year university students since they were not trained to improve their study skills during the early years of their education. There are research studies that reveal how unsatisfactory the English language proficiency of many degree holders in the workplace. In fact, some international companies seek Thai applicants with master’s degrees for clerical positions. These are some of the major issues raised by concerned foreign teachers which until now highlight any debates and discussions.

The negative manifestations, however, may be the consequences of hiring foreign teachers with no background in education; foreign teachers who are still strongly attached to what is norm in their respective countries; foreign teachers who are having difficulty relating the learner’s culture to educational policies; and foreign teachers who strongly oppose what is educationally and philosophically different from their own.

A language teacher who doesn’t have any background in education may find himself confused and unmoved to the rationale of the so-called “no fail” policy. Even with the aid of good discussions and readings, he couldn’t muster his thoughts in allowing himself to adapt to changes but still his only choice is to follow. As a result, he vents his dismay by opposing it. Little did he know, his attitude toward positive language learning in the classroom is also undermined. There are others who are not comfortable to what is different. For instance, in the Philippines, the “no fail” policy is non-existent. A student need to satisfy all grading criteria by earning passing scores with a certain level of difficulty; and so an average student who gets a passing grade is considered lucky, whereas an average Thai student expects higher than a passing grade since the “weak” ones get all the passing demarcation lines. These language teachers find the evaluation system unacceptable but they forget to constantly remind themselves that they are in a different country with a different educational system.

This highlights the importance of one’s culture which not only affects lifestyle but even education. It is assumed that the so-called “no fail” policy has been thoroughly discussed and it fits Thailand’s culture. Foreign teachers buzzed culturally-embedded reasons that the policy is an act of not “losing one’s face”; or “kreng-jai” which values consideration and courtesy. Still, some argue that this is an act of over use of cultural reference to their policies without considering global perspective towards education. However, a language teacher who can not do anything but to follow the norm is given all other opportunities and freedom to set his own standards of classroom instruction to reassure that the learners are learning something fruitful with or without a grading system. This brings us to the reality that a language teacher should focus on using other means of motivating the learners to learn the target language instead of feeling remorse of not having a strict grading system.

In conclusion, the so-called “no fail” policy or “remedial class” policy should not kill the language teachers’ devotion to language education. This is a challenge to one’s being flexible, creative, innovative and global in the field of language teaching. Even the qualities of a language teacher or any teacher for that matter also require tough challenges to test their “authenticity”.


Abel Morales Cadias