EVALUATION

REPORT

CHILD FRIENDLY
SCHOOLS EVALUATION:
Country Report for Thailand

EVALUATION OFFICE
DECEMBER 2009
EVALUATION
REPORT

CHILD FRIENDLY
SCHOOLS EVALUATION:

Country Report for Thailand

EVALUATION OFFICE
DECEMBER 2009
Child Friendly Schools Evaluation: Country Report for Thailand
© United Nations Children’s Fund, New York, 2009
United Nations Children’s Fund
Three United Nations Plaza
New York, New York 10017

December 2009

The purpose of the evaluation reports produced by the UNICEF Evaluation Office is to assess the
situation, facilitate the exchange of knowledge and perspectives among UNICEF staff and to propose
measures to address the concerns raised. The content of this report does not necessarily reflect
UNICEF's official position.

The text has not been edited to official publication standards and UNICEF accepts no responsibility for
errors.

The designations in this publication do not imply an opinion on legal status of any country or territory,
or of its authorities, or the delimitation of frontiers.

For further information, please contact:

Evaluation Office
United Nations Children’s Fund
Three United Nations Plaza
New York, New York 10017, United States
Tel: +1(212) 824-6322
Fax: +1(212) 824-6492
PREFACE

The Evaluation Office working closely with the Education Section commissioned American
Institutes for Research (AIR) to conduct a global evaluation of UNICEF’s Child-Friendly Schools
(CFS) programming strategy in 2008. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess how CFS
models have been implemented in multiple contexts to improve education quality, and to provide
data on the extent to which key CFS principles of child-centeredness, inclusiveness, and
democratic participation are being realized in countries that are implementing CFS. The
evaluation was also expected to create CFS assessment tools and provide a baseline against
which future progress can be evaluated.

The evaluation methodology consisted of a desk review of CFS documents from all regions, site
visits and primary data collection in six countries (Guyana, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Philippines, South
Africa, Thailand), and an on-line Delphi survey of UNICEF Education Officers from all regions.
The country visits included extensive new data collection via surveys, observations, interviews,
photos and videos, and focus group discussions. In order to obtain the perspective of all key
stakeholders, the evaluation teams collected data from teachers, school leaders, parents, and
schoolchildren. Hence, in addition to this global evaluation report, six in-depth country case-study
reports were produced from this work.

This report presents in-depth analyses and results of the status of CFS in Thailand. We hope that
readers from both the Education sector and the Evaluation discipline will be satisfied with the
rigor of the methodologies and clarity of the analysis.

Our appreciation for the effort and professionalism that was demonstrated in this evaluation goes
to David Osher, the lead evaluator from AIR, and the AIR data collection team and authors of the
Thailand report consisting of Nitika Tolani-Brown, Cassandra Jessee and Luke Shors. Support
was also provided by Chen-Su Chen, Jeff Davis, Corbrett Hodson and Olivia Padilla. We also
extend thanks to the national research teams that assisted AIR in each country.

We would also like to express gratitude to our colleagues in the Education Section - Cream
Wright, Changu Mannathoko and Maida Pasic – for recognizing the need for an independent
evaluation, for insightful contributions at every stage, and for mobilizing their Education
colleagues in regional and country offices. Likewise, we appreciate the efforts made in all
participating UNICEF country offices, especially in the six case study nations. Finally, sincere
commendations go to my colleagues who managed the evaluation, Samuel Bickel (Senior
Advisor) and Kathleen Letshabo (Evaluation Specialist, Education).

Readers of this report inspired to learn more about the Child Friendly Schools approach are
invited to visit the UNICEF website (www.unicef.org) for all the reports in this series. Readers
interested in UNICEF’s evaluation priorities and strategies will also find important information
there.

Finbar O’Brien
Director
Evaluation Office
UNICEF New York Headquarters
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... v 
CHAPTER 1 – Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 
1.1  Background ........................................................................................................................ 1 
1.2  A History of Child Friendly Schools in Thailand ................................................................. 3 
1.3  The Current Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 5 
CHAPTER 2 – Evaluation of CFS in Thailand ........................................................................................... 0 
2.1  Methodology....................................................................................................................... 0 
2.2  Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 3 
2.3  Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 4 
CHAPTER 3 – Findings: The State of Child Friendly Schools in Thailand ........................................... 5 
3.1  Rights-based and inclusive school environments .............................................................. 5 
3.2  Effective and high-quality learning environments ............................................................ 12 
3.3  To what extent has CFS in Thailand achieved a safe and protective environment in CFS
schools that supports children’s health? ........................................................................... 21 
3.4  Gender-sensitive environments that promotes equity and equality .................................. 27 
3.5  Democratic participation of students, parents, and community members, and meaningful
linkages between schools and communities ..................................................................... 30 
3.6   What are the costs associated with Child Friendly Schools in Thailand?......................... 37 
CHAPTER 4 – Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 41 
4.1  Rights-Based and Inclusive Approaches ......................................................................... 41 
4.2  High-Quality and Effective Learning Environments ......................................................... 41 
4.3  Enhancing the Gender Sensitivity of Learning Environments ......................................... 42 
4.4  Engaging Students, Families, and Communities ............................................................. 42 
4.5  Costs of Implementation .................................................................................................. 42 
4.6  Monitoring and Evaluating CFS Implementation and Impacts ......................................... 42 
4.7  Intensity of Support .......................................................................................................... 43 
4.8  Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 44 
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 45 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................................... 46 
Appendix A:Scale Construction Items....................................................................................................48
Appendix B: Director Survey Item-By-Item Responses ........................................................................ 47 
Appendix C: Teacher Survey Item-By-Item Responses ........................................................................ 54 
Appendix D: Student Survey Item-By-Item Responses ........................................................................ 57 
Appendix E: School Observation Item-By-Item Responses ............................................................... 608 
Appendix F: Classroom Observation Item-by-Item Responses ........................................................... 62 
Appendix G: Thailand T-Test Results ................................................................................................... 642 

i
Tables
Table 1 Child-friendly school principles and features .................................................................................. 2 
Table 2 Number of schools in evaluation by years of CFS implementation, region and locality ................ 1 
Table 3 Students participating in the survey, by grade, region and gender ................................................ 2 
Table 4 Number of teacher survey participants years teaching at school by region and locality ............... 2 
Table 5 Number of teacher survey participants community residence by region and gender .................... 2 
Table 6 School head years working in any position at this school by region .............................................. 3 
Table 7 School head years working as the head at this school by region .................................................. 3 
Table 8 Number of school heads by gender and region ............................................................................. 3 
Table 9 Community residence of school head by region ............................................................................ 3 
Table 10 Students reporting high levels of family involvement in school decision-making .......................... 8 
Table 11 Percentage of students reporting that hunger inhibits learning ................................................... 22 
Table 12 Percentage of students reporting feeling safe at school by region, locality and years of CFS
implementation ............................................................................................................................. 24 
Table 13 Percentage of teachers reporting good sanitary conditions at school by region and locality ...... 24 
Table 14 Percentage of teachers who believe health issues keep students from learning ........................ 25 
Table 15 Percentage of school heads reporting that the school is able to make referrals to community-
based providers of medical care .................................................................................................. 26 
Table 16 Percentage of students who report that boys and girls have equal opportunities to succeed at
school ........................................................................................................................................... 28 
Table 17 Percentage of students reporting high levels of student involvement in solving school
problems ....................................................................................................................................... 32 
Table 18 Percentage of expenditures by category across countries .......................................................... 38 

ii
Figures
Figure 1 CFS Model of Change .................................................................................................................. 3 
Figure 2 Safe, Inclusive, and Respectful Climate: Teacher Reports .......................................................... 7 
Figure 3 An Example of the Impact of Democratic Participation: Do Students at More Rights-Based
Schools Perceive Their School Environments to be More Engaging, Enjoyable, and
Welcoming? .................................................................................................................................. 8 
Figure 4 Inclusive Classroom Climate: Classroom Observations ............................................................... 9 
Figure 5 Percentage of Teachers Who Think that Allowing Students to Discuss or Debate Ideas in Class
Takes Time Away From Learning ............................................................................................... 16 
Figure 6 An Example of the Impact of Child-Centredness: Do Students at More Child-Centred Schools
Perceive Their School Environments to be Welcoming, Safe and Equitable? ........................... 16 
Figure 7 “Inadequate Nutrition Keeps Students at This School from Learning as Much as They Should”
[Teacher Report] ......................................................................................................................... 22 
Figure 8 An Example of the Impact of Child-Centredness: Do Students at More Child-Centred Schools
Perceive Their School Environments to be Safe and Enjoyable? .............................................. 23 
Figure 9 An Example of the Impact of Inclusiveness: Do Students at More Equitable Schools Perceive
Their School Environments to be Safe and Enjoyable? ............................................................. 28 
Figure 10 An Example of the Impact of Democratic Participation: Do Students at More Participatory
Schools Look Forward to Coming to School and View the School as Equitable? ..................... 32 
Figure 11 Major Cost Categories for UNICEF Thailand ............................................................................. 37 
Figure 12 Distribution in Per Pupil Expenditure in Six Countries ................................................................ 38 
Figure 13 Total per Pupil Expenditures by Total School Enrolment in Thailand CFS Schools ............ Error!
Bookmark not defined. 
Figure 14 Percentage of UNICEF CFS Expenditures by Total School Enrolment ..................................... 39

Photographs
Photograph 1 Inclusion Within a Thai Canteen............................................................................................. 7
Photograph 2 A Thai Teacher Uses Child-Centred Techniques to Teach ................................................. 14 
Photograph 3 Teachers Utilize a School Library to Support Student Learning .......................................... 15 
Photograph 4 A Teacher Uses a Traditional Lecture Method in Her Classroom........................................ 18 
Photograph 5 Students Await Treatment at a School Health Clinic ........................................................... 25 
Photograph 6 Students Brush Their Teeth at School ................................................................................. 25 
Photograph 7 Students Show the Artisan Product They Learned to Make From Livelihoods Training...... 27 
Photograph 8 A School Garden That Is Organized and Maintained by Volunteer Parents........................ 34 

iii
Acronyms
AIR American Institutes for Research

CFS Child Friendly Schools

EAPR East Asia and Pacific Region (UNICEF)

EASO Education service area

EFA Education for All

MOE Ministry of Education

NGO Non-Governmental Organizations

PTA Parent teacher association

ROSA Regional Office for South Asia (UNICEF)

SEL Social Emotional Learning

SIRC Safe, Inclusive, and Respectful Climate

SMC School management committee

SMIS School Management Information System

SSA School Self-Assessment

UN United Nations

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

USAID United States Agency for International Development

iv
Executive Summary
UNICEF contracted with AIR in January 2008 to conduct a global evaluation of the Child Friendly Schools
(CFS) initiative. The evaluation was expected to serve as a baseline assessment that would examine the
effectiveness of UNICEF’s CFS programming efforts in the areas of inclusiveness, pedagogy, architecture
and services, participation and governance, and systemic management. The evaluation was also
intended to provide information about the cost of intervention. Thailand was selected as one of the six
countries for the global evaluation for several reasons, including the fact that it provided an opportunity to
assess the effectiveness of long-term implementation of CFS.

As the country that hosted the 1990 signing of the Declaration on Education for All agreement (EFA),
Thailand has been at the forefront of supporting child rights and an early developer and proponent of the
Child Friendly Schools model. For over a decade, UNICEF Thailand and Thailand’s Ministry of Education
have jointly implemented CFS programming in schools throughout the country. The purpose of this report
is to present an evaluation of the effectiveness of UNICEF CFS intervention efforts within Thailand. The
core research questions addressed in this report are as follows:
 To what extent has CFS in Thailand created a rights-based and inclusive environment in its
schools? To what degree are these learning environments safe, protective and caring?
 To what extent has CFS in Thailand achieved an effective and high-quality learning environment?
 To what extent has CFS in Thailand created a health-promoting and health-seeking environment
(i.e., achieved access to safe drinking water, good school hygiene, and a clean school
environment)?
 To what extent has CFS in Thailand created a gender-sensitive environment that promotes equity
and equality in its schools?
 To what extent has CFS in Thailand increased the democratic participation of students, parents,
and community members and forged meaningful linkages between schools and communities to
improve the child friendliness of its schools?
 What are the costs associated with implementing the CFS model in Thailand?

Multiple assessment tools were developed for the purposes of the global CFS evaluation. These included
a student survey (for use in grades 5 and up), teacher survey, school head survey, classroom observation
tool, school-wide observation tool (including both indoor and outdoor areas), and interview and focus
group protocols to learn more from students, parents, teachers, school heads, and other key
stakeholders.

A sample of 25 schools that had received support from the CFS initiative were selected from the northern
region and the southern, tsunami-affected regions. Within both regions, schools were selected based on
the duration that they had participated in CFS, location (region, rural/urban setting), and community
characteristics (e.g., population, typical household income). The 25 schools were located in the districts of
Krabi, Phuket, Chang Mai, and Chang Rae. Individual interviews were also completed with five key
informants from across six Ministry bureaus and community-based advocacy organizations that UNICEF
had identified as influential and highly involved in the CFS initiative.

In schools implementing the CFS approach, school directors, teachers, and parents expressed a
commitment to inclusiveness, to viewing inclusiveness as a key element of the CFS model, and to making
efforts to include, encourage, and support all students, regardless of background. School heads talked
about inclusiveness as a core principle of the CFS model and cited examples of measures taken to be
inclusive.

Results indicate that female students have slightly more positive feelings about the school climate than do
male students, although the differences are not large. Generally, students speaking a different language
at home and school have a less positive feeling about school than students who speak the same

v
language at home and school. Children with disabilities are often excluded from school, especially in
areas where resources are constrained. All school heads reported that students with disabilities are
offered equal opportunities to participate in school activities. However, additional evidence does not
always corroborate this.

Capacity at the school to identify and support disabled learners is low, with only 28 percent of the schools
suggesting they have teachers who have been specially trained to work with students with disabilities.
Some school heads reported that physical structures are not accessible to students with physical
disabilities. With laws that do not support further education without citizenship, and border monitoring that
can actually inhibit enrolment and attendance, Thailand has a challenge of ‘stateless children’.

Over 80 percent of Thai students surveyed in this evaluation said that students are encouraged to
participate in class, work together in class, and share their ideas and opinions in class, and that teachers
listen to explanations of students’ answers. Classroom observations also suggested that teachers are for
the most part using child-centred teaching techniques, creating organized lesson plans to guide
classroom activities, and using “Child Friendly” communication styles and disciplinary practices. Teacher
survey data further corroborated these findings. Interviews with teachers and school heads identified
challenges in teacher capacity, shortage of teaching and learning materials, and low parental support
and/or involvement in their children’s education.

Stakeholders in CFS, such as teachers and school heads, reported a number of accomplishments in
making the school safer, such as building school fences or prohibiting vehicles such as motorcycles on
the school grounds, limiting access to school grounds to prevent fights between learners from different
schools, and preventing unauthorized adults from being on school grounds While corporal punishment
was still used in some CFS schools, teachers ,reported that disciplinary tactics had changed, and that
schools were implementing positive discipline approaches such as merit-based reward systems.

Most Child Friendly schools in Thailand supplement the national school feeding program with locally
sponsored efforts such as extending the milk program to students beyond the fourth grade and providing
food children without a Thai identity card. In addition, a number schools have a school garden, cash
crops like palms, or have fish ponds that help sustain the effects of the national school feeding program
through food or funds for food.

Through a variety of efforts, schools have become gender sensitive. For example, CFS resources
supported the development of the School Management Information System (SMIS) and school self-
assessment (SSA), which enable school staff, students, and parents to identify and address gender
disparities.

Survey data obtained from students, teachers, and school heads regarding the ways and degree to which
students are involved in school events, decision-making processes, and their own learning suggest that
only school heads are very satisfied with the extent to which students are involved in Thailand. Teachers
were slightly less positive about the degree to which students were involved. The evaluation also found
that students are more open with teachers and their academic supervisors when they have problems at
home or in school. In addition, the evaluation found that teachers and school heads welcome students’
observations and suggestions for classroom activities and school events. At many schools, there is now a
Student Governing Board, similar to a student council. Interviews also revealed that many, if not all,
schools in Thailand have taken great care to increase the level and type of involvement of parents and
local community members in school decision-making activities and events.

Thailand has the most equitable distribution of income of any of the six countries visited during AIR’s
global evaluation. The CFS costing model we developed suggested that the expenditures per child
showed the most variation in Thailand. We hypothesize that this spending differential is attributable to
large amounts of capital available to schools affected by the 2005 tsunami. When funds for tsunami relief
end, we expect UNICEF and other donor support to schools to decrease. However, the MOE has
demonstrated substantial ownership of CFS and provided almost complete support for another national
secondary education initiative– Lab Schools. Given this fact and AIR’s finding that UNICEF’s support

vi
proportionally increases as school size increases, it may be more appropriate for UNICEF to focus more
resources on smaller, rural schools leaving the MOE to continue to provide support to larger, urban
schools.

Recommendations

Analysis of the data gathered during this evaluation led to several recommendations, presented below.
Priorities among these recommendations can best be identified at the school level. Although there are
common problems faced by most schools, each school is unique and may need more support in one area
than another.
 Promote inclusiveness in a number of ways that range from community mobilization to teacher
training programs. Schools attempting to educate disadvantaged children must broaden the
traditional role of the school.
 Continue to train teachers to not only track but utilize the information to support special needs.
Thailand has built a culture of inclusion in school; ensuring that teachers can address and support
the needs of children will ensure that those who are frequently the most marginalized and
neglected by the education system can be properly supported and can thrive.
 Provide training to school heads and teachers on appropriate pedagogical techniques and
methods of instruction for children with disabilities so that more schools can provide high-quality
education to children with disabilities.
 Provide training to school heads and teachers on assessing the conditions for learning and on
appropriate approaches for improving the conditions for learning.
 Support development of a cluster-based, peer support system such that model schools, or those
more successful in creating innovative, high-quality learning environments, act as models and
mentors to schools in other districts. Given that funding in the southern, tsunami-affected regions
has ended or is ending, UNICEF Thailand should work with ESAO supervisors to conduct site
visits to facilitate this system. District-wide or regional workshops could also be held to facilitate
learning across schools.
 Revisit policies such as not allowing pregnant or parenting girls to come to school and, where
necessary, the infrastructure of schools should be improved (e.g., providing private latrines for
girls). CFS schools have not been successful in eliminating all policy and infrastructural barriers
to gender inclusiveness.
 Focus more resources on mobilizing parent participation to support school feeding programs and
encourage student enrolment and continued attendance in school.
 Offer training and workshops to school heads and school staff and parents to build a better
understanding of how to engage parents in their children’s education, involve them in schools
beyond labour and infrastructural support, and increase their participation in school governance
and decision-making. School staff consistently requested additional support and follow-up from
UNICEF country offices to help operationalize the goals of the CFS approach.
 Develop a cost model that involves both the expansion and continued support of CFS. Better
understanding the costs associated with developing new CFS schools and supporting existing
CFS schools, as well as who potential funders may be, will aid in effective scale-up.
 Use UNICEF's comparative advantage as a coordinator to bring together stakeholders to address
barriers to inclusion that are cross-cutting. For example, it has succeeded in making CFS the
national school reform model and on focusing the Ministry of Education on the importance of
school climate and social and emotional learning. We recommend continuing to emphasize
national policy efforts.
 Develop standards for CFS support so the model is not diluted as it continues to go to scale. AIR
is not aware of existing standards for CFS support. We also recommend providing better tools to

vii
 assess pre-conditions for successful CFS implementation for new schools so that readiness to
implement CFS is factored into scale-up and technical assistance decisions.
 Continue to monitor and evaluate CFS schools and the implementation of the initiative in
Thailand. This can include using the Thai Conditions for Learning Survey and the other tools
employed in this evaluation. Subsequent monitoring and evaluation activities can be targeted
towards identifying which children and youth are not being successfully recruited and which
students are dropping out.
 Identify and address more intangible barriers to the school becoming child friendly, such as
negative gender norms, through a UNICEF-sponsored and EASO-facilitated follow-up. Given the
fact that our findings (like those of previous studies) find a gap between adult and student
perceptions, we recommend that the Conditions For Learning Survey be used, and that it be
administered in a manner that ensures individual confidentiality, but produces results for key
subgroups, such as male and female students, students with disabilities, and ethnic minorities.

 Conduct a follow-up workshop to allow the school director and teachers to examine whether they
have been effective in support children who are at high risk for performing poorly or dropping out
and develop strategies to support them, and identify if there were other children who they did not
identify through the system who dropped out. Schools currently use the SMIS to identify these
groups. Especially as the MOE is considering scaling up SMIS nationally, it is critical to be able
to advise the MOE on how the scale-up should proceed and what support schools need in the
process of implementing SMIS.

viii
CHAPTER 1 – Introduction
The Education Section of UNICEF’s Programme Division introduced the Child Friendly Schools (CFS)
1
framework for schools that “serve the whole child” in 1999. Today, the CFS initiative is UNICEF’s
flagship education programme, and UNICEF supports implementation of the CFS framework in 95
2
countries and promotes it at the global and regional levels. This chapter introduces the first global
evaluation of CFS. It contains three sections. The first describes CFS and its evolution and presents a
conceptual model of CFS that was developed for and guided this evaluation. The second describes the
evaluation approach and methodology. The third provides an overview of the report.

1.1 Background
UNICEF grounded the CFS framework in the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child’s principles of
children’s rights, as well as other international human rights instruments and international declarations
such as the Declaration of Education for All (1990). These principles emphasize the right of all children to
receive free and compulsory education in settings that encourage enrolment and attendance; institute
discipline humanely and fairly; develop the personality, talents and abilities of students to their fullest
potential; respect children’s human rights and fundamental freedoms; respect and encourage the child’s
own cultural identity, language and values, as well as the national culture and values of the country where
the child is living; and prepare the child to live as a free, responsible individual who is respectful of other
persons and the natural environment (Chabbot, 2004).

Three other inputs shaped the early development of CFS. The first was effective school research, which
emphasized the importance of school factors for disadvantaged students. The second was the World
Health Organization’s mental health promotion initiatives, which focus on the importance of
connectedness, caring and access to support. The third was UNICEF’s interest in child-, family-, and
community-centred approaches to school improvement. UNICEF envisions and promotes CFS models
not as abstract concepts or a rigid blueprint but rather as ‘pathways towards quality’ in education that
reflect three key, and interrelated, principles derived from the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNICEF, in press):
 Child-centredness: Central to all decision-making in education is safeguarding the interest of the
child.
 Democratic participation: As rights holders, children and those who facilitate their rights should
have a say in the form and substance of their education.
 Inclusiveness: All children have a right to education. Access to education is not a privilege that
society grants to children; it is a duty that society fulfils to all children.

1
The Chabbott (2004) desk review, in which she reviewed earlier documents and interviewed key personnel, provides the base for
these historical observations.
2
CFS is implemented in 95 countries, one of which is identified as the Pacific Region, which consists of 13 independent island
countries and one territory under New Zealand administration (Tokelau).

1
Table 1 Child-friendly school principles and features
Principle Features of a child-friendly school derived from principle

Child-centredness  Child-centred pedagogy in which children are active participants,

provided by reflective practitioners
 Healthy, safe and protective learning environment provided through
appropriate architecture, services, policies and action
Democratic  Children, families and communities are active participants in school
participation decision-making
 Strong links among home, school and community
 Policies and services support fairness, non-discrimination and
participation
Inclusiveness  Child-seeking
 Inclusive and welcoming for all students
 Gender-sensitive and girl-friendly
 Policies and services encourage attendance and retention

UNICEF anticipates that CFS will evolve and move towards quality education through the application of
these principles, and although presented separately, the three principles are complementary, interactive,
and to some degree overlapping. It is anticipated that when schools implement one principle they will
inevitably touch on and begin to apply another. Democratic participation provides an example:
safeguarding the interests of the child (child-centredness) through child-centred pedagogy and a focus on
the needs of the whole child should be enhanced both by the active participation of children in their
learning and well-being and by the participation by families and communities to provide necessary
supports. Similarly, being inclusive of all children and seeking out children should be enhanced by child-
centredness and the active participation of students, families and the community.

Figure 1 presents a conceptual framework of CFS models. This framework was developed for and guided
this evaluation. It shows how the application of the three principles should lead to quality education and
positive student outcomes.3 Reflecting the principle of inclusiveness, schools are accessible and
welcoming to all children and seek out children. Within a school, child-centred pedagogical approaches
are implemented in a healthy, safe and protective learning environment that encourages the democratic
participation of children, parents and the community. Together, these lead to children being safe and
included, engaged and challenged, and supported, all of which are important outcomes because children
are, in turn, more likely to learn and stay in school. This dynamic leads to students having greater
opportunity to learn and succeed in life. It also leads to reduced dropout rates because students and their
families see the value of school. Moreover, successful schools are viewed positively by the community
and this improved reputation leads to greater demand.

3
While it is grounded in UNICEF’s theory of action, it is also grounded in empirical research that emphasized the importance of
providing students, teachers and families with the supports necessary to address barriers to participation and learning and to build
conditions for learning and development (e.g., Battistich & Horn, 1997; Christenson & Thurlow, 2004; Greenberg et al., 2003;
Hamre & Pienta, 2003; Osher, Dwyer & Jimerson, 2006; Osher et al., 2007; Osher & Kendziora in Press; Osterman, 2000; Slap, Lot,
Huang, Daniyam, Zink & Succop, 2003; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000; Wentzel & Wigfield, 1998).

2
Figure 1 CFS Model of Change

Schools are situated in a broader context than is depicted in this figure. National and local policies,
advocacy efforts and multi-sectoral approaches will determine to varying degrees the availability and
allocation of resources and school-level policies and practice. Another influence is the efforts of UNICEF,
the government and other partners such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society
organizations to promote and support schools. Finally, a country’s economic health, demographic profile
and political situation, and whether a country has recently experienced a natural disaster or political
conflict will necessarily influence how the principles are implemented and realized.

1.2 A History of Child Friendly Schools in Thailand

As the country that hosted the 1990 signing of the Declaration on Education for All agreement (EFA),
Thailand has been at the forefront of supporting child rights and an early developer and proponent of the
Child Friendly Schools (CFS) model. In addition to UNICEF, the partners in the early effort to develop and
implement CFS in Thailand included the Office of National Primary Education Commission (in association
with Save/USA), Institute of Nutrition/Mahidol University, Life Skills Development Foundation, and Arts
and Cultural Institute for Development (Bernard, 2003).

Complementing EFA, UNICEF Thailand grounded the CFS framework in the principles of children’s rights
espoused by the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as other international human rights
instruments. The principles collectively emphasize the right of all children to receive free and compulsory
education in settings that encourage enrolment and attendance; institute discipline humanely and fairly;
develop the personality, talents, and abilities of students to their fullest potential; respect children’s human
rights and fundamental freedoms; respect and encourage the child’s own cultural identity, language, and
values, as well as the national culture and values of the country where the child is living; and prepare the
child to live as a free, responsible individual who is respectful of other people and the natural environment
(UNICEF, 2009).

3
In Thailand, as in much of the East Asia Pacific Region (EAPR) of UNICEF, this orientation contributed to
a five-dimensional model of child friendliness described in the 2004 EAPR report (UNICEF Bangkok,
2004). According to the report, child-friendly schools strive to be:
1. Proactively inclusive, seeking out and enabling participation of all children and especially those
who are different ethnically, culturally, socio-economically and in terms of ability;
2. Healthy and safe for, and protective of, children’s emotional, psychological and physical well-
being;
3. Effective academically and relevant to children’s needs for life and livelihood knowledge and
skills;
4. Gender-responsive in creating environments and capacities fostering equality; and
5. Actively engaged with, and enabling of, student, family and community participation in all aspects
of school policy, management and support to children.

In contrast to the rest of EAPR, within Thailand, a rights-based framework for education was sometimes
identified as a distinct goal from inclusiveness. For over a decade, UNICEF Thailand and the Ministry of
Education (MOE) have implemented activities in CFS relating to each of these goals. CFS activities are
summarized below under each goal.

1.2.1 CFS activities to date

Creating learning environments that are proactively inclusive, safe and welcoming: The development of
the School Management Information System (SMIS) was key in promoting inclusiveness. SMIS is a
database that allows schools to monitor student development and tailor interventions towards the unique
needs of each student, and is critical to meeting its inclusiveness goals. During the training on SMIS
provided by the Education Service Area Offices (EASO), teachers at the school input student data,
including academic achievement data and family characteristics. The program then helps the school
identify high-risk students, which in turn allows teachers and school directors to target special support to
these students.

Making schools healthy and protective of children’s emotional and psychological well-being: Special
groups of children needing support include those impacted by HIV/AIDS, the disabled, and children
without Thai citizenship. UNICEF Thailand has also supported interventions to improve health and safety
in CFS schools, such as improving sanitation through provision of physical infrastructure. In addition,
monitoring of children’s health is a major focus of the SMIS described above. The School Self-
Assessment (SSA), which serves to raise stakeholder awareness about children’s rights and galvanize
and unify stakeholder actions, also includes a focus on student health.4

Making schools academically effective: CFS has emphasized the development of student portfolios, with
an aim to bring about reflective and active learning. CFS has also focused on making learning more
relevant through a focus on life skills and vocational learning. With the decline in HIV prevalence in
Thailand, life skills education has now increased its focus on children’s psycho-social development and
acquisition of specific livelihood skills. In addition, teachers are also sensitized regarding the harm
surrounding corporal punishment, which is culturally engrained, as evidenced in a common Thai proverb:
‘If we love our children, we need to hit them to punish them’ (UNICEF Education Section, 2008).

Fostering gender equality in schools: As recently as 2008, UNICEF Thailand has supported reviews of
national curricula and learning materials along with sensitization training to identify and address instances
where negative gender norms and stereotypes still exist in curricula and learning materials. This work
has augmented other efforts supported in CFS such as the SMIS, the SSA, and life skills curricula that
address gender.

4
As part of the SSA, after being sensitized about child-rights contained in the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child and the
CFS model as a practical interpretation of that declaration, teachers, students and community members independently identify
criteria to guide the SSA. The EASO then provides external criteria consisting of 23 items. After correlating the school-generated
and external criteria, students, teachers and the community independently identify areas of focus for the SSA. Collectively, the
group identifies discrepancies among the 3 stakeholder groups; prioritizes 10 action areas from these lists; and conducts a basic
feasibility assessment which results in a rank- ordered list. From then on, teachers and school directors use this list when
developing the school’s improvement plan.

4
Involving of communities in all aspects of schooling: Active community participation is at the heart of
Thailand’s CFS model. Community involvement is initially facilitated through the SSA and through the
participatory approach taken to creating school development plans, a key outcome stemming from the
SSA process. Parents and community members regularly participate in school meetings, support
teachers in the classroom by providing input on vocational and life skills, and support school activities
centred around infrastructure improvement.

1.2.2 Taking CFS to scale

After more than a decade of experience with CFS, UNICEF and the MOE have successfully brought CFS
to scale. In 2008, UNICEF estimated that there were 1,400 CFS schools in 25 priority districts.
Simultaneously, the MOE has successfully enacted another education initiative – the establishment of
1,788 Lab Schools in all districts. Although different in name, Lab Schools share the same underlying
principles of CFS. The educational supervisors for these two related initiatives are distinct, however, and
UNICEF is seeking to ensure through training and policy dialogue that Lab School supervisors receive
sufficient training to support Lab Schools in operationalizing CFS principles.

Looking to the future, the challenge is to provide continued support to the large number of CFS schools
and Lab Schools in the country while reaching those schools not yet a part of either CFS initiative.
UNICEF has indicated that in the next two years, 25 districts will continue to remain the top priority. Over
the next five years, select CFS schools within these districts will serve as demonstration schools as the
Ministry of Education aims to scale up the initiative to ensure that Thailand is child friendly in practice and
not in name only.

1.3 Global Evaluation of CFS

UNICEF contracted with AIR in January 2008 to conduct a global evaluation of the CFS initiative. The
evaluation was expected to serve as a baseline assessment that would examine the effectiveness of
UNICEF’s CFS programming efforts in the areas of inclusiveness, pedagogy, architecture and services,
participation and governance, and systemic management. The evaluation was also intended to provide
some information regarding the cost of intervention. Thailand was selected as one of the six countries for
this global evaluation for several reasons, including the fact that it provided an opportunity to assess the
effectiveness of long-term implementation of CFS. For over a decade, UNICEF Thailand and the Ministry
of Education have jointly implemented CFS programming in schools throughout the country. This report is
based upon data collected for AIR’s global evaluation (AIR, 2009).

The global evaluation utilized mixed methods to describe how CFS models were implemented in multiple
contexts (Guyana, Nigeria, Nicaragua, Philippines, South Africa, and Thailand) to provide data on the
extent to which the key principles of CFS – child-centredness, inclusiveness, and democratic participation
– were being realized, and to provide a baseline and create tools to monitor future progress. Moreover,
the global evaluation combined quantitative, qualitative, and visual data from diverse sources, which
permitted the triangulation of data from multiple sources to test the consistency of findings obtained from
different stakeholders. In addition, the evaluation was designed to describe how CFS models have been
implemented in multiple contexts to provide data on the extent to which the key principles of CFS are
being realized, to identify challenges, and to provide a baseline and create tools to monitor future
progress.

This report is based on the data collected for the global evaluation, the methodology of which featured
site visits to six countries. The global evaluation also drew on AIR’s experience with Child Friendly
Schools through other projects with UNICEF to evaluate and support social and emotional learning in
Child Friendly Schools, and focused on the range of CFS schools within each country so that schools
were selected to represent differences in locality, duration of implementation, and demography. The
purpose of this report is to present an evaluation of the effectiveness of UNICEF CFS intervention efforts
in Thailand.

5
CHAPTER 2 – Evaluation of CFS in Thailand
For over a decade, UNICEF Thailand and the Ministry of Education have jointly implemented CFS in
schools throughout the country. This report is based upon data collected for the global evaluation of CFS
(AIR, 2009). Thailand was selected as one of the six countries for this global evaluation because it
provided an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of long-term implementation of CFS. For this report,
evaluation questions and results have been organized across the five components of Child Friendly
Schools in Thailand – that is, inclusiveness for all students; effective and relevant academics; healthy,
safe, and protective learning environments; responsiveness to gender-related issues; and active
engagement with students, families, and communities.

The core research questions addressed in this report are as follows:

1. To what extent children has CFS in Thailand created a rights-based and inclusive environment in
schools?
2. To what extent has CFS in Thailand achieved an effective and high-quality learning environment?
3. To what extent has CFS in Thailand created a health-promoting and health-seeking environment
(i.e., achieved access to safe drinking water, good school hygiene, and a clean school
environment)? To what degree are these learning environments safe, protective, and caring?
4. To what extent has CFS in Thailand created a gender-sensitive environment that promotes equity
and equality in its schools?
5. To what extent has CFS in Thailand increased the democratic participation of students, parents,
and community members, and forged meaningful linkages between schools and communities to
improve the child friendliness of its schools?
6. What are the costs associated with implementing the CFS model in Thailand?

We will conclude with a section that identifies best practices that emerged in the course of this evaluation,
and that provides recommendations to ensure the future success of such initiatives in Thailand.

2.1 Methodology
This country-specific report is based on data collected for AIR’s 2009 global evaluation (AIR, 2009). The
evaluation utilized mixed methods to describe how CFS models were implemented in multiple contexts, to
provide data on the extent to which the key principles of CFS – child-centredness, inclusiveness, and
democratic participation – were being realized, and to provide a baseline and create tools to monitor
future progress. Moreover, the evaluation combined quantitative, qualitative, and visual data from diverse
sources, which permitted the triangulation of data from multiple sources to test the consistency of findings
obtained from different stakeholders. In addition, the evaluation was designed to describe how CFS
models have been implemented in multiple contexts to provide data on the extent to which the key
principles of CFS are being realized, to identify challenges, and to provide a baseline and create tools to
monitor future progress. Key aspects of the evaluation methodology are described below.
In Thailand AIR:
 Employed site visits by teams – the data collection included one- and two-day site visits by teams
to 25 schools in the Southern and Northern regions of Thailand;
 Focused on the range of schools – schools were selected to represent the range of CFS schools
in terms of locality (urban versus rural environments) duration of implementation, and
demography;
 Employed randomization – students, teachers, and families were randomly selected for
interviews, focus groups, and/or surveys, and the classrooms to be visited were randomly
selected;
 Addressed phenomenological issues – the evaluation employed survey instruments to explore
how a representative group of students and staff experienced the school;
 Balanced sensitivity to local context and analytical uniformity by combining AIR and local site
visitors;

0
  Created and/or tailored instruments and scales to address the needs of the evaluation. AIR
customized and/or created 14 instruments and 17 reporting scales to meet the needs of the
evaluation; and
 Drew on its experience with Child Friendly Schools through other projects with UNICEF to
evaluate and support social and emotional learning in Child Friendly Schools.

2.1.1 Instruments

Multiple assessment tools were created or modified for the purposes of the global CFS evaluation. These
included a student survey (for use in grades 5 and up), teacher survey, school head survey, classroom
observation tool, school-wide observation tool (including both indoor and outdoor areas), and interview
and focus group protocols to learn more from parents, teachers, head teachers, and other key
stakeholders. In addition, school demographic and visual data (i.e., photos and video) were obtained.
See the UNICEF Child Friendly Schools Programming: Global Evaluation Final Report produced by AIR
(2009) for a more complete description of these tools. Because these tools were not designed for
Thailand specifically, items may not align exactly with the focus of CFS in Thailand. However, there was a
significant amount of data available that did allow us to address specific areas of CFS focus in Thailand
for this report.

2.1.2 Sample

The evaluators worked closely with UNICEF Thailand to obtain a sample of 25 schools (out of over 1,400
CFS schools in Thailand) that had received support from the CFS initiative. Schools were selected from
the northern regions and southern, tsunami-affected regions. Within both regions, schools were selected
based on how long they had participated in the intervention, location (region, rural/urban setting), and
community characteristics (e.g., population size, typical household income). The selected 25 schools
were located in the districts of Krabi, Phuket, Chang Mai, and Chang Rae. Eighteen schools were
located within rural communities, while the remaining seven schools were located in urban areas.

Participating schools ranged from medium-sized schools with eight classrooms in rural areas to larger
schools with over 25 classrooms. Over two-thirds of the schools in the sample (n = 16) had implemented
CFS for two or fewer years while the remaining schools (n = 9) had implemented CFS for more than two
years. Table 2 presents a summary of sample school characteristics, by region.

Table 2 Number of schools in evaluation by years of CFS implementation, region and locality
Grade Level Northern Region Southern Region Thailand
Urban Rural Urban Rural
2 years or fewer 0 4 5 7 16
Between 2 and 4 years 1 5 0 0 6
5 years or more 1 2 0 0 3
Total 2 11 5 7 25*

In each school, a maximum of 100 students and 25 teachers were randomly selected to respond to the
surveys. Each school head was asked to complete a school head survey and participate in an interview,
while two to four classrooms were randomly selected for observation. In half of the schools approximately
five teachers were randomly selected to participate in a focus group discussion, and five or more parents
were invited, with the assistance of the school head if necessary, to participate in a focus group
discussion. Where appropriate, local community leaders were also invited to participate in focus group
discussions along with parents.

Teachers were interviewed in focus groups of two to eight individuals either during lunch or recess time or
after school. Typically all teachers at the school participated in the focus group, with the exception of the
urban schools, where some teachers had to monitor school grounds while the others participated in the
focus group. Parents were also interviewed by data collectors in small group (focus group) settings. In
most cases, parents and community members were selected by the school head and were members of

1
parent-teacher councils or school management committees. Focus groups lasted approximately 45
minutes to one hour.

At all schools, students in the fifth grade and higher were given the student survey to complete. Most
primary schools only served students up to fifth grade. In these situations, random samples of fifth grade
students were selected to complete the student survey. If there were students in upper grades, they were
also asked to complete the survey. Table 3 shows the characteristics of the students who participated in
the school climate survey, by region.

Table 3 Students participating in the survey, by grade, region and gender

Grade Level Northern Region Southern Region Thailand
Female Male Female Male
Five 158 137 123 121 539
Six 150 189 136 122 597
Seven 62 83 79 66 290
Eight 37 35 66 63 201
Nine and higher 37 19 102 55 213
Total 444 463 506 427 1,840*

* 5 students did not provide information on sex

Nearly all participating school heads were male, while approximately two-thirds of sampled teachers were
female. Some regions had more experienced teachers than others. Tables 4 and 5 show the
characteristics of the teachers who participated in the school climate survey.

Table 4 Number of teacher survey participants years teaching at school by region and locality
Years teaching at school Northern Region Southern Region Thailand
Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural

Less than 2 years 6 21 24 10 30 31

3 to 5 years 6 36 22 17 28 53
6 to 10 years 10 31 16 17 26 48
11 to 15 years 3 18 8 15 11 33
More than 15 years 5 33 26 36 31 69
Total participants 30 139 96 95 126 234

* 6 teachers did not provide information on years teaching at school

Table 5 Number of teacher survey participants community residence by region and gender
Northern Region Southern Region Total Thailand
Female Male Female Male Female Male
Live in school community 54 10 63 24 117 34
Do not live in school community 84 21 81 25 165 46
Total 138 31 144 49 282 80

* 4 teachers did not provide information on community residence

Most of the school heads who participated in this evaluation were fairly new to that role in their respective
schools. Tables 6 through 9 present the characteristics of the participating school heads, by region.

2
Table 6 School head years working in any position at this school by region
Years working in school Northern Region Southern Region Thailand
Less than 2 years 2 2 4
3 to 5 years 4 3 7
6 to 10 years 5 4 9
11 to 15 years 1 2 3
More than 15 years 0 1 1
Unknown 1 -- 1
Total Participants 13 12 25

Table 7 School head years working as the head at this school by region
Years working as school head Northern Region Southern Region Thailand
Less than 2 years 2 3 5
3 to 5 years 3 4 7
6 to 10 years 5 3 8
11 to 15 years 2 2 4
Unknown 1 -- 1

Table 8 Number of school heads by gender and region

Gender Northern Region Southern Region Total Thailand
Female 0 1 1
Male 12 11 23
Unknown 1 -- 1

Table 9 Community residence of school head by region

Northern Region Southern Region Total Thailand
Live in community 3 3 6
Does not live in community 9 9 18
Unknown 1 -- 1

Individual interviews were also completed with five key informants from across six Ministry bureaus and
community-based advocacy organizations that UNICEF had identified as influential and highly involved in
the CFS initiative. These were Mae Ai Legal Assistance Clinic, UNICEF Thailand, Office of the Basic
Education Commission (OBEC), Bureau of Policy and Planning, Bureau of Academic Affairs and
Educational Standards, and the Bureau for Innovative Development in Education.

2.2 Data Collection

Field data collection took place in June and July of 2008, 2008. The evaluation team consisted of 10
local data collectors who conducted surveys, interviews, and focus groups in the 25 participating schools
in Krabi, Phuket, Chang Mai, and Chang Rae regions, under the guidance and supervision of two
evaluators from AIR. Local data collectors had experience collecting data for development projects. In
addition, they were trained in person by the AIR staff at the UNICEF Bangkok office. The pairing of AIR
evaluators with local data collectors provided a balanced sensitivity to the local context.

Data collection commenced with training, the agenda of which provided an explanation of Child Friendly
Schools, a description of and rationale for the evaluation, orientation to the instruments, interview
techniques, review of the site visit protocol and data collection schedule, and proper procedures for the
protection of human subjects. Training techniques included role-playing on conducting interviews and

3
school and classroom observations. Training ensured consistency among the data collectors. Data
collection teams held daily debriefing meetings to address questions or concerns among the data
collectors and provided an additional consistency check.

There were two types of site visits: regular and intensive. Regular visits included collecting data from
school records; school and classroom observations; the student, teacher, and school head surveys, and
an abridged school head interview. The intensive site visits also included extensive qualitative data
gathering, including focus group discussions with teachers, parents and community members, and a
detailed interview with the school head. The typical duration of a regular visit was three and a half to four
hours, whereas an intensive visit usually lasted at least five hours. Each day, data collectors organized
themselves into two teams consisting of two or three individuals. The two-person team conducted the
regular visits while the three-person team conducted the intensive visit. AIR evaluators accompanied both
data collection teams.

At the beginning of the school visit, the data collection team would meet with the school head or head
teacher to introduce themselves, explain the purpose of the global evaluation and the school visit, and
describe the specific evaluation activities that were planned for the day. The goal of this discussion was to
work with school staff to set a timeline for evaluation activities that would cause minimum disruption to
teaching and learning activities. Also, school staff needed time to arrange for focus group discussions
with parents and local community members. Typically, data collectors administered the student survey
first. To ensure adequate comprehension of survey questions among students who might be poor
readers, data collectors read each survey item aloud and then gave students time to mark their
responses on their survey sheets. Then, data collectors typically conducted school and classroom
observations (including video and photograph documentation), followed by a brief lunch break with the
school staff. In intensive school visits, the afternoon was used to conduct focus groups with parents and
teachers, and conclude with the visit with the school head interview.5 Finally, daily debriefings among the
entire data collection team proved to be a useful way to share experiences and best practices, and to
address questions or concerns among the data collectors.

Evaluators also conducted interviews with MOE (and other government) officials, UNICEF, and advocacy
groups to form a more comprehensive understanding of the CFS initiative in Thailand.6 For these
interviews, data collectors relied upon an unstructured format and based their questions on each
informant’s area of expertise and knowledge of the CFS initiative.

2.3 Limitations
There are several limitations to the approach of this evaluation. First, because of the logistical and time
constraints for field data collection, it was not possible to visit child-friendly schools in every region of
Thailand. As a result, the sample was only based upon schools located in four districts in the Northern
and Southern regions of Thailand: Krabi, Phuket, Chang Mai, and Chang Rae. Thus, the sample did not
include schools in other regions of the country, which may have other demographic characteristics.
Second, some of the findings presented in this report are generated from self-report survey data gathered
from students, teachers, and school heads. Overreliance on self-report data raises concerns about the
reliability and validity of data due to systematic response distortions by respondents, or the tendency for
respondents to produce what they perceive to be socially desirable responses. However, AIR was able to
mitigate this possibility through cross-verification, or triangulation, of data through multiple data sources,
usage of quantitative and qualitative data gathering methods, and reliance on both direct observation and
self-report data to create a comprehensive picture of CFS programming in Thailand’s schools. Finally,
due to the absence of a comparison sample of schools where CFS was not implemented, it was difficult
to assess the unique impact of CFS programming on students attending Child Friendly schools in
comparison to their peers who received alternative programming strategies or attended schools without
receiving any intervention.

5
All data collectors had access to digital voice recorders to record all interviews and focus groups. This was done to ensure
reliability of the note taking, which improved the quality of the data for the qualitative analysis.
6
UNICEF Thailand organized the one-on-one interviews with the key informants.

4
CHAPTER 3 – Findings: The State of Child Friendly Schools in
Thailand
3.1 Rights-based and inclusive school environments
In this section the evaluation addresses the question about the extent to which CFS in Thailand has
proactively ensured that children of all ethnicities, culture, citizenship, ability, and socioeconomic status
have access to and are participating in education. A school is considered inclusive if it actively seeks out
children who are currently excluded from school and gets them enrolled, and then strives to provide a
quality education that is affordable and accessible, that does not exclude, discriminate, or otherwise
create bias based on differences, and that respects diversity and responds to the needs of children with
differing circumstances. The following issues are addressed, using both survey data collected from
students, teachers, and school heads as well as interview data with school heads, teachers, and parents
alongside classroom and school observation data:
 Whether school heads, teachers, and parents value inclusiveness of all children, and reach
out to and be inclusive of all children;
 Whether the school environment and policies are such that all students are accommodated
and provided equal opportunities; and
 The challenges for schools and communities to ensure inclusion for all children.

3.1.1 Do school heads, teachers, and parents value inclusiveness of all children, and reach out
to and include all children?
School heads, teachers, and parents who value inclusiveness of all children will more likely reach out to
and be inclusive of all children. In Thailand, schools implementing the CFS approach had school
directors, teachers, and parents express a commitment to inclusiveness, view inclusiveness as a key
element of the CFS model, and make efforts to include, encourage, and support all students, regardless
of background. School heads talked about inclusiveness as a core principle of the CFS model and cited
examples of measures taken to be inclusive. When asked what a child-friendly school is, answers often
hinged on inclusiveness. For example, as one school head stated,

School services should cover all targets of population, without discrimination on gender and religion
. . . All students are able to participate [in] all school/classroom activities as they need regardless of
gender and religion (School Head 22).

Another school head stated that his primary obligation is to make this school a home for students who
were orphans from the tsunami who are considered among the most disadvantaged in Thailand
Identifying out-of-school youth is a critical first step in supporting inclusiveness. All school heads reported
that they make direct contact with families when children drop out of school or are at risk of dropping out
to encourage the child’s continued enrolment. This support to those at risk is shown in a variety of ways.
For example, one school head recognizes the challenges of having migrant children who learn Thai as
their second language and supports through home visits, scholarships, medical care, and other support.
Also, he hires extra teachers for some classes. Another school tried hard to recruit students, but two
students remain out of school despite community members and teachers “marketing” the benefits of an
education (School Head 20).

In Thailand, 92 percent of school heads in schools visited indicated that they or their teachers go out into
the community to enrol children who are minorities, living in poverty, or at risk for poor education
outcomes. In many schools this is described as a systematic process to actively seek out children.

To ensure inclusiveness the director needs to pretty much knock on every door and talk to the
parents . . . . The method of increasing student enrolment is first conducting a survey at each
orange plantation to see how many kids should attend our school for the upcoming year. Then the
director and teachers follow up by talking with the parents to convince them to send their kids to
school. [This school head talks about the challenge of convincing parents of migrant workers or
families that live near the border and are fearful that they will be deported] (School Head 11).

5
However, 68 percent of school heads surveyed in this evaluation say staff from their schools go out into
the community to encourage the enrolment of children with disabilities. Schools that do include children
with disabilities try to incorporate and support them as best as possible. For example, classroom
observations revealed a teacher who set the desk of a girl with a disability close to hers so that she could
pay extra attention to this student easily. Another school has a special teaching program, and provides
support for autistic students and students with learning disabilities (School Head 7). A third school head
talked about how the school uses a multi-grade system for learning-disabled students, which he deemed
effective as it helps students remain in school (School Head 9).

Schools appear to be more successful at providing inclusive classroom environments where teachers
demonstrate similar expectations for and equal treatment of students regardless of background. In
Thailand, 80 percent of classrooms were deemed excellent in terms of being inclusive. Teachers in
Thailand appeared to appreciate that inclusiveness is a critical element of a CFS. When surveyed, 98
percent of teachers felt that this school was a welcoming place for all types of children. As one teacher
stated, “The school tried to be open for all types of students enrolling to study in this school because it
gives chances for children to access education is a basic child right” (Teachers 22). Examples were cited
of home visits made by teachers, extra study sessions, and support to those in need of extra assistance.

Parents shared how in some cases there used to be a lot of discrimination and bullying of students of
non-Thai origin who were often branded as stupid, and expressed appreciation that teachers no longer
discriminate against students and do ensure that students who could not read Thai well were gaining the
necessary skills (Parents 7). Other parents expressed appreciation for school programs that included
scholarships and free lunches for disadvantaged students (Parents 20) and for increased access to
education services for minority students (Parents 16).

As these interviews show, many Thai schools proactively support inclusiveness by identifying children
who should be enrolled, providing services and resources to enable children to enrol, and providing
services and resources to encourage children to stay in school.

3.1.2 Do school environments and policies accommodate all students and provide equal
opportunities?
School heads are responsible for leading the schools’ efforts to be inclusive and can reconsider and re-
shape (as necessary) the schools’ policies to promote inclusiveness and safety. However, teachers can
also speak to the degree of respect and inclusiveness among staff. An inclusive school environment is
demonstrated in Photograph 1 below.
Photograph 1 Inclusion Within a Thai Canteen

Schools need to first be considered safe. As

one school head describes, “Basically the
school needs to provide a safe environment
in the school in order to support the
confidence of students to come to school”
(School Head 22).
Schools also need to actively foster that
environment of safety.
The whole school is designated as the
safety zone and appointed teachers will
be in some areas of the school to ensure
the safety of children at all times.
Classrooms are maintained to provide
safety and comfort for all students to
study (Teachers 25).

6
Furthermore, schools that celebrate diversity also create an environment of respect and inclusion.
Ensuring the right policies are in place is critical to help guide schools and administrators to practice
inclusiveness. When surveyed, 96 percent of school heads reported that their school had a written policy
on educating all students. One school head emphasized that

…even in this school, some students come from minority groups but we cannot discriminate them
from majority, otherwise, it may be create some social issues. To comply with National Education
Act, school’s provision must rely on non-discrimination basis and aim at all individual to receive
learning opportunities as one of member of the society (School Head 20).

In Thailand, 100 percent of the school heads say that their school teaches students about the history,
culture, and traditions of race, ethnicity, gender, language, disability, or religion. For example, one school
supports and promotes opportunities for ethnic minority students and any students “to demonstrate their
talents and competencies in public through activities of school and community… such as hill tribe
students to perform their folk music instruments and folk dances” (Parents 01).

The CFS global evaluation (AIR, 2009) reported, according to school heads, that policies are in place to
engender a safe and respectful climate. The Safe Inclusive Respectful Climate (SIRC) scale for school
directors focused more on policy than the scales for teachers and students. The SIRC scale measures
the extent to which the school provides an environment in which students are physically safe, the extent
to which all students are given equal access to and opportunity to engage in school activities, academics,
and physical activity; and the extent to which the school has policies and procedures in place to support a
respectful climate. Twenty-seven percent of the teachers perceived the school as excellent in terms of the
SIRC, while 10 percent of the teachers indicated that this was an area that needed improvement (see
Figure 2).
Figure 2 Safe, Inclusive, and Respectful Climate: Teacher Reports

100 90
80
80
Percentage of Students

69
60
60 56
46 46 43
40
27
20 23
20 13 10
7 8
2
0
Nigeria South Africa Philippines Thailand Guyana Nicaragua

Needs Improvement Satisfactory Excellent

Needs Improvement: Teachers perceive their school environment to be unsafe, disrespectful, and perhaps even hostile or
crime-ridden. According to teachers, teachers and students do not support or trust each other and crime in the local
community often pervades the school environment. Further, teachers do not believe that all students have equal
opportunities to succeed at the school.
Satisfactory: Teachers perceive the school to have a highly safe environment for students, without any serious problems
with bullying or crime and violence. Teachers report their relationships with students are trusting and respectful and that
students are helpful or supportive with other students. Further, teachers perceive the school to have a welcoming
environment for all children.
Excellent : Teachers perceive the school to have a highly safe environment for students, without any problems with
bullying, crime, or violence either in the school or in the surrounding community. Further, the school is perceived by
teachers to be free of biases against children who are at risk (e.g., children with disabilities). Teachers also feel that the
school has highly respectful, supportive, and trusting relationships among teachers, as well as between students and
teachers.

7
When teachers were asked if they feel safe at their school, 96 percent responded positively, and 98
percent felt the school was a welcoming place for all children. Although the perceptions of school heads
and teachers were more positive than those of students, 86 percent of students reported feeling that their
school environment is a welcoming and positive one for all students. Parents also cited examples of how
they and their children were included, despite differences. For example, immigrant workers from Myanmar
and Laos who live and work in north-eastern Thailand reported that the school involved them in activities
such as reforestation and training as much as it did other local Thai families.

Table 10 below presents the percentage of students by region, locality and years of CFS implementation
who reported that families “like theirs” were involved in making decisions that affect the school. As the
table illustrates, between 50-64 percent of students reported that families like their own were involved in
school-level decision making activities.

Table 10 Students reporting high levels of family involvement in school decision-making

Years of CFS implementation Northern Region Southern Region Total Thailand
Urban Rural Urban Rural

1 year or less - 78.9 - 63.1 64.1

2–3 68.3 56.2 57.5 55.4 57.7
4–5 - 49.6 - - 49.6
6 or more 81.5 50.0 - - 55.0

Next, we identified the six schools that students perceived as engaging their families in the schools –
schools where students reported the highest level of agreement with the statement families like mine are
involved in making decisions that affect this school. We wanted to know if schools with a higher
percentage of students feeling that their families were welcome to participate in decision-making activities
were places where students felt welcome. We compared student feelings of engagement with their
schools among those attending such schools to those attending the rest of the schools on two items: I
look forward to coming to school, and I want to complete secondary school.7 As shown in Figure 3 below,
students who attend schools with greater perceived levels of parent involvement (more rights-based)
were significantly more likely to state that that the school was welcoming, that they looked forward to
coming to school and that they wanted to complete secondary school when compared with students who
attend the other schools in the sample.8

Figure 3 An Example of the Impact of Democratic Participation: Do Students at More Rights-Based

Schools Perceive Their School Environments to be More Engaging, Enjoyable, and Welcoming?

92% 92% 95%

100%
79%
80%

60%
Less Rights
40% Based

20% More Rights

Based
0%
Look Forward to School Want to Complete Secondary School

7
School connectedness was captured by the item This school is a welcoming place for all kinds of students, while academic
engagement was captured by the items I look forward to coming to school and I want to complete secondary school.
8
See Appendix F for statistical details for tests of significance.

8
School observations provide yet another perspective on the level of inclusion provided by schools for
students and families of all backgrounds. For example:
 88 percent of the schools had a welcoming appearance, which helped foster inclusion of children
who otherwise might not feel welcome at school;
 98 percent of the schools showed posters, artwork or maps and 84 percent used children’s work,
making the room inviting more inviting;
 100 percent of the teachers were seen as interacting respectfully with learners;
 89 percent of teachers were seen adapting lessons for students with special learning needs; and
 100 percent of classes observed were ones where the majority of students participated in
classroom activities (i.e., patterns of non-participation were not observed).
The Inclusive School Environment and Climate scale (ISEC) measures the extent to which biases exist
against a particular group of students. Data on this measure were collected through a classroom during
the global evaluation Thailand ranked second, with 80 percent of the classrooms deemed excellent in
demonstrating equality in attention to and support for all learners. The remaining 20 percent were labelled
satisfactory (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 Inclusive Classroom Climate: Classroom Observations

100 90
80
80
Percentage of Students

69
60 56
60
46 46 43
40
27 23
20
20 13 10
7 8
2
0
Nigeria South Africa Philippines Thailand Guyana Nicaragua

Needs Improvement Satisfactory Excellent

Needs Improvement: Teachers display an obvious bias against a particular group of students, for example male or female
students, students with disabilities, or students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Moreover, students with disabilities are not
given the appropriate guidance or support they need to succeed in the classroom.
Satisfactory: Teachers often encourage and support struggling students. Teachers usually pay similar amounts of attention to
male and female students, as well as students from disadvantaged backgrounds or minority groups.
Excellent: Teachers demonstrate similarly high expectations for both male and female students, and give both groups of
students consistently equal attention. Regardless of students’ race, ethnicity, language, or other socio-demographic
characteristic, teachers usually provide each student with equal guidance, time, and attention. Children who have special
learning needs receive the necessary encouragement and guidance from teachers.

This environment of inclusion is summed up by one teacher who taught in a school that has 100 percent
ethnic minority students, including hill tribes (Aka, Lesaw or Lahu, Hmong, Yao, and Mien) and ethnic
minorities (Shan or Tai Yai, and Chinese):

All teachers give a lot of effort in helping them to feel comfortable to study in this school. They said
that they try to develop teaching methods and school activities that support their learning abilities,
in particular Thai teaching (Teachers 4).

9
Children with disabilities are often excluded from schools, especially in areas where resources are
constrained. Although 100 percent of school heads say that “students with disabilities are offered equal
opportunities to participate in school activities,” additional evidence conflicts with this statement. Capacity
to identify and support disabled learners at the school is low, with only 28 percent of school heads
indicating they have teachers who have been specially trained to work with students with disabilities. So
while 88 percent say that their schools screen students for learning disabilities, such as difficulty with
reading and mathematics, this screening only provides a label, since few schools have trained staff.
However, some schools with proper training have been successful helping learners with severe learning
disabilities. Cultivating an inclusive environment begins with creating an environment that is welcoming to
and prepared for students with disabilities. For example:

There is an autistic student in the level of primary one. Her mother comes to school every week in
order to take care of her child, and meet teachers and classmates of her child. After, her autistic
child studies in this school for a while, her child can tell others that she wants to go to toilet, and
learn how to use toilet even though her child still refuses to talk (Parents 1).

Efforts to build capacity to support special needs children have the potential to pay large dividends.
Thailand has built a culture of inclusion in school, and ensuring that teachers can address and support
the needs of children will ensure those that are frequently the most marginalized and neglected by the
education system can be properly supported and thrive.

Although this observation is limited to students with physical disabilities, Thailand’s school facilities are
considered excellent overall in terms of accessibility. More than 90 percent of the schools had latrines
and sinks that were accessible to students with disabilities, and only 13 percent of the sample schools
had school buildings, classrooms, and play areas that were not accessible to students with physical
disabilities.

In Thailand, the development of the School Management Information System (SMIS), a tool seen as
critical to meeting its inclusiveness goals, has been supported under the CFS initiative. Schools monitor a
student’s development and tailor interventions for the unique needs of each student through SMIS. CFS
uses training on SMIS provided by Education Area Support Offices (EASOs) to create awareness and
understanding of inclusion issues and to help teachers at the school input student data, including
academic achievement data and family characteristics. The program then helps the school identify high-
risk students, which in turn allows teachers and school directors to target special support to these
students, ensuring a consistent pattern of inclusion. SMIS provides a great opportunity for schools to
address the unique and special needs of children. One teacher explains how the system has helped the
school:

The school does home visiting, and uses student data support system (SMIS) of all students, and
provides scholarships to students who face poverty problem. Furthermore, the school tries to solve
malnutrition problem among students, school feeding program, in particular milk feeding and lunch
feeding, carries out in the school. For life skill education, teachers also provide counselling for their
students, and the school tries to use Buddhism theory to improve moral quality of students
(Teachers 4).

The use of information in SMIS is an area for CFS to continue to prioritize and provide training in to help
support children with special needs.

3.1.3 What are challenges to inclusion of all children?

School heads, teachers, and parents valued inclusiveness and view it as a key element of the CFS
model. They also felt that their schools were inclusive in many ways. However, they also acknowledged
some challenges and barriers, particularly around serving children with disabilities and other vulnerable
groups. Some school heads described accessibility of physical structures to students with physical
disabilities as a challenge, but this was never identified as a barrier to serving these students. For
example, in one school “the whole class uses a downstairs classroom in order to create accessibility to
their disabled friend to the classroom” (School Head 25).

10
Moreover, it was not always evident whether students with disabilities were enrolled or were not present
in the school due to absenteeism or enrolment in a special school. When students with disabilities were
not observed and site visitors probed, responses such as the following were elicited: “There are some
children with disabilities in the area and the school provides a budget for toys for these children and
teachers go to their home to teach them” (Parents 08). While supportive of students who are unable to
access or consistently attend school, this does not provide equal learning opportunity for all learners.

A second barrier faced by students is related to transportation of students to school, an issue common
across remote or rural schools. Student survey data also suggest that some students perceive threats to
their personal safety as they travel to and from school – 26 percent of students did not feel safe walking
to or from school. About 11 percent of students reported often staying home from school because they
were worried about their safety either on their way to school or once at school. In fact, 13 percent of
students reported not feeling safe at their school.
Third, Thailand’s schools serve children with diverse cultural and language backgrounds and from
impoverished families, which often presents a significant challenge to teachers and other school staff.
The challenges of serving children with different home languages than the language of instruction arose
in many interviews with school heads, teachers, and parents in Thailand, as well as the surveys
administered to students. School heads, teachers, and parents spoke about the challenges of serving “hill
tribe” children (in northern Thailand), displaced children, and “sea gypsies.” Some of these challenges
were described as revolving around language. For example, 84 percent of students surveyed noted that
teachers did not use the same language at school that students used at home.

Nearly all schools take steps to accommodate all students and provide equal opportunities for all
learners. For example, one school head described his school as open to all kinds of children, including hill
tribe children, disabled children, displaced children, and Thai students, and reported that the school also
takes care of all students: “we have large number ethnic minority students and some students who have
cleft palate problem and deaf problem, which the school gives a lot of support with their speaking and
communication” (School Head 4). As expressed by about 10 percent of school heads, this is not without
challenges, especially when overcoming language and cultural barriers. Stateless children are a
challenge in Thailand, with laws that do not support further education without citizenship and border
monitoring that can actually inhibit enrolment or attendance. Infrastructure that enables participation by all
is also important, and while many teachers have found ways to overcome those challenges (e.g., having
a physically disabled child’s class in one of the accessible classrooms), teachers need more training to
creatively and supportively address the special needs of some children.

Enrolment of out-of-school or migrant youth creates challenging conditions for teachers to provide high-
quality learning opportunities that are relevant to all students and respond to students’ unique learning
capacities. As one teacher laments, “most of the students [have] complex problems of socio-economic
and migrant families. Teachers do not know the students and parents languages. [There is] some
discrimination among the attitudes among parents from low land, and hill tribes” (Teachers 7). Children of
migrant families face additional challenges, including poverty problems, language barrier, legal status,
nationalization, and their stateless status. Teachers at one school told interviewers that their students
have to work during the weekend or after school for their survival. For example:

Some students have to spend their time searching for bamboo shoots in the forest during weekend.
Also, during harvest seasons, many students cannot join the school because they have to do
labour work in the farm for getting more income for their families. Moreover, some of students who
are displaced persons from Myanmar cannot continue their study because their parents migrate to
sell their labours in the other employment places, or come back to Myanmar. As a result, the
school dropout rate is very high (Teachers 4).

Schools attempting to educate disadvantaged children must broaden the traditional role of the school.
Although inclusive education and awareness of disability rights is an increasingly prominent theme,
schools can promote inclusiveness through community mobilization and teacher training programs. As
one school head stated:

11
 To meet inclusiveness goals, the school must first identify out-of-school youth, engage with the
community and local government to enrol those youth and develop strategies to retain these youth.
All of this requires substantial networking skills and other capacities, as well as financial resources.
Additionally, although MOE policy supports inclusion of stateless youth in schools, Ministry of
Interior policy regards the parents of stateless youth as illegal immigrants and it is not uncommon
to see police check posts near schools serving large numbers of stateless youth because they do
not have legal status (School Head 9).

One school head noted that despite some students’ long-term residence in Thailand, they do not legally
have Thai nationality. This has a detrimental impact on students’ motivation to enrol in school and
continue their education as they begin to realize the implications of not having Thai citizenship (e.g.,
ineligibility for student loans from the Thai government, school feeding programs, and enrolment in public
universities) (School Head 7).

For example, in a number of schools, observers noted that sponsored children eat in a separate cafeteria
from children who are able to purchase their lunch. This segregated approach may lead to these children
being stigmatized by their peers. One strategy that the Thai government can focus on to increase
inclusiveness will be to develop regulations that recognize the rights of every child to an education while
also addressing the (sometimes) competing priorities of the government.

In summary, most school heads, teachers, and parents believe in the principles of inclusiveness and try
to seek out children who are not in school and ensure they feel welcomed. The benefits of inclusion are
clear, as parents from one school relay:

Child rights promotion at school support students, particular Northern Thai and ethnic minority
students to feel more confident, more outstanding, and dare to speak their minds. One parent gives
example of hill tribe children, in the past; they always think that they are inferior to other Thai
students. But, now, they feel more confident to study and live in the Thai society happily. They feel
that they are significant part of the school and society. Even the school head explains how teacher
carry out home visits with all students to conduct an assessment of family problems and social
environment which may affect student learning equality (Parents 01).

And while teachers and school directors talked about the challenges around serving these populations,
they also talked about the opportunities and, in doing so, reflected on what a CFS is or should be:

. . . small children, particularly Kindergarten level to Primary One level need to have additional
teaching and learning media of all subjects, particularly Thai language teaching. Furthermore,
teachers state that Muser or so called Lahu (hill tribe) students cannot speak Thai very well. . . . All
teachers conclude that the school does not have enough teaching and learning facility to develop
their skills in reading, writing, and calculating (Teachers 09).

When the first groups of hill tribe students attended this school, they were not happy at all, due to
the stereotype the lowland people have about them . . . . And, the hill tribe dialect used by minority
groups does create a problem. So, [the school director] had to explain to both groups to give each
other sometime, be patient, give a chance for their friend to adjust, and not to let stereotype to
delude the reality. The director also had to enforce people (students and teachers) to use central
Thai as a common language, because the lowland students did not understand the hill tribe dialect
and hill tribe students did not understand the northern dialect ether. This problem happened three
years ago. Now no more problems, everyone gets along well. There have [been] more hill tribe
students who assimilate well and they became friends with lowland students (School Head 02).

[CFS] means a school that provides support to all kinds of students regardless of their race,
gender, and ethnicity. For example, in this school, Thai, hill tribe, and ethnical students can study
and receive support from teachers and the School Committee and they feel they are part of the
school (Parents 01).

3.2 Effective and high-quality learning environments

A quality learning environment promotes high-quality teaching of relevant knowledge and skills through
instruction that is adapted to meet students’ needs and that encourages children’s active engagement,

12
rather than relying on traditional rote learning approaches (AIR, 2009). When teachers encourage student
to be actively engaged in the learning process and to do well, and when students are presented with
interesting learning opportunities, they are more likely to stay in school and succeed academically
(Lockheed & Lewis, 2007). Children’s active participation in learning reflects not only a child-centred
approach to pedagogy but also the principle of democratic participation. Further, in the recently revised
manual for CFS, UNICEF describes child-centred learning as follows (UNICEF, 2009):

Learning is central to education and in line with the child-centred principle, the child as learner is
central to the process of teaching and learning. In other words, the classroom process should not
be one in which children are passive recipients of knowledge dispensed by a sole authority, the
teacher. Rather, it should be an interactive process in which children are active participants in
observing, exploring, listening, reasoning, questioning and “coming to know.” This is at the heart of
the classroom process in all Child Friendly school models, and it is critical for teachers to be well
trained in this pedagogy.
The second research question evaluates Thailand’s achievements with respect to CFS by examining the
extent to which CFS in Thailand achieved an effective and high-quality learning environment. The
question can be further subdivided into three sub-questions:
 Has the school leadership created a positive learning environment that has clear goals, a plan for
reaching those goals, and rewards students, staff and community members for achieving those
goals? Further, to what degree do students feel supported academically? What are teachers’ and
school heads’ beliefs and attitudes about effective pedagogy and examples of instructional
methods used by teachers?
 Does the school have a plan for providing training and professional development opportunities to
its staff and does the staff take advantage of those opportunities?
 What are some of the challenges associated with providing effective child-centred pedagogy?
Further, is there a good management of school resources and there is an accountability system
that includes all actors to support resource management?
Quantitative and qualitative results will be provided in each of these areas to the extent that they were
assessed as a part of this global evaluation.

3.2.1 Positive learning environments for students, staff, and community members
Within Thailand, UNICEF provides support not only at the national level of the Ministry of Education but
also to multi-district school-support entities called Education Area Support Offices (EASOs), which
provide direct training, supervision, and support to school staff. The training is usually packaged in one of
two ways: child-centred pedagogical approaches, the cornerstone to operationalizing the Child Friendly
Schools initiative, or life skills/livelihood training, which aims to more broadly complement a school’s
efforts to develop children’s intellectual capacities through an intensive focus on children’s psycho-social
development and acquisition of relevant and usable vocational training (UNICEF, 2009). Prior to
receiving support from the EASO, schools are rated in several criteria, including whether the school
supports significant numbers of marginalized children, the leadership and management capacity of the
school head, and the potential support of the surrounding community. Schools generally receive support
for one year, although all previously supported schools also continue to be recognized as CFS schools.

Student survey data were analyzed to ascertain the degree to which students felt their school
environments were student-centred and challenging. In response to a question about the use of different
child-centred instructional methods in their classrooms, over 80 percent of students surveyed reported
that they are encouraged to participate in class, work together, and share their ideas and opinions, and
that teachers do listen to explanations of students’ answers.

Students’ responses support results from classroom observations,9 which suggest that teachers are for
the most part using lessons learned from these EASO-sponsored workshops in their classrooms. They
were observed to be using child-centred teaching techniques, creating organized lesson plans to guide

9
See Appendix C for item-level frequencies on all student survey items.

13
classroom activities, and using child-friendly communication styles and disciplinary practices. For
example, observers found that teachers facilitated discussions among students in 98 percent of the
classrooms, and that teachers were successfully integrating social emotional learning with academic
learning – over 85 percent of the students reported that teachers relate information presented in the
lesson to students’ lives outside of the classroom, or to life skills or social emotional learning.10

Photograph 2 A Thai Teacher Uses Child-Centred

Techniques to Teach
When teachers and school heads were asked
what teachers do to contribute towards building
such an environment for students, their
responses indicated that they spent time
attending teacher training sessions, preparing
lesson plans, controlling budget expenditures to
align with proposed activities, participating in
school activities, and/or evaluating the CFS
project according to their work plans or self-
assessment plans.
During focus groups with teachers, Thai
teachers recalled many examples of the ways in
which students, teachers, and school leadership
worked together to provide students with unique
and relevant learning opportunities (including
livelihoods training) in a high-quality and
effective environment. Some examples are provided below:
 The school has continuously developed a local curriculum with the community participation focus
on the contents of local wisdom. The teachers have been using the local curriculum to integrate
with the subjects in their classrooms.
 The teachers help survey the needs of the students in order to relevantly support them toward
their goal achievement.
 The school has encouraged both fast learners and slow learners with different tools and media to
help them in their learning process.
 The school has created a learning centre inside the school such as a library, computer, or
internet.
 The school has encouraged the students to express their knowledge or cultural background
through art, play, and other exhibitions.
 The school provided a study tour for the students to learn about means of production in their
community, visiting places such as a palm oil plantation and palm oil factory, and a rubber
plantation and rubber latex processing factory.
 The school supported the students in conducting their survey on the process of making noodles,
bird cages, and traditional desserts.
 The school invited local businessmen and businesswomen from the community in order to
demonstrate and teach the students how to use local wisdom in different areas of living.
 The school has launched a home visit scheme in order to provide moral support to the students
and to create better understanding between school, students, and parents.
 Teachers set up a student camp to teach about child rights.

10
See Appendix E for item-level frequencies on all classroom observation items.

14
  Teachers and school staff encourage peer-to-peer learning so that advanced students can help
out less advanced students during lunch break. Some students are assigned to be truancy
inspectors.

Teacher survey data further demonstrate teachers’ commitment to more innovative pedagogical
techniques in order to create a more effective and high-quality learning environment for their students.
Indeed, teachers’ responses to statements on the teacher survey about the effectiveness of child-centred
instructional methods converge with the classroom observations and student survey data.11

For example, 96 percent of teachers surveyed reported that students have better academic achievement
in classrooms where their active participation in learning is encouraged, and only 7 percent of teachers
viewed allowing students to discuss or debate ideas in class as taking time away from learning, which is
consistent with their beliefs about the benefits of active engagement on learning outcomes. Still, 13
percent of teachers surveyed strongly agreed with the statement “classroom learning is most effective
when based primarily on lectures, with students responding when called on,” which demonstrates how
deeply engrained more traditional methods of teaching may be, and suggests a need for additional
training.

Many teachers and school heads did recognize the importance of active, student-centred teaching
techniques for improving not only the quality of their instruction but also improving student attendance,
enrolment, engagement, and learning outcomes, as demonstrated by their responses during focus group
discussions. For example, one group of teachers noted:

After the teachers started using the methods and student-centred learning process they found that
the students like this learning process very much. The students always feel confident to express
their ideas and opinions. . . . Moreover, when the students share ideas, opinions and experiences,
the teachers feel very happy hearing the students speak out what they think and how they feel.
This makes the teachers realize that their students are growing both physically and mentally
(Teachers 16).

Photograph 3 Teachers Utilize a School Library to

Support Student Learning

Figure 5 below presents teachers’ views on

whether allowing students to discuss or
debate ideas in class takes time away from
learning, as reported in teacher survey
responses. About 9 percent of teachers
believed that allowing students to discuss
or debate ideas in class takes time away
from learning, which suggests that the
majority of teachers surveyed have been
exposed to and embrace more innovative
teaching and learning techniques.

11
Item-level frequencies for teacher responses to survey items are presented in detail in Appendix B.

15
Figure 5 Percentage of Teachers Who Think that Allowing Students to Discuss or Debate Ideas in
Class Takes Time Away From Learning

18.3 % Not at all true
A little bit true
74.9 %
Mostly true
5.2 % Very true

1.6%

Teacher attitudes can affect ways in which instruction is delivered in the classroom and the degree to
which these methods are child-centred. Teacher attitudes and instructional techniques can also, in turn,
affect the degree to which students remain engaged with learning. In order to explore whether this is the
case with these schools, we identified the six schools where teachers reported the highest level of
disagreement with the statement when teachers allow students to discuss or debate ideas in class, it
takes time away from learning. We compared student feelings of how child-centred their school
environments are using three items: When students master their lessons, they are given more
challenging work, Teachers notice if I am having difficulty with my lessons and Teachers give students
opportunities to improve their work if they do poorly on assignments. As shown in Figure 6 below,
students who attended more child-centred schools were significantly more likely to state that it was very
true that they looked were given more challenging work if they mastered their lessons, that teachers
noticed if they were having difficulty on their lessons, and that they had opportunities to improve their
work if they did poorly on assignments, when compared with students who attended schools that were
less child-centred.12

Figure 6 An Example of the Impact of Child-Centredness: Do Students at More Child-Centred

Schools Perceive Their School Environments to be Welcoming, Safe and Equitable?

100%

80%

60% 48.5%
34.2% 36.9% 38.1%
40% 28.6% Most Effective
27.3%

20% Least Effective

0%
Students who master material Teachers notice if students have Students have opportunity to
are given more challenging work difficulty with lessons improve their work if they do
poorly on an assignment

12
See Appendix F for statistical details for tests of significance.

16
School heads also demonstrated an understanding of the concept of child-centred pedagogical
approaches, as most were able to cite examples of such approaches in their school’s classrooms. For
example, in one interview a school head noted:

Students are divided into groups to work on certain projects, and they then present their work to the
rest of the class. . . . Discussions among students are encouraged, and students are rotated to
work in different groups so that all students have an equal chance to work with all their friends.
Teachers often encourage peer-to-peer learning because sometimes students can communicate
with each other better than with the teachers (School Head 20).

School heads’ perceptions of the impact of CFS on these pedagogical approaches were mixed. Some
school heads acknowledged the difficulty in measuring the unique impact of the CFS approach on
schools because the Thai MOE has also adopted the model and expanded it nationally. For example, one
school head noted,

…there does not seem to be major differences between CFS and other schools that do not
participate in CFS. The principles for teaching/learning are the same because all schools follow
Thai educational legislation. Therefore, it all depends on how each school applies CFS principles to
their school’s teaching/learning approach and activities (School Head 17).

However, several other school heads noted the positive reactions of their staff to the CFS model and the
introduction of child-centred learning techniques:

The teachers themselves also feel that they are able to expand their ideas to create a wider range
and scopes of learning process which also build up a confident to the teachers in providing learning
process with various ways of thinking. Moreover when the students share and exchange ideas,
opinions and experiences the teachers feel very happy when they heard the students speak out
what they think and how they feel which make the teachers realize that their students are also
growing positively both physical and mental appearances. Then the teachers feel they can accept
students and respect them. Finally the teachers feel they also need to develop themselves in order
to get along and keep pace with the students all the time (School Head 5).

Several school heads and teachers interviewed during the course of the global evaluation were quick to
prioritize pedagogy and teaching/learning techniques when asked which component of CFS would be
most crucial to fund given a limited budget:

Student centred learning, setup extra curriculum activities according to students’ needs in order to
encourage student participation self need evaluations ( knowing him/her self well) then they can
make their lives and being able to survive in future” (School Head 15). As another School Head
noted, “budgets from CFS are fairly limited, and the reason for the school to implement CFS is to
obtain better teaching/learning approach for students (School Head 17).

Teachers often concurred with these viewpoints, and defined CFS schools as those which “must
continuously improve and develop teaching/learning activities and relevancies. CFS also requires
understanding of children individually and fulfils his/her expectations based on principle of equality”
(Teachers 14).

3.2.2 School-level agendas for staff training and professional development opportunities
Many Thai school heads interviewed during the global evaluation acknowledged and recognized the
broad and substantive impact of teaching styles on student outcomes and the limits of existing capacities
in their schools. As one school head stated, “Teacher have realized the existence of innovation of
teaching method but some teachers still get used to old teaching model and cannot adapt/develop
themselves for concept” (School Head 15). Another school head noted, “Some teachers get used to the
old teaching style and feel uncomfortable with innovation at the beginning stage of implementation”
(School Head 16). Consequently, an oft-repeated request throughout many interviews with school heads
was for additional training – both to improve “teachers’ competency related to child development and
empowerment” and for “leadership and management training” for the school heads themselves (School
Heads 14, 15, 22, 27). These school heads support the notion of additional training for themselves and
their staff.

17
Photograph 4 A Teacher Uses a Traditional Lecture
Method in Her Classroom
When asked how school leadership has
been involved in improving pedagogy in
schools, multiple school heads responded
that schools support teacher development
activities such as allowing teachers to attend
training workshops; encouraging teachers to
prepare concepts, policies, and work plans
with the school director; following up on the
action items described in the work plan;
fostering a collaborative atmosphere within
the classroom and encouraging students and
teachers to work together, supporting
students playing a more significant and
participatory role in their education; and,
seeking additional supports from outside the
school for project sustainability.
Teachers consistently noted that school
leadership supported their efforts to bring innovative teaching methodologies to their schools in order to
create more challenging and child-centred learning environments for students. When teachers and school
heads were asked what their top priorities were in providing child-friendly learning opportunities for their
students, many teachers and school heads mentioned “trainings for teachers on educational technology,
innovation and self-production of learning materials” (Teachers 15). Some parents, during focus group
discussions, also requested that additional funding be provided by UNICEF for “student activities,
textbooks, and notebooks, because they are all from a poor family (all daily workers),” further noting that
“families that can afford it would send their kids to a private school or other bigger schools. Some
students have to borrow textbooks from school or from other students.”

Several teachers noted that trainings had been provided for them to both improve their skills and
capacities and to further their professional development. Some teachers noted taking educational trips to
different regions of Thailand to learn more about how other educators support their students and further
their professional capacities. As one group of teachers noted:

As the leadership of the school, the director has encouraged the teachers to establish plan and
budget to support learning process of the students then to provide budget to implement their plan.
The director had approved budget in organizing exhibition on the students and parents work with
participation from the community and sub-district administration organization. The director has
provided training for the teachers in order to support and create the teachers’ potentiality in
implementing the student-centred learning process in the classroom. Moreover, the director has
organized training on ethic and disciplines for the students (Teachers 16).

School leadership in most schools visited during this evaluation provided training and professional
development opportunities to their staff. At several schools (e.g., 14, 16), school heads and head
teachers reported conducting a series of trainings focused on CFS concepts, principles, and
implementation for all teachers. Several teachers’ meetings, such as school meetings, section meetings,
subject meetings, and master-of-dormitory meetings (for boarding schools), were reported as well. These
activities strengthen teachers’ capacities to “build desirable traits of the students in terms of livelihood
skills and child-right fulfilment” (School Head 14).

Similarly, the teaching staff also sought to take advantage of these opportunities. Most teachers reported
having participated in multiple workshops each academic year, organized by various agencies such as
the Ministry of Education and UNICEF. Teachers who successfully complete these professional
development courses are also recognized by school administrators, sometimes in the form of a
promotion.

18
Teacher survey data support results gleaned from interviews with teachers and school heads. Over 90
percent of teachers strongly agreed with the statements that “teachers at this school are given ongoing
opportunities to learn better techniques through workshops, seminars, or trainings” and that “school
leadership provides teachers at this school with adequate support to continually improve their teaching
methods.” Several directors also mentioned that they encourage their teachers to “participate in training
on the students-centred approach and child rights issue in order to acknowledge and improve teaching
skills of the teachers in providing learning process to the students.” Overall, there appears to be a sense
that school leaders support teacher efforts to further their professional development; this support can
come in the form of additional funding, moral support, or time. For example, at one school, the school
head shifted the hours of operation for the school to 8:00 am to 3:30 pm (previously 4:00 pm) so that
teachers would have additional time in the afternoons and evenings to prepare for classes the next day.

However, not all training opportunities are relevant or useful for teachers. Some teachers found the study
visits and in-service trainings required by the Ministry of Education repetitive, and felt that they duplicated
previously held trainings. Several teachers also mentioned that while these workshops covered the basics
of child-centred, active teaching techniques, they needed more personalized and innovative training on
classroom management and positive disciplinary techniques to develop practices that truly meet the
needs of their students (e.g., Teachers 7).

Finally, 92 percent of teachers reported that their peers are valuable resources in furthering their
professional development and improving their teaching methods. For example, at one school, teachers
noted that the “head of subjects’ departments assist teachers in sharing and exchanging experiences in
using student-centred approaches and teaching to cross-curricular competencies.” At two other schools,
teachers explicitly mentioned that their school heads have developed and formed policies that support
peer education among teachers in order to support the learning processes of their students. Programs
such as “Teacher helps Teacher” have been developed to encourage teachers to share their knowledge
and experiences in order to promote positive student outcomes.

3.2.3 What are some of the challenges associated with providing effective child-centred
pedagogy? Further, is there good management of school resources and is there an
accountability system that includes all actors to support resource management?
Interviews with teachers and school heads pointed to several consistent barriers to fostering a more child-
friendly environment: (1) insufficient teaching capacity, (2) insufficient numbers of teachers and teaching
and learning materials, and (3) challenges in engaging parental support and involvement in their
children’s education. Other challenges noted by teachers and school heads during interviews, such as
creating welcoming physical structures and spaces in order to motivate students and encourage learning,
will be discussed in other chapters of this report.

3.2.4 Teaching capacities and materials

Parents and teachers consistently defined child-friendly schools as schools with sufficient learning
resources, including textbooks, paper, writing instruments, and information and communication
technologies (ICT). However, teachers and school heads mentioned several challenges in creating high-
quality and effective learning environments in Thai schools, including insufficient numbers of teachers to
cover all classes and courses and a lack of teaching materials. Student survey data demonstrated that
almost 20 percent of students felt that they did not have the materials they needed to support their
learning, and teacher survey data revealed that a similar percentage of teachers felt the same. And as
one school head noted during an interview,

…teachers will have to teach subjects that they do not directly have knowledge on. For example, a
teacher who teaches math will also have to teach science or Thai language. Teaching/learning
materials are also in need to improve teaching/learning activities for all students (School Head 17).

However, over 90 percent of teachers reported that teachers in their schools are provided with an
effective curriculum to guide their teaching, suggesting that there are more positive perceptions about the
effectiveness of the curriculum than the sufficiency of their resources. At several schools, teachers

19
mentioned that they routinely search for “teaching media.” In one example, the school head noted that
they had to return the funding they received for computer and sound lab facilities because the school
lacked the necessary infrastructure to support those resources (i.e., electricity) at that time. Although not
an adequate substitute for well-trained teaching staff and high-quality teaching and learning materials,
other components of the CFS model, such as parental involvement and engagement, do mitigate the
impact of limited resources.

3.2.5 Engaging and enhancing parent involvement

Increasing or maintaining levels of parental involvement in and enthusiasm for their children’s educational
progress was another challenge that emerged during interviews and focus group discussions in Thailand.
While some parents did place a high priority on improving their children’s academic achievement, most
parents did not have comments (or want to comment) on the pedagogical approaches of school staff in
their children’s classrooms. In fact, several parents noted they felt commenting or “judging” teachers was
distinctly outside of their purview and rights as parents. Working with these parents to encourage them to
engage with their children on their school activities and their children’s teachers on their pedagogical
philosophies will be an important component of CFS activities moving forward.

However, some parents were able to offer examples of changes in their children’s behaviours within the
classroom. For example, one group of parents witnessed the development of “close[r] relationships
between teachers and student”:

Children are more responsible and they know their duties and responsibilities at home. Apart from
that, the students speak up more and express their opinions confidently. The school provides more
learning facilities and the relevance than the past such as learning materials, transportation.
Changes have been made so their children get better grades in school. Some students get rewards
in several competitions. Students are not afraid to speak up and are eager to participate in all
classrooms’ activities.

Parents’ awareness of student improvements within the classroom may be due in part to teachers
conducting home visits in order to increase the frequency and quality of communication with parents and
to better understand their students’ living situations and the demands of their families. Visits by teachers
to their students’ homes have led to a number of important and positive outcomes. For example, one
parent noted that “in the past, people didn’t know about the school, but now they know a lot more about
the school.” Parents at several schools also noted other improvements, such as the fact that students
“are more obedient and eager to come to school, and more attentive in their studies.”

Interviews with parents provided evidence of the enthusiasm many parents felt for CFS. Notably, about
half of parents interviewed in focus group discussions in Thailand had never heard of CFS before the
interview. For the remaining parents, the term “child friendly” was intuitively familiar and resonated with
them. For example, one father said when he thought of the term “child friendly,” he thought of an
organization that supports children (sometimes even providing extra support) and provides them with the
educational materials necessary for learning. One mother, who had previously heard of CFS, said that it
was a “landmark initiative that emphasizes the quality of education and responsibility among teachers.”
But she continued:

At first we didn’t understand at all what the project means. We thought the purpose of this project
was to improve and develop the kids’ body and mind simultaneously through different activities that
would be conducted. Then, our thought changed because we didn’t see any budget provided from
the UNICEF for the school to do any of those activities, so we started to have the question about
what exactly this project means. We still think if the project takes care of the kids’ body and mind at
the same time, it’s still a good project.

Another group of parents commented similarly:

Among all the parents and school committee, there is still a big question about what is the main
purpose of CFS. At the self-assessment workshop, the facilitator informed the participants that
they needed to collect the data and identify the problem first, so the UNICEF knew how to help
them. So, the expectations of all the participation was that the UNICEF will come and help them

20
 solve the problem after they return to their own school. But, when that didn’t happen, everyone
was very confused and wonder (Parents 11).

Overall, the evaluation suggests that the involvement of parents in school events and decision-making
activities, as well as the support of community members for the school and their encouragement for
students to continue their education, plays a substantial role in students’ perceptions of school climate
and their level of connectedness to their school. Therefore, a school’s commitment to involve parents and
community members will also critically impact the degree to which schools can foster child friendly
learning environments that foster better student engagement and performance.

3.3 To what extent has CFS in Thailand achieved a safe and protective
environment in CFS schools that supports children’s health?
In this section we sought to understand if schools participating in the Child Friendly Schools initiative in
Thailand provide a safe and protective environment for children and support children’s health and well-
being. Supporting children’s health and well-being is critical in schools due to the differing physiological
and behavioural characteristics of children, their greater susceptibility to toxins in the environment
(compared to adults), their greater need for food and nutrition, and a decreased ability to recognize and
avoid dangerous situations (FRESH, 2000). According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC), children have a basic right to a secure and health-promoting environment. As children spend a
high percentage of their waking hours in school, it is critical that schools and other agencies that support
and supervise them expend resources to ensure the school environment is secure for children and fosters
their health, learning, and well-being. Also, the success of other dimensions of CFS is intimately related to
keeping children safe and healthy.

For instance, programs such as school feeding are core strategies in promoting inclusion (e.g., the World
Food Programme’s school feeding program, which works to achieve several of the Millennium
Development Goals by seeking to reduce hunger by half and achieve universal primary education by
2015). Research suggests that deworming and other health interventions are positively correlated with
learning outcomes (Kremer, 2005). Research on physical aspects of school environments and
infrastructure has also demonstrated an important linkage between physical elements and educational
success, an example being a UNICEF study that found that girls consistently dropped out of school when
there were inadequate latrines facilities (UNICEF, 2006). Finally, parents are also more likely to support a
school when they believe it is a safe and protective place for their children (AIR, 2009).

3.3.1 To what extent are CFS schools in Thailand safe and protective?

School observations indicate that most Thai schools implementing the CFS approach provide safe and
welcoming environments in terms of the school’s architecture and design and school policies. For
example, 92 percent of school buildings and grounds were rated as having a welcoming appearance by
site visitors. CFS stakeholders also reported a number of accomplishments in making schools safer, such
as building school fences or prohibiting vehicles such as motorcycles on the school grounds. Similarly,
efforts to protect children have also increased since the implementation of the CFS approach in schools,
including elimination of corporal punishment, employment of positive discipline approaches such as merit-
based reward systems, and prevention of unauthorized adults from being on school grounds.

Although these efforts have represented significant strides in safety and protection, several schools
visited in this evaluation continue to face challenges in creating safe and protective environments for
students. For example, a number of schools are still close to trafficked roads without a fence. Some
school buildings are as much as 68 years old. Termites were a concern for a number of teachers and
school directors in these older buildings, many of which were wooden. And while buildings in 61 percent
of the 25 schools visited in this evaluation were rated as being in good structural condition, 90 percent of
classrooms were rated as having only adequate protection from adverse weather conditions (i.e., solid
roof, walls, and a floor).

21
Dangers to students sometimes extend beyond the physical structure of school buildings. As an extreme
example, one school was visited where the school director estimated that as high as 70 percent of
students and parents were involved in smuggling methamphetamine from Myanmar. Students were
simply used by the dealers as unknowing mules, carrying drugs in their backpacks in exchange for small
sums of money (e.g., 100 Baht). And in an urban school in Bangkok, teachers and the school director
reported that foreign tourists would frequently enter the school during the day. The purposes of these
visits, as well as any efforts taken by school staff to ensure the safety and well-being of their students,
were not clear to site visitors.

Finally, school and classroom observations conducted by the evaluation team revealed that corporal
punishment was still used in some schools visited during this evaluation. However, when probed on this
issue, some teachers reported that the “characteristics of the punishment” had changed. For example,
several teachers noted that they believed that corporal punishment could bring about positive behavioural
change as long as “students understand why they are being punished, the punishment is not so severe
that it will leave the children sick, and that the teacher is acting out of love and goodwill instead of out of
hatred or frustration” (Teachers 07, 09, 12). Working with these teachers to encourage them to engage
with their students in more positive, constructive and child-friendly ways will be an important component
of CFS activities moving forward.

3.3.2 Do CFS schools support children’s nutrition?

Like other countries participating in the global evaluation, Thailand struggles to provide proper nutrition to
all students. More than 30 percent of surveyed in Northern Thailand reported that they were often too
hungry to pay attention in school, as shown in Table 11.

Table 11 Percentage of students reporting that hunger inhibits learning

Northern Region Southern Region Total Thailand
Urban Rural Urban Rural
Strongly agree
5.9 9.1 6.9 6.3 7.5
Agree
26.8 22.1 19.9 13.4 19.5
Disagree
41.8 41.6 43.2 46.7 43.5
Strongly disagree
25.5 27.2 29.9 33.6 29.5

In Southern Thailand, 19 percent of rural students and 27 percent of urban students reported being
hungry at school. Teachers were also aware of this problem, with more than 36 percent (Figure 7) of
them reporting that hunger or poor nutrition often kept their students from learning.

Figure 7 “Inadequate Nutrition Keeps Students at This School from Learning as Much as They
Should” [Teacher Report]

4%
7%

Not at all true
A little bit true
30% Mostly true
59%
Very true

22
Most CFS schools in Thailand supplement the national school feeding program with locally sponsored
efforts to extend the milk program to students beyond the fourth grade. These efforts are extended to
stateless children, and/or children without a Thai identity card. In addition, a number of schools have a
school garden, cash crops like palms, and fish ponds that help supplement the national school feeding
program through food or funds for food.

We identified the six schools with students reporting the highest levels of disagreement (more child-
centred) and highest levels of agreement (less child-centred) with the statement Sometimes I am too
hungry to pay attention in school. We chose to examine these schools because we hypothesized that
schools with students who report lower rates of student hunger are schools that may have greater
resources to combat student hunger and malnutrition and may foster more child-centred and healthier
learning environments than schools where student hunger is more pervasive.

Next, we compared student feelings of safety in and enjoyment of their school environment among those
attending “more child-centred” schools to those attending the “less child-centred” schools on three items: I
look forward to coming to school, I feel safe at my school; and I expect to continue my education next
year. As shown in Figure 8 below, students who attended the “more child-centred” schools were
significantly more likely to respond with the highest level of agreement in response to these items when
compared to students who attended “less child-centred” schools.13

Figure 8 An Example of the Impact of Child-Centredness: Do Students at More Child-Centred

Schools Perceive Their School Environments to be Safe and Enjoyable?

99.7% 95.8%
100% 84.9%
80% 72.5%

60% 46.1% 45.5% More Child-

Centred
40%
20% Less Child-
0% Centred
Look forward to school Feel safe at school Expect to continue education
next year

In sum, data gathered during this evaluation suggest that most, but not all, schools have been moderately
successful at ensuring children have enough to eat. Moving forward, UNICEF should consider how to
enhance the sustainability of supplemental feeding programs at schools. One recommendation is for
UNICEF country offices, as well as local policymakers at the district and community levels, to encourage
formation of community-based school feeding programs that decentralize implementation. Research
suggests that the potential for sustainability of such a localized approach is high – in spite of adverse
circumstances such as food shortages and economic crises – because it works within existing
administrative structures, there are a range of community stakeholders, it uses local foods, and there is
opportunity for adaptation and innovation based on the community’s needs (Studdert, 2004).

3.3.3 Do children feel welcome, physically and emotionally safe, and included in schools?
For schools to be inclusive, all students should feel welcome, respected, and treated equally. This
includes how physically safe students feel, how emotionally safe students feel, and the extent to which
students perceive the school as inclusive of all types of students. Eighty-seven percent of children
reported they feel safe at school. About three-quarters of the learners feel safe walking to and from
school, but 11 percent indicated they sometimes stay home from school due to safety concerns. Eighty-
two percent of students felt that their teachers treated them with respect, whereas 69 percent felt their
peers treated each other with respect. Eighty-six percent of students felt that school was a welcoming

13
See Appendix F for statistical details for tests of significance.

23
place for all types of students, and 76 percent of them felt that school rules were applied equally to all
students.

The results by gender indicate that female students have slightly more positive feelings about the school
climate than do male students; while significant, these differences are not large. Generally, students
speaking a different language at home and school have a less positive feeling about school than students
who speak the same language at home and school.

Table 12 below presents the percentage of students who reported feeling safe at their school by region,
locality and years of CFS implementation. As the table illustrates, more than 80 percent of students in the
schools visited reported feeling safe at their school.

Table 12 Percentage of students reporting feeling safe at school by region, locality and years of
CFS implementation
Years of CFS implementation Northern Region Southern Region Total Thailand

Urban Rural Urban Rural

1 year or less - 89.5 - 95.5 95.1

2–3 83.3 88.8 84.4 81.5 85.3
4–5 - 89.9 - - 89.9
6 or more 100 81.0 - - 88.0

Thai students’ perceptions of personal safety within their school environment and walking to and from
their schools were often lower than the perceptions of students in the other five countries visited during
the course of this evaluation. For example, while 34 percent of students felt very safe walking both to and
from their schools in Thailand, between 37 percent (South Africa) and 57 percent (the Philippines) of
students in other countries reported that they feel safe. However, while personal safety concerns did have
a significant impact on students’ school attendance in other countries (ranging from 13 percent in South
Africa to 27 percent in Nigeria), only 4 percent of Thai students reported missing school because they
were worried about their safety.

3.3.4 Are CFS schools in Thailand hygienic, with adequate and potable water?

Of all the countries visited in the global evaluation, CFS schools in Thailand were among the most
hygienic according to results of school observations (AIR, 2009). School grounds were generally clean;
students routinely participated in the maintenance of their schools, including recycling and composting
programs. Respondents in a number of schools, especially in the tsunami-affected areas, were able to
show our researchers toilets with adequate water. This is corroborated by the fact that of 366 teachers
surveyed, only 22 teachers felt the environment was not hygienic, and only 1 strongly believed this was
the case. Table 13 below shows teacher reports on school sanitation by region and locality.

Table 13 Percentage of teachers reporting good sanitary conditions at school by region and
locality
Northern Region Southern Region Total Thailand
Urban Rural Urban Rural
Strongly disagree 0.0 4.5 3.6 3.5 0.3
Disagree 26.1 22.1 24.8 16.9 6.0
Agree 47.1 44.8 53.5 40.1 50.8
Strongly agree 26.8 28.7 18.2 39.5 42.9

However, there is still room for improvement in select schools. In one school, for instance, there were
only four toilets for girls in the entire primary school serving kindergarten through ninth grade learners
(with over 35 classrooms).

24
3.3.5 Do CFS schools in Thailand actively support children’s physical and mental health?

The evaluation also examined the extent to which schools were able to support children’s physical and
mental health, and the types of services, including the provision of life skills training, that schools offered
for students to bolster their well-being. Teacher and school head survey data showed that severe health
problems were not as common as the nutritional issues described earlier. As demonstrated in Table 14,
nearly 80 percent of teachers (in any given region/locality combination) believed that health problems at
the school did not impact children’s learning.
Table 14 Percentage of teachers who believe health issues keep students from learning
Northern Region Southern Region
Total Thailand
Urban Rural Urban Rural
Strongly agree
0.0 6.4 4.1 3.1 4.4
Agree
10.0 11.3 9.3 13.3 11.2
Disagree
50.0 38.3 40.2 38.8 39.9
Strongly disagree
40.0 44.0 46.4 44.9 44.5

Interview data with teachers and school heads also suggested that CFS schools were able to provide a
number of health-related services for students, as shown in Photograph 5.
Photograph 5 Students Await Treatment at a School
Health Clinic

Many health interventions described by school

staff were offered by local health centres, which
conducted school visits to provide services such
as vaccinations; physical exams, including
height/weight screening for enrolment in the
national milk program (in some schools up to
two times per term); oral hygiene; and
deworming. Photograph 6 below provides an
example of children brushing their teeth at
school.

However, 44 percent of all school heads

reported being unable to refer ill children to
local health centres, as shown in Table 15.

Photograph 6 Students Brush Their Teeth at School

25
Table 15 Percentage of school heads reporting that the school is able to make referrals to
community-based providers of medical care
Northern Region Southern Region
Total Thailand
Urban Rural Urban Rural
Strongly disagree 0.0 18.2 40.0 0.0 16.0
Disagree 100.0 9.1 60.0 14.3 28.0
Agree 0.0 45.5 0.0 85.7 44.0
Strongly agree 0.0 27.3 0.0 0.0 12.0

In the absence of this referral network, teachers often focus their efforts on delivering “healthy messages”
to students on topics such as prevention of infectious diseases like dengue, avian influenza, and
HIV/AIDS. For example, at one school, a school head described a recent assembly where he discussed
reducing the possibility of infection by eliminating stagnant water. Whether schools were or were not able
to refer children to local health centres, all school heads reported delivering “healthy messages” on a
weekly basis.

Finally, although 92 percent of school directors indicated having access to child welfare and support
services, activities or services designed to support children’s mental health at the school were not
observed. Interview data also did not reveal examples of how such services are accessed by school
staff. This was especially notable in some tsunami-affected schools where it is likely that some students
may be still experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder from the natural disaster. However, teachers in
two schools reported using drawing, music, and sports as a means of supporting children’s mental health.

3.3.6 Life skills and social emotional learning

In Thailand the term “life skills” is most frequently equated with the concept of “local intelligence,” or the
livelihood skills thought to be most important and relevant for the surrounding community. Site visits
conducted in 2007 by AIR for a separate UNICEF EAPR-sponsored evaluation concluded that the
concept of life skills in Thailand at the school level is defined as providing students with specific
vocational training as well as specific health-related knowledge.14 Although these efforts were
commendable and Thai students were engaged in a variety of activities aimed at providing them with
relevant livelihood skills, there was no comparable focus on developing children’s social and emotional
capacities to understand and manage their emotions and relationships and to make appropriate
decisions, which are core to the realization of life skills in all circumstances. These skills are especially
valuable in helping students succeed in school and life.

For example, teachers and school heads reported that teaching students specific health-related skills,
such as how to use a condom or how to resist pressure to use drugs, and routinely practicing these skills,
is especially helpful given that individuals need to apply these skills in emotionally volatile situations.
Social emotional learning is also important in creating a safe and productive school environment. For
example, 33 percent of students reported that their school was “being ruined by bullies.” In addition, 32
percent of students reported that their peers “liked putting each other down.” Notably, 55 percent of
students reported that other students at their school did not know how to solve disagreements without
arguing or physically fighting. UNICEF in Thailand and the Thai MOE are addressing these needs by
conducting workshops for MOE staff, developing assessment instruments, and training teachers
regarding SEL.

14
Discussions with UNICEF’s Education Officer in Thailand identified two specific goals for AIR’s work, in order to align UNICEF’s
programming efforts with Ministry of Education (MOE) goals. The MOE wants to revise Thailand’s Life Skills Manuals for Basic
Education to incorporate the principles and practices of social emotional learning (SEL). The MOE has expectations that this will be
achieved by the end of 2009 so that it can be implemented (perhaps on a trial basis) during the next school term. In a
complementary effort, the Office of National Quality Assurance intends to develop instruments that will allow educators to measure
progress made in incorporating SEL into Thailand’s schools. AIR has supported these activities by conducting workshops for: (1)
personnel who were revising the Basic Education Manuals and (2) personnel who are developing quality assurance instruments.

26
Photograph 7 Students Show the Artisan Product
They Learned to Make From Livelihoods Training
Photograph 7 shows student artwork that they
produced in an art class led by a local artisan.
Students learned how to create artwork that
can be sold to tourists to provide income.

3.4 Gender-sensitive environments

that promote equity and equality
This part of the evaluation addresses the extent
to which CFS in Thailand promoted gender
equity and equality. Gender responsiveness
refers to the creation of environments and
capacities (at the individual and organizational
level) that foster equality among boys and girls,
and is a key element of Thailand’s CFS model.
CFS has worked to create a culture of gender
sensitivity through a variety of efforts. For example, CFS supported the development of the SMIS and the
school self assessment (SSA), which enable school staff, students, and parents to identify and address
gender disparities. Life skills has moved away from an HIV/AIDS focus (as prevalence rates have fallen)
and shifted to focus on social and emotional learning and vocational skills. Furthermore, in 2008, UNICEF
supported a review of the national curricula and learning materials to address negative gender norms and
stereotypes. Reviewers were provided gender-based sensitization and training prior to beginning their
work.

In this section, the report describes how schools in the CFS initiative apply the principle of gender
responsiveness to ensure equal access to high-quality educational opportunities, regardless of gender.
The following issues are addressed, using survey data collected from students, teachers, and school
heads; interview data with school heads, teachers, and parents; and classroom and school observation
data:
 Whether school heads, teachers, parents, and students perceive gender equity and equality to
exist in their schools;
 Whether the school environment and policies are such that all students, regardless of gender, are
provided equal opportunities; and
 The challenges faced by schools in ensuring gender equality.

3.4.1 School heads’, teachers’, parents’, and students’ perceptions of gender equality in
schools

Most students feel that their school provides female and male students equal access to opportunities. For
example, about 85 percent of students reported that “both boys and girls have equal opportunities to
succeed at this school.” Moreover, there was little disparity between female and male responses on this
issue.

Table 16 below presents the percentage of students who reported that their school had actively involved
both boys and girls and provided them with equal opportunities. The table shows that across regions,
localities and years of CFS implementation, no fewer than 70 percent of students agreed that boys and
girls have equal opportunities to succeed at school.

27
Table 16 Percentage of students who report that boys and girls have equal opportunities to
succeed at school
Northern Region Southern Region
Total Thailand
Years of CFS Implementation Urban Rural Urban Rural
1 year or less - 100 - 93.3 93.7
2-3 88.9 88.4  84.9 76.4 84.7
4–5 - 77.7 - - 77.7

6 or more 92.6 78.9  - - 81.0

We selected the top six Thai schools where over 60 percent of students had marked mostly or very true in
response to the item. Both boys and girls have equal opportunities to succeed at this school. We
hypothesize that schools where most students report equal opportunities for boys and girls have
environments that are more inclusive and cognizant of gender equality compared to schools where most
students report inequity between boys and girls (“less gender equal”). We then compared student
feelings of engagement with their school environment among those attending schools that were “more
gender equal” to those attending the rest of the schools on three items: I look forward to coming to
school, I feel safe at school, and I want to complete secondary school. As shown in Figure 9 below,
students who attend those schools with students who report greater gender equality were significantly
more likely to state that it was mostly or very true that they looked forward to coming to school, that they
felt safe at school, and that they wanted to complete secondary school when compared with students who
attended schools that reported less gender equality.15

Figure 9 An Example of the Impact of Inclusiveness: Do Students at More Equitable Schools

Perceive Their School Environments to be Safe and Enjoyable?

98%
100% 90% 92% 96%
Percent of students responding 

84% 80%
80%
'very' or 'mostly' true

60%
Less Gender Equal
40%
More Gender Equal
20%

0%
Feel Safe at School Look Forward to  Want Secondary 
School School

Teachers and school heads had an even more positive view of equality of opportunity for male and
female students. School heads and teachers identified few obstacles to gender inclusiveness and
equality, and classroom observations did not find obvious bias. In fact, 98 percent of teachers reported
that boys and girls have equal opportunity to succeed, and 100 percent of school heads responded
“mostly true” or “very true” to three statements about boys and girls being equally permitted and
encouraged to participate in school activities, academic classes, and physical activities. Our site visit
observations were consistent with the survey data. For the most part, site visitors observed male and
female students receiving equal time and attention from teachers and observed teachers exhibiting
similar expectations for students regardless of gender. In all classrooms, observers reported that boys
and girls received equal time and attention from teachers, and in 98 percent of classrooms, observers
reported that the teacher showed similar expectations regardless of gender. In the global evaluation, the
Thai classes observed were strongest in demonstrating gender equality in the classroom.

15
See Appendix F for statistical details for tests of significance.

28
Interviews and focus groups with school directors, parents, and teachers provided strong additional
support for the above findings. These data also suggest that male and female students are afforded equal
opportunities, and that all three groups of stakeholders view gender inclusiveness as a critical element of
a CFS school. For example, teachers stated that CFS is based “on the principle of equality” between and
among all students (Teacher 15). School heads and parents expressed similar sentiments. For example:

Students take part in almost all activities. Both boys and girls have an opportunity to provide
suggestions and express [their] opinions. When teachers and schools are more open for students
to speak up, the school found that students are able to think and act [more] independently and
reasonably than expected (School Head 17).

Both boys and girls are given the same priority and opportunity to be both the leader and the
follower. (School Head 18)

Both boys and girls have equal opportunity to participate in classroom and other school activities
without discrimination such as: election of classroom head can be boy or girl candidates; boys are
accepted for attending in dress-making class; girls are accepted for attending in agricultural class;
girls are accepted for playing rattan ball (Ta-kraw) which normally favours among the boys; and
there is no gender bias in extracurricular activities (Parents 16 and 25).

While interviews indicate that teachers, school directors, and parents appreciate the importance of gender
inclusivity and equality, and surveys indicate that teachers and school directors perceive that male and
female students are afforded equal opportunities, the student survey indicates that some students see
barriers. For example, 15 percent of students felt that boys and girls at their school were provided similar
opportunities to succeed.16

Although classroom observations, interviews, and focus group data suggest high levels of gender
sensitivity in instruction, there were still some instances where male and female students were not
necessarily treated equally. During focus group discussions, parents were asked to discuss whether
school and classroom activities supported female students. One group of parents responded that school
staff at their children’s school provide students with equal treatment, “equal access, and similar
opportunities to succeed. However, in terms of assigning [clean-up] tasks, there’s still a difference due to
the physical condition of the boys and girls” (Parents 11). Boys are often asked to move cooking fuel or
wood, while girls are asked to work indoors and clean classrooms.

Assumptions regarding gender are often entrenched, and despite the recognition that gender equality is
important, differing expectations based on gender still surface. For example, one school head shares
how the school is concerned

...with gender equality, [whereby] teachers support all students, both boys and girls to exercise their
rights and demonstrate their talents in different school activities, including dancing, making
handicraft, joining, sport competition, and other activities. Sometime, boys can do handicraft work
better than girls, and girl students can do better score in their academic performance. Surprisingly,
number of girl students who continue further education is higher than boy students (School Head
23).

Another group of parents provided a more telling example of the underlying gender stereotypes:

The school supports equal access to education to both boys and girls equally. [But,] for boy
students, teachers pay a lot attention to drug problem. For girl students, teachers pay a lot of
attention to relationship that can cause unwanted pregnancy problem or early sexual relationship.
Sometime, boys and girls fight each other over relationships. Now, it is very serious for girls as
they fight each other over the boy. The school needs to pay a lot of attention to the change of
behaviour in girl students. They are not so naïve and nice as they used to be (Parents 5).

16
Appendix C provides item-level frequencies for all student survey responses.

29
3.4.2 Perceptions of gender equality in school policies and environments

While 96 percent of school heads indicate their school has a written policy of educating all students
regardless of gender and other factors, there is an aspect of the policy which is not gender responsive. In
particular, 56 percent of school heads reported that pregnant students and young mothers were not
permitted to attend their schools. This policy discriminates against girls and reduces opportunity for those
in a disadvantaged situation to achieve an education.

Reviewing the school records data collected from all schools, more boys were enrolled from kindergarten
through grade 3 (primary education), but more girls were enrolled from grade 9 to 12. In addition, boys
outperformed girls on national examinations in the lower primary classes. The pattern for upper primary
was mixed, however. Secondary school statistics were not available to assess the longitudinal
implications of these patterns.

In terms of infrastructure, safe and private toilets are perhaps one of the most important factors in
determining female attendance and enrolment. Previous studies have demonstrated that from a very
practical perspective, girls who lack adequate sanitary materials may miss school each month during their
period. If girls attend schools that lack adequate latrines and water supplies for girls to comfortably
change sanitary pads and wash themselves in privacy, they may be unable to remain comfortably in class
during their menstrual cycle (Kirk & Sommer, 2006; Herz & Sperling, 2004). For girls, discretion is harder
without well built latrines/toilets, and more so during their menstrual cycles. Therefore, poorly built
latrines/toilets are a significant and real barrier to accessing educational opportunities for girls. In the
schools visited in Thailand, 70 percent had toilets that provided students with privacy. This is an area that
can continue to be improved.

In interviews, school directors, teachers, and parents identified few obstacles to creating a school
environment that fosters gender inclusiveness and equality. Previously cited issues, such as cultural
norms and deeply engrained stereotypes pertaining to gender roles, though not easily overcome, were
not viewed as obstacles. There was also a sense, particularly among parents, that focusing on gender is
not a necessary priority because schools already do treat female and male students the same way and
afford them equal learning opportunities.

Girls and boys are given similar opportunities in this school – both within the classroom and outside the
classroom – and parents do not feel there is a need to focus on girls’ achievement. Treatment of students in
based on their capacities, not their gender (Parents 22).

No gender issue at this school – girls are given the same opportunities as boys. For example, both boys and
girls are selected to participate in sporting events and other school competitions (Parents 25).

3.5 Democratic participation of students, parents, and community members,

and meaningful linkages between schools and communities
This part of the evaluation addresses the extent to which CFS has increased student, family and
community awareness of democratic rights, a shared sense of responsibility, and increased democratic
participation in schools. The global evaluation of CFS employed hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) to
assess the relationship between the principles of CFS and the conditions for learning and development as
experienced by students. HLM enables us to apply a rigorous standard to the patterns observed in the
quantitative and qualitative data presented in the preceding chapters and to identify program features that
appear to be particularly powerful in setting the stage for learning and development.17 This analysis
explored the degree to which CFS features affect the conditions for learning and development. Data on
CFS programming elements were drawn from multiple sources, including teacher and school head
surveys and school and classroom observation ratings. Data on student outcomes – namely, their
perceptions on Safe, Inclusive, and Respectful Climate (SIRC), Challenging Student-Centred Learning
Environment (CSCLE), and Emotionally Supportive Climate – were drawn from student surveys. Two

17
For a more detailed explanation of HLM techniques, the statistical models guiding the analysis, and the quantitative results from
this analysis, see Appendix B.

30
aspects of schools participating in the Child Friendly Schools initiative were positively associated with
higher ratings on all three dimensions of students’ perceptions of school climate – SIRC, CSCLE, and
Emotionally Supportive Climate: family and community involvement (as reported by teachers) and the use
of child-centred pedagogy (as measured through classroom observations). This indicates that in schools
that have high levels of family and community participation and use of child-centred pedagogical
approaches, students have more positive perceptions of school climate.

As described in Chapter I, one of the CFS principles in Thailand is active engagement of students,
families, and communities. Encouraging and facilitating the active engagement in school decision making
activities and management is grounded in the belief that a two-way partnership between schools and
communities (in which there is shared responsibility for children’s outcomes) fosters higher student
enrolment, retention, achievement, and engagement with school. Within Thailand’s model of CFS,
community involvement is initially facilitated through a self-assessment activity; families and communities
are continually engaged through the school development plans that stem from the self-assessment
process.

In this section, we describe how CFS schools apply the principle of democratic participation by actively
engaging children, parents, and communities in school management and decision-making. The following
four issues are addressed, using both survey data collected from students, teachers, and school heads
and interview data from interviews with school heads, teachers, and parents:
 The ways in which children participate in school decision-making;
 What schools do to promote parent and community participation and the ways in which parents
and communities participate in school management and children’s education; and
 The challenges schools face in fostering democratic participation.

3.5.1 In what ways do children participate in CFS schools?

In this section, we present and discuss the perceptions of students, teachers, and school heads about
student involvement in formal governance (e.g. student government), as well as day-to-day activities at
school.

3.5.2 Student involvement in formal governance

Survey data obtained from students, teachers, and school heads regarding the degree to which students
are involved in school events, decision-making processes, and their own learning suggest variation
among the three groups in their perception of student involvement.18 For example:
 88 percent of school heads reported that students play a formal role in decision-making at school
(for example, through student government) and plan and implement community outreach
activities, and 100 percent of school heads reported that students at their schools have
opportunities to serve in leadership roles, such as a member of the student council, governing
board, or prefect;
 16 percent of teachers reported that students were not often involved in helping to solve school
problems. Similarly, 15 percent of teachers reported that students were not involved in decision-
making in their schools;
 35 percent of students reported that students were not involved in helping to solve school
problems; and
 29 percent of students felt that the school head either never asked or asked students for their
opinions infrequently.
The disconnect between school heads’ and teachers’ perceptions of student involvement and satisfaction
on the one hand and the reports of students themselves on the other hand is one that warrants further
examination. Still, when examined together, the data suggest that a substantial number of students are
not provided with opportunities by school staff to become more involved in school events and decision
making. There is likely an important relationship between students’ involvement in school, the types of

18
See Appendix A for item frequencies on the School Head survey, Appendix B for the teacher survey and Appendix C for the
student survey.

31
opportunities they are provided and the quality of relationships between teachers and school heads and
students. Thirteen percent of students reported that teachers do not care about students at their schools,
while 33 percent of students felt that teachers treated “some types of students” better than others at their
schools.

Table 17 below presents the percentage of students who reported higher levels of student involvement in
school decision making activities by region, locality and years of CFS implementation. Overall, students
appeared to enjoy greater levels of involvement in schools that had implemented CFS for one year or less
compared to schools that had implemented CFS for two or more years. Where data were available, it also
appears that students in rural communities appear to have a greater degree of involvement in school
decision-making activities compared to their urban counterparts.
Table 17 Percentage of students reporting high levels of student involvement in solving school
problems
Years of CFS Implementation Northern Region Southern Region Total Thailand
Urban Rural Urban Rural
1 year or less - 73.7 - 83.6 82.9
2–3 62.7 72.0 63.9 59.1 65.7
4–5 - 446.0 - - 46.0

6 or more 40.7 52.1 - - 50.3

Students who are more involved in decision making activities and planning and setting up events at their
schools are also more likely view their school environments as more welcoming and democratic. In order
to assess this hypothesis, we selected the top six Thai schools where over 30 percent of students had
marked mostly or very true in response to the item Students are involved in helping to solve school
problems and hypothesized that because these school environments encourage greater student
involvement they may be identified as “more participatory.” We then compared student feelings of
engagement with their school environments among those attending the more participatory schools to
those attending the rest of the schools on three items: I look forward to coming to school, Both boys and
girls have equal opportunities to succeed at this school, and I want to complete secondary school.19 As
shown in Figure 10 below, students who attended schools with higher rates of student participation were
significantly more likely to look forward to coming to school and feel that their school was a welcoming
place for all kinds of students when compared with students who attended schools with lower rates of
student participation.

Figure 10 An Example of the Impact of Democratic Participation: Do Students at More

Participatory Schools Look Forward to Coming to School and View the School as Equitable?

100% 95% 93% 93% 92%

responding 'very' or 'mostly' 

84%
79%
80%
Percent of students 

60%
Less Participatory
true

40%
More Participatory
20%

0%
Look Forward to  Want Secondary  Boy and Girls Equal
School School

19
We hypothesized that students who attended schools with environments that foster higher levels of involvement in event planning
and decision-making activities were likely more engaged in school and more likely to want to continue on with their education.

32
3.5.3 Student involvement in day-to-day activities

Interviews with teachers and school heads suggested that encouraging student involvement in school
activities is a priority for all schools visited. Often, when asked what CFS means to them, teachers and
school heads answered that in CFS, “Students also involve in school’s activities in all aspects such as
decision making on food and democracy in school. Parents, teachers and school will be involved in
decision making and solving any problems related to learning capacity development activities for all
children” (Teacher 17 and School Head 17). Teachers’ efforts to actively engage students occur both
inside and outside of the classroom and include:
 Providing relevant livelihood skills and distance learning programs for those students who live far
from school grounds (often based upon input from students and parents);
 Employing positive disciplinary, teaching, and learning activities;
 Facilitating formation of student councils and other special interest groups; and
 Allowing students to choose menu options for daily lunches.

Parents, teachers, and school heads were also asked to describe any changes seen in student behaviour
as a result of the CFS emphasis on child rights and students being given more of a voice in school
activities and decision making. The results were clear – teachers across most schools noted several
positive changes, including:
 Greater confidence to express their opinions;
 Older students caring for and assisting younger ones;
 Closer, more open and trusting relationships between teachers and students;
 Formation of children’s-rights clubs, established to promote better understanding on children’s
rights, protection, and respect;
 Integration of children’s rights into classroom learning activities; and
 The formation of student councils and committees.

Students are more open with teachers and their academic supervisors when they have problems at home
or in school. Teachers and school heads, in turn, welcome students’ observations and suggestions for
classroom activities and school events. At many schools, there is now a Student Governing Board, similar
to a student council. One teacher noted that student governing board members often make
announcements about school events on an internal radio station and provide messages on behalf of the
school director on the school-wide PA system. At one school, these students also sponsored a
Thai/English word-a-day show on the radio station.

Moreover, students have demonstrated an increased sense of belonging and ownership of their school
by, in many cases, organizing and volunteering to clean the school buildings and grounds. Indeed,
several teachers stated that “it is obvious that the total environment of the school is improved qualitatively
and quantitatively because the students learned how to use their rights and how to participate in school
development” (Teachers 16). According to another teacher in Thailand, students are “less stressed and
are happier because they get to participate in all kinds of activities in school.” At schools with subject
study clubs or peer tutoring networks, teachers often reported that these programs “have somewhat
reduced the frustration of underachieving students because they were able to complete school work and
assignments.” Further, according to some teachers in Thailand, such student-led initiatives are viewed as
exemplars of the CFS approach because “children have the right to choose the career they want and
students can participate in their own learning more, which leads to the career of their choice.”

Parents interviewed also reported that their children’s teachers had made greater efforts to involve their
children in the educational process, school events, and decision making activities. For example, at one
school, parents noted that the school encouraged students to participate in establishing year-round
extracurricular activities, such as a students’ saving group and a student council. Students were able to
determine when, where, and how these activities would occur. These parents also agreed that positive
changes were observable in their students, such as increased independence, self-confidence, and
organizational abilities. For example, students who participated in the savings group “were more careful in
spending their money since they felt that they preferred to keep their money in the savings account.”

33
Finally, school heads also reported a number of significant positive outcomes for students’ school
performance when students were given increased autonomy. For example, students who participated in
subject study groups and extracurricular learning activities also participated in community-wide academic
competitions in art, local culture, and sports. One director noted that “some family in the community used
to send their children to other school even its longer distance than this school but recently they lead their
children to come back to this school cause by the outstanding performance of the school” (School Head
22). Several school heads also commented that the cleanliness of their school environment was better
than before the CFS initiative – students (and their parents) often organize efforts to maintain or improve
the classrooms or the playground. Students also encourage their parents to become involved in efforts to
keep the school campus clean.

3.5.4 What do child friendly schools do to promote parent and community participation?

The commitment of school staff to involve students’ families and forge meaningful partnerships with
stakeholders from the community in which the school is housed is crucial to fostering positive student
outcomes and a key component of the CFS approach in Thailand. Interviews with teachers, school
heads, and parents revealed that most Thai CFS schools took great care to increase the level and type of
involvement of parents and local community members in school decision making activities and events.
For example, several schools arranged “ceremonies like Father Day, Mother Day and Teacher Day in
order to create a closer relationship among students, teachers and students through traditional
ceremonies” (Teachers 16). At one school, school staff also organized an event called the Democracy
Project. According to one teacher, “this type of activity enhances the national and community awareness,
and participation of students and the villagers. Students, School, and community set up the committee to
monitor their village in terms of health, safety, community development. All students participate in these
community activities too.” Across schools, parents were also encouraged to:
 Attend parent meetings (occurring once every grading period),
 Serve as a vocational/livelihoods resource during classroom activities,
 Participate in the preparation of local subject curriculum, and
 Facilitate school development activities (especially those related to infrastructure).

Photograph 8 A School Garden That Is Organized

and Maintained by Volunteer Parents
At all schools, teachers and school heads noted
that parents are invited to a regular school
meeting at least once per semester. The purpose
of the meeting is to collect observations and
suggestions for school activities and to discuss
their children’s academic performance and
behaviour. Parental attendance at these formal
meetings is inconsistent across schools due to
work obligations and family commitments. At
some of these schools, parents, teachers and
school heads also reported that parents are
always welcome to come for informal meetings
and participate in numerous special activities
during each semester. Parents of students at
these schools reported that they do have some
information about classroom activities and have
seen a close relationship develop between teachers and students. For those parents who are unable to
visit the school, one school head started using a suggestion box to ensure parents have some opportunity
to voice their concerns.
At most schools, teachers, parents and local community members formed a school management
committee (SMC) or parent-teacher association (PTA). Parents who participated on these committees or
served as parent representatives were usually satisfied with the level of responsibility accorded to them

34
because they had the opportunity to express their opinions on school activities, their children’s learning,
and changes the school needed to make. Their role as parent representative provided them with a voice
not only within the school grounds but among other parents and community members. Most teachers and
parents interviewed during this evaluation emphasized the importance of attending PTA or SMC meetings
and encouraged their peers to send other relatives or family members as representatives if parents could
not attend. However, these individuals also noted that very few parents wanted to express their opinions
at these meetings. For example, at one school, parents noted that:

...about 70 percent of parents [in their community] work all the time and do not have close contact
with the school or with their own children about their school experiences and so cannot express
opinions because they are unfamiliar with the challenges the school and their children may be
facing (Parents 5).

Finally, at several schools, teachers, school heads, and parents reported on the introduction of home
visits on an annual basis (sometimes more frequently). During a home visit, teachers visit students’
homes to better understand their living contexts, demands, and problems. Home visits also educate
parents and community members about the school’s mission and goals with respect to student learning;
provide a unique opportunity for teachers, parents, and students to interact in an informal setting; and
provide an opportunity for teachers to reinforce lessons taught to students at school and educate parents
on child development and other topics. As one school head noted, “In the past, people didn’t know more
about the school, but now they know a lot more about the school. Children are more responsible and they
know their duties and responsibilities at home.” Several school heads noted that their schools “launched
a home visit scheme in order to provide moral support to the students and to create a better
understanding between school, students and parents” (School Head 10, 16). Parents at these schools
reported that such “home visits have built up better understanding and relationship among the parents,
students and teachers and this situation never happened in the past and in other school of non-CFS”
(Parents 10, 16).

As with survey data on student involvement, school heads and teachers reported higher levels of parent
involvement compared to students. For example, 100 percent of school heads reported that:
 Staff from their schools make direct contact with families whose children drop out of school or are
at risk of dropping out to encourage the child’s continued enrolment;
 Their school provides information about what is happening at the school to families in a language
and format they understand (e.g., written or oral); and
 All types of families are encouraged to participate in decision making at this school, regardless of
race, ethnicity, gender, language, disability, or religion.

92 percent of teachers reported that their schools involved parents in most school events or activities, and
90 percent of teachers stated that many parents attended events at the school. Students perceive their
parents’ involvement differently. For example, 62 percent of surveyed students reported that their families
knew about events and activities within the school.

3.5.5 What are the challenges to involving students, parents and community?

Interviews with school heads, teachers, parents, and community members provided some insight into the
challenges associated with increasing parent and community involvement in school activities and
decision-making and participation in students’ education. While teachers and school heads were able to
discuss challenges associated with increasing family and community involvement in school activities,
challenges associated with increasing student involvement were not identified.

Notably, interview data with school heads did not point to consistent challenges to increasing student
involvement and leadership in Thailand. As an exception, one school head noted that while students are
“welcome to express their feelings, opinions, and suggestions, sometimes students are still confused with
their roles and responsibilities” (School Head 13). However, children’s “role confusion” was not mentioned
in interviews with teachers, parents, and community members interviewed at other schools in Thailand.

35
However, school heads were able to identify challenges in increasing family and community involvement.
For example, parents cannot always participate in their children’s education as school staff (or even the
parents themselves) may hope. At one school, for example, some teachers and their school head
reported that parents are asked to check their children’s homework to ensure the assignments are
completed on time. But many parents work all day on the rubber plantation and cannot check their
children’s assignments. Further, although there is general acceptance of the principles behind the CFS
approach in Thailand, there is some scepticism about the impact of the model on students. One school
head reported having “to show [parents and community members] what they will get from participating
and what their kids will get from this change in school as well” in order to gain their support (School Head
2). However, through the school’s consistent encouragement and provision of services to parents and
community members (e.g., schools serving as a gathering centre or hub for families and community
members, teachers visiting parents and involving themselves in pupils’ lives, inviting parents and
community members to cultural presentations), communities are often eventually welcoming of the CFS
approach. In the southern, tsunami-affected regions of Thailand, several schools worked with local
businesses and partners to create an evacuation and emergency preparedness plans for the entire
community. These schools also volunteered to serve as an emergency shelter for community members in
times of crisis. Witnessing such support for children and their families can lead community members to
increase their own support. As one school head commented:

All stakeholders, including teachers, students, school committee and community members [have]
welcomed the change because they are aware about the best interest of themselves. All of them
can see how their contributions effect the school’s achievements and they are so proud with their
contributions to the school (School Head 1).

Teachers’ and school heads’ ratings of community involvement were similarly high. For example, over 90
percent of teachers reported that adults in the community support their school and that adults in the
community encourage youth to take school seriously, suggesting the high value placed upon education in
most communities visited during the evaluation. Further, 96 percent of school heads reported having built
partnerships with local businesses or community organizations to support student learning.

And as noted in the global evaluation, engaging other community members’ support has a direct and
important impact on sustainability. Indeed, one school head in Thailand noted that “strengthening public
relations activities such as frequently meeting with stakeholders – private companies, parents, school
committees, local organizations, etc.” is a key method for school leadership to achieve the goals of CFS
(School Head 10). But, as another school head in Thailand noted, this engagement may be a work in
progress: “both the school and students have to be more active in terms of opening more channels for
outsiders to participate in school development” (School Head 21). There are a variety of challenges in this
area, which are described next.

In sum, survey and interview data obtained from students, teachers, school heads, and parents on the
CFS initiative in Thailand suggest that most schools implementing the CFS approach have been at least
modestly successful in creating student-oriented learning environments that emphasize children’s rights
and their active involvement in education and encouraging family and community participation in school
events and decision making activities. As one school head summarized:

The CF school has more obvious benefits in terms of: gaining more participation from community;
students are more confident and happy to be in the school; number of students from absent the
class reduce; and more participation from families and students with school activities (School Head
16).

While several school heads noted that the principles behind the CFS approach were not new, and
overlapped with the original mission statement of the school formed before the CFS intervention was in
place, the intervention was found to be “very helpful and supportive in terms of encouraging and gaining
the support of teachers, parents and community and also other stakeholders participation” (School Head
7). While challenges do exist in fostering partnerships between schools, communities, and families, some
solutions have been found. Indeed, the burgeoning relationships between teachers and their students’
parents will only serve to foster continued progress towards these goals.

36
3.6 What are the costs associated with Child Friendly Schools in Thailand?
At the time of the global evaluation, limited data on national educational expenditures for Thailand
existed. The MOE and the Ministry of Finance were engaged in a costing study in order to obtain better
information on resources to support planning. According to 2005 EFA Global Monitoring Report data,
public expenditures on education as a percentage of overall government expenditures were quite high, at
25 percent. Meanwhile teachers’ compensation as a percentage of public current expenditures on
education was relatively low at 71 percent. It is likely that the much of the remaining balance consists of
support through the national school feeding program (UNESCO, 2005).

UNICEF Thailand’s distribution of costs is shown below, with service delivery via program partners (MOE
and NGOs), advocacy and human resources development/training for program partners representing the
major cost categories (see Figures 11 and 12 below). As a country, Thailand has the most equitable
distribution of income of any of the six countries visited during AIR’s global evaluation.20,21 Nonetheless,
in our costing model of CFS we found that the expenditures per child showed the most variation in
Thailand and South Africa (see figures below).

Figure 11 Major Cost Categories for UNICEF Thailand

20
The Gini-coefficient is the most commonly used measure of overall income inequality and provides a simple measure for
visualizing overall income inequality. It ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 representing perfect equality and 1 perfect inequality. See
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPA/
0,,contentMDK:20238991~menuPK:492138~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:430367,00.html
21
Looking at 2007/2008 UNDP data we find Gini-coefficients of .42 (Thailand), .43 (Nicaragua), .44 (Nigeria), .45 (Philippines) and
.58 (South Africa). See http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/147.html

37
Figure 12 Distribution in Per Pupil Expenditure in Six Countries

We hypothesize that this spending differential is attributable to large amounts of capital available to
schools hit by the 2005 tsunami. In these schools, it was common to find multiple programs operating
simultaneously. In at least one school, program investments from development partners equalled 60
percent of the school’s total budget. When funds for tsunami relief end, we expect levels of UNICEF and
other donor support to schools to decrease.

Another interesting distinction between Thailand and the other five countries visited during AIR’s global
evaluation is that Thailand has the highest percentage of non-salary expenditures in CFS.22 This is likely
attributable to higher non-salary allocations to basic education at the national level, as well as greater
proportions of financial support by the community and local government (see Table 18 below).

Table 18 Percentage of expenditures by category across countries

Nigeria South Africa Philippines Thailand Guyana Nicaragua
UNICEF expenditures 04.40 03.50 0.04 02.70 0.40 06.40
Salary expenditures 87.70 82.10 94.30 66.80 97.50 87.20
Other expenditures 07.90 14.40.00 05.70 30.50 2.10 06.40
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

There are two other trends to note. In Figure 13, we see a scatter plot of total per pupil expenditure by
total school enrolment in CFS in Thailand. What we observe is that per pupil expenditures decrease on a
per pupil basis as school sizes increase. This is a common trend in most countries and reflects “returns
to scale” in investments at the school level.

22
Many schools in Thailand report the employment of specialized teachers who are not necessarily full-time but are not teaching
assistants. These individuals teach subjects where there is a wide-spread teacher shortage such as art, PE, English, social studies,
and science.

38
Figure 13 Total per Pupil Expenditure by Total School Enrolment in Thailand CFS Schools

However, as Figure 14 shows, when we look at UNICEF expenditures per school, we observe the
opposite trend, as UNICEF expenditures increase as CFS school size increases. This may be due to
increased expenditures for CFS schools close to urban centres. However, it is a trend important for
program managers to observe and be aware of.

Figure 14 Percentage of UNICEF CFS Expenditures by Total School Enrolment

39
3.6.1 Implications for the Future
In Thailand, as in much of UNICEF’s EAPR and UNICEF’s Regional Office for South Asia (ROSA), over
60 percent of UNICEF funds were specially earmarked for emergencies to support reconstruction after
the 2005 tsunami. These funds were used to effectively rebuild and restore school buildings, water
systems, and toilets destroyed by the tsunami. Now that tsunami relief funding has ended, there is a
decrease in the amount of UNICEF funding allocated to Thailand by UNICEF headquarters. While it
appears that local fundraising efforts have been quite successful, there still is a need for UNICEF to be
strategic in future investments and support of CFS schools.

Luckily, in these respects, UNICEF has a close and productive relationship with Thailand’s MOE. The
MOE has demonstrated substantial ownership of CFS and provided almost complete support for another
national secondary education initiative mentioned earlier – Lab Schools. Given this fact and AIR’s finding
that UNICEF’s support proportionally increases as school size increases, it may be more appropriate for
UNICEF to focus more resources on smaller, rural schools leaving the MOE to continue to provide
support to larger, urban schools. In addition, UNICEF Thailand must consider the tradeoffs present in
scaling up the initiative versus deepening the Child Friendly approach in existing CFS schools. This latter
issue will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4 (Conclusions and Recommendations).

40
CHAPTER 4 – Conclusions and Recommendations
Analysis of the data gathered during the global evaluation on UNICEF CFS in Thailand led to several
recommendations. These are presented below by category.

4.1 Rights-Based and Inclusive Approaches

 Schools attempting to educate disadvantaged children must broaden the traditional role of the
school. Although inclusive education and awareness of disability rights is an increasingly
prominent theme, schools can promote inclusiveness in a number of ways that range from
community mobilization to teacher training programs.
 Efforts to build capacity to support special needs children have the potential to pay large
dividends. Thailand has built a culture of inclusion in school; ensuring that teachers can address
and support the needs of children will ensure that those who are frequently the most marginalized
and neglected by the education system can be properly supported and can thrive. Systems like
SMIS are in place to help with tracking. Continuing to train teachers to not only track but utilize
the information to support special needs is a potential opportunity for UNICEF to support. Only a
few schools actually discussed SMIS, but those that did were able to successfully use the system
to track learners and meet their unique needs. MOE and UNICEF should find avenues to
encourage its use (e.g., creating demand at schools, raising awareness, disseminating case
studies of successful use) and training to ensure capacity to understanding inclusiveness issues.

Inclusiveness involves creating an environment in which all students feel safe and supported. Student
surveys suggest that there is room for growth. For example, when compared to the other five countries
visited, Thai students were less likely to report that it was “very true” that they “felt safe at school.”
Similarly, over 60 percent of students surveyed responded “not at all true” or “a little bit true” when asked
if they could “talk with at least one adult at school about things that are bothering me.” Thai UNICEF
staff are starting to monitor such perceptions by piloting an adaptation of the survey used in AIR’s global
evaluation. If used annually, this monitoring activity should lead to improved efforts to improve students’
perceptions on the inclusiveness of school environments.

4.2 High-Quality and Effective Learning Environments

 Provide training to school heads and teachers on appropriate pedagogical techniques and
methods of instruction for children with disabilities so that more schools can provide high-quality
education to children with disabilities.
 Provide training to school heads and teachers on assessing the conditions for learning and on
appropriate approaches for improving the conditions for learning.
 While teacher survey data suggest that teachers understand the value of and embrace active
child-centred pedagogies and are committed to serving all students, responses to one survey
item – It is the teacher’s responsibility to ensure that all students in their class are successful –
suggest that teachers may lack personal accountability or ownership of the teaching and learning
process. Less than 10 percent of teachers surveyed responded that this item was “mostly true” or
“very true,” and 46 percent responded that it was “not at all true.” Research suggests that when
teachers lack this sense of personal accountability they are unlikely to realize optimal results with
students (Conle, 1999). While these attitudes may not have the same negative impact across all
Thai CFS schools, it may be useful to conduct focus group discussions to deepen our
understanding of the relationship between accountability and performance, and then, if
necessary, to make this a component of future professional development programs.
 Given that funding in the southern, tsunami-affected regions has ended or is ending, UNICEF
Thailand should support development of a cluster-based, peer support system such that model
schools, or those more successful in creating innovative, high-quality learning environments, act
as models and mentors to schools in other districts. ESAO supervisors could conduct site visits

41
 to facilitate this system. District-wide or regional workshops could also be held to facilitate
learning across schools.

4.3 Enhancing the Gender Sensitivity of Learning Environments

 CFS schools have been successful in creating an environment where school leaders and faculty
are committed to gender inclusiveness, and our survey data suggest that female students appear
to feel as included as male students. However, some of our focus group data suggest that
traditional gender expectations may still affect opportunities for female students. It may be useful
to conduct focus groups to deepen our understanding of this issue and to extend the awareness
of all stakeholders regarding the rights of all children to high-quality education.
 CFS schools have not been successful in eliminating all policy and infrastructural barriers to
gender inclusiveness. Policies such as not allowing pregnant or parenting girls to come to school
should be revisited and, where necessary, the infrastructure of schools should be improved (e.g.,
providing private latrines for girls).

4.4 Engaging Students, Families, and Communities

 Focus more resources on mobilizing parent participation to support school feeding programs and
encourage student enrolment and continued attendance in school.
 School staff consistently requested additional support and follow-up from UNICEF country offices
to help operationalize the goals of the CFS approach. UNICEF officers can offer training and
workshops to school heads and school staff and parents to build a better understanding of how to
engage parents in their children’s education, involve them in schools beyond labour and
infrastructural support, and increase their participation in school governance and decision-
making.

4.5 Costs of Implementation

 UNICEF support may be necessary to realize program quality. The current CFS model decreases
UNICEF involvement over time. We suggest that UNICEF develop a cost model that involves
both the expansion and continued support of CFS. Better understanding the costs associated
with developing new CFS schools and supporting existing CFS schools, as well as who potential
funders may be, will aid in effective scale-up.

 Currently, large, urban CFS schools receive proportionally more support from both UNICEF and
the MOE through Lab Schools. We suggest that UNICEF consider placing more emphasis on,
and give more support to, smaller, rural CFS schools.

 Use UNICEF's comparative advantage as a coordinator to bring together stakeholders to address

barriers to inclusion that are cross-cutting. For example, it has succeeded in making CFS the
national school reform model and on focusing the Ministry of Education on the importance of
school climate and social and emotional learning. We recommend continuing to emphasize
national policy efforts.

4.6 Monitoring and Evaluating CFS Implementation and Impacts

 AIR is not aware of existing standards for CFS support. We recommend developing standards for
CFS support so the model is not diluted as it continues to go to scale. We also recommending
providing better tools to assess pre-conditions for successful CFS implementation for new
schools so that readiness to implement CFS is factored into scale-up and technical assistance
decisions.

42
  CFS has been evaluated in the past. We recommend continuing to monitor and evaluate CFS
schools and the implementation of the initiative in Thailand. This can include using the Thai
Conditions for Learning Survey and the other tools employed in this evaluation. Subsequent
monitoring and evaluation activities can be targeted towards identifying which children and youth
are not being successfully recruited and which students are dropping out.

4.7 Intensity of Support

For most CFS schools in Thailand today, UNICEF (through the EASO) provides intensive support to new
CFS schools in the first year. All support thereafter is provided largely through yearly monitoring. Given
the small number of supervisors relative to the large number of schools, providing substantial support is
difficult. Although UNICEF recognizes that trade-offs exist between the depth of support any one CFS
school receives and the number of schools supported, it does not appear that a rigorous analysis has
been conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various investment models. Below are some
examples of how the core activities supported by the EASO could be deepened.

 School Self-Assessments: Although schools are asked to conduct the self-assessment every
year, conducting the assessment in an inclusive manner requires financial resources. These
resources are provided to the school by UNICEF in the first year but not provided thereafter.
Thus, in many cases it is difficult to repeat the self-assessment in the same participatory fashion
as in the first year of the program. Further, because the School Improvement Plan (SIP) is a
logistical and operational document, it is likely that the more thematic aspects of CFS are difficult
to operationalize given the structure of the SIP. In the course of conducting self-assessments,
AIR observed that school stakeholders tend to focus on very tangible aspects of the school, such
as school buildings and toilets. Moreover, a consistent finding by many evaluators is that some
CFS schools do not move beyond focusing on inputs to CFS schools towards focusing on how to
meet the objectives of the schools. We suggest that schools’ SIPs address student perceptions
of the school environment as measured by the Thai version of the Conditions for Learning
Survey, which was developed for the Thai MOE.
 A UNICEF-sponsored and EASO-facilitated follow-up may allow stakeholders to start to identify
and address more intangible barriers to the school becoming child friendly, such as negative
gender norms. Given the fact that our findings (like those of previous studies) find a gap between
adult and student perceptions, we recommend that the Conditions For Learning Survey be used,
and that it be administered in a manner that ensures individual confidentiality, but produces
results for key subgroups, such as male and female students, students with disabilities, and
ethnic minorities.

 SMIS: Schools currently use the SMIS to identify children who are at high risk for performing
poorly or dropping out and develop strategies to support them. A follow-up workshop could allow
the school director and teachers to examine whether they have been effective in supporting those
children, and if there were other children who they did not identify through the system who
dropped out. Especially as the MOE is considering scaling up SMIS nationally, it is critical to be
able to advise the MOE on how the scale-up should proceed and what support schools need in
the process of implementing SMIS.

4.7.1 Child-centred approaches

Some parents reported being sceptical of CFS schools because they believe schools should be places of
learning and that “friendliness” is secondary to a school’s mission. We recommend that CFS develop
strategies to enhance parent awareness in a manner that is culturally responsive and family-driven.

4.7.2 Social emotional learning (SEL) and life skills training

Life skills, according to the UN, are first and foremost about a child’s social and emotional development.
Currently, at the school level, the training provided by UNICEF results in equipping students with specific

43
vocational training as well as with specific health-related knowledge. Current efforts do not intentionally
help students learn to understand and manage their emotions and relationships and use these individual
capacities to make appropriate decisions. The lack of attention to this aspect of learning may contribute to
the fact that almost a third of students report that their peers “like to put each other down,” and that “the
school is being ruined by bullies.” Furthermore, almost 55 percent stated that it “was not at all true” or “a
little bit true” that “students at this school know how to disagree without starting a fight or an argument.”

Research suggests that intentional approaches to SEL can reduce problem behaviour and risky
behaviour, improve pro-social behaviour, and contribute to improved academic outcomes. UNICEF in
Thailand has already engaged the Ministry of Education in focusing on SEL for all schools. We
recommend that these activities continue, and that CFS schools be used to pilot SEL activities and that
the survey tools developed for Thai MOE be used to monitor progress.

4.8 Conclusions
Priorities among these recommendations may be best identified at the school level. Although there are
common problems faced by most schools, each school is unique and may need more support in one area
than another. However, given the particularly strong impact of families and communities on schools’
abilities to create safe and welcoming learning environments that are accessible to all children, engaging
parents and communities in school events and decision making activities may be an excellent starting
point. In addition, providing CFS with monitoring tools such as the Conditions for Learning Survey will
enable CFS to improve the conditions for learning experienced by students and to reduce barriers to
teaching and learning faced by school staff and students alike. Further, providing intensive support to
school staff on effective student-centred pedagogical approaches that support all students, including
those with disabilities, and that are child-centred, will help improve outcomes. These approaches should
address both academic and social emotional learning. Finally, providing school staff with additional
training on how to use and respond to SMIS data to improve outcomes for students at risk of failure and
dropout may prove valuable.

44
REFERENCES
AIR. (2009). UNICEF Child Friendly Schools programming: Global evaluation final report. Washington,
DC: Author.
Bernard, A. (2003). Review of Child-Friendly School Initiatives in the EAPRO region (draft). Unpublished
manuscript.
Conle, C. (1999). Moments of interpretation in the perception and evaluation of teaching. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 15(7), 801-814.
FRESH. (2000). Proceedings from the World Education Forum 2000: Focusing Resources on Effective
School Health (FRESH): A FRESH start to enhancing the quality and equity of education.
Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/lifeskills/files/FreshDocument.pdf
Herz, B. K. & Sperling, G. B. (2004). What works in girls’ education: Evidence and policies from the
developing world. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.
Kirk, J. & Sommer, M. (2006). Menstruation and body awareness: linking girls’ health with girls’ education.
KIT, 22, 48.
Kremer, M. (2005). Randomized evaluations of educational programs in developing countries: Some
lessons. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Lockheed, M. E. & Lewis, M.A. (2007). Inexcusable absences. Washington, DC: Center for Global
Development.
Studdert, L. J. et al. (2004). Community-based school feeding during Indonesia’s economic crisis:
Implementation, benefits and sustainability. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 25(2), 156-165.
UNDP. (2008). 2007/2008 Human development report: Inequality in income or expenditure. Retrieved
from http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/147.html
UNESCO. (2005). EFA global monitoring report. Paris: Author.
UNICEF. (2006). School sanitation and hygiene education: Results from the assessment of a 6-country
pilot project. New York: Author.
UNICEF East Asia and Pacific Office. (2004). Child Friendly Schools in East Asia and the Pacific: How
friendly can they be? Bangkok: UNICEF.
UNICEF Education Section. (2008, June 24). Mid-year Review Workshop. New York: Author.
World Bank. (2009). Measuring inequality. Retrieved from http://go.worldbank.org/3SLYUTVY00

45
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people contributed to the evaluation and preparation of this report and the authors acknowledge
their important contributions.

Laurence (Lolo) Dessein organized the country site visits in collaboration with UNICEF country offices
and supported the field teams from the home office with the support of Rob Hurtekant. Rima Azzam
managed the project during the inception phase. Roy Zimmermann managed project logistics in the home
office throughout the data collection period. Corbrett Hodson, Alex Ortiz, and Olivia Padilla contributed to
data analysis and report production. Miguel Socias developed the cost model and conducted analyses for
the cost analysis. Mark Strickland of Schoolhouse Partners also provided valuable consultation on the
cost model and analyses. Elizabeth Spier played a key role in the development of many instruments.
Judy Benjamin, Jeff Davis and Jerry Mindes provided quality assurance oversight throughout the project
and reviewed drafts of the report and provided valuable suggestions.

The authors would like to thank the staff of the UNICEF Thailand office, in particular Rangsun
Wiboonuppatum and Marut Jatiket, for the extraordinary effort they made to facilitate our country site
visits, before, during and after our time in-country.

We thank Cream Wright, Changu Mannathoko and Maida Pasic of the Education Section and Sam Bickel
and Kathleen Letshabo of the Evaluation Unit of UNICEF Headquarters for their guidance and support
throughout the evaluation.

Finally, we thank the school heads, teachers, parents and students in the schools we visited for speaking
with us about their experiences and the government, donor and NGO representatives that we met with
during our site visits for taking the time to meet with us and help us understand CFS in Thailand.

46
Appendix A. Scale Construction Items
Table A1 Challenging Student-Centred Learning Environment scale student survey items

Q49 When students master their lessons, they are given more challenging work.
Q51 The topics we are studying at this school are interesting.
Q64 Lessons at this school are boring. (R)
Q56 Every student is encouraged to participate in class discussions.
Q59 Teachers at this school will listen if you want to explain your answers in class or on assignments.
Q67 Students are encouraged to work together in class.
Q68 Students are encouraged to share their ideas and opinions in class.
Q12 I have given up on school. (R)
Q15 I want to complete secondary school.
Q20 Adults in the community encourage me to take school seriously.
Q23 Teachers and school staff believe that all students can learn.
Q44 Teachers at this school expect students like me to succeed in life.
Q52 Students at this school think that it is okay to cheat. (R)
Students at this school try to do a good job on their lessons, even if they are difficult or not
Q53
interesting.

Table A2 Safe and Welcoming School Learning Environment scale student survey items

GO1 Students are protected from access by unauthorized adults while at school.
GO2 Students are within sight or hearing of school staff at all times except for brief periods (e.g., when
using the latrine).
GO3 Students are not permitted to roam the hallways or school grounds when class is in session.
GO4 Students are not permitted to leave school grounds without the knowledge and permission of
school staff.
GO5 Older students do not have unsupervised access to younger students while on school grounds
(except siblings or other close family members).
GO6 School buildings are in good structural condition.
GO7 School buildings are in good physical condition (e.g., no peeling paint, broken windows, etc.)
GO21 Students have adequate space to work and play without being disturbed by others.
IA2 Toxic materials (e.g., cleaning chemicals) are kept inaccessible to students at all times.
IA3 The school keeps a stocked first aid kit accessible at all times.
OA1 If the school is located near a road, there is a physical barrier between traffic and school grounds.
OA2 School buildings and grounds have a welcoming appearance.
OA3 Examples of student work or achievements are displayed in common areas.
OA9 Outdoor play areas and equipment are safe and in good repair.
OA10 Students are protected from the elements while using outdoor play areas (e.g., protected from
excessive sun, dust, rain, or wind).

47
Table A3 Healthy Learning Environment: Hygiene and Sanitation scale school observation items

GO8 Students and staff have ongoing, easy access to drinking water.
GO10 Functioning sinks with soap are located close to latrines.
GO12 Latrines are designed to allow students privacy.
GO13 There is an adequate number of functioning latrines available so that students do not have to wait
an excessive amount of time to use them.
GO14 Latrines are safe and in good repair.
GO15 Latrines are accessible to classrooms.
GO16 Latrines and sinks are clean and sanitary.
GO17 Students and staff wash their hands after using latrines.
GO18 Students and staff wash their hands prior to eating or handling food.
GO19 Functioning sinks with soap are located close to food preparation areas.
GO20 Any food prepared and served at school is prepared and stored in sanitary conditions.
IA1 The school buildings are clean.
IA4 School buildings provide adequate protection from the elements (rain, heat, cold, wind, dust)
OA4 The school grounds are kept free of litter and garbage, except in designated containers.
OA5 The school grounds are kept free of unwanted animals and animal waste (e.g., stray dogs). Any
school pets are kept in sanitary conditions.
OA6 The school has a sanitary system for the disposal of waste water.
OA7 The school has a sanitary system for the disposal of latrine waste.
OA8 Smoking is prohibited on the school grounds.

48
Table A4 Healthy Learning Environment: Child-Centred Services scale school head survey items

Q14 This school screens students for learning disabilities, such as difficulty with reading or mathematics.
Q15 This school has teachers who have been specially trained to work with students with disabilities.
Staff from this school goes out into the community to encourage the enrollment of children with
Q16
disabilities.
Q17 Staff from this school goes out into the community to encourage the enrollment of minority
students,
students living in poverty, or others at risk for poor educational outcomes.
Q49 This school recruits teachers who speak the home language(s) of the students.
Q50 Students at this school have daily contact with a teacher who speaks their home language.
Q57 The school provides job-readiness skills education to all students in grades 5 and up.
Q51 The school is able to make referrals to community-based providers of medical and mental health
services that are not offered by the school.
Q52 The school is able to access child welfare services and other support systems for orphans and
vulnerable children.
Q54 The school provides health education to all students regarding the avoidance of high-risk
behaviors (e.g., HIV/AIDS education, prevention of substance abuse).
Q55 The school provides health education to all students in the promotion of healthy daily living (e.g.,
nutrition, dental hygiene).
The school provides education to all students in the development of positive social and emotional
Q56
skills.
Student health and development programs are adapted to meet local socio-cultural norms, values,
Q58
and beliefs.
Q59 The school provides students with access to annual health examinations.
Q60 The school provides students with access to annual mental health screening.
Q61 The school provides micronutrient supplements to students who need them.
Q62 The school provides de-worming treatment of parasitic infections to students who need them.
Q63 The school provides routine vision and hearing screenings to students, and refers students to free
or affordable follow-up services if needed.
Q64 The school uses height/weight screening to identify malnourished children.
Q65 The school has a feeding program for under-nourished students. [Mark ‘very true’ if the program is
provided to all students]
Q66 Students have an opportunity to eat at least every 4 hours while at school.
Q68 Students are allowed access to latrines and drinking water whenever they need them (not only at
specified times).
Q71 The school’s water supply is checked regularly to ensure that it is always safe for drinking.
Q72 The school follows procedures to reduce the presence of disease vectors (e.g., mosquitoes) on or
near school grounds.
Q76 There is at least one staff member present at all times who knows basic first aid.

49
Table A5 Safe, Respectful and Inclusive scale student survey items

Q24 I feel safe at my school.

Q25 I feel safe walking both to and from school.
Q26 I sometimes stay home from school because I am worried about my safety. (R)
Q30 This school is badly affected by crime and violence in the community. (R)
Q09 Students at this school help each other, even if they’re not friends.
Q13 Students at this school treat each other with respect.
Q19 If students see another student being picked on, they try to stop it.
Q27 Students at this school like to put each other down. (R)
Q28 This school is being ruined by bullies. (R)
Q34 There are some students in this school who nobody talks to. (R)
Q35 There are some students at this school who everybody teases. (R)
Q36 Students at this school think it is okay to fight someone who insults them. (R)
Q42 Students at this school know how to disagree without starting a fight or an argument.
Q31 My teachers treat me with respect.
Q38 This school places a high value on understanding and respecting children’s rights.
Q39 Teachers at my school say unkind things to students. (R)
Q41 Sometimes I do not want to come to school because of how the teachers treat me. (R)
Q45 Teachers at this school are interested in what students like me have to say.
Q21 I think that this school respects families like mine.
Q29 I look forward to coming to school.
Q32 Some types of students at this school are treated better than others by teachers and school staff. (R)
Q33 Both boys and girls have equal opportunities to succeed at this school.
Q43 This school is a welcoming place for all types of students.
Q46 When students break rules, they are treated fairly.
Q55 Adults in this school apply the same rules to all students equally.
Q63 I wish I went to a different school. (R)
Q65 The school is a welcoming and inviting place for families like mine.

Table A6 Inclusive Classroom Environment scale classroom observation items

I30 In general, boys and girls receive equal time and attention from the teacher.
The teacher shows similar expectations for both boys and girls (e.g., asks questions of similar
I31
difficulty).
I32 In general, students receive equal time and attention regardless of their background (e.g., ethnicity,
religion, language, etc).
I33 The teacher encourages and supports participation by struggling students.

Table A7 Student Participation scale teacher survey items

Q19 Students are involved in helping to solve school problems.

Q20 In this school, students are given a chance to help make decisions.
Q33 The principal (school director) asks students about their ideas.

50
Appendix B: Director Survey Item-By-Item Responses
Table displays the percentage of the 25 participating school heads that provided each response

Not at A Little Mostly Very

All True Bit True True True
Some students in the community are unable to attend this school because
6 92 4 0 4
they cannot pay school fees or school costs.
7 Students at this school are informed of their rights. 0 0 40 60
There is a procedure in place for students to safely report instances of
8 0 0 40 60
bullying, harassment, or harm from other students without fear.
There is a procedure in place for students to safely report instances of
9 0 4 40 56
bullying, harassment, or harm from teachers without fear.
Boys and girls are equally permitted and encouraged to participate in school
10 0 0 4 96
activities.
Boys and girls are equally permitted and encouraged to participate in
11 0 0 4 96
academic classes.
Boys and girls are equally permitted and encouraged to participate in
12 0 0 0 100
physical activity at school.
Some students have difficulty attending school here because of
13 8 16 40 36
transportation problems.
This school screens students for learning disabilities, such as difficulty with
14 8 4 56 32
reading or mathematics.
This school has teachers who have been specially trained to work with
15 24 48 20 8
students with disabilities.
Staff from this school goes out into the community to encourage the
16 12 20 52 16
enrollment of children with disabilities.
Staff from this school goes out into the community to encourage the
17 enrollment of minority students, students living in poverty, or others at risk for 0 8 60 32
poor educational outcomes.
Staff from this school makes direct contact with families whose children drop
18 out of school or are at risk of dropping out to encourage the child’s continued 0 0 32 68
enrollment.
When students are absent from school for more than a few days, school staff
19 makes direct contact with their families to find out what the problem is and to 0 0 32 68
facilitate the child’s return to school as soon as possible.
My school has a written policy on educating all students, regardless of race,
20 0 4 24 72
ethnicity, gender, language, disability, or religion.
21 Pregnant and parenting students are permitted to attend this school. 56 12 12 20
School staff regularly keeps families informed of student progress (at least
22 0 0 28 72
twice during the school year).
School staff contacts families promptly if there are concerns about a
23 0 0 40 60
student’s learning or behavior.
School staff talks to families about how to help their children with their
24 0 0 36 64
academic studies.
25 School staff talks to families about child labor and children’s rights. 0 4 72 24
All teachers, students and parents have been told about the teacher code of
26 0 0 56 44
conduct.
27 My school has a policy on appropriate teacher-student behavior. 0 4 20 76
This school has a policy prohibiting the release of student information or
28 displaying or posting student information such as exam scores for the public 20 36 24 20
to see.
Students play a formal role in decision-making at school (for example,
29 0 12 48 40
through student government).
30 Students at this school plan and implement community outreach activities. 0 12 48 40

51
 Not at A Little Mostly Very
All True Bit True True True
Students at my school have opportunities to serve in leadership roles, such
31 0 0 24 76
as a member of the student council, governing board, or prefect.
This school actively informs the community about what is happening at the
32 0 0 20 80
school at least several times a year.
This school provides information about what is happening at the school to
33 0 0 32 68
families in a language and format they understand (written or oral).
This school provides information to all families about school policies on
34 bullying, harassment, and physical and sexual violence to families in a 0 4 44 52
language and format they understand (written or oral).
Teachers are given an opportunity to help plan school activities and
35 0 0 16 84
participate in long term planning for the school.
This school includes community members on all decision-making and
36 0 0 52 48
advisory committees.
This school provides training for community representatives on the school's
37 0 12 48 40
decision-making or advisory committees.
All types of families are encouraged to participate in decision-making at this
38 0 0 36 64
school, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, language, disability, or religion.
This school has partnerships with local businesses or community
39 0 4 36 60
organizations to support student learning.
40 The school conducts conferences with parents at least twice a year. 0 0 16 84
This school provides information on student progress to families in a
41 0 0 36 64
language and format they understand (written or oral).
This school has an active Parent Teacher Association (PTA) or School
42 4 4 44 48
Management Council (SMC).
This school holds regular teacher staff meeting on how to improve students'
43 0 0 12 88
achievement.
44 This school conducts classroom observations of teachers. 0 8 56 36
This school teaches students about the history, culture, and traditions of
45 0 0 44 56
different ethnic groups in our country.
Students regularly take part in activities like group projects, field trips, group
46 0 0 40 60
brainstorming, etc.
47 Teachers in this school receive training on appropriate teacher conduct. 0 4 20 76
Teachers in this school have received training on how to use child-friendly
48 0 0 36 64
methods of student discipline.
This school recruits teachers who speak the home language(s) of the
49 24 24 28 24
students.
Students at this school have daily contact with a teacher who speaks their
50 16 40 24 20
home language.
The school is able to make referrals to community-based providers of
51 16 28 44 12
medical and mental health services that are not offered by the school.
The school is able to access child welfare services and other support
52 0 8 64 28
systems for orphans and vulnerable children.
The school is able to teach students how to protect themselves from risks in
53 0 0 44 56
the community.
The school provides health education to all students regarding the avoidance
54 of high-risk behaviors (e.g., HIV/AIDS education, prevention of substance 0 0 20 80
abuse).
The school provides health education to all students in the promotion of
55 0 0 28 72
healthy daily living (e.g., nutrition, dental hygiene).
The school provides education to all students in the development of positive
56 0 4 36 60
social and emotional skills.
The school provides job-readiness skills education to all students in grades 5
57 0 16 40 44
and up.
Student health and development programs are adapted to meet local socio-
58 0 4 56 40
cultural norms, values, and beliefs.
59 The school provides students with access to annual health examinations. 0 16 28 56

52
 Not at A Little Mostly Very
All True Bit True True True
60 The school provides students with access to annual mental health screening. 44 20 12 24

61 The school provides micronutrient supplements to students who need them. 4 20 52 24

The school provides de-worming treatment of parasitic infections to students
62 8 32 36 24
who need them.
The school provides routine vision and hearing screenings to students, and
63 0 8 60 32
refers students to free or affordable follow-up services if needed.
64 The school uses height/weight screening to identify malnourished children. 4 0 24 72
The school has a feeding program for under-nourished students. [Mark ‘very
65 0 8 16 76
true’ if the program is provided to all students]
66 Students have an opportunity to eat at least every 4 hours while at school. 8 12 24 56
Students are given a break in their studies of at least 15 minutes at least
67 0 12 32 56
every 3 hours while at school.
Students are allowed access to latrines and drinking water whenever they
68 0 0 8 92
need them (not only at specified times).
Teachers have a break away from students for at least 15 minutes, at least
69 4 0 28 68
every 4 hours.
The school director is on site and accessible to staff and students at least
70 0 0 12 88
half of the time.
The school’s water supply is checked regularly to ensure that it is always
71 4 24 24 48
safe for drinking.
The school follows procedures to reduce the presence of disease vectors
72 0 4 40 56
(e.g., mosquitoes) on or near school grounds.
73 School grounds are kept free from weapons. 0 0 8 92

74 School grounds are kept free from drugs and alcohol. 0 0 20 80

School staff has been trained in managing emergencies that impact the
75 4 8 48 40
school.
There is at least one staff member present at all times who knows basic first
76 0 0 16 84
aid.
Students with disabilities are offered equal opportunities to participate in
77 0 0 20 80
school activities.

53
Appendix C: Teacher Survey Item-By-Item Responses
Table displays the percentage of the 366 participating teachers that provided each response
Not at A Little Mostly Very
All True Bit True True True
5 At this school, students and teachers get along really well. 0.3 2.5 38.8 58.5

6 Students in this school help each other, even if they are not friends. 0 6.8 62.3 30.9

7 This school fails to involve parents in most school events or activities. 77 14.8 5.7 2.5

8 At school, decisions are made based on what is best for students. 0.3 1.6 25.1 73

9 Teachers and students treat each other with respect in this school. 0 2.5 38 59.6

10 I trust the principal (school director) will keep his or her word. 0.5 5.7 39.1 54.6
At this school, it is difficult to overcome the cultural barriers between
11 61.2 29.2 7.7 1.9
teachers and parents.
12 Teachers in this school treat each other with respect. 0.3 3.8 33.9 62
The principal (school director) and other leaders in this school make good
13 0.5 4.9 50.5 44
decisions.
14 The school is a welcoming and inviting place for parents. 0 2.5 16.1 81.4

15 Adults in the community support this school. 0.3 4.9 42.3 52.5

16 Lots of parents come to events at this school. 0.8 9.3 48.4 41.5
The principal (school director) looks out for the personal welfare of school
17 0.3 7.4 44 48.4
staff members.
18 Adults in the community encourage youth to take school seriously. 0 9 59 32

19 Students are involved in helping to solve school problems. 0.5 16.4 62.8 20.2

20 In this school, students are given a chance to help make decisions. 0.8 14.2 60.9 24

21 Adults in the community know what goes on inside schools. 0.3 11.2 62.3 26.2

22 Teachers and school staff believe that all students can learn. 0 2.2 33.1 64.8

23 Both boys and girls have equal opportunities to succeed at this school. 0 2.5 24.6 73

24 I feel safe at my school. 0 3.8 26.2 69.9

25 My students are safe at school. 0.5 0.8 25.7 73

26 This school is being ruined by bullies. 67.5 26.8 4.4 1.4

27 This school is badly affected by crime and violence in the community. 84.7 9.8 1.9 3.6

28 I am satisfied with my involvement with decision-making at this school. 0.5 9.6 44.3 45.6
29
When students break rules, they are treated fairly. 0.5 2.2 27.3 69.9
30 School staff members have a lot of informal opportunities to influence what
23.2 23.2 43.2 10.4
happens here.
31 Crime and violence are or should be major concerns at school. 82.5 9.8 3.8 3.8
32
The work rules at this school make it easy for teachers to their jobs well. 2.2 9 43.7 45.1

54
 Not at A Little Mostly Very
All True Bit True True True
33
The principal (school director) asks students about their ideas. 1.4 9.3 51.4 38
Health issues keep students at this school from learning as much as they
34 44.5 39.9 11.2 4.4
should.
35 Hygiene is or should be a concern at this school. 45.9 35.5 10.9 7.7

36 All students should be encouraged to participate in class discussions. 0.8 6.3 30.9 62
Inadequate nutrition keeps students at this school from learning as much as
37 58.7 30.3 7.4 3.6
they should.
Classroom learning is most effective when based primarily on lectures, with
38 48.9 37.7 11.2 2.2
students responding when called on.
It is the teacher’s responsibility to ensure that all students in their class are
39 45.9 44.8 6.3 3
successful.
Students can benefit academically from learning that takes place outside the
40 0 10.9 40.4 48.6
classroom.
When teachers allow students to discuss or debate ideas in class, it takes
41 74.9 18.3 5.2 1.6
time away from learning.
Students have better academic achievement in classrooms where their
42 0.5 3.8 30.6 65
active participation in learning is encouraged.
It is the teacher’s responsibility to find a way to meet the learning needs of
43 0.8 1.6 30.9 66.7
every student in their class.
This school provides me with adequate resources to help every student in
44 0.8 16.7 51.9 30.6
my class to succeed.
45 This school provides a sanitary environment for staff and students. 0.3 6 50.8 42.9
Teachers should not make a lot of effort to help students who are behind in
46 76.2 17.8 5.2 0.8
their work because it takes too much time away from the other students.
Teachers should focus their efforts on those students who have the best
47 52.5 17.5 14.2 15.8
chance to succeed in life.
48 I am able to speak the home language of the students in my class. 8.2 25.7 28.1 38

49 Teachers at this school help each other. 0.5 5.7 36.3 57.4

50 Teachers in this school trust each other. 1.4 7.1 42.1 49.5
Teachers at this school are given ongoing opportunities to learn better
51 0.5 6.3 31.1 62
techniques through workshops, seminars, or trainings.
I have been provided with professional development opportunities that have
52 0.3 6.6 35.5 57.7
helped me to be a better teacher at this school.
School leadership provides teachers at this school with adequate support to
53 0 5.2 40.2 54.6
continually improve their teaching methods.
School leadership provides teachers at this school with adequate support to
54 0 4.4 41 54.6
continually improve their relationships with all types of students.
Teachers at this school provide each other with helpful feedback to improve
55 0.5 7.4 48.4 43.7
their teaching methods.
56 Students at this school have the materials they need to learn. 0.3 16.4 61.5 21.9
Teachers at this school have the resources they need to plan effective
57 0.3 15 60.9 23.8
lessons.
Teachers at this school are provided with an effective curriculum to guide
58 0.5 6 54.1 39.3
their teaching.
Teachers at this school have adequate opportunities to prepare their
59 1.4 8.2 56.8 33.6
lessons.
Some types of students at this school are treated better than others by
60 57.1 20.2 13.9 8.7
teachers and school staff.
This school places a high value on understanding and respecting children’s
61 0.5 4.1 26.5 68.9
rights.
I am unable to implement the curriculum as well as I would like because I
62 44.8 36.9 14.2 4.1
don’t have the right materials available.

55
 Not at A Little Mostly Very
All True Bit True True True
63 Families are involved in making decisions that affect this school. 7.1 27 46.4 19.4

64 This school is a welcoming place for all types of children. 0.8 1.6 12.6 85

56
Appendix D: Student Survey Item-By-Item Responses
Table displays the percentage of the 1,845 participating students that provided each response
Not
Yes No
Applicable
Is the language that the teachers at your school use the same as the
3 15.8 83.8
language you use at home?
Is the religion you practice at home the same as most other students at
4 83.5 16.2 0.2
your school?
Mostly Mostly Mostly Poor/
Mostly Good
Excellent Fair Failing
5 What kind of grades do you usually get? 10.9 58.1 30 0.8

Yes No

6 Do you expect to continue your education next year? 97.1 2.5

Less than Once per
Never Once per Month or
Month More
During the past year, how many days did you miss school without
7 73.8 20.7 5.4
permission from the school or from your family?
15 Days or 16 to 30 More than
Never
Less Days 30 Days
During the past year, how many days did you have to miss
8 84.4 14.1 0.6 0.7
school in order to work or to help out at home?

Not at All A Little Mostly Very

True Bit True True True
9 Students at this school help each other, even if they are not friends. 1 29.4 48.2 21.4

10 At school, decisions are made based on what is best for students. 2.5 15.7 39.2 42.5
I can talk with at least one adult at school about things that are bothering
11 22.9 37.6 22.9 16.6
me.
12 I have given up on school. 89 6.6 2.7 1.7

13 Students at this school treat each other with respect. 3.1 28.2 40.8 27.9
The principal (school director) and other leaders in this school make good
14 1.7 7.6 30.8 59.9
decisions.
15 I want to complete secondary school. 2.8 4.4 10.1 82.7

16 In this school, students are given a chance to help make decisions. 6.8 25.6 42.5 25.1

17 Teachers at this school really care about students like me. 1.9 11.5 33.1 53.5

18 Students are involved in helping to solve school problems. 4.7 29.8 41.4 24.1

19 If students see another student being picked on, they try to stop it. 6.5 22.3 36.7 34.4

20 Adults in the community encourage me to take school seriously. 1.3 6.9 20.9 70.8

21 I think that this school respects families like mine. 2.1 14 35.9 48.1

22 My family knows what goes on inside this school. 11.2 37 36.9 15

23 Teachers and school staff believe that all students can learn. 0.7 9.2 38.8 51.3

24 I feel safe at my school. 1.9 11.1 31.4 55.7

57
 Not at All A Little Mostly Very
True Bit True True True
25 I feel safe walking both to and from school. 3.7 22.5 39.9 33.9
I sometimes stay home from school because I am worried about my
26 72.4 16.5 7 4.1
safety.
27 Students at this school like to put each other down. 25 42.5 21.2 11.2

28 This school is being ruined by bullies. 31.7 35.8 18.6 13.9

29 I look forward to coming to school. 4.8 13.4 31.8 50

30 This school is badly affected by crime and violence in the community. 64.1 26.4 6.1 3.4

31 My teachers treat me with respect. 4 13.7 36.1 46.2

Some types of students at this school are treated better than others by
32 34.8 32.6 22.1 10.5
teachers and school staff.
33 Both boys and girls have equal opportunities to succeed at this school. 3.6 11.1 31.2 54.1

34 There are some students in this school who nobody talks to. 70.9 19.3 5.5 4.3

35 There are some students at this school who everybody teases. 23.6 46.5 20.9 8.9

36 Students at this school think it is okay to fight someone who insults them. 33 37.9 19.2 10
This school does a good job teaching students what they really need to
37 1.4 7.3 28.6 62.7
know in life.
This school places a high value on understanding and respecting
38 1.9 12.7 36.5 48.8
children’s rights.
39 Teachers at my school say unkind things to students. 49.3 35.9 9.7 5

40 I feel safe everywhere at my school. 5.4 21.5 34.8 38.3

Sometimes I do not want to come to school because of how the teachers
41 64.5 24.4 7.9 3.3
treat me.
Students at this school know how to disagree without starting a fight or an
42 19 35.5 27.2 18.3
argument.
43 This school is a welcoming place for all types of students. 5.1 8.9 18.3 67.6

44 Teachers at this school expect students like me to succeed in life. 2.1 5.5 21.1 71.3
Teachers at this school are interested in what students like me have to
45 3.6 21.5 45.4 29.5
say.
46 When students break rules, they are treated fairly. 5.1 18 37.5 39.3
This school does not try to help students who are behind in their work to
47 51.9 21.5 16 10.6
catch up.
My teachers give me feedback on my assignments that help me to
48 1.4 9.9 32.7 56
improve my work.
When students master their lessons, they are given more challenging
49 3.7 21.2 42.7 32.4
work.
This school does a good job in preparing students to continue on for more
50 2.4 10.1 36.9 50.5
education after they graduate.
51 The topics we are studying at this school are interesting. 1.8 12.2 37.2 48.8

52 Students at this school think that it is okay to cheat. 70.3 19 7.8 2.9
Students at this school try to do a good job on their lessons, even if they
53 3.4 13.8 41.8 40.9
are difficult or not interesting.
54 Adults in this school are usually willing to give students extra help. 4.2 17.5 42.1 36.2

58
 Not at All A Little Mostly Very
True Bit True True True
55 Adults in this school apply the same rules to all students equally. 5.9 17.9 29.4 46.8

56 Every student is encouraged to participate in class discussions. 3.4 14.7 39.6 42.3

57 Teachers notice if I am having difficulty with my lessons. 4.2 22 40.9 33

Teachers give students opportunities to improve their work if they do
58 2.5 14.1 36.9 46.4
poorly on an assignment.
Teachers at this school will listen if you want to explain your answers in
59 2.1 15.4 41.5 40.9
class or on assignments.
Students at this school have the materials they need to support their
60 3.3 14.3 39.7 42.7
learning.
61 Sometimes I am too hungry to pay attention in school. 29.5 43.5 19.5 7.5
I can talk to teachers or other adults at school if I am having problems in
62 8.1 27 35 29.9
class.
63 I wish I went to a different school. 44.7 28.5 14.8 12.1

64 Lessons at this school are boring. 61.4 27.4 6.8 4.3

65 The school is a welcoming and inviting place for families like mine. 2.6 12.8 33.9 50.7

66 Families like mine are involved in making decisions that affect this school. 10.8 31.3 36.3 21.5

67 Students are encouraged to work together in class. 1.2 10.3 34.3 54.2

68 Students are encouraged to share their ideas and opinions in class. 3.4 17.8 44.1 34.7

69 It is difficult for students like me to get extra help from teachers. 26.7 31.1 26.3 15.8

70 The principal (school director) asks students about their ideas. 8.3 20.9 33.3 37.5

59
Appendix E: School Observation Item-By-Item Responses
Table displays the percentage of the 25 observed schools that received each rating

Not at all Somewhat Very

True True True
Outdoor Areas
If the school is located near a road, there is a physical barrier between traffic and
1 8 16 72
school grounds.
2 School buildings and grounds have a welcoming appearance. 0 8 88

3 Examples of student work or achievements are displayed in common areas. 4 20 72

The school grounds are kept free of litter and garbage, except in designated
4 0 28 68
containers.
The school grounds are kept free of unwanted animals and animal waste (e.g.,
5 0 20 76
stray dogs). Any school pets are kept in sanitary conditions.
6 The school has a sanitary system for the disposal of waste water. 8 8 80

7 The school has a sanitary system for the disposal of latrine waste. 4 12 80

8 Smoking is prohibited on the school grounds. 4 8 80

9 Outdoor play areas and equipment are safe and in good repair. 4 44 48
Students are protected from the elements while using outdoor play areas (e.g.,
10 28 28 40
protected from excessive sun, dust, rain, or wind).
11 All outdoor play areas are accessible to students with physical disabilities. 12 24 60

Indoor Areas

1 The school buildings are clean. 0 16 76

Toxic materials (e.g., cleaning chemicals) are kept inaccessible to students at all
2 0 4 68
times.
3 The school keeps a stocked first aid kit accessible at all times. 0 16 72
School buildings provide adequate protection from the elements (rain, heat, cold,
4 0 12 80
wind, dust)
General Observations

1 Students are protected from access by unauthorized adults while at school. 4 16 72

Students are within sight or hearing of school staff at all times except for brief
2 0 8 84
periods (e.g., when using the latrine).
Students are not permitted to roam the hallways or school grounds when class is in
3 0 8 80
session.
Students are not permitted to leave school grounds without the knowledge and
4 0 4 84
permission of school staff.
Older students do not have unsupervised access to younger students while on
5 4 8 76
school grounds (except siblings or other close family members).
6 School buildings are in good structural condition. 0 36 56
School buildings are in good physical condition (e.g., no peeling paint, broken
7 0 48 44
windows, etc.)
8 Students and staff have ongoing, easy access to drinking water. 0 28 64

9 Drinking water is accessible to students with disabilities. 8 28 56

60
 Not at all Somewhat Very
True True True
10 Functioning sinks with soap are located close to latrines. 20 56 16

11 Latrines and sinks are accessible to students with disabilities. 8 48 36

12 Latrines are designed to allow students privacy. 12 16 64

There is an adequate number of functioning latrines available so that students do
13 8 36 52
not have to wait an excessive amount of time to use them.
14 Latrines are safe and in good repair. 0 40 56

15 Latrines are accessible to classrooms. 0 24 72

16 Latrines and sinks are clean and sanitary. 0 48 48

17 Students and staff wash their hands after using latrines. 4 28 24

18 Students and staff wash their hands prior to eating or handling food. 0 20 36

19 Functioning sinks with soap are located close to food preparation areas. 20 36 36
Any food prepared and served at school is prepared and stored in sanitary
20 0 16 72
conditions.
21 Students have adequate space to work and play without being disturbed by others. 0 8 88
All school buildings and classrooms are accessible to students with physical
22 12 44 36
disabilities.
Students with disabilities are grouped with non-disabled students whenever
23 0 16 56
possible.
Students are not separated into different groups for instruction or school activities
24 based on cultural or social background (with the exception of language instruction 4 8 80
or transitional programs if needed).

61
Appendix F: Classroom Observation Item-by-Item Responses
Table displays the percentage of the 51 observed classrooms that received each rating
Not at All Somewhat Very
True True True
1 The classroom is protected from the elements (solid roof, walls, and floor). 2 7.8 88.2

2 The classroom has adequate ventilation. 3.9 13.7 82.4

3 The classroom is a comfortable temperature. 2 15.7 82.4

4 The classroom lighting is adequate for students to work. 2 41.2 56.9

The classroom is clean and orderly (the floor is clean, the tables are orderly,
5 0 23.5 76.5
no garbage on the floor).
6 Outside noise does not affect communication within the classroom. 7.8 27.5 64.7

7 Students each have sufficient space to work. 2 23.5 74.5

8 Students each have a chair or bench to sit on while working. 0 7.8 92.2

9 Furniture is of the right size for students to work comfortably. 0 39.2 60.8
There is a blackboard/whiteboard in the classroom that all students can see
10 0 11.8 88.2
clearly from their seats.
Posters, artwork, or maps (commercially produced or handmade) appear on
11 2 25.5 72.5
the walls of the classroom.
12 There are examples of student work or projects visible in the classroom. 9.8 21.6 62.7

13 The teacher presents lessons in a well-prepared and organized manner. 0 13.7 84.3

14 The teacher maintains an engaging class, without pressuring the students. 0 11.8 84.3

15 The teacher facilitates discussions among students. 2 29.4 60.8

The teacher gives the students the opportunity to present their work to the rest
16 3.9 17.6 64.7
of the class in groups or on their own.
The teacher asks questions that facilitate higher order thinking activities (e.g.,
17 0 35.3 58.8
application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, etc).
The teacher relates information presented in the lesson to students’ lives
18 11.8 27.5 51
outside of the classroom, or to life skills or social emotional learning.
While the students are working, the teacher moves around the classroom to
19 3.9 25.5 66.7
provide support and guidance.
20 The teacher addresses students by name. 11.8 19.6 62.7
The teacher communicates both verbally and nonverbally in a positive and
21 0 9.8 88.2
friendly manner.
22 The teacher interacts with the students in a respectful manner. 0 5.9 94.1

23 The teacher uses positive methods to manage student behavior. 0 11.8 84.3

24 The teacher adapts lessons for student with special learning needs. 7.8 23.5 45.1

25 The students pay attention when the teacher gives them instructions. 0 29.4 70.6

26 The students ask the teacher questions. 17.6 41.2 41.2

27 The majority of the students participate in class activities. 0 15.7 84.3

The students spend little time (less than 20%) copying the lesson literally from
28 9.8 29.4 52.9
the textbook or chalkboard into their notebooks.

62
 Not at All Somewhat Very
True True True
29 The students interact with the teacher in a respectful manner. 0 5.9 92.2

30 In general, boys and girls receive equal time and attention from the teacher. 0 0 96.1
The teacher shows similar expectations for both boys and girls (e.g., asks
31 0 2 88.2
questions of similar difficulty).
In general, students receive equal time and attention regardless of their
32 0 3.9 80.4
background (e.g., ethnicity, religion, language, etc).
33 The teacher encourages and supports participation by struggling students. 0 11.8 25.5

63
Appendix G: Thailand T-Test Results
Inclusiveness
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of students who want to
complete secondary school from two groups; students attending more rights-based schools and less
rights-based schools. There was a significant difference in the mean scores for student attending more
rights-based schools (M = 3.81, SD = .627) and students attending less rights-based schools, M = 3.71,
SD = .685; t (1,843) = -2.646, p < .001 (two-tailed).23

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of students who look forward
to attending school from two groups; students attending more rights-based schools and less rights-based
schools. There was a significant difference in the mean scores for student attending more rights-based
schools (M = 3.65, SD = .744) and students attending less rights-based schools, M = 3.18, SD = .872; t
(1,843) = -9.323, p < .001 (two-tailed).

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of students who view their
school as a welcoming place for all students from two groups; students attending more rights-based
schools and less rights-based schools. There was a significant difference in the mean scores for student
attending more rights-based schools (M = 3.60, SD = .836) and students attending less rights-based
schools, M = 3.46, SD = .863; t (1,843) = -2.788, p = .001 (two-tailed).

Effectiveness
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of students who reported that
when they mastered a lesson, their teacher gave them more challenging work from two groups; students
attending most effective schools and least effective schools. There was a significant difference in the
mean scores for student attending most effective schools (M = 3.14, SD = .793) and students attending
least effective schools, M = 2.93, SD = .765; t (860.54) = -4.085, p < .001 (two-tailed).

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of students who reported that
their teacher noticed if they had difficulty with their lessons from two groups; students attending most
effective schools and least effective schools. There was a significant difference in the mean scores for
student attending most effective schools (M = 3.23, SD = .783) and students attending least effective
schools, M = 2.79, SD = .814; t (861.17) = -8.146, p < .001 (two-tailed).

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of students who reported that
they are given opportunities to improve their work if they do poorly on assignments from two groups;
students attending most effective schools and least effective schools. There was a significant difference
in the mean scores for student attending most effective schools (M = 3.48, SD = .731) and students
attending least effective schools, M = 2.96, SD = .751; t (840.82) = -10.374, p < .001 (two-tailed).

Health
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of students who feel safe at
their school from two groups; students attending most healthy schools and least healthy schools. There
was a significant difference in the mean scores for student attending most healthy schools (M = 3.80, SD
= .508) and students attending least healthy schools, M = 3.25, SD = .807; t (805.59) = -11.938, p < .001
(two-tailed).
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of students who look forward
to attending school from two groups; students attending most healthy schools and least healthy schools.
There was a significant difference in the mean scores for student attending most healthy schools (M =

23
Note that while mean differences reported in this section may be statistically significant, statistical significance should not be
equated with practical significance. That is, a statistically significant finding of small magnitude, such as the difference between
students reporting they want to complete secondary school at more and less rights-based schools (.10), may not have a practical
application.

64
3.59, SD = .769) and students attending least healthy schools, M = 3.25, SD = .822; t (753.74) = -6.046, p
< .001 (two-tailed).

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of students who expect to
continue their education next year from two groups; students attending most healthy schools and least
healthy schools. There was a significant difference in the mean scores for student attending most healthy
schools (M = 1.00, SD = .054) and students attending least healthy schools, M = 1.04, SD = .201; t
(568.082) = 4.041, p <.001 (two-tailed).

Gender Equality
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of students who feel safe at
their school from two groups; students attending more gender-equal schools and less gender-equal
schools. There was a significant difference in the mean scores for student attending more gender-equal
schools (M = 3.79, SD = .491) and students attending less gender-equal schools, M = 3.31, SD = .787; t
(1,843) = -11.440, p < .001 (two-tailed).

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of students who look forward
to attending school from two groups; students attending more gender-equal schools and less gender-
equal schools. There was a significant difference in the mean scores for student attending more gender-
equal schools (M = 3.58, SD = .750) and students attending less gender-equal schools, M = 3.19, SD =
.880; t (1,843) = -7982, p < .001 (two-tailed).

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of students who want to
complete secondary school from two groups; students attending more gender-equal schools and less
gender-equal schools. There was a significant difference in the mean scores for student attending more
gender-equal schools (M = 3.87, SD = .517) and students attending less gender-equal schools, M = 3.69,
SD = .707; t (1,843) = -4.754, p < .001 (two-tailed).

Participation
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of students who look forward
to attending school from two groups; students attending more participatory schools and less participatory
schools. There was a significant difference in the mean scores for student attending more participatory
schools (M = 3.73, SD = .656) and students attending less participatory schools, M = 3.17, SD = .877; t
(1,843) = -10.928, p < .001 (two-tailed).

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of students who want to
complete secondary school from two groups; students attending more participatory schools and less
participatory schools. There was no significant difference in the mean scores for student attending more
participatory schools (M = 3.73, SD = .700) and students attending less participatory schools, M = 3.72,
SD = .670; t (1,843) = -.226, p = .844 (two-tailed).

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of students who feel boys
and girls have equal opportunities to succeed at their school from two groups; students attending more
participatory schools and less participatory schools. There was a significant difference in the mean scores
for student attending more participatory schools (M = 3.60, SD = .731) and students attending less
participatory schools, M = 3.30, SD = .827; t (1,843) = -6.030, p < .001 (two-tailed).

65