In 2014, higher-education institutes in Thailand moved the start of the academic year from June to August. The Council of University Presidents of Thailand (CUPT) explained the change was necessary in order to prepare the country’s higher education for the launch of the Asean Economic Community (AEC). Students were told their university year had been synchronised with semester dates in other Asean member countries.

But it quickly emerged that our Asean neighbours each had different academic schedules.

Meanwhile Thai students and graduates realised that starting the academic year in August meant they graduated too late to join the recruitment process of several government agencies. For example, would-be teachers had to wait almost a year after graduation to apply for jobs because the recruitment process starts around May.

Many university students also complained that conducting classes in October made no sense, since floods typically hit their home provinces that month.

The Faculty Senate Chairs of Thailand (AFCT) thus plans to challenge the CUPT’s resolution for an August start.

AFCT Assistant Professor Rattakorn Kidkarn points to a recent survey revealing that most stakeholders disagree with the CUPT-endorsed schedule change.

The survey was conducted among stakeholders at 48 institutes of higher education, mostly Rajabhat universities and Rajamangala universities of technology.

“Of those surveyed, 62.33 per cent say the changed schedule affects Thai ways of life, traditions, culture and occupations,” Rattakorn said.

CUPT president Udom Kachintorn insists that the schedule change is based on well-rounded information.

“We won’t make any change now. We will stick to this schedule at least until 2017, in line with the resolution we made a few years ago. We need to comply by our announcement that we would stick to the current schedule for at least three years,” Udom explained last week.

Although the CUPT resolution is not legally binding on higher-education institutes, universities affiliated with CUPT have willingly complied.

In contrast, Rajabhat universities can choose to change their semester schedule back to the original one, meaning confusion will likely prevail.

It should also be noted that the CUPT president has not rejected a return to the old schedule outright, merely pledging to stick by the current dates for at least three years.

In the meantime, the CUPT has commissioned Kasetsart University to conduct a study on the pros and cons of the current schedule, with the results delivered within four months.

While the CUPT deserves credit for heeding other voices here, the big question is why it had to change the schedule in the first place, considering the immediate and widespread impact it had on millions of lives.

Current university students say that if the academic schedule is changed again, their plans for seeking further education and jobs will again be affected.

The saga underscores a historical problem in Thai education: New ideas and policy are dictated from the centre, without a holistic approach to ensure that all stakeholders are working in the same direction.

This classic underlying problem is compounded by the various explosive issues that surface in the educational scene from time to time.

One such bombshell came last month when many parents were dismayed to discover that free education would end at Mathayom 3 under the current draft charter, not Mathayom 6 as at present.

Last week, many were appalled to hear the chief ombudsman propose that Prathom 6 graduates with a grade point average lower than 2.5 should lose their entitlement to state educational subsidy.

To prevent Thailand’s education sector being dragged further into disarray by the top-down approach and periodic controversial interventions, all stakeholders must now kick their old habits.

It’s high time all parties concerned mounted a holistic effort to research and discuss the challenges and problems, identify possible solutions and adopt the best ideas in a joint approach.

Sticking with old habits and old perspectives will only further hinder development of education in Thailand.