distributes the funds to the LOA or directly to schools. The LAO is the institution that will eventually administer schools autonomously. In the meantime, decentralization is in progress, transferring authorities from the ESA to the LAO as soon as it is feasible. Each LAO is administered by an Area Committee for Education, which includes community representatives, the Local Administrative Organization, the teachers’ association, the educational administrator associations, the parents’ association, and educational scholars. Geographically, the Education Service Area is above the local level but below the provincial level (UNESCO 2009). Under the decentralized framework schools are free to manage their non-salary expenditures. The Ministry of Education regulates policies and planning at the central level and each of the 76 provinces develops its own provincial plan, while local governments develop their own local policies.

Teachers are managed under the rules of the Teachers Civil Service Commission, which now allows for some managerial tasks to be performed by the Education Institution Committee at the local level. Teacher management has also been decentralized to the ESA level, but the Commission for Teachers and Administrative Personnel still has substantial influence, leaving the ESA only with the responsibility for the recruitment and deployment of teachers.

In terms of access, Thailand has made substantial progress in the last two decades. The gross enrollment rate for primary school is now above 100 percent; for lower secondary, it is 99 percent; and for upper secondary, 76 percent. In 2012 there were more than 5 million children enrolled in primary education, more than 4.7 million in secondary education and 2 million in tertiary education (UNESCO Institute of Statistics 2014). In addition, almost 1 million children attended vocational education (UNESCO 2011). Still, full coverage in basic education is not complete due to inaccessibility of some areas, and lower school access among the poor.

# **3. A Model for Assessing School Autonomy and Accountability**

Intuitively, good school management is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for learning. However, improper or inadequate management practices can be a substantial barrier to school and student performance. One can fix some managerial components and obtain no results or alter some other components and obtain good results. What combination of management practices are crucial for success are still under study, but the emerging body of practice point to a set of variables that foster managerial **_autonomy_** , the **_assessment_** of results, and the use of the assessment to promote **_accountability_** among all stakeholders (Patrinos, Velez and Wang 2013).

The lessons learned in the last 30 years indicate that by combining managerial autonomy, assessing student learning, and being accountable to parents and other stakeholders tends to produce good school performance and increased learning (Bruns, Filmer and Patrinos 2011). Together, these factors work like a system; that is, they work as a set of interconnected variables that can improve learning when they operate in close coordination. Moreover, these factors have well identified components that all schools can manage on their own, such as the management of the operating budget, the responsibility for selecting and managing teachers and staff, the management of the school’s infrastructure, and the monitoring and evaluation of teacher performance and of student learning outcomes.

_School autonomy_ is a form of school management in which schools are given decision-making authority over their operations (Patrinos 2011). Autonomy may take different forms and may include the hiring and firing of personnel, and the assessment of teachers and pedagogical 5