There is something deeply absurd about the Education Ministry partnering with TikTok to turn teachers into content creators while acknowledging that excessive screen time and short-form videos can harm children's concentration, learning and mental wellbeing.
The problem is not technology itself. AI, online learning tools and digital resources can all improve education when used thoughtfully. But there is a significant difference between teaching digital skills and turning classrooms into extensions of commercial social media platforms. That distinction appears to be disappearing.
Education Minister Prasert Jantararuangtong insists the TikTok partnership will modernise education, improve digital literacy and reduce teachers' workloads. Yet the proposal reads less like educational reform and more like a branding exercise built around social media visibility.
Teachers are already burdened with paperwork, administrative reporting and other bureaucratic obligations that have little to do with teaching.
Assoc Prof Sittichai Wichaidit of Thammasat University highlighted a point policymakers continue to overlook: teachers need less bureaucracy, not more content production.
If the ministry genuinely wants to reduce teachers' workloads, AI should be used to automate documentation and eliminate unnecessary administrative tasks, he said. Instead, teachers are being asked to produce social media content. That is not reducing workload. It is simply repackaging it.
More fundamentally, as Assoc Prof Sittichai noted, those closest to the classroom often have the least influence over education policy.
Mr Prasert, a former digital economy and society minister, appears to place considerable faith in digital engagement as a tool for learning. Whether that translates into better educational outcomes remains to be seen.
TikTok is not an educational institution. It is a commercial platform designed to maximise engagement and user retention. Its algorithm rewards speed, stimulation and emotional reaction. The architecture of short-form video is built around capturing attention before users swipe to the next distraction.
And this is the environment Thailand wants to integrate more deeply into education.
The contradiction becomes even sharper when viewed against developments overseas. Governments around the world are growing increasingly concerned about the effects of social media on children and adolescents.
Australia has passed legislation restricting social media access for children under 16, while Indonesia is pursuing similar measures. In Britain, policymakers are debating additional safeguards, including curfews, app limits and restrictions on platform features considered addictive.
For years, Sweden embraced classroom digitalisation, introducing tablets and digital learning tools on the assumption that technology would improve educational outcomes. More recently, however, policymakers have invested heavily in printed textbooks, handwriting and school libraries, citing evidence that younger children often develop reading, writing and concentration skills more effectively through traditional methods.
Sweden is not rejecting technology. It is responding to evidence and adjusting course.
Thailand, meanwhile, appears determined to move in the opposite direction just as others are becoming more cautious.
The minister argues that TikTok videos can help students learn in ways that reflect modern behaviour. But education should not be shaped by shrinking attention spans and algorithm-driven habits. If children struggle to focus because they consume endless streams of rapid-fire content, the answer is not necessarily to package all learning into the same format. By that logic, schools should eventually compress literature into memes and mathematics into dance trends.
There is also an uncomfortable question the ministry has yet to answer clearly: who benefits most from this partnership?
Yet it is difficult to ignore the commercial advantages for a platform that gains deeper access to schools, teachers and students.
The ministry may believe it is promoting digital literacy. In practice, it risks strengthening children's dependence on social media platforms while presenting that dependence as innovation.
Technology should serve education, not the other way around. If the ministry believes excessive screen exposure and addictive platform design can harm children, policy should reflect that concern consistently.
A country cannot claim to protect children from the harms of social media while embedding those same platforms more deeply into its education system.
Karnjana Karnjanatawe is Deputy News Editor of the Bangkok Post.
