Culturally Responsive Leadership in Northern Thailand’s Schools: Insights and Practices from School Principals
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Thailand’s educational reform emphasizing decentralization and area-based management has highlighted the need for culturally responsive leadership approaches. Northern Thailand serves over 935,000 students from ethnic and indigenous groups including Karen (44.8%), Hmong (16.2%), Akha (8.5%), and 50+ other ethnicities, alongside over 145,000 stateless students and migrant workers’ children. With more than 70 local and ethnic languages represented in Thai schools, principals face significant challenges managing culturally responsive education. This qualitative research aimed to: 1) study perspectives and life experiences of school principals demonstrating culturally responsive educational leadership; 2) analyze actual practices reflecting this leadership approach; and 3) develop comprehensive recommendations for transforming educational leadership paradigms.
Methodology: The study employed a qualitative descriptive-interpretive approach with multiple case sites over six months (January-June 2024). Twenty principals were purposively selected, eachwith at least five years ofexperience managing culturally diverse schools and demonstrated achievements in culturally responsive education. Demographics: 60% male, 40% female; ages 45-60; 75% master’s degrees, 25% doctoral; 80% specialized in educational administration; averaging 12.5 years principal experience. Schools varied: 55% small (<119 students), 35% medium (120-719), 10% large (720-1,679), across seven northern provinces. Schools served diverse populations: Thai lowlanders (100%), Karen (60%), Hmong (50%), Akha (40%), Lahu (30%), Tai Yai (25%), Tai Lue (20%). Data collection included in-depth interviews (45-60 minutes, 12 follow-ups), systematic observation (2-3 visits per school, 4-6 hours each), and document analysis (174 documents, 8-9 per school). Content analysis generated 150 initial codes refined into 28 subcategories through constant comparative analysis with triangulation.
Main Results: Successful principals demonstrated three characteristics: 90% viewed cultural diversity as social capital, 70% had personal diversity experience, 95% were motivated by educational equity. Five leadership dimensions emerged: creating diversity-conducive environments (anti-discrimination policies 100%, cultural corners 90%, multilingual signage 80%); developing culturally responsive curriculum (local curricula 95%, bilingual teaching 80%, flexible assessment 70%); building community collaboration (parent networks 100%, community experts 95%, inclusive committees 90%); developing teachers’ cultural competencies (multicultural training 90%, diverse learner strategies 85%, study visits 75%); implementing continuous assessment (stakeholder evaluation 85%, culturally responsive indicators 80%, context-appropriate criteria 75%). Success factors included clear vision (90%), community cooperation (95%), and sustained commitment (85%). Primary challenges included: resource limitations (90%), personnel shortages (85%), and attitudinal barriers (80%).
Discussions: Findings aligned with international asset-based diversity research while demonstrating unique contextual adaptations to Thailand’s multicultural landscape. Notably, exceptionally high community collaboration implementation rates (80-100%) suggest Thai principals developed uniquely effective culturally responsive engagement approaches surpassing Western contexts. The tension between centralized educational policies and localized culturally responsive approaches emerged as a significant systemic challenge, reflecting the broader centralization-localization dilemma documented in Southeast Asian education systems.
Conclusion: Educational leadership paradigm transformation recommendations encompassed five interconnected areas: developing leaders’ asset-based mindsets valuing diversity, creating supportive policy systems, implementing culturally integrated curriculum frameworks, enhancing personnel cultural competencies, and establishing continuous assessment practices. These recommendations collectively offer promising pathways for Thai education to more effectively serve its diverse student populations while respectfully leveraging cultural differences as valuable educational assets.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Buosonte, R. (2013). Qualitative research in education (In Thai). Chulalongkorn University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.
DeMatthews, D. E., & Izquierdo, E. (2018). Supporting Mexican American immigrant students on the border: A case study of culturally responsive leadership in a dual language elementary school. Urban Education, 55(3), 362-393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918756715
Dugan, T., Ylimaki, R., & Bennett, J. (2012). Funds of knowledge and culturally responsive leadership: Transforming a failing school in a postcolonial border context. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 15(3), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458912461317
Durongkaveroj, W. (2023). Recent developments in basic education in Thailand: Issues and challenges. Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 39, S20–S33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27211214
Green, T. L. (2017). Enriching educational leadership through community equity literacy: A conceptual foundation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(4), 487–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1326148
Hallinger, P., & Lee, M. (2014). Mapping instructional leadership in Thailand: Has education reform impacted principal practice? Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 42(1), 6-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213502196
Horsford, S. D., Grosland, T., & Gunn, K. M. (2011). Pedagogy of the personal and professional: Toward a framework of culturally relevant leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 21(4), 582-606. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461102100404
Johnson, L. (2014). Culturally responsive leadership for community empowerment. Multicultural Education Review, 6(2), 145-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2014.11102915
Khalifa, M. (2012). A re-new-ed paradigm in successful urban school leadership: Principal as community leader. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 424-467. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11432922
Khalifa, M. A. (2018). Culturally Responsive School Leadership. Harvard Education Press.
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272-1311. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383
Kulophas, D., & Hallinger, P. (2021) Leading when the mouth and heart are in unison: A case study of authentic school leadership in Thailand. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24(2), 145-156.
Lao, R., & Nakyam, S. (2024). Unpacking the “crisis” discourse on small school policy in Thailand. Changing Contexts for School leadership. Asia Leadership Roundtable.
Leepreecha, P., & Sakboon, M. (2021). Education for being Thai-ness among indigenous peoples in the north. Thammasat Journal, 40(2), 68-97.
Lichtman, M. (2023). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003281917
Lopez, A. E. (2016). Culturally responsive and socially just leadership in diverse contexts: From theory to action. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978- 1-137- 53339-5
Madhlangobe, L., & Gordon, S. P. (2012). Culturally responsive leadership in a diverse school: A case study of a high school leader. NASSP Bulletin, 96, 177-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636512450909
Manokarn, M. (2017). A synthesis of basic educational management for schools in highland and rural areas. Srinakharinwirot Academic Journal of Education, 18(1), 70-82.
Marshall, S. L., & Khalifa, M. A. (2018). Humanizing school communities: Culturally responsive leadership in the shaping of curriculum and instruction. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(5), 533-545. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2018-0018
Mok, K. H. (2006). Education reform and education policy in East Asia. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203027912
Niesche, R. (2024). Culturally responsive leadership: A case study of improving relations between indigenous communities and schools. Schooling for Social Justice, Equity and Inclusion: Problematizing Theory, Policy and Practice. Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83549-758-620241004
Office of the Education Council. (2016). The models of area-based education: Lessons, alternatives and success conditions. Prikwan graphics.
Santamaría, L. J., Santamaría, A. P., Webber, M., & Pearson, H. (2014). Indigenous urban school leadership (IUSL): A critical cross-cultural comparative analysis of educational leaders in New Zealand and the United States. Canadian and International Education, 43(1), 1-21.
Shields, C. M. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 558-589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10375609
Sungtong, E., & Maxcy, B. D. (2010). The leadership of public secondary school principals in era of education reform and cultural unrest. International Journal of Urban Education Leadership, 4(1), 141-159.
Uljens, M., & Ylimaki, R. (2017). Briding educational leadership, Curriculum theory and didaktik: Non-affirmative theory of education. Springer Open. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58650-2
Walker, A., & Hallinger, P. (2015). A synthesis of reviews of research on principal leadership in East Asia. Journal of Educational Administration, 53, 554-570. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-05-2015-0038
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006