The Future Scenarios Management of National Institute for Development of Teachers, Faculty Staff and Educational Personnel (NIDTEP), Education Ministry in the Next Decade

Abstract

This study aimed (1) to examine the current conditions, problems, authorities and duties, and management system of the National Institute for the Development of Teachers, Faculty Staff, and Educational Personnel (NIDTEP), and (2) to propose directions for the future management of NIDTEP over the next decade. The study population consisted of approximately 25 key informants, including senior executives from the Ministry of Education, former NIDTEP directors, current directors and division heads, stakeholders, and individuals with experience in NIDTEP training programs or project management. Data were collected using the Ethnographic Delphi Future Research (EDFR) technique across three rounds to obtain expert consensus. Data analysis employed descriptive statistics, including the median, mode, and interquartile range (IQR), using standard statistical software. The findings indicate that NIDTEP originated in 1977 from an initiative to consolidate personnel training units previously dispersed across departments within the Ministry of Education. This initiative led to the establishment of the Center for Educational Administrator Development, later formalized as the Institute for Development of Educational Administrators (IDEA), and renamed NIDTEP in 2005. Over time, NIDTEP’s role shifted from an operational training institute to a planning- and policy-oriented organization, with many training and development functions devolved back to their original agencies. Personnel structures were aligned with the framework of the Office of the Civil Service Commission (OCSC). A key challenge identified was the transition to a rational, project-based budgeting system, which constrained the institute’s capacity to maintain and effectively utilize its land and property assets due to insufficient maintenance funding, resulting in reduced organizational efficiency. Looking ahead, the study suggests that NIDTEP should refocus on its core mission of developing educational administrators and position itself as a leading or prototype agency for teacher and educational personnel development in Thailand. This may involve adopting a special agency structure, such as a Service Delivery Unit (SDU), or integrating with the Office of the Teacher Civil Service and Educational Personnel Commission (OTEPC). Emphasis should be placed on continuous personnel development, innovation through digital systems and artificial intelligence, flexible learning modalities, integrated budgeting, and empirical evaluation to strengthen organizational effectiveness over the next decade.