I was with my thai students in religion's classroom (grade 8). I help them to understand swedish texts. Then the teacher explained that "The middle path means...not rich, and not poor."  (ej rik, ej fattig) I am not happy with this explanation at all.   Is it a right explanation?  I am not happy with it.   

I searched for information on internet and there are various explanations, such as neutrality, flexibility, avoid from doing something extreme,  average value  (like 5 is middle value of 0 and 10), and adequacy.  

I think the teacher was trying to explain in a way the students can understand with the example of Rich and Poor......Middle path ....something in between ... or can be like what you googled....flexibilty, average between 0-10 .... would the students understand that explaination vs. the example of what the teacher used rich-poor ?

and how old are the students?

My understanding of the "middle path" concept, was that Thais compromised on everything.

Nobody gets exactly what they want. Everybody gets something. Social harmony through inclusion.

A less palatable example of "middle path" was given by a book I have, "Working with the Thais;" paraphrased, that is: assume there is a business meeting at which a problem needs to be solved. Two people present solutions to the problem to the decision maker. Instead of choosing one person's solution (and offending the other), both solutions are selected and implemented, at great expense.

Given these examples, I've always thought of the "middle path" as being poisonous and detrimental to progress. But I value efficiency over social harmony. I come from a culture where "compromise," in many cases, is considered a bad word.

Thais it seems, have a much different mindset.

Thanks for comments. Now I am at school so I will write more idea at evening time in Sweden.

The kids are around 14-15 years old. I suppose the teacher's explanation is good enough for them.

The middle path which is often used in everyday life in Thailand means a an ethics of human's behavior: compromise and flexibility which are good idea, but I believe they have little to do with Buddhist original idea of the middle path.

It is interesting to know if our neighbor's lands such as Burmese, Vietnamese and Laotian explain 'the Middle path' like Thai people.

This is Swedish concept. I think if the teacher in question was swedish, then it is the concept of "lagom" that teacher probably was thinking, which is about no one is rich or poor, society puts everyone into equal standing.

Then also Confucius is behind much of the middle way thinking. So claiming this "Thai" concept as you note is just well, you know what it is.