The recent episodes of violence in schools reported in the media have ignited much national discussion, with many opinions expressed about what long-term actions should be taken.
The government leadership discussed this on 17 October and proposed a number of measures. It is important that these measures are based on evidence of what works and not on opinions and “in my day” sentiments.
We look here at the proposals in the light of the evidence and suggest whether these measures are effective and beneficial to children in schools.
Police presence in schools
After the cabinet meeting, government spokesperson Fahmi Fadzil announced at a press conference that the government is considering the ‘omnipresent’ nature of the police force: “This move is aimed at ensuring that police presence in schools serves as a signal that our schools are safe places”.
Available research shows mixed findings for police presence in schools and the reduction of violence.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), Maybank a/c 507246118995 or CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
Some studies indicate a reduction in certain types of violence (fights, threats and drug-related activities).
However, most research suggests it does not make schools safer and is linked to negative consequences for students (harsh disciplinary actions like suspensions and expulsions). Studies suggest a police presence in schools makes students feel less safe, with increased anxiety or fear.
Overall, a systematic review of school‐based law enforcement strategies based on 32 studies provide no evidence of safety‐promotion and instead criminalised students and schools.
Metal detectors in schools
Selangor Chief Minister Amirudin Shari has announced the use of metal detectors and CCTV installation at affected schools. Whether this will be rolled out to other schools is uncertain.
Evidence shows that while metal detectors might have a role in weapon deterrence or seizure, the current systematic evidence does not confirm they reduce overall school violence, and they are associated with negative consequences.
A review of the data over many years shows little to no impact on overall school violence and they may lead to a negative perception of safety among students, with some students feeling less safe.
CCTVs in schools
The Selangor government has also suggested the use of CCTV cameras in affected schools.
While this sounds like a good idea, the evidence and data is mixed. There is some evidence that CCTV use was associated with a modest decrease in crime overall, mainly a reduction in vehicle crimes in car parks, but the effects on violent crime were generally small and non-significant.
Note that a recent longitudinal study found no effect. In addition, in some studies, students felt less safe with CCTVs.
Caning in schools
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is quoted as saying that the government is open to giving teachers flexibility to administer caning to problematic students, subject to strict guidelines. The move was suggested as an effort to discipline students.
Every single systematic review and meta-analysis on corporal punishment in schools (which includes caning) consistently indicates that its use is not effective for reducing violence or improving long-term behaviour.
In fact, the evidence suggests that it is associated with negative outcomes, including increased aggression and violence among students. The American Academy of Pediatrics has strongly stated that the use of corporal punishment in schools is not an effective or ethical method for management of behaviour concerns, causes harm to students and should be abolished.
The government’s suggestion that we use caning in school is a regressive step and one completely dismissed by research and data.
Digital device and social media ban
The government is considering a smartphone ban for those below 16 and an increase in the minimum age for social media use to 16. Prime Minister Anwar is quoted as saying that social media and online games are increasingly shaping children’s behaviour.
We all recognise the enormous impact that internet-connected digital devices and social media have had on society, as well as on children. While some of it has been positive, the major impact has been negative, with a strong addictive component.
We presume here that the proposed ban on ‘smartphones’ will need to include all internet-connected digital devices, like tablets and computers, otherwise it could not be effective.
Current systematic reviews of the data suggest there is limited and inconclusive direct evidence that a complete ban on digital devices and social media for children under 16 will directly reduce overall violence in schools.
There is some research that smartphone bans in schools do have a modest positive effect on reducing violence like bullying.
While social media is acknowledged as playing a role in escalating youth conflict and violence, the evidence does not definitively confirm that a ban for under-16s is an effective intervention for reducing violence.
The key will be the enforceability of such a ban, which can easily be circumvented.
Many researchers and experts advocate for harm minimisation approaches – such as comprehensive digital literacy education, resilience building and emotion regulation skills – over outright bans. Bans are often ineffective and fail to equip children for responsible use in the digital world.
In summary, none of the measures suggested by the federal government or state governments are of proven benefit. More importantly, these measures focus on the symptoms and not the root causes.
We must address the root problems of violence, such as psychosocial (mental health) needs, family challenges, a positive school culture and the failure of social media applications to protect children.
We need to work together to build a school environment and community where students feel safe and welcome, not policed.
Civil society stands ready to support the government in thinking through the issues and coming up with evidence-based, viable and meaningful solutions. These are our children, and all of us are responsible for and committed to supporting them.
Signatories
- Dato’ Dr Amar-Singh HSS, consultant paediatrician, child-disability activist
- Amy Bala, social worker
- Ananti, Yayasan Chow Kit
- Dato Dr Hartini Zainudin, child activist
- Dr Sheila Gopal Krishnan, consultant general paediatrician and child health; senior lecturer, Mahsa University
- Yap Sook Yee, advocate for children with disabilities
- Scott J Wong, programme director, Persatuan Kebajikan Rolf Schnyder
- RD Ramesh Patel, Pertubuhan Kebajikan Vivekananda Rembau, Negeri Sembilan
- Meera Samanther, gender-disability activist
- Mariammah Subramaniam, child rights activist
- Cathryn Anila, child and youth rights advocate
- Kasthuri Krishnan, Malaysia Hindu Dharma Maamandram
- Thulasi Munisamy, Protect and Save the Children
- Datuk Dr Raj Abdul Karim, president, End CSEC Network
- Tiara, Persatuan Untuk Anak Kita (Puak)
- Rozy Ghaffar, child safeguarding officer
- Datin PH Wong, Childline Foundation
- Dato Yasmeen Shariff, child rights advocate
- Goh Siu Lin, child activist
- Suraya Bujang, PurpleLily Social Association Kuching
- Sharmila Sekaran, child rights and protection advocate
- Prof Dato Noor Aziah Mohd Awal, former commissioner, Suhakam
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
