It is truly disheartening that more than 7,000 cases of student bullying have been recorded since 2024, with some even ending in fatalities. Indeed, that is a national shame.

We may comfort ourselves by saying that Malaysia is still better off than the US, where even schoolboys seem to have access to automatic weapons and can cause a massacre in school, but such comparisons are just a distraction.

They do not erase the recent horror of a student being stabbed to death in school by a schoolmate. That was a heinous, shocking and tragic crime — something I have never come across in the 30 years of following education-related issues.

It would be easy to blame the school and its teachers for the incident. However, doing so without considering the larger picture — including the work stress faced by teachers, overcrowded classrooms, and a system stretched far beyond its limits — would be grossly unfair.

The incident reflects a deeper, more systemic rot in our society as a whole — involving parenting issues, digital media influence, and a culture that prizes grades over character.

Fixing all the issues will take time, but we must start somewhere.

For me, the best place to begin is by setting a golden rule: a 1:20 teacher-to-student ratio — one teacher for no more than 20 students. That rule must never be breached.

This ratio will allow for real supervision, real interaction, and real care — not the kind of teaching that reduces students to names on a spreadsheet.

The education ministry should also work to prioritise character building over grades.

Enough of this nonsense of rewarding schools for churning out straight-A students. These achievements are mere illusions. They do not reflect the students’ actual command of a subject. Neither do they stop bullying or build character. In short, they do not prepare children for work, or life.

So, is the 1:20 ratio achievable? Or does it require divine intervention? Let’s do the math.

From publicly available data, we have about 250,000 active teachers and an estimated four million students. That’s a ratio of 1:16. So why are classrooms still packed with 40, 45, 50 students? Splitting classes into two is not rocket science—it’s basic management.

Of course, there are schools with only five students per teacher. That’s another problem. Teachers in such settings must be versatile, able to teach multiple subjects. Otherwise, we should follow Japan’s example and close down schools with dwindling enrolment.

And here’s another mystery: why do we need so many education officers doing “management” work at the federal, state, and district levels? Can we not streamline these roles and reassign some of them to work in schools?

When I was pursuing my doctorate in Scotland, I had to transfer my daughters from Tollcross Elementary School to Clovenstone Elementary School. I asked the head teacher how to apply and which department handled transfers. He smiled and told me to just bring your daughters and fill out a form.

I was surprised. Which education department should I liaise with, and what about their school files, I asked. The head teacher smiled and said there was no need for me to go anywhere. All I had to do was bring my daughters to the new school and their files would follow. It was that easy.

With digital management and internet access, student and teacher transfers can be done without involving layers of district, state and federal officers. Except for the most rural parts of Sarawak and Sabah, we should be able to do away with district education offices altogether — or at least expand the role of state offices to absorb their functions.

Without doubt, the federal and state education departments must remain. But there is no need for district level officers. In the age of video conferencing, fast internet, and digital inventory, why are we still clinging to a dinosaur-era system built for the analogue age?

The need to build new schools is also a chance to rethink its architecture. Around the world, many countries have resorted to prefabricated modules, including for use as offices and homes. If we take that route, schools can be built quickly.

There is no need for sprawling school fields. In dense urban areas, 30% green space is more than enough. Sports day and football matches can be held off-site or replaced with activities that fit more compact settings.

By streamlining school management and embracing fast-tracked, space-efficient architecture, we can ensure that there are enough teachers and build schools that reflect the realities of urban living.

These measures do not require divine intervention — just common sense and political will.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.