Vietnam’s Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) recently issued Circular 19/2025/TT-BGDĐT, a regulation on student commendation and discipline. The most controversial point is the complete abolition of suspension and expulsion for students who commit even serious violations. In practice, this means a school must keep a student who commits violence or threatens the lives of teachers and classmates inside the classroom.
While seemingly rooted in humanism, this directive is fundamentally flawed and places both educators and students in profound danger.
The central question must be: Who will protect the future of the dozens—even hundreds—of remaining students?
I. School safety is the supreme principle
A classroom is an educational space, not a laboratory for untested benevolence. Forcing a school to retain a student who poses a physical threat means planting constant fear. The majority of students will be forced to live in permanent anxiety over their safety.
According to the Safe School Initiative Final Report by the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Education (2004), school attacks are rarely impulsive; perpetrators almost always exhibit prior warning signs and often share their intentions with others.
The globally recognized model for managing this risk is the Threat Assessment system, developed by the University of Virginia and recommended by the U.S. Secret Service. This process involves a multidisciplinary team that detects early signs, evaluates the level of threat, and intervenes appropriately—critically, including the power to temporarily separate a dangerous student from the learning environment.
In practice, studies show that schools lacking a mechanism for “emergency separation” and risk assessment are often paralyzed, leading directly to safety failures. Circular 19 has inadvertently disarmed schools of their most vital safety tool.
II. The illusion of instant reform
Circular 19 prioritizes the welfare of one student over the safety and rights of dozens of others. Have the authors of this policy considered what it is like to have a child living in fear of being bullied, psychologically tormented, or physically attacked every single day? On paper, this decision is easy; the price is paid in the long-term trauma of innocent children.
The law must always enforce the principle of balancing rights. When one individual’s behavior crosses the line of physical threat, the right to safety for the majority must take precedence. The only way to balance this is to grant schools the right to emergency separation or expulsion when all other measures have failed.
The policy relies on several naive and dangerous assumptions:
- Assumption 1: Quick behavioral change. Proponents assume that a student’s behavior will change quickly through love and support. Research on aggression intervention shows effectiveness is small to moderate, and changes are never instantaneous. Serious programs take months, often years, and require consistent coordination with family and mental health experts. During this lengthy intervention period, should dozens of students live in fear and perpetual emotional distress?
- Assumption 2: Parental cooperation. The circular assumes parents will actively cooperate. The reality in Vietnam is that many parents view school as a “daycare,” passing all responsibility to the teachers, and often refusing to collaborate on behavioral strategies. Lack of parental cooperation significantly undermines the effectiveness of any intervention.
III. The criminalization trap
A dangerous delusion is the idea that because students are young, they cannot commit serious acts. Yet, adolescents can and do bring weapons to school, commit sexual assault, and even homicide. Under Vietnamese Penal Code, children aged 14 and above can face criminal liability for serious offenses. Youth is no longer an adequate shield.
With Circular 19, MOET is opening a Pandora’s Box. Students who know they “cannot be expelled” will be encouraged to test and violate boundaries, negatively impacting their peers and teachers.
The most catastrophic consequence lies in the response to serious violations. By eliminating the school’s power to expel, the only tool remaining when a student brings a weapon or commits a serious crime is to call the police and initiate criminal prosecution.
The policy, enacted in the name of “humanism,” paradoxically destroys the student’s future far more effectively: instead of facing a disciplinary measure within the school system, the student faces the harsh, life-altering consequences of criminal law. Threat assessment models are successful precisely because they offer an alternative to arrest. By removing the emergency separation mechanism, the Circular corner the school—and the student—into the legal abyss.
IV. The mandate: Restore authority to the principal
The recent chilling incident where a student attacked a teacher after a sharp object was confiscated should serve as a stark warning. The local authorities’ slow response and “request for guidance” from MOET demonstrated institutional paralysis. While officials deliberate for days, who is protecting the remaining students and the teacher?
The Ministry cannot manage discipline from Hanoi. Schools must be trusted to make the difficult decision to suspend or expel a student for grave violations. Believe that experienced school leaders are ethical and seasoned enough not to abuse the heaviest forms of discipline.
A policy that sacrifices the guaranteed safety of dozens of innocent children in the naive hope of instantly rehabilitating one troubled student cannot be called humanistic. By removing the ultimate protective measure, Circular 19 makes schools less safe and negatively impacts the future of the vast majority of students.
Nguyen Quoc Toan
Appendix: Selected Research and Reports
- U.S. Secret Service & U.S. Department of Education. Threat Assessment in Schools: A Guide to Managing Threatening Situations and to Creating Safe School Climates (2002).
- U.S. Secret Service & U.S. Department of Education. The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States (2004).
- U.S. Secret Service. Protecting America’s Schools: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Targeted School Violence (2019).
- University of Virginia. Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines (CSTAG).
- Learning Policy Institute. Pushed Out: Trends and Disparities in Out-of-School Suspension (2018).
- Learning Policy Institute. Improving Student Outcomes Through Restorative Practices (2019).
- Learning Policy Institute. Fostering Belonging, Transforming Schools: The Impact of Restorative Practices (2020).
