I went through newspaper articles of the last two years and I found some examples of impulsive and premeditated behaviour, causing harm to others, often even death, placing the Phayao event in the “business as usual” category. The incident’s ingredients, though – namely autism, female students, age and number imbalance and muay thai elements – put it in the “Breaking News” section.
A man is rejected by the woman after misbehaving repeatedly and decides to kill her in front of her mother. A man sees ex-wife with her new partner in a mall and starts firing, illustrating a “she’s mine forever” mindset. The list goes on. The examples of teachers cutting their students’ hair against their will and in one case throwing a cup at a student with severe consequences do not have a positive effect on young spectators.
Is this another area where the absence of the “what, how and why” classroom-and-beyond culture shows itself through the lack of reasoning “problem solving” options that lower tensions, often almost directly giving way to impulsive actions? Would these girls enjoy a possible beating by their husbands in 10 to 15 years? I don’t think so, and often that domestic situation would mirror the same power imbalance as in the case where they outnumbered the Prathom 4 girl.
The outcome of the mentioned psychological tests could reveal “adjustable juvenile aspects”, but I think teachers who show comparable bad “school behaviour” should go through similar assessments.