In the wake of recent school shootings in Thailand and the Philippines, educational institutions and authorities in both countries are reevaluating the use of active shooter drills as a means of preparing students and staff for potential attacks. The reassessment comes amid growing concerns about the psychological impact and effectiveness of such exercises.

In Thailand, a school shooting last month in the central province where a 14-year-old student fatally shot six people and injured nearly 30 others prompted swift action. At Bodindecha (Sing Singhaseni) School, a prominent high school in Bangkok, the director Kanyaphat Kanhpuanwanan moved quickly to conduct an extensive "run, hide, fight" drill involving all 4,000 students. The drill, which used a tactical police unit with real-world experience, was conducted just 10 days after the violent incident.

Thailand has long experienced challenges related to gun violence, partly fueled by one of the highest rates of civilian gun ownership in Asia. Col. Kiattichai Kerdchok, a police superintendent in the central province of Suphan Buri, noted that interest in active shooter preparedness has grown significantly among primary and secondary school teachers. “The teachers ask more questions than before,” he said, underscoring a shift from indifference to active engagement in drill procedures.

Meanwhile, the Philippines has also seen a rise in school shootings this year, despite historically lower levels of nonpolitical gun violence compared to Thailand. After twin deadly incidents—one in Tacloban in June and another in Zamboanga City in August—school administrators began experimenting with drills based on the “run, hide, fight” framework originally developed in the United States. The August attack in Zamboanga, where the assailant livestreamed his assault and subsequently took his own life, increased urgency among officials and parents for implementing safety drills.

However, these exercises have been met with growing criticism in the Philippines. Some medical professionals, including groups such as the Philippine Psychiatric Association and the Philippine Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, argue that hyper-realistic shooter drills can cause long-lasting psychological harm to students. They cite U.S. research advising against high-intensity simulations, advocating instead for less intense mental rehearsals like tabletop exercises. This concern contributed to the Department of Education’s decision to postpone planned nationwide drills in late August.

Following this, police guidelines for drills have been revised to exclude the use of simulated gunfire and actors portraying shooters. Lt. Col. June Abrazado, who helped conduct early drills in Manila, highlighted the need to balance preparedness with sensitivity towards students and parents wary of trauma.

While Thailand has also debated the suitability of such drills for younger children, school leaders remain committed to active exercises. Ms. Kanyaphat described an unannounced drill at her school, where students spontaneously enacted escape and concealment tactics in response to a simulated shooter moving through the campus. Although the episode raised concerns about potential distress—particularly when one student was briefly taken hostage—she stressed the importance of practical experience over mere classroom instruction.

“They started to understand that if something happened and they only ran, without hiding or doing anything else, they might not get away,” Ms. Kanyaphat said, underscoring the perceived value in realistic practice despite its challenges.

As both Thailand and the Philippines seek effective ways to safeguard students, officials continue to weigh the benefits of active shooter drills against the potential psychological effects, navigating a delicate balance amid rising gun violence in their schools.