Archive

Testing times

Posted: 01 March 2005 | Subscribe Online

Until February last year the Department for Education and Skills strongly advised schools in the UK against random drug testing. Prime Minister Tony Blair then performed a U-turn on the issue, declaring his support for random testing of school pupils in an interview with the News of the World and promising fresh guidance for schools (see box).

Last month the Abbey in Faversham, Kent, became the first state school in the country to carry out random tests, with the News of the World footing the estimated £15,000 bill for a six-month trial. Warrington-based Altrix Healthcare has supplied the testing kits and has trained five non-teaching support workers to administer the swab tests.

Article continues below the advertisement

But random drug testing has been sharply criticised by representatives of school students, human rights organisations and drugs charities who insist that the small amount of research done on similar testing procedures in the US shows that they have not been effective in curbing drug abuse.

Headmaster Peter Walker says so far no pupils have tested positive and that 85 per cent of the parents of the 960 pupils have declared their support, with 40 per cent of the teaching staff also offering to be tested. Consent for the tests must be obtained from both parents and pupils and anyone testing positive would not be handed over to the police but would be offered counselling.

"Some parents have refused to let their children be tested because they think it's against their rights. The biggest chunk of those not being tested are children who are in foster care because social services are not agreeing to it at this stage," he says.

Rajeeb Dey, national co-ordinator of the newly-formed English Secondary Students Association (ESSA), warns that random testing could sow distrust between teachers and pupils "which could actually drive drug use underground by encouraging truanting".

Instead of cutting money for drug education the government should be investing in rehabilitation for young people who take drugs. He says: "If you are not taking drugs you should not have to prove yourself. A school environment where there are sniffer dogs and testing is not a good one for learning."

Neil McKeganey, professor of drug misuse research at Glasgow University, has looked into the US evidence and the ethics and practicalities of school testing in a report, Random Drug Testing of School Pupils: A Shot in the Arm or a Shot in the Foot, to be published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (when?).

He acknowledges that random testing in schools, which is now being backed by Tory leader Michael Howard, is popular among parents. But he says that in the US, where the Bush administration has funded tests to the tune of $25m, research findings do not show it to be effective.

"The report concludes that it is not something we should be embarking on an ad hoc basis within the UK unless and until clear evaluations have been carried out," he adds.

Peter Walker is keen to evaluate the effects of the testing at the Abbey School and promises: "If we don't see any discernible benefits at the end of six months then we won't be doing it again."

Andrew Brown is co-ordinator of the Drug Education Forum, which contributed to the drugs guidance for schools and strongly warned the government against the introduction of random testing and sniffer dogs. He points out that in spite of Mr Blair's promise of clear guidelines there is no specific reference to "random" testing in the DfES guidance.

For Terri Dowty, policy director at Action on Rights for Children (Arch), random testing in schools represents a serious human rights breach. She says: "Children do have a right to privacy and I don't think it's a proportionate response to subject children to these tests. We would be better concentrating on drugs education than intruding on people in this way.

Article continues below the advertisement

"Paradoxically it may give children the message that it is normal to take drugs. Taking such an authoritarian stance invites rebellion and invites people to find ways round it."

She warns that the tests could prove an incentive for young people to try more harmful drugs such as cocaine as traces of it can be purged from the human body in 24 hours, while cannabis takes between seven and 10 days.

Drugscope says that there have been instances when decongestants and asthma inhalers have resulted in a positive test. The charity also questions how drug education programmes, given official blessing by Ofsted, can be squared with the regime of random testing.

At the Abbey School, Peter Walker has been inundated with requests from media outlets from across the globe, with other schools in the UK keen to learn from the Kent comprehensive's experience. "It reinforces my opinion that the world has a problem," he says.

That may be so, but has he found the solution? The US evidence and the scepticism of experts in the field suggest that drug education may prove a more lasting antidote to the spread of drug abuse than random testing.

Who let the dogs out?
Department for Education and Skills guidance states that:

Head teachers are within their rights to bring the police or private companies with sniffer dogs onto school premises or employ drug testing. South Yorkshire police started using sniffer dogs on school buses last year.
The intention to use this approach should be clearly stated in the school's drug policy, which should be developed in consultation with pupils, parents, staff, governors and the whole school community.
The head teacher will usually ask parents or carers for their written consent for the use of sniffer dogs. But the guidance emphasises that this is "good practice rather than a legal requirement". Yet it also warns heads that they may face possible challenges from parents and pupils under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Schools using sniffer dog searches without the authority of a police warrant should "exercise extreme caution before doing so". They must ensure their actions are not inconsistent with the pastoral responsibility of the school or insensitive to Muslim, Buddhist or other cultures that consider dogs unclean.
Head teachers must ensure the right to privacy of pupils identified by a sniffer dog either because they are taking prescription medicines or have been exposed to an environment where others have used drugs.