|
Cannabis
and Schools 6.5. Comparison with alcohol and
tobacco
Although the use of
alcohol and tobacco was also forbidden at all schools, in
most cases schools were firmer with students caught with
cannabis than with alcohol or tobacco. The justification
for this was that cannabis was an illicit drug and
students needed to understand the consequences of
breaking the law. It is illegal to sell or supply alcohol
to those under 20 years and tobacco to those under 16
years in New Zealand/Aotearoa. It is also illegal for
these age groups to purchase these drugs, but it is not
illegal to possess or consume them. In addition, it was
felt that the use of alcohol and tobacco was more
socially acceptable. Most of the respondents felt that
alcohol was not as big an issue in their schools as
cannabis was. But one asked the question:
Do we hear more
about marijuana in schools because there's more of
it, or do we hear it because alcohol isn't
[considered] a big issue in the community?
A few of the schools
treated cannabis incidents in the same manner as those
involving alcohol and tobacco. The legal status of the
substance was considered less of an issue than the act of
defiance in breaking school rules or the effect of use on
the student’s ability to learn.
We can't punish
kids for doing illegal things. We're not a legally
sanctioning body, we're a school...Regardless of
whether it's legal or illegal, it's still quite
unacceptable to be intoxicated at school.
Top | Back | Home
6.6. School-based drug education
programmes
All respondents were asked
about drug education programmes in their school. All the
secondary schools had a drug education component as part
of the health syllabus. Some had also had FADE or Life
Education visit the school. Some respondents felt they
were not in a position to comment on the effectiveness of
these programmes. Those who did comment gave a mixed
response.
One of the intermediate
schools had not had any drug education programmes. The
board chairperson saw this as a problem and had been
attempting to book an organisation to run a programme in
her school. The other intermediate school had had the
DARE programme the previous year for the first time. The
respondent from this school commented that the only
incident of cannabis the school had experienced had been
among students who had undergone the programme. In
addition, the school had received some comment from
parents.
We had a few
parents complain about it. They felt that their
children were unaware of drugs before the DARE
programme started and that after the programme they
were more inquisitive.
Top | Back | Home
6.7. General issues for the
board
In discussing with
respondents how their schools and boards dealt with
cannabis-related issues, it became clear that, as well as
difficulties to do with decisions about a student’s
future, boards faced a number of more general practical
difficulties.
Schools having to deal
with a societal problem:
A common comment was that
schools were put into the impossible situation of trying
to deal with what was essentially a societal problem.
Several respondents stated that cannabis-related problems
in schools reflected a wider community problem with the
drug and that, while there was little evidence of
community initiatives, schools were expected to deal with
it. Particular difficulties arose where the school was
expected to deal with cannabis use by students whose
parents were probably frequent users. All of the
respondents stated that their school had loose links with
the local community or the community of parents. In
particular, the three schools which drew their students
from outside the immediate area had little sense of local
community. As a result there were no joint community and
school initiatives for dealing with cannabis use and
board members appeared to feel isolated in their task of
dealing with it. In addition, respondents from schools in
lower socio-economic areas commented that because there
were poor social services in the community, teachers and
boards ended up performing social work activities at
times.
I still believe
that the school has actually been lumbered with a lot
of home stuff, stuff from the community, a lot of
social breakdowns. And I don't think that is fair,
that school should be paying a price for it as well.
If we are going to be lumbered with social problems,
we need to be able to get in effective school
counsellors. We need to be able to get effective help
for our children… And preventative help, not
just when something happens in the school, but before
it happens. We need to strengthen our children to be
able to say ‘No’. If it doesn't happen at
home, it has to happen within the school. But really
the school should not be made socially responsible
for their upbringing at home. Because all these
things should be taught at home. In fact the schools
have to break a lot of habits that are learnt at
home.
The government says
that the community needs to be responsible for their
own. Now I believe that to be true. I also believe
that the government needs to provide those community
groups with enough money to be able to deal with it.
I know for a fact that many of those community groups
are falling down because of government changes. And
it's so hard for the teachers to be teachers, you
know, because they're not so sure when to stop being
social workers... Because you can't rely on [the
Children and Young Persons Service] any more, as
well. Government agencies, you can't rely on them
because you're over-worked all the time and they're
understaffed... The teachers are half the time
playing social workers, running around taking kids
home, running around picking kids up.
Board members are
lay-people
Another common comment was
that boards were not adequately equipped to deal well
with drug-related issues. They had limited options and
resources and no special training or expertise in this
area. Advice was sought from staff members, the school
counsellor and the principal, but ultimately the decision
rested with the board. A number of participants commented
that they felt ‘helpless’ or
‘useless’ in some situations because of these
factors.
I guess sometimes
we feel a little bit helpless in what we can do, both
for the students and those others at the school, and
what avenues there are available to us. Suspension is
not always in the best interests of our school or the
school that they are going on to. …There are
just some times when you really just don't know quite
what to do.... We are very much lay people in this
area
We don’t
really have a lot that we can do. I wish at times
that we could be more helpful.
Often I feel
completely useless in saying "you've done
something wrong, we'll smack you over the hands but
you can't come back into school". They need to
have somebody that can turn them around and get them
back into school.
Many respondents were keen
to hear how other schools deal with the issues.
Lack of support
services:
Most respondents commented
that there were gaps in the support available to schools
to deal with cannabis and other drug use in schools.
Although some had used community drug services, several
mentioned the need for an outside agency that specialised
in providing support and advice for both the board
members and the students themselves.
I think I would be
quite right in saying that all my board would like to
see a better directive on drug use in the school.
There is not enough information on how to handle
it.... Basically there seems to be not a lot of
understanding of where we stand legally on these
issues.
I would like to see
some sort of place where some of these kids could be
sent to be counselled, if that's what's needed.
Somebody that is professionally competent in giving
them the correct information... And it's really not
an issue of passing the buck. It's opening the right
doors for them... I think we should be able to give
them encouragement to try and correct their problems,
whatever those problems may be. ..[But] there's no
funding, there's nowhere to send them and I think
this is probably a huge cry from most high schools.
I think [we need]
financial resources so that we can buy in resources
that we can use to help relieve staff of a fairly
heavy burden of supervision of wayward children,
perhaps, and counselling expertise.
In addition, in some cases
cannabis use was considered a symptom of more general
behavioural problems, which schools were also poorly
equipped to deal with.
I have to say that
frequently these offences are not in isolation but
are often the result of a history of unacceptable
behaviour which has not resulted in the pupil coming
before the board but has caused them to have a number
of detentions etc.
I'd like to see
more education about not only drugs and alcohol, but
about problem students. How to deal with them; where
to send them; who to send them to. And more funding
available in the education system to deal with these
types of things. They're not going to go away. ..You
send them out of school, they get into the police
system , they end up at [Paremoremo Prison]. Usually
they've got one road to go down. So really, they talk
about prison rehabilitation, I think we need to have
rehabilitation of kids within the school system
before they get out into the workforce…..
Whether it’s drugs or alcohol, I always feel
that we're there to educate and we're not doing that.
I think our school
undergoes a fairly thorough process. I sometimes
question though whether or not schools have the
resources to deal with every situation: financial,
human and legal…. I think more and more use is
being made of [extended] suspensions which means that
you can't deal with it within the school environment.
Often the pupils that are coming to us, whether they
have been taking alcohol or drugs or smoking or are
there for violence or whatever, are coming with a
list [of misdemeanours] already. Truancy is quite
wide spread. They have been on Dean’s detention
every single week, they are in trouble in their
class, doing very poorly in general within the
school. Actually, not in all cases. Some of them are
quite bright and doing quite well. But they are in
trouble with the school and the system.
Long hours of unpaid
work:
Another issue raised was
the amount of time boards of trustees spent dealing with
such cases. All of those interviewed indicated that their
board took the issue of cannabis in schools seriously.
Much time and effort was put into ensuring that the
student received a thorough and fair hearing. This work
was over and above that required for regular board duties
but board members were paid nothing extra. Sometimes the
process involved several meetings which could go on late
into the night.
It was getting very
late. It was 1.00 o'clock in the morning.... This is
the first meeting. We had more than one meeting.
It must have been
the August holidays last year. We spent the holidays
there. We all came back totally wrung out. But all
the board was prepared to do it.
Top | Back | Home
6.8. The future
Despite these dilemmas and
concerns all respondents felt that their boards did a
good job within the constraints of their limited
resources. All felt that their processes were fair and
that the members of their boards had worked well
together. When questioned on their feelings about the
future, all but one felt reasonably positive because of a
perceived increase in community awareness about the
extent of cannabis use and related problems. The other
respondent felt that society was not taking the problems
of cannabis seriously enough, that young people did not
have a realistic understanding of potential problems from
cannabis use and that this portended future difficulties
for schools.
Top | Back | Home
7. Discussion
The schools involved in
this study used a number of different approaches to deal
with students caught with cannabis at school, many of
which may be of value to those schools which have not
explored them. The school that chose to not suspend in
the first instance based this decision on the view that
cannabis use occurred within a context of peers and was
therefore best dealt with by involving that wider group
in a constructive manner rather than isolating
individuals for punishment. Because this approach was
consistent with the general school philosophy it appeared
to work well. The message that cannabis would not be
tolerated in school was given clearly to both the group
of students and their families/whanau without causing
major disruption to the students’ education. At the
same time school counselling services were available in
case individual students felt they needed support or
guidance.
In the other schools a
number of interventions were used as conditions of
reinstatement following an initial suspension. These
conditions ranged from those which focused on the health
and well being of the student to those which were more
punitive in nature. Where the incident was viewed as a
health issue the conditions of reinstatement were
considered a means to educate the student about the
implications of cannabis use and to address other issues
which may had contributed to their involvement. They
included the requirement to attend a drug education or
drug rehabilitation programme, to undertake a project on
drugs and/or receive counselling or guidance. Where the
incident was seen as a disciplinary issue the conditions
were clearly punitive. These included undertaking a
programme of community service; depriving the student of
privileges; separating them from their peers; and/or
establishing behaviour contracts between student, parents
and staff. Some conditions, such as community service or
detentions which were undertaken during breaks, aimed to
temporarily remove the student from the influence of
their peers until they had had time to understand the
implications of the incident. Some schools viewed
cannabis incidents from both a health and a discipline
perspective and set out conditions accordingly. In
general, the aim of all conditions of reinstatement was
to make the student reconsider their actions without
causing major disruption to their schooling.
When deciding whether to
reinstate a student or extend suspension board members
were keenly aware that the student’s future lay in
their hands and that this had to be balanced with a range
of other considerations, such as the safety of and
message given to other children, the reputation of the
school, and the resources available to support chosen
strategies. Where a student was reinstated it was felt
that the initial suspension and the conditions attached
to their reinstatement would serve as a sufficient shock
to change their behaviour. The decision to extend
suspension or expel was not always considered the ideal
solution and some respondents were concerned that this
was only transferring the problem elsewhere. Where it did
occur it was seen to be in the student’s best
interests, by removing them from the adverse influence of
peers, or in the interests of her/his fellow students.
This research revealed
that the demands placed on schools and board members to
deal with cannabis use in schools were sometimes greater
than they were equipped for. Boards were being expected
to make important decisions about students’ lives
with very few practical and financial resources available
to them. Although they made creative use of a range of
strategies and these seemed to be sufficient to deal with
less serious incidents, there appeared to be a lack of
facilities and agencies which specialised in drug-related
issues to which they could turn for advice or support or
refer students in more serious cases. In addition, where
cannabis use was symptomatic of more general behaviour
problems boards sometimes felt at a loss as to how best
to deal with the student. Those community services which
were available were considered understaffed, poorly
resourced, or difficult to access. In some cases it may
be that boards were not aware of what facilities were
available to assist them, in which case there is need
that this information be made available to them. Schools
appeared to have poor links with and support from their
local communities and there was a lack of joint
community/school initiatives to deal with the issue of
cannabis use at schools.
In considering what
measures might be undertaken to assist schools to deal
with cannabis use by their students an examination of the
literature is useful. The literature on strategies to
prevent drug-related problems suggests that strategies
aimed at changing individual behaviour are not in
themselves effective and that they need to be backed up
by a consistent and supportive policy environment and
community support (Abel et al 1992). Evaluations of
school based drug education programmes have consistently
found that, while they may increase knowledge, they do
not reduce use (Gerstein and Green 1993; Moskowitz 1988).
In their comprehensive review of the literature on drug
use prevention programmes Gerstein and Green (1993)
concluded that school based drug education programmes
which focused only on increasing knowledge about the
effects of drugs or improving interpersonal skills and
self esteem were largely ineffective at preventing use.
An evaluation of the Life education programme in
Australia, which was based on these approaches, also
raised questions about its efficacy in public health
terms (Hawthorne et al 1995). In particular, a number of
evaluations of drug education programmes, which advocate
abstinence and depict use as abuse, have shown them to be
ineffective at changing drug use behaviour (Erickson
1997).
Although unevaluated, the
recent shift in some programmes from classroom
interventions to changes in the general school
environment was endorsed by Gerstein and Green who saw it
as "consistent with the growing recognition of the
need to support educational interventions on the drug
problem with broader policy and environmental changes and
to engage parents, community and other social
forces" (1993:102). In accordance with this view
Hannifin (1989) argued that New Zealand drug education
programmes needed to be bicultural, well co-ordinated and
involve the local community.
One way of involving the
local community is through community action programmes.
Community action programmes have become increasingly
popular as initiatives for dealing with drug-related
problems and are a developing research field in a number
of Western countries (Giesbrecht et al 1990; Greenfield
and Zimmerman 1993; Winick and Larson 1997). These
programmes move away from placing the blame and
responsibility for drug use problems solely on
individuals and their families and, rather, promote
community ownership of the problems and solutions. They
acknowledge that social context and broader
politico-economic factors have an important influence on
drug use and that use is "embedded in community
norms and support systems" (Winick and Larson
1997:756). These programmes aim to strengthen liaison
between schools, subgroups within the community, local
government, health and social agencies, the police, the
justice system and other key players. They also aim to
mobilise communities and co-ordinate their efforts to
develop and control measures to reduce drug related
problems. Measures are usually broad based but may
include specific initiatives, such as school based drug
education programmes (Winick and Larson 1997: 755). These
programmes tend to be most effective where longer term
structural changes are effected (Stewart in press).
In New Zealand a community
action programme had a positive effect on community
support for effective alcohol policies (Casswell et al
1989). Community action has also been used as a strategy
to reduce alcohol-related traffic injury amongst Maori
(Stanley and Casswell 1993, 1994a; 1994b; 1995; 1996). In
a process evaluation of a U.S. community-based programme
aimed at preventing and reducing adolescent drug-related
problems Harachi et al (1996) concluded that, provided
communities had access to enough knowledge, resources,
guidance and technical support, they could be mobilised
to undertake broad-based community endeavours which might
also reduce other adolescent problems, such as truancy,
delinquency, violence and teenage pregnancy
A number of points made
and issues raised in this research suggest that community
action projects could be useful for dealing with cannabis
use in schools. Cannabis use in schools was seen to be
part of a wider societal issue as well as part of more
general behavioural problems for some of the individual
students concerned. Community action projects would place
both the general issue of cannabis use in schools and the
behaviour of individual students into their wider social
or community context and allow solutions to be developed
accordingly. It would involve resourcing schools
(students, parents, staff and boards) and key community
organisations to develop strategies most appropriate to
their students and their particular communities. Such
strategies would be based on community knowledge and
evidence-based research.
In conclusion, a range of
strategies exist for dealing with individual students
caught with cannabis in school. Boards and their schools
which have not considered some of these to date may find
them useful in the future. In addition, these initiatives
need to be augmented by initiatives aimed at
strengthening local community networks and the wider
policy environment.
Top | Back | Home
|
