SAYING NO TO TEENAGE PRESSURE

THERE is a consensus in schools that moralising about drugs is
counter-productive. As Mike Russell, deputy head of King Edward VI Camp
Hill Boys', Birmingham, puts it: "The surest way to make an adolescent do
something is to tell them not to."

There, though, agreement ends. Schools have a plethora of policies, both on
drugs education and on what to do about those who are caught breaking the
rules.

"We need to develop a more systematic approach," insists Keith Hellawell,
the Government's anti-drugs co-ordinator. "It's not enough that teachers,
parents and children like a particular drugs programme. We need to know
what effect it's having on young people's drug use."

Similarly, schools have to stop pretending that they can get away with
ignoring the pupils who take drugs beyond their gates or, at the other
extreme, simply expelling any who offend - without examining mitigating
circumstances or the relative mildness or severity of the incident.

Until recently, independent schools were particularly prone to the
head-in-the-sand approach. "They didn't want to admit they had a drug
problem," says Caroline Noortman, whose sons are at Eton. "They tried to
pretend it didn't exist because they didn't want to scare off prospective
parents. But, in the past 18 months, I've noticed a change. They seem to be
less frightened of being open."

Mrs Noortman has helped hasten the change by organising a series of public
meetings for parents to be addressed by scientists expert on the effects of
individual drugs. One such meeting, at Westminster School, attracted an
audience of 500 and helped many in the independent sector to understand
that parents are not only hungry for information but also prepared to be
realistic about the issue.

Another breakthrough was the recent publication of a report by the
Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference (HMC), which represents nearly
250 top schools. It admitted that illegal drug taking was part of the
culture of teenagers from which the independent sector was not immune, and
emphasised that the so-called "zero option" of instantly expelling pupils
caught taking drugs was no solution.

"Many schools are choosing to modify the policy," the report said. "While
continuing to make it clear that any use of illegal drugs is totally
unacceptable, they are considering a variety of responses depending on the
circumstances."

The response gaining the most ground is the introduction of random testing
after a first offence, accompanied by compulsory counselling and the
knowledge that further offending will lead to expulsion.

"In any case," the HMC report added, "we would argue that policies of
prohibition and deterrence should be augmented by a programme of education
which does not 'preach' but which is balanced and informative and relies
upon young people to make responsible decisions about their own lives."

Mrs Noortman agrees, but argues that the approach starts too late. "We
won't make an impact on teenage attitudes until prep schools and state
primary schools provide the right kind of drugs education from an early
age," she says. "What so easily happens is that fresh-faced boys arrive in
senior schools and suddenly find they're with young men. They look up to
them and, if the older boys are using drugs, the younger ones are terribly
vulnerable. We need to teach them much earlier how to say no."

The evidence from America, where drug-taking among children has been halved
over the past 10 years, shows how effective such an all-embracing approach
can be. Michael Roberts, national director of Life Education Centres, a
charity that runs programmes for both primary and secondary schools, says:
"We start with nursery-age children.

"The idea is to emphasise to children that they are unique, to encourage
them to respect others and to respect themselves, and to arm them with the
social skills to be able to say no. We will never stop them trying things,
but what we can do is delay the onset of use and point out the consequences
of it."

Most drugs education lessons fall into one of three categories: the factual
approach, which can help teenagers appear knowledgeable about the science
and health risk of substances but, when offered drugs at a party, lack the
social skills to resist; the anecdotal, story-led programmes in which
reformed addicts or former prisoners are brought into school to tell it
like it is; and the peer-led approach that makes youngsters responsible for
passing on the message.

A pioneer of the last is Wymondham College, a state boarding school in
Norfolk. Its peer-led drugs education programme, which is run by Chris
Sayer, has recently won a national award.

"If an adult - teacher or parent - tells teenagers something about drugs,
they're not really going to listen," Mr Sayer says. "But if we inform a
volunteer group of teenagers and they pass the message on, it's much more
effective."

Zoe Burton, 15, who has been on the course for a year and has become
impressively knowledgeable, says: "Adults just don't realise how strong the
peer pressure is to take drugs. The Government seems to suggest that all
young people who take drugs are bad people. I don't think it understands
that drugs are being offered to all of us, and it can be very hard to say no."

Owain Powell, 15, another pupil on the course, adds: "People are very
persuasive. They say things like, 'It won't harm you'. Before I joined the
group, I wouldn't have been able to challenge that. Now, I feel confident
enough to explain how it does harm you and to stand my ground and refuse. I
can make the decision for myself."

As part of their course, all the Wymondham volunteers visit the drug rehab
unit at Wayland Prison, Norfolk. It has an immediate and lasting effect.
"We were told by every single one of the prisoners that they started out
smoking cannabis and then went on to other drugs," says Grant Calder, 14.
"They just told us not to do it. They said a little spliff might not seem
like much, but it can lead to other things."

Zoe says: "When we first volunteered, the other kids took the mickey, but
now we've got respect. They come and ask us what we think about this or
that drug. They want to join the course, and now we're the ones with street
cred."

At Bolton Boys', an independent day school that takes drugs education
seriously, Alan Wright, the head, says: "Although I wasn't having a problem
in the school, I was aware that the lads were likely to get up to all sorts
of things at the weekends. They'd come back on Monday and would have
damaged their bodies quite considerably with what they were getting up to
on Friday and Saturday nights.

"Our policy is to bring in external people, because the boys tend not to
believe what we say but will believe what others tell them. It works
particularly well when someone talks to them informally in the sixth form
common room and we're not there."

Dr Rosemary Masters, head of drugs education at Stowe, one of the schools
featured in yesterday's "testimony" articles, says: "There's no easy
answer. You have to give the pupils as many skills as you can and arm them
with the facts, so that, in the end, they can make responsible decisions.

"They are going to be offered drugs, and you can't be with them all the time."