TACKLING DRUGS AT SCHOOL

Random Testing Proposal Leaves Questions Unanswered

On war with Iraq, Tony Blair followed where George W Bush led. The prime
minister is apparently ready to fall into line with the American president
in another war, the one against drugs. Is Jack McConnell also prepared to
sign Scotland up to a war that, in American schools, has the random drug
testing of children at its core? In his state-of-the-union address last
month, Mr Bush announced he was committing an extra $23m (UKP12.4m) for
schools to use drug testing. He called it confronting the problem with
"aggressive education, treatment and law enforcement". In America, that can
mean pupils being selected randomly in the school's medical centre then
called out of class for a saliva test. Those who test positive for drugs
are punished.

At the weekend, Mr Blair said he planned to issue guidance next month
enabling headteachers in England to carry out random testing for drugs,
including using sniffer dogs. Education is, of course, a devolved matter so
where did the first minister stand on an initiative that could turn the
learning environment on its head? Four-square behind the prime minister,
according to a McConnell aide on Saturday night. The Scottish Executive
"would not tolerate a regime that was weaker" than in England, the source said.

It seemed an injudicious comment to make in the name of Mr McConnell, a
former teacher, on such a matter whose sensitivity he, more than most,
should appreciate. It was unfortunate, to say the least, that he could not
resist the temptation to talk tough on a populist issue when a more
considered response would have been better. He seemed to have second
thoughts yesterday as opposition to the plan mounted. In the cold light of
day an executive spokesman was now saying: "We will look at any proposals
put forward south of the border to see if there is anything we can learn
from them."

That is a much more sensible approach. Rushing headlong into a regime of
random pupil testing without proper consideration and consultation would
not only be unpopular; it would also fly in the face of the reality of drug
education and reporting in many schools.

At their best, school drug policies are sufficiently flexible and sensitive
to deal with the needs and problems of individual children. The child who
is curious about drugs must be treated differently from the child who has
gone further. In the worst cases, schools call in the police to deal with
incidents that are potentially criminal. In addition, the scale of the
problem is not known. Why jeopardise the good work being done to keep
children onside on drugs, and help them if they stray? According to
Alistair Ramsay, of Scotland Against Drugs, probably only one in five
children has used drugs.

This is a complex area with many unanswered questions. What would happen to
the innocent child who declined a random test? If they were at a critical
stage, say in fifth year, and were excluded, why should their chances of
gaining the qualifications to make progress in life be put at risk on a
point of principle?

If the tests were not random, and children were singled out, why should
they be stigmatised? School is the one area outside the home where children
should feel secure, not put under unnecessary stress by a policy that, on
current evidence, has no justification.