CALL FOR DRUG, WEAPON SEARCHES AT SCHOOLS

Schools want to know what power they have to search pupils as the
number of children taking drugs and weapons to class continues to increase.

Since 2000, the number of pupils suspended or stood down for drug use
has risen by 55 per cent.

The number excluded for violence has increased by 37 per
cent.

Former New Zealand School Trustees Association adviser Ray McMillan,
who is to give a presentation on the issue at the association's annual
conference in Wellington tomorrow, said many schools were struggling
to stem the spread of drugs among students.

"In some schools the drug problem has become so bad, they have gone
beyond looking through school bags and now use sniffer dogs."

Drug use was not confined to secondary schools, with an increasing
number of younger children experimenting with illegal substances.

"Searching students for drugs is not uncommon at intermediate schools
now," he said.

Mr McMillan had been contacted by several school boards of trustees,
seeking clarity on their right to search students, in a bid to clamp
down on violent and disruptive behaviour.

Mr McMillan said he believed the Education Act gave schools the right
to perform searches on students, provided the grounds for the search
were reasonable.

Schools could search pupils if they had "reasonable suspicion" they
were carrying drugs or weapons but should be wary of "fishing"
expeditions, he said.

"They wouldn't be able to search a whole class for a missing iPod, but
if a scalpel went missing from a science class, and there had been a
problem with weapons at a school, that could be reasonable grounds for
a search."

Schools needed to have strict procedures for searches, and they should
only be done by adequately trained senior staff, he said.

They should not strip-search pupils but a "pat down" was
acceptable.

Wellington College headmaster Roger Moses agreed schools needed to
have clear guidelines for searching pupils.

They also needed to exercise caution when carrying out the checks, he
said.

Human rights lawyer Michael Bott said aspects of Mr McMillan's
interpretation of the act could breach the Bill of Rights, which
protected people from "unnecessary search and seizure".