Scottish Government

PART B

SURVEY

1.0 DRUG EDUCATION IN SCOTTISH PRIMARY SCHOOLS

1.1 Sample Profile

1.1.1 School Characteristics

Data on school status, level of education provided for, school size and level of free meal entitlement are drawn from secondary information sources about schools in Scotland . All other data are drawn from the completed questionnaires.

The vast majority of responding primary schools (99%) were under local authority control. Only 1% (equivalent to six schools) were independent. One school could not be classified as its identification code had been removed from the questionnaire before it's return. (Table B1.1)

While the majority were primary schools only (97%), a small proportion (3%) also had a secondary school. (Table B1.2)

Schools covered a range of sizes. One third (33%) of the primary schools in the sample were categorised as small (under 100 pupils) and similar proportions as medium (100-230 pupils: 32%) and large (230+ pupils: 34%). (Table B1.3)

Schools covered a range of levels of free meal entitlement. Just under a third (32%) had a low level of free meal entitlement, defined as under 13.5% of pupils. Twenty-eight percent had a medium level of free meal entitlement, defined as 13.5% to 28.5% of pupils. Just under a quarter (23%) of schools had a high level of free meal entitlement (over 28.5% of pupils). For 17% of primary schools in the sample. no information was available on free meal entitlement. (Table B1.4)

The remaining data are drawn from the survey responses.

Over a third (34%) of schools had a Health Education coordinator, and 28% had a joint Drug/Health Education coordinator; less than a tenth (9%) had a dedicated Drug Education coordinator. Nearly two fifths of schools (38%) had none of these posts. Small schools were more likely to have none of these posts (47%) compared with 26% of large schools. (Table B1.5)

Tables

Table B1.1 School Status

* <1%

Table B1.2 Whether primary and secondary school

* <1%

Table B1.3 School size

Table B1.4 Level of free meal entitlement

Table B1.5 Whether have Drug Education Co-ordinator and/or Health Education Co-ordinator, by school status, size and FME

1.1.2 Respondent characteristics

The majority of respondents who completed the questionnaire (82%) were Heads or Deputy Heads. Just under a quarter (23%) were class teachers, 17% were Drug Education coordinators, and a tenth were promoted guidance teachers, Heads of PSE or PSE coordinators. Other respondents were Heads of Departments other than PSE (1%) and 'principal teachers' (3%). (Table B1.6)

Respondents had a range of drug education teaching experience. Over a quarter (27%) had taught drug education forM 10-19 years, and a similar proportion (26%) for 5-9 years. Over a fifth (21%) had taught drug education for over 20 years. Sixteen percent had taught it for 1-4 years, and 1% for less than a year. Five percent had no drug education teaching experience. The approximated average drug education teaching experience was around 12 years. (Table B1.7)

The vast majority of respondents (72%) had over 20 years experience of teaching primary school education. A fifth had taught PSE for 10-19 years, 6% for 5-9 years, and 1% for 1-4 years. The approximated average teaching experience in primary school was over 20 years. (Table B1.8)

Tables

Table B1.6 Position of person completing the questionnaire, by school status, size and FME

* <1%

Table B1.7 Experience in teaching drug education, by school status, size and FME

* <1%

Table B1.8 Experience in teaching in a primary school, by school status, size and FME

* <1%

1.2 Provision of Drug Education

The vast majority (97%) of schools provided drug education in 2003-2004. Within the local authority schools, 97% indicated that they provided drug education. All six non-local authority schools provided drug education in 2003-2004. While all medium and large sized schools provided drug education, 91% of small schools did so. All schools with high free meal entitlement provided drug education and the vast majority of schools with low and medium free meal entitlement did so (98% and 99% respectively). (Table B1.9)

Schools were asked to provide information about whether or not each year group had been taught drug education in the period 2003-4. In a number of instances respondents only seemed to tick a box if they were giving a 'yes' answer. As a result there is a substantial proportion of 'not stated' responses for some year groups. However, there is also a possibility that some schools did not have every year group and this would also account for a 'not stated'. As it is not possible to distinguish between the different types of non-response all proportions are calculated on the basis of the full sample.

Older year groups were more likely to receive drug education than younger year groups, with the proportion receiving drug education rising from 65% of P1 year groups to 94% of P7 year groups. This pattern was observed in schools of all sizes and of all levels of free meal entitlement. (Table B1.10)

The schools that indicated that they taught drug education were asked to give details of the amount of time that they spent in 2003-4 teaching drug education to each of their year groups. A closed question was used with 5 categories: 30 minutes; 31-59 minutes; 1-2 hours; 3-4 hours; 5 hours or more. Responses provide an indication of the variation in amount of time spent. As categories were used rather than exact times, it is not possible to calculate exact averages, however, for ease of interpretation and comparison of results approximated means have been calculated based on the midpoint of each category (e.g. 1-2 hours = 1.5 hours).

The amount of time spent delivering drug education to primary school pupils ranged from 30 minutes or less to 5 hours or more for each year group but, in general, the time spent increased for the older year groups. For example, at P1-P4 the approximated average ranged from just over 2 hours (2.08) at P1 to almost 3 hours (2.78) at P4. The approximated average time spent at P5 was around 3 hours. At P6 and P7, the most frequent response was '5 hours or more' and the approximated average time spent on drug education was 4 to 5 hours. (Table B1.11, B1.12)

Drug education was taught over all three terms. For older year groups (P6 and P7) it appeared more likely to be taught later in the year, in Spring and Summer terms. For younger year groups it tended to be taught evenly throughout the year. (Table B1.13)

There were no apparent differences in the terms in which drug education was taught by school size or free school meal entitlement. (Table B1.14)

All categories of substance - alcohol, controlled drugs, medicines, solvents and tobacco - were covered in all years, although to varying degrees. Coverage of alcohol, controlled drugs, solvents and tobacco increased substantially as pupils progressed through the school. For example, only 1% of P1 groups were taught about alcohol, compared with 92% of P7 groups. For controlled drugs the figures were 11% and 91% respectively, and for tobacco 19% and 89% respectively. In contrast, coverage of medicines tended to decrease as pupils got older. While it was by far the most popularly covered substance in P1 (92%), this dropped to 77% by P7. (Table B1.15, B1.16)

Tables

Table B1.9 Whether school provides drug education, by school status, size and FME

Table B1.10 Whether each year group receives drug education, by school status, size and FME

Table B1.11 Amount of drug education received by each year group in 2003-2004

Table B1.12 Amount of drug education received by each year group in 2003-2004, by school status, size and FME

Table B1.13 Terms in which drug education was taught, by year group

Table B1.14 Terms in which drug education was taught, by school status, size and FME

Table 1.15 Substances covered in drug education in 2003-2004, by year group

* <1%

Table B1.16 Substances covered in drug education in 2003-2004, by year group by school status, size and FME

1.3 Drug Education Delivery

1.3.1 Context of Drug Education Delivery

Drug education was most likely to be taught within Health Education (93% of schools) followed by Personal and Social Development (75%). It was also taught with Environmental Studies (22%) and Religious and Moral Education (14%). In over a quarter of schools (27%) it was also taught as a stand-alone topic. (Table B1.17)

Schools reported covering a range of drug education topics. These have been grouped in the table into four categories: Information Provision, Social Influences, Resistance Skills/Decision Making, and Others. The majority of topics covered were concerned with Information Provision: for example, the effects of drugs (93%), what drugs are (92%), and types of drugs (89%). A majority of schools also reported covering decision making about drugs (91%), how to refuse drugs (84%) and coping with pressure to use drugs (81%). Why people use drugs and opinions about drugs were also fairly popular (78% and 73% respectively).

Social influences topics such as how many people use drugs and the acceptability of using drugs were less popular, covered in 32% and 42% of schools respectively. (Table B1.18)

A range of drug education delivery methods were reported. 'Whole class discussion' was used in the vast majority of lessons (96%), and schools also made frequent use of small group work and pupil worksheets (75% each). Nearly two thirds (64%) used role-play/drama, and reasonably frequent use was made of brainstorming (59%), videos/ DVDs (53%), talks/lectures (52%) and games/quizzes (50%). Less popular methods were case studies/scenarios (37%), independent learning (26%), group assignments (22%), CD-Roms (20%) and homework (19%).

Large schools were more likely than small schools to use talks/lectures (62% large schools, 40% small schools) and videos/ DVDs (65% large schools, 36% small schools). (Table B1.19)

A range of drug education resources were reportedly used in the schools. The most popular resource was Drugwise, used in nearly two thirds of schools (64%), while just over half (52%) used The Police Box. TACADE and What's the Score were used by around two-fifths of schools (42% and 39% respectively). Around a quarer (24%) used Learning for Life CD-Roms. Other packages used included Help (12%), Promoting Positive Choices (95) and a package developed by the school itself (11%).

Almost two thirds (65%) of schools with high free meal entitlement used TACADE compared with only 38% in low and medium free meal entitlement schools. (Table B1.20)

Tables

Table B1.17
Context within the curriculum, by school status, size and FME

* <1%

Table B1.18 Topics covered within drug education, by school status, size and FME

Table B119 Drug education delivery methods, by school status, size and FME

Table B1.20 Resources used in drug education, by school status, size and FME

1.3.2 Persons Coordinating and Delivering Drug Education

Drug education in schools was most likely to be coordinated by a Head or Deputy Head (80%). In just over a third of schools it was coordinated by class teachers (35%) and in just over a fifth by the Health Education coordinator (22%). It was coordinated by a joint Drug/Health Education coordinator in 10% of schools and by the Drug Education coordinator in 6% of schools. It is worth noting that not all schools had these posts (see 1.1.1). (Table B1.21)

In the majority of schools drug education was reportedly taught by 'all teachers' (69%). In a quarter it was taught by 'several teachers' (24%). In only a small number of schools was it taught by an individual or team specialising in drug education (2% and 1% respectively). In over two-fifths of schools (45%) drug education was also taught by external visitors/agencies. (Table B1.22)

A range of outside professionals and agencies were reported to advise on drug education in the school. The police were most frequently mentioned (37%), followed by the school nurse (33%), health promotion (24%), health professionals (16%) and LEA advisers/drug education development officers (15%). Small numbers also mentioned being advised by local drug agencies, drama groups, youth workers and others. In 8% of schools no external advisers were involved. Nearly one third of respondents did not state whether external professionals or agencies advised on drug education. (Table B1.23)

A range of outside professionals and agencies were reported to help deliver drug education in the schools. By far the most frequently involved were the police (66%), followed by the school nurse (34%) and drama groups (27%). Others who helped deliver drug education included health promotion (18%), health professionals (15%), LEA advisers/drug education development officers (11%), local drug agencies (9%) and 'others' (7%): these latter included, for example, Drug Advisory Action Teams, and sports instructors. In 7% of schools no external agencies helped to deliver drug education, and 11% of respondents did not state whether any external agencies were involved in their school. (Table B1.24)

Tables

Table B1.21 Who co-ordinates drug education, by school status, size and FME