The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

2.0 DRUG EDUCATION IN SCOTTISH SECONDARY SCHOOLS

2.1 Sample Profile

2.1.1 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 majority of responding secondary schools were under local authority control (89%). Eleven percent were independent, and less than 1% were grant-aided. (Table B2.1)

Almost a fifth (16%) of the secondary schools in the sample also had a primary school. (Table B2.2)

Schools covered a range of sizes. Just over a third (37%) were small (less than 700 pupils), and just under a third (31%) were medium-sized (700-1000 pupils) and the same proportion were large (over 1000 pupils). (Table B2.3)

Schools covered a range of levels of free meal entitlement. Just under a third of schools (32%) had a low level of free school meal entitlement, defined as under 9% of secondary pupils. Twenty-eight percent of schools had a medium level of free meal entitlement, defined as 9-19% of pupils, and in 27% of schools, a larger than average proportion (over 19%) of pupils were entitled to free meals. For over a tenth (12%) no information was available on the level of free meal entitlement. (Table B2.4)

The remaining data are from the survey responses.

Fourteen percent of schools had a dedicated 'Drug Education coordinator', nearly half (48%) had a 'Health Education coordinator', and one-fifth (20%) had a joint 'Drug/Health Education coordinator'. While over half (51%) of local authority schools had a 'Health Education coordinator' just over a quarter (28%) of 'other' schools had this post. Over a quarter of schools (26%) had none of these posts. Small schools were slightly more likely to have none of these posts (34%). (Table B2.5)

Tables

Table B2.1 School Status

*<1%

Table B2.2 Whether primary and secondary school

Table B2.3 School size

*<1%

Table B2.4 Level of free meal entitlement

Table B2.5 Whether have Drug Education Co-ordinator and/or Health Education Co-ordinator, by school status, size and FME

2.1.2 Respondent characteristics

The majority of respondents who completed the questionnaire (74%) were promoted guidance teachers, Head of PSE or PSE Coordinators. Less than a third (30%) were Heads or Deputy Heads, and just over a fifth (22%) were PSE teachers. The remainder of the respondents were other subject teachers (18%), Drug Education coordinators (13%), Head of Department other than PSE (5%) and others (2%). In 'other' schools the questionnaire was less likely to have been filled in by a promoted guidance teacher, Head of PSE or PSE Coordinator (62%) and more likely to have been completed by a Head or Deputy Head (38%). (Table B2.6)

Respondents had a range of drug education teaching experience. Nearly a quarter (24%) had taught drug education for 20+ years, and just over two-fifths (41%) for 10-19 years. A fifth had taught drug education for 5-9 years, a tenth for 1-4 years, and 1% for less than a year. Only 4% of respondents had no drug education teaching experience. The average was approximately 14 years. (Table B2.7)

The respondents from local authority schools had longer experience in drug education, with an average of approximately 14 years, compared with respondents in 'other' schools who had approximately 9 years experience on average. Those in larger schools also had more experience. Length of experience ranged from approximately 12 years on average in small schools to 15 years on average in large schools. Respondents at schools with differing levels of free meal entitlement had similar levels of drug education teaching experience, averaging approximately 14 to 15 years. (Table B2.7)

Respondents had a similar range of experience of teaching PSE, with an average of approximately 14 years. The respondents from local authority schools had longer experience in drug education, with an average of approximately 15 years, compared with respondents in 'other' schools who had approximately 9 years experience on average. Those in larger schools also had more experience. Length of experience ranged from approximately 12.5 years on average in small schools to 15.5 years on average in large schools. Respondents at schools with differing levels of free meal entitlement had similar levels of drug education teaching experience, averaging approximately 14 to 15 years. (Table B2.8)

Tables

Table B2.6 Position of person completing the questionnaire, by school status, size and FME

Table B2.7 Experience in teaching drug education, by school status, size and FME

*<1%

Table B2.8 Experience in teaching PSE, by school status, size and FME

2.2 Provision of Drug Education

Respondents were asked whether their school had provided or would be providing drug education to any of their pupils in 2003-4. With the exception of only one school, all reported providing some drug education. (Table B2.9)

Respondents were further 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.

In the period 2003-4, there seemed to be widespread delivery of drug education to S1, S2, S3 and S4 year groups (94%, 94%, 91% and 84% respectively). Older year groups were less likely to have received drug education (S5: 68%, S6: 48%). 'Other' schools reported slightly lower levels of teaching drug education in 2003-4 across nearly all year groups. Schools of differing sizes and differing levels of free meal entitlement reported similar levels of teaching drug education. (Table B2.10)

For each of the year groups that they delivered drug education to, schools were asked to indicate the approximate amount of time spent delivering this in 2003-4. 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 average amount of drug education taught to year groups S1 to S4 in 2003-4 was approximately 3-4 hours. Between a fifth and a third of schools taught more than 5 hours drug education to these year groups, and a similar proportion gave these same year groups 1-2 hours drug education. The average amount of drug education taught to year groups S5 and S6 was lower at approximately 2 hours. In more than a tenth of schools S5 and S6 pupils received less than one hour of drug education. (Table B2.11)

While local authority schools spent an average of approximately 3 to 4 hours teaching drug education to S1 to S4 pupils, 'other' schools spent an average of approximately 3 to 4 hours. The amount of time spent by schools of different sizes and of differing levels of free meal entitlement were similar. (Table B2.12)

Drug education was more likely to be taught in Autumn and Spring terms, and less likely to be taught in Summer term, across all year groups.

Year groups S4-S6 were particularly unlikely to receive drug education in the Summer term (7-12%), probably because of the pressure of revision and exams. (Table B2.13)

There were no apparent differences, in the terms in which drug education was taught, by school status, size or free meal entitlement. (Table B2.14)

All categories of substance - alcohol, controlled drugs, medicines, solvents and tobacco - were covered in all years, although to varying degrees. Coverage of medicines, solvents and tobacco tended to decrease as pupils progressed through the school (for example, 93% of S1 pupils covered tobacco, dropping to 53% of S4 pupils and 34% of S6 pupils). Coverage of controlled drugs was lower in S1 (65%) than in subsequent years, which ranged from 81-89%. Alcohol tended to be given a similar level of coverage across all year groups (80-86%). Medicines and solvents had the lowest coverage in each year group, with coverage of medicines ranging from 57% in S1 to 26% in S6 and solvents ranging from 65% in S1 to 25% in S6. (Table B2.15)

A similar pattern of substance coverage per year group was reported by local authority and 'other' schools alike as well as schools of varying sizes and with different levels of free school meal entitlement. (Table B2.16)

Tables

Table B2.9
Whether school provides drug education, by school status, size and FME

*<1%

Table B2.10 Whether each year group receives drug education, by school status, size and FME

Table B2.11 Amount of drug education received by each year group in 2003-2004

*<1%

Table B2.12 Amount of drug education received by each year group in 2003-2004, by school status, size and FME

*<1%

Table B2.13 Terms in which drug education was taught, by year group

*<1%

Table B2.14 Terms in which drug education was taught, by school status, size and FME

*<1%

Table B2.15 Substances covered in drug education in 2003-2004, by year group

*<1%

Table B2.16 Substances covered in drug education in 2003-2004, by year group by school status, size and FME

*<1%

2.3 Drug Education Delivery

2.3.1 Context of Drug Education Delivery

Drug education was most likely to be taught within PSE (97%). It was also covered within science lessons in over a quarter of schools (28%) and within RE in just under a fifth of schools (18%). Drug education was also taught within a range of other subjects including PE (11%), English (10%), Home Economics (6%), Citizenship (3%), and as a stand-alone topic (5%). (Table B2.17)

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 (95%), laws about drugs (95%), different types of drugs (94%) and what drugs are (91%). A majority of schools also reported covering decision-making about drugs (91%), coping with pressure to use drugs (87%) and how to refuse drugs (80%).

Social influences topics such as 'how many people use drugs' and the 'acceptability of using drugs' were covered in less than half of drug education (40% and 47% respectively). A similar level of topic coverage was reported by local authority and 'other' schools as well as schools of varying sizes and with different levels of FME. (Table B2.18)

A range of drug education delivery methods were reported. 'Whole class discussion' was the method used in the vast majority of lessons (97%), and schools also reported frequent use of videos (88%), small group work (88%) and worksheets (80%). Reasonably frequent use was made of case studies/scenarios (71%), brainstorming (70%), talks/lectures (68%), games/quizzes (63%) and role play (53%). Less popular methods were independent learning, group assignments and CD-Roms.

'Other' schools were slightly less likely to use several of the more interactive methods such as whole class discussion, small group work, brainstorming and case studies/scenarios.

Small schools were slightly less likely to use talks/lectures with 61% doing so compared with 79% of large schools. Small schools were also less likely to use pupil worksheets with 71% doing so compared to 86% and 85% in middle and large schools respectively. Schools with high free meal entitlement were slightly less likely to use talks and lectures (58% high free meal entitlement compared with 75% low free meal entitlement) and less likely to use group assignments (14% high free meal entitlement compared with 58%). (Table B2.19)

A range of drug education resources were reportedly used in the schools. The most popular resource was Drugwise, used in over two-thirds (67%) of schools, while just over half used What's the Score (51%), and just over a third used TACADE resources (35%). A package developed by the school itself was used by 45% of schools. The Police Box and The Buzz were used in 19% and 11% of schools respectively. Small numbers used various other packages.

Small schools were slightly less likely to use What's the Score, with 42% doing so, compared with 59% of large schools. Similarly small schools were slightly less likely to use a package they have developed by themselves. Schools with high levels of free meal entitlement were less likely to use TACADE, The Buzz and Police Box.

Drugwise and What's the Score were used by schools in every education authority while TACADE was used in all but 2 education authorities and Police Box was used in all but 5 education authorities. (Table B2.20)

Tables

Table B2.17 Context within the curriculum, by school status, size and FME

Table B2.18 Topics covered within drug education, by school status, size and FME

Table B2.19 Drug education delivery methods, by school status, size and FME

Table B2.20 Resources used in drug education, by school status, size and FME

2.3.2 Persons Coordinating and Delivering Drug Education

Drug education in schools was most likely to be coordinated by a Guidance/ PSE coordinator and/or by a Guidance/ PSE team (53% each). In just under a fifth of schools (19%) it was coordinated by the Head or Deputy Head. Drug Education, Health Education coordinators and joint Drug/Health Education coordinators coordinated it in 9%, 15% and 8% of schools respectively. It is worth noting that not all schools had these latter three posts (see section 2.1.1).

Drug education was slightly more likely to be coordinated by a Guidance/ PSE team in large schools than small schools, and in local authority schools than 'other' schools. (Table B2.21)

In the majority of schools drug education was taught by a 'team of teachers specialising in PSE' (70%). In a third of schools it was taught by 'several teachers' (33%), and in just over a tenth of schools by a PSE coordinator or specialist (11%).

In small schools and 'other' schools drug education was less likely to be taught by a PSE team and more likely to be taught by an individual PSE coordinator or specialist. In more than two-fifths of schools drug education was taught by external visitors or agencies (43%). (Table B2.22)

A range of outside professionals and agencies were reported to advise on drug education in the school. The police were most frequently mentioned (44%), followed by various health professionals (school nurse 32%, health promotion 29%, health professionals 24%), LEA advisors and drug education development officers (26%) and local drug agencies (23%). Drama groups and youth workers advised in 10% and 9% of schools respectively.

'Other' schools drew on a narrower pool of external advice, primarily the police (41%), school nurse (38%), health promotion (23%) and health professionals (13%). They made little or no use of LEA advisors, local drug agencies, youth workers or drama groups.

One fifth of respondents did not state whether external professionals and agencies advised on drug education in their school. (Table B2.23)

A broad range of outside professionals and agencies were reported to help deliver drug education in schools. By far the most frequently involved were the police (69% of schools), followed by drama groups (39%), the school nurse (30%), and health professionals and local drug agencies (23% each). Others who helped deliver drug education included health promotion staff (19%), youth workers (14%), LEA advisers/drug education development officers (12%), peer educators (7%), and 'others' (16%) including, for example, alcohol groups (3%), Paul Betts (2%) and reformed addicts (1%).

Again, a narrower range of external professionals and agencies were involved in 'other' schools. Drama groups and local drug agencies were less likely to help deliver drug education in 'other' schools, and youth workers and peer educators were not involved at all these schools. (Table B2.24)

Tables

Table B2.21 Who co-ordinates drug education, by school status, size and FME

Table B2.22 Who teaches drug education, by school status, size and FME

Table B2.23 Who advises on drug education, by school status, size and FME

Table B2.24 Who helps to deliver drug education, by school status, size and FME