Pshe and drug education

PSHE and Drug Education – why bother? Does it truly hold impact?


“The nexus between educational criterions and the wellbeing of kids and immature people is good proven and PSHE Education offers a important path to beef uping this relationship.”

DCSF and Ofsted, ( 2008 ) : Indexs of a School ‘s Contributions to Well-Being – audience papers, ( accessed June 28th 2009 )

“PSHE Education is progressively seen as a cardinal precedence for betterment for any effectual school and underpins effectual learning.”

Healthy Schools, ( 2008 ) , PSHE instruction Guidance, pg 51

With quotation marks like these from such influential national organic structures the educationally naive may be excused for presuming that PSHE ( Personal, Social, Health, Education ) enjoys a high profile and influential being throughout the English schools ‘ system, when – in my experience – the fact is that in many schools ; particularly secondary schools, it could non be much further from the truth. These positive and apparently radical sentiments as outlined by Ofsted and Healthy Schools must certainly go forth many of us inquiring why the topic of PSHE is frequently misunderstood and unmarked, as demonstrated in the undermentioned Ofsted determination.

“Too many schools do non establish their PSHE course of study sufficiently on the students ‘ assessed demands. The country recruits few instructors with straight relevant makings to learn PSHE. Many schools focus narrowly on measuring students ‘ cognition instead than finding the impact of their PSHE proviso on bettering students ‘ attitudes and skills.” Ofsted ( 2007 ) Time for Change pg

The recent Joint Area Review ( JAR ) study for the local authorization in which I work reflects national Ofsted findngs and provinces that the authorization should “Ensure that a high precedence is given to personal, societal and wellness instruction ( PSHE ) in schools” . ( **** )

The aforesaid quotation marks clearly illustrate the strife between identified ‘best pattern ‘ and ‘current pattern ‘ re-inforcing my ain professional experiences in the universe of PSHE.

These quotes merely nibble into the iceberg of struggle evident throughout the paradox of PSHE. Even the topic ‘s name can do confusion ; Personal, Social, Health Education ( PSHE ) in Primary schools, sometimes with the add-on of Citizenship, and Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education ( PSHE Education ) in our secondary schools. For the intent of this reappraisal I refer to the topic as PSHE. PSHE includes an array of subjects runing from healthy eating to the acknowledgment of feelings and emotions.

In my function of PSHE Curriculum Consultant with a remit for back uping the National Healthy Schools Programme ( NHSP – a Government funded Education and Health Initiative ) I read many publications and paperss produced by influential national organic structures such as the DCSF ( Department for Children, Schools and Families ) , Ofsted ( Office for Standards in Education ) , Healthy Schools and QCDA ( Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency – officially QCA ) . It is non until I reflect upon the overplus of documents and schemes published by these administrations that the common docket and alliance between them becomes evident.

The paperss and publications produced by the aforesaid organic structures form the footing of my professional function. The bulk of what I believe, say, do and advance can be traced back to these seminal publications. However when a senior member of a cardinal drug bureau in the Local Authority informed me that they do non put in Drug Education because although there is grounds to back up development in students ‘ attitudes and cognition, there is no grounds to back up that there is any positive behavioral alteration I was spurred on to look into further.

Throughout this piece of work I will be explicitly analyzing the function and topographic point of Drug Education both within and outside of PSHE. I intend to take a expression at some of the history, developments and doctrines which underpin Drug Education in the hope of detecting whether there is grounds to back up the belief that it can so hold a positive impact upon the attitudes and behaviors of immature peoplvitamin E. I will see how best pattern ; as promoted by Government organic structures supports and/or contradicts my findings. I endeavor to critically measure several of the most noteworthy Drug Education Programmes used in schools across the universe, foregrounding their chief characteristics, survey methods and consequences.

Background to Drug Education

Policies and political orientations environing Drug Education have emerged, declined, altered and developed over a figure of old ages. Some of the major mileposts around drugs and Drug Education have been ;

1988 Introduction of the National Curriculum,

1995 Government scheme Undertaking Drugs Together- with the add-on of Drug Prevention in Schools Drug Education Curriculum Guidance for Schools 4/95,

1998 Undertaking Drugs to Construct a Better Britain and the corresponding papers Dfee: Protecting immature people ; Good Practice in Drug Education in Schools and the Youth Service,

2002 Hidden Harm,

2004 Drugs: Guidance for Schools – which schools should be utilizing as their current mention stuff.

2008 saw the Drugs and Entitlement for all Review *****

The debut of the National Curriculum in 1988 ensured that Drug Education was on the instruction agenda – non prioritized through PSHE as it is today, but as portion of the Core Science Curriculum.

Drug Education has a checked history. Its focal point and precedences have been capable to alter depending upon political dockets – it is non difficult to understand that mensurating its impact is a complex undertaking.

Through the 1970s until the present twenty-four hours the major attacks taken towards Drug Education in the UK have been:

  • Scare tactics – the ‘just say no attack as made popular by the Grange Hill cast
  • Information based instruction which aims to give indifferent existent information about Drugs and Drug Education
  • Self authorization instruction which aims to hike self esteem, assertiveness and determination devising accomplishments, and increased belief in personal involvement and control
  • Situational instruction which acknowledges the societal context of and influences on personal picks around drug pickings
  • The cultural attack which favours a broader context of the life accomplishments learning, acknowledges the influences of the place communities and work and on lifestyle and behavior

O’Connor. L, O’Connor. D, Best. R ( 1998 ) pg 65

Even though many of these attacks are ‘out-dated ‘ and non deemed ‘best-practice ‘ they are frequently apparent in the schools in which I work, either used in isolation, but more frequently used in combination. Back in the early 1990s Swadi had already indicated that at that place needed to be a “rethink of bar schemes with a move off from the didactic instructional methods presently employed and the acceptance of a holistic attack towards the issue of wellness and behavior in adolescents.” ( Swadi. H, ( 1992 )

Approachs to Drug Education

D.A.R.E – America

Possibly one of the most well-known and widely used Drug Education programmes is the American DARE ( Drug Abuse Resistance Education ) . Established in 1983 DARE has subdivisions in many states including the UK. They province that the programme is implemented in over 75 % of America ‘s school territories and in 43 states around the universe ( see ) , although I could happen no independent grounds to back up this, my findings being shared with Skager. R Pg 578. Harmonizing to the DARE web-site students taking portion in their programme are 5 times less likely to get down smoke than students who had non taken portion in their programme. They go on to state that “DARE instructors kids how to defy peer force per unit area and unrecorded drug free productive lives” . Highly successful claims, nevertheless there are several self-contradictory issues which arise from this. Independent ratings of the original DARE programme found no grounds in intoxicant and drug usage decrease, with one survey demoing a higher prevalence among suburban young person. Lynman et Al ( 1999 ) have besides drawn similar findings. Skager continued to assume similar findings in a ( pg 578 of R skager ) 10-year followup of DARE students.

Interestingly DARE ‘s place of Drug Prevention goes against the UK Government Drugs: Guidance for Schools 2004 papers. DARE ‘s stance on taking ‘Drug free lives ‘ is basically floored in the drug taking society is which we live. Following this statement it could be that the publicity of ill-informed and misconceived Drug Prevention programmes such as DARE undermine other grounds based enterprises and UK Government funded preparation programmes and course of studies.

Interestingly DARE receives much of its support through the constabulary governments and from receives funding from “special mandates attached to measures passed by the congress.” Pg 578 R Shager. It is evaluated outside of any authorities control, which makes it progressively hard for people such as myself to give it a big sum acceptance.

Life Skills Training ( LST ) – America

Life Skills Training is another popular Drug Education Programme developed in America over the last 20 old ages and delivered through the school system. Although it considers itself to be a bar programme, it acknowledges the fact that its chief intent is to cut down prevalence. It is based on a multi-component design and incorporates information and cognition, normative outlooks, opposition schemes along with determination devising, job resolution and analyzing techniques, societal accomplishments, and schemes to acknowledge and get by with choler and defeat. This is really much in-tune with the UK ‘s current ‘best-practice counsel ‘ . Supporting the multi-component design is besides the belief that bringing should besides take a assortment of signifiers runing from didactic, to group treatments and presentations – all with a strong focal point on accomplishments developing. The programme is intended to be delivered by the category teacher although several suppliers have altered the programme theoretical account for it to be delivered by external suppliers or equal pedagogues. This draws a analogue to much of the work in which I am involved.

Several surveies have shown that the Life Skills Training method demonstrates success, non merely on students ‘ cognition and attitudes, but most significantly upon their drug related behaviors. In 1980 a smoke bar programme taking the LST attack demonstrated that there was a 75 % decrease in the figure of new coffin nail tobacco users ( vol24 pg 253 **** ) compared to the control group. However this was measured on immediate consequence, the programme took topographic point in merely one school together with a comparable control school. Long term surveies have taken topographic point demoing positive long-run effects of LST. A 6 twelvemonth randomized survey took topographic point with pupils from 56 public schools in New York. Schools were indiscriminately assigned to bar and control conditions. The instructors presenting the programme were trained and there was a structured programme which started in the 7th class. Consequences showed that 12th class students that took portion reported significantly reduced heavy smoke, along with fewer smoke in the last hebdomad, or during the last month. The survey demonstrated no effects upon imbibing frequence, but significantly fewer bar students reported acquiring rummy one or more times a month, compared with the control group. Fidelity to the programme was seen to be an of import factor.

Positive findings so, the attack supports much good pattern as stated in the Drugs: Guidance for Schools 2004 and is in-line with Healthy Schools recommendations, unluckily this is another illustration of a deficiency of independent research. Statisticss on findings were gathered and analyzed by a squad of researches that included Botvin – the originator behind the development of the LST attack. So can the findings truly show objectiveness? LST appears on several lists of ‘scientifically proven ‘ programmes which are validated by American Government organic structures. Ganghi et Al ( pg 579 replacing ineffective….. ) concludes that “few studies showed significant impact, and even fewer surveies showed significant impact at longer follow-ups” .

It ‘s My Choice – Norge

It ‘s My Choice undertaking is a multi-component school based Drug Prevention programme aimed at students from the ages of 6 – 15. Its primary aim is to act upon pupils at the primary school degree in a positive way in order to detain the age of coffin nail and intoxicant introduction. It takes an attitude-building attack which supports the impression that early influences can forestall kids and immature people from utilizing drugs. The theory underpinning the programme is that interior personal strength better enables immature people to do positive picks for themselves. LST promotes a spiraling course of study where content is tailored to run into the demands of students. The programme considers that the school ‘s attack to instruction influences the students ‘ attitudes and self -esteem and seeks to construct positively on this.

This is evocative of the UK Drug: Guidance for Schools 2004 which states that “Drug bar purposes to: …delay the age of oncoming of first use…Drug Education should …develop students ‘ personal and societal accomplishments to do informed determinations and maintain themselves safe and healthy, including: developing self-awareness and self-esteem….” ( pg 18 ) The UK Guidance for schools besides promotes a coiling attack and promote Drug Education non to been viewed in isolation but as portion of a whole school attack, where accomplishments are movable and inter-related, used – where applicable in a cross-curricular mode.

Although merely measured over the short-run consequences show that “70 % of pupils at the intercession schools say that they have ne’er tried intoxicant without an grownup nowadays, while the figure for the control schools is 40 % . 56 % of pupils at intercession schools say that they have ne’er been bullied, while the corresponding figure for the control schools is 28 % . 20 % of pupils from intercession schools say that they compliment others rather frequently, while the figure for the control schools was 6 % .” Web-site ******* . The consequences point to many positive effects of the programme including increased self-pride, empathy and a better relationship with the other pupils. Whilst this is no incontestable long-run grounds for decreased Drug usage, these accomplishments are clearly related to legion protective factors highlighted in Hidden Harm ( 2003? ) and could ensue in cut downing hazards to many kids and immature people.

Blue Print Programme

The Blue Print Programme was the largest and most recent multi-component, research-based Drug Education Study in England. Funded by the Home Office, The Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills ( now the Department for Children, Schools and Families ) its purpose was to “design, present and measure an evidence-based drug bar programme.” ( pg 21 2007 stirling rating ) Prevention in this instance had been defined as “slowing the normal rate of addition in population-based usage prevalence rates of baccy, intoxicant, dissolvers and hemp during early adolescence, and cut downing the injury to self and others originating from the usage of these substances.” ( Reference a nexus to it for farther info )

Basically the programme aimed to:

“reduce the figure of immature people utilizing drugs ;

detain the oncoming of drug usage ;

minimise the injury caused by drugs ; and

enable those who had concerns about drug usage to seek help.”

At first glimpse the survey methods appear robust, with 30 schools ab initio taking portion ( one school subsequently dropped out ) 24 schools presenting the Drug Education programme and 6 comparing schools. Criteria for choice were set out and applied in a systematic manor. Selection besides took history of the Index for Multiple Deprivation. ( A more elaborate history of this can be found at pg 23 stirling study ) .

The constituents doing up the programme were:

Teacher preparation

15 ten 50 infinitesimal Drug Education Lessons ( 10 in Yr 7 and 5 in year 8 ) ,

Schools Drug Adviser support

Parent accomplishments workshops and stuffs including a parent magazine which was to promote communicating between parents and kids

Media coverage and support

A Health component which targeted retail merchants of intoxicant, baccy and dissolvers

A community constituent – which appears to hold been far less structured and focused than the other elements. There was no lead contractor for this portion of the programme and available information appears rather obscure.

A immense array of persons and bureaus were traping much hope upon the Blue Prints Programme. It had been developed utilizing a wealth of anterior information and research, it cost a batch of money ( reportedly around ?6 million ) and took many old ages to plan, implement and evaluate ; but it does look to hold had several floors from the beginning. Many people ( including myself ) were anticipating that this programme would supply a unequivocal manner frontward for Drug Education ; but it appears that from the really get downing it could merely of all time be an geographic expedition of trail conditions ; it could non be unequivocal. ( Raabet Al. 2002 ) concluded that a unequivocal trail should be made up of no fewer than 50 schools. A farther nail in the casket for those of us anticipating a unequivocal test, came from the Medical Research Council ( MRC ) counsel on the development of ratings of complex intercessions. This advises a “cumulative attack to understanding how results are achieved, traveling from theory, to patterning, to an explorative test to a unequivocal trial” ( MRC 2000 ) . This was highlighted by the stirling study in 2007, but was seemingly ‘missed ‘ in the original development of the programme.

Has the Blue Prints Programme progressed our apprehension of effectual Drug Education? If we are to portion the sentiments and feelings of several journalists such as Mark Easton ( 17th September 2009 ) we would certainly experience most heartsick confronting the fact that even Home Office scientists could ‘bungle ‘ research. This is an simplistic message to take from the findings, it surely makes for good headlines and keeps the faultfinders of this universe happy ; but it is non helpful in progressing our apprehension of effectual Drug Education. Ben Goldacre in his ‘Bad Science ‘ column in the Guardian 19/09/09 reinforces Easton ‘s stance and makes several converting points about similar issues saying that “There were besides offers of advice from experts in test design, such as Prof Sheila Bird of Cambridge University, who offered to assist them make a meaningful test on the available budget.” She wrote in an electronic mail to the BBC “ I/we thought the decision-making so obvious = NOT to travel in front that we did non assiduously follow-up to guarantee that the OBVIOUS determination was really made! ” Clearly insinuating that the undertaking was known to be floored *** from the start and that it should hold been altered or canned. If these sentiments and statements are right I find it difficult to understand why the Blueprints Programme continued the manner it did. I can merely swear in my ain perchance naif inherent aptitudes and believe that the Blueprints Programme began with the best of purposes.

Whatever the facts, the Blueprints Programme has given people in the universe of Drug Education aid with: the structuring of Drug Education Sessionss, issues around working with parents and the importance placed upon fidelity to the programme. The programme has raised the profile of Drug Education foregrounding the importance for more research and it really clearly underscore the errors from which we must larn.

I still grapple with the grounds for the evident ‘failure ‘ of the Blueprints Programme to present. To assist me farther understand the possibilities behind this I consideredLawrenceW. Sherman diary on ‘Drug – free schools ‘ . In this he suggests that authorities organic structures and representatives invest money in undertakings which are of concern to the general populace ( the wellness and wellbeing of kids and possible related drug use/misuse issues being a all right illustration of this ) but with no respect for any proved impact of the programme itself. By making this a authorities is able to show its compassion for the public, no-one is able to impeach politicians of being in-different to jobs in society and other political parties besides have their custodies tied to back up the undertaking as if they are seen to differ with the enterprise they are considered detached and un-supportive by the general populace.

An interesting place which would explicate the Blueprints failure to present. Sherman besides makes several other interesting observations. He points out that there is really small drug usage in schools, touching to the fact that most drug usage takes topographic point outside school premises and in the local community – which is true – but he fails to do the nexus that if an enterprise is proven to be ‘effective ‘ it is likely to hold positive impact upon the students and their community. This point is illustrated by Bruno V. Manno in his remarks on Sherman ‘s diary. Where he besides supports the position that “schools can lend to modifying the effects of outside influences and overcome household background factors and community liabilities.” etc pg 162


So after all this – should we trouble oneself with Drug Education in our schools? And does it hold any impact? I believe that the replies to these inquiries comes in 3 parts.

We want to see quantitative, longitudinal informations back uping all of our attempts in the universe of drugs and Drug Education and on this forepart, for me, the grounds is non yet strong plenty. Research workers must larn from the immense sum of universe broad surveies and work that has already taken topographic point.

There are many issues which need turn toing ; even after all my research my initial suggestions are rather basic. The first we need to be clear about is ; What constitutes Drug Education? Before any farther research can supply meaningful consequences we must make up one’s mind whether Drug Education is a programme incorporating a series of structured lessons which focus upon facts, accomplishments and attitudes around drugs, where fidelity plays an of import function, or whether it is bigger than this? There is grounds to propose that the size of a school, its direction system, behaviour direction processs, teacher pupil relationships, teacher parent relationships, support for the development of pupil self-esteem and general school environment ( as highlighted in the Norse It ‘s My Choice programme ) impacts upon whether or non immature people choose to take drugs. Research and the findings should hold a clear grade of independency as without this any programme is unfastened to doubt. We must be clear about what we mean when we say the word Drugs. Are Drugs the demonic substances which spring to the forepart of many people ‘s heads when the word is expressed, or are they substance which when taken “changes the manner a individual feels, thinks or behaves.” ******** Do we include tea, java, and paracetamols when looking at Drug Education? Do we see Drugs which people may necessitate to be healthy? Thought needs to be given to whether our personal experiences enable us to be able to present Drug Education in an effectual, value free mode? We besides need to research whether Drug Education with a preventive angle can of all time be value free? In fact, should it be wholly value free if we want future coevalss to do ‘healthy determinations ‘ , as this clearly comes with its ain docket.

Many of these realisations have been late highlighted in the 2008 Drug Review: An Entitlement for All where it makes several

recommendations to the Government, one being to “Promote a wider apprehension of the purposes of drug and intoxicant instruction among immature people, parents, carers, the kids ‘s work force and the wider media.” ( ***** ) , another is clarify the purpose of Drug Education. As it stands Drug Education and Drug Prevention are defined individually. If we are to use the current definition of Drug Education as suggested in Government Guidance it would clearly hold no impact upon pupil behavior. It would merely be when we looked into Drug Prevention where any relation to behaviour could be made. The Government have accepted all the recommendations made in the reappraisal and there is to be farther Govermnet Guidance disseminated as a consequence.

The UK takes a by and large positive and pro-active attack to Drug Education, this has been re-affirmed by my research and by sing attacks taken by other states. Drugs: Guidance for Schools is a comprehensive papers and is re-inforced by all of our Government, Educationally influential organic structures and the Police – current Government responses indicate that farther counsel will beef up bing certification. Since 1988 Drug Education has by and large developed, it has non radically changed. I think this can be demonstrated in the cosmopolitan diminution in the prevalence informations for kids and immature people ( appendix ** )

High outlooks are placed upon the shoulders of Drug Education, we must oppugn ourselves as to whether we are inquiring excessively much from one topic? ********

‘Expectations of the impact of effectual drug and intoxicant instruction in our schools are high, far higher than they are for most topics. The outlooks of drug and intoxicant instruction are that it will increase students ‘ cognition, change their attitudes and heighten their accomplishments every bit good as holding an impact on their behavior ‘ . ( Ofsted 2005 )