Rein in the dogs

The BBC revealed this week that hundreds of students have been excluded from schools in the east Midlands because of drink and drugs. Some were drunk at school, others were caught in possession of drugs or alcohol or were dealing drugs in the school. Hopefully, these were not knee jerk exclusions or suspensions, but subsequent to proper investigations. Yet while clearly a serious problem, it does seem one that was identified (and in many cases must have been blatantly obvious) without the need for random drug tests or sniffer dogs. The number excluded was down on the previous two years.

Many concerns have been raised about the surveillance society, an environment where citizens are increasingly presumed guilty until proven innocent. Much of this can be justified in trying to stay one step ahead of those seeking to wreak havoc. But subjecting school children unnecessarily to this culture of suspicion is particularly invidious. On a practical level there is no convincing evidence that drug use is prevented or reduced, not least because nobody has the first idea what the baseline of such an assertion might be. The truancy record of any school claiming improved performance would need to be examined closely: those most fearful of detection are likely to truant more regularly and therefore increase their level of vulnerability - while no doubt pushing up the batting averages by their absence.

But beyond the practicalities, there are some things we just shouldn't do because they are wrong - and arguably that includes testing school children for drugs or having dogs sniffing around the cloakrooms. The government should be cautious about supporting such proposals in any way. We should not have 'pilot schemes' nor produce 'guidelines of good practice' - an oxymoronic concept here because this kind of intrusion is simply bad practice.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/6204336.stm