Muestra implantada con N y recocida: A.

While all schools placed some restriction on staff smoking, the extent of these restrictions varied. In some schools staff were allowed to smoke in designated areas, while in others staff were not allowed to smoke anywhere on site. It was also evident that the pattern of staff policy restrictions had changed over the last twenty years, with a shift away from staff being predominantly allowed to smoke on school sites, to school sites mostly banning staff smoking. Over this time, three possible approaches to staff smoking were reported: (1) the school allowed smoking in all staffrooms or common areas; (2) staff smoking was allowed in restricted areas only or (3) there was a total staff smoking ban on

the site. Figure 6.1 shows a timeline demonstrating the presence of these different approaches in participating schools.

Figure 6.1 Timeline constructedfrom interview data to illustrate chronology o f policy restriction uptake across schools

20

Years prior to interview

15

10

5

0 ...i... i ... ... . ,1... 1 _ ■ • ! i ... - ... I 1__________ 1---• .. ...t. ~ i t: . - - ---1--- 1--- School 1 School 3 School 4 School 6 School 7 School 8* School 9** School 10 School 13 School 15 School 16 School 18 School 24 School 25 School 26 School 27 School 29 School 31 School 33 School 34 School 35 School 36 School 37 School 39 School 40 School 44 School 47 School 48 School 49 School 50 School 54 School 55 School 56 School 57 School 58 School 61 School 62 School 63 School 64 ■ Staff staffr □ Resti □ Staff

This timeline was constructed from interview data and consequently serves only as an approximation of policy uptake in order to illustrate policy trends over time. Where respondents gave approximations of policy date changes within varying ranges (e.g. 10-15 years ago; 5-6 years ago) the mid point was used to represent the date of policy change (in these cases 12.5 and 5.5 years ago respectively). Where bars cross over the left hand axis, the policy type represented at that point is the earliest known policy for that school. This does not necessarily mean that the policy stretches back this far; 20 years is just an arbitrary date set 5 years before the earliest policy change reported in the whole data set, to which the axis has been extended to demonstrate that policies existed historically before the first reported policy change. In Schools 8 and 9, where the bar does not cross the left hand axis, there where no data as to what preceded the current policy. These schools are included on the graph as they did report dates for the introduction of current no-smoking policies before which it was assumed that staff were allowed to smoke within the school to some extent.

In seven schools it was impossible to construct a timeline using the interview transcripts due to a lack of data. The missing schools, their smoking restrictions and the reason why timelines could not be constructed around their data are outlined in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4 Summary o f characteristics o f missing data from Figure 6.1

School Policy-Type Detail Reasons W hy a Timeline Cannot Be _{Constructed for the School} School 14 No-smoking for staff. About 6

years ago a separate room was set aside and this evolved into a no­ smoking policy as the number of smokers has dwindled.

There was some ambiguity over the reported data largely due to the fact that the current no-smoking policy had evolved rather than been introduced. Consequently dates were hard to fix in the timeline format.

School 19 No-smoking for staff for at least 10 years. Before this a separate smoking room was provided.

Respondent was not certain about the exact dates and policy changes.

Therefore it could not be summarised in the format above. However, interview data revealed that the respondent had been at the school for 4 years and the policy was in place when he arrived so it was fair to assume that it had been in place for longer than 4 years.

School 23 No-smoking policy. Five years ago a separate smoking room was established in the school. This had dwindled out of use and the school now no smoking.

As the policy has evolved, it was impossible to attribute dates to policy changes and represent it in the timeline format.

School 32 Separate smoking area provided. Before this staff could smoke in any of the staff rooms.

The respondent did not put a date onto when the policy came into effect. However, he was responsible for introducing it and he had been at the school for 1OV2 years. Therefore the

policy had been in place for at leas t that long. The respondent said it had been in place for “some years” (line 294). School 38 School had been no-smoking for at

least 11 years.

Respondent was unsure of exactly how long ago this was introduced (he had been in the school for 9 years and it was no-smoking when he arrived) and there were no data as to what the policy was before this.

School 52 School had a separate smoking area which they brought in as they felt it was difficult to enforce the county council policy banning smoking in their buildings.

Respondent knew that the council no smoking policy has been in place for 14-15 years but did not know how long the school had acknowledged a smoking area for staff in their policy. While it appeared as though this had been in place for a while, and it would have probably been fair to assume that this had been the case about as long as the county policy had been in existence, there were not enough data to confirm this or construct a timeline for this school.

School 66 No-smoking. The respondent did not know the history or the timing of the policy and saidthat it would be unfair to guess. It was only his second year in the school and the policy clearly predated his appointment.

All schools exercised some level of restriction over where their staff were allowed to smoke. In the majority of schools (34, 74%), this restriction was absolute with staff not allowed to smoke on site. In the remainder (12, 26%), smoking areas had been set aside. However, there was a lag between the collection of pupil-level data during HBSC and teacher interviews (see Section 5.4.3) although interview data allowed evaluation of what school policy was at the time of pupil data collection. These data showed that Schools 24 and 44 had changed their policy during this time, meaning that at the time of pupil data collection:

♦ School 24 did not have a staff smoking ban but restricted sta ff smoking ♦ School 44 did not have a staff smoking ban but restricted sta ff smoking

All other policies had been in place for at least about a year prior to HBSC data collection (allowing for the use o f approximate dates by respondents), and so policy data could be considered contemporary to the pupil data. O f those seven schools where a timeline could not be fixed, in only two schools (Schools 14 and 23) was it impossible to put an exact date on the change - in all the others the current policy had been in place for at least a year. In Schools 14 and 23 there appeared to have been no recent change in policy and therefore policies were assumed not to have changed since HBSC. Given this, Table 6.5 shows the classification of school policy restrictions at the time of HBSC. While examples from Schools 24 and 44 were incorporated into the qualitative analysis as examples of how school smoking policies were operated, they were removed from all indicators (except policy restrictions) and classifications as their data on school policy and its implementation could not be related to the prevalence data which these were tested against. As such, the maximum number of schools described by any indicator was 44, apart from the indicator for policy restrictions which described all 46 schools. All other data related to the policies that were in place at the time of data collection and as such were treated as contemporary to pupil data.

Table 6.5 S ta ff smoking policy restrictions at time ofpupil data collection

Restricted staff smoking

S taff smoking ban

Schools 13; 15; 16; 18; 24; 25; 26; 27; 32; 44; 47; 49; 50; 52 01; 03; 04; 06; 07; 08; 09; 10; 14; 19; 23; 29; 31; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38; 39; 40; 48; 54; 55; 56; 57; 58; 61; 62; 63; 64; 66 Number o f schools 14 3 2 Percentage of all schools 3 0 7 0

It was apparent that the preceding twenty years had seen a period of great change in staff smoking policies with almost all schools having implemented at least one policy change during this time. This began around the mid to late 1980s when schools began, at first, to introduce separate smoking areas, with smoking bans becoming increasingly common throughout the 1990s. The interview data revealed a definite chronology of staff smoking policy. In all cases the sequence shown in Figure 6.2 underlay school policy change and no school deviated from it:

Figure 6.2 Sequence o f Staff Smoking Policy Change in Welsh Schools

Staff allowed to smoke in main staff room

Staff only allowed to smoke in separate designated area

Staff not allowed to smoke anywhere on site

While not every school adopted every stage of this sequence, no school adopted an approach outside of this: no school reported going from a smoking ban to a designated smoking area, for example.

Some respondents suggested that this trend reflected the changing awareness of the dangers of passive smoking and the social pressures that come with this. Tobacco smoke had become increasingly recognised as anti-health and constructed as anti-social, and policy trends reflected this broader social change. For example, while the respondent from School 19 was not around at the time of the policy change in his current school, his discussion of the reasons for such policy change clearly drew on these discourses and were indicative of this trend:

.../ imagine that it was part o f the general social and cultural

trend away from smoking in public, er, in the sense that, you know, I think there’s pressure generally, via restaurants and cinemas and public places, now, um, and I think that we were very much coming into line with that, um, er, so I think it was part o f that general trend, I imagine so anyway.

School 19 (Ind, Eng), Senior Teacher, SMT (Pastoral) (Lines 287-293)

Other respondents, however, suggested that it might be falling numbers of staff smokers (due to increasing awareness of the health risks of smoking) that had resulted in more restrictive policies. They implied that as the number of smokers had fallen, so there had been less pressure from smokers to allow smoking on site, and more pressure fom non-smokers to restrict or ban it, leading to a greater number of more restrictive smoking policies in Welsh Schools. If social attitudes were crucial to increasingly stringent staff smoking policies, then this could help explain the chronology of policy: to deviate from the increasingly restrictive pattern would have been to move against the highest social pressure.

Where schools did allow staff to smoke, it was also notable that some schools appeared to have given greater consideration to separate smoking areas than

others. In one school this room followed county guidelines which advised that such rooms must be “appropriately equipped with effective extraction, ventilation and fire safety equipments” (School 26 (State, Eng), Assistant Head, Male (lines 126-127)). In other schools, any space that happened to be available appeared to have been designated as the smoking room. More interestingly, not only were these restricted areas mostly reported to be separate and designated staffrooms or rooms, but over half of respondents from schools that allowed staff anoking emphasised that these were small areas including cupboards; a boiler house and a mobile classroom3. In all cases, smoking areas were separate from pupils and other staff. Generally, respondents apparently took care to demonstrate that where staff were allowed to smoke on site, it was in designated places which were peripheral areas, accommodating a marginal habit with the behaviour annexed off both socially and geographically. While some schools expressed concern over the welfare of staff smokers, smoking rooms mostly appeared to be merely smoking ghettoes where smokers could be hidden away. This, arguably, echoed a broader social marginalisation of smoking and was further suggestive of the importance of social pressure in creating more restrictive staff smoking policies. Across the interviews, the discourse of smoking as anti-social and unhealthy (both actively and passively) was certainly a very prominent framework for the discussion of policy and its restrictions.

In document Desarrollo de sustratos de carburo de silicio mediante carburización e implantación iónica de silicio monocristalino (página 150-154)