Propiedades del SiC.

While the formal curriculum is prescribed by national and local guidelines, the WSE is subject to discretion at the local level. With regards discretion, Hawkins (1992) writes:

Discretion is the means by which law - the most consequential normative system in a society - is translated into action. One o f the commonplaces o f socio-legal studies is that the form such action takes may not necessarily be predictable from scrutiny o f legal rules themselves. Discretion - which might be regarded as the space, as it were, between legal rules in which legal actors may exercise choice — may be formally granted, or it may be assumed. It is in the everyday discretionary behaviour o f judges, public officials, lawyers, and others that the legal system distributes its burdens and benefits provides answers to questions and solutions to problems.

Hawkins (1992:11)

Historically, discretion has specific meaning in both legal and sociological discourses, which take two different conceptual approaches towards the term (Hawkins, 1992; Schneider, 1992). While one group, the legal philosophers, understand discretion as the way in which the laws (or rules) themselves create a space in which discretion can operate, the second group, taking a socio-legal approach examine the ways in which “the words of law may - or may not - be translated into legal action” (Hawkins, 1992:14). It is a socio-legal understanding of discretion to which the use of discretion here is closest. This sociological approach to discretion is, according to Hawkins, concerned with the actual decision making processes of humans, and how these affect policy enforcement. It is these decisions that influence the implementation of a

policy. And it is because o f this discretionary decision making, that the expected outcome o f a policy isn’t always observed: “the ‘arbitrariness’ or ‘capriciousness’ of discretion (as lawyers and others might see it) resides in the disjunctions between expectations prompted by a reading o f legal rules, on the one hand, and the patterned forms of behaviour engaged in by legal actors in their routine work, on the other.” (Hawkins 1992:13). To put it more simply, “Discretion is an act o f choice” (Feldman 1992:167). Hawkins (cited above) says that in socio- legal approaches, discretion may be formally granted or it may be assumed (1992:1). Goodin’s (1986) well known classification o f legal discretion makes a similar argument. This is to say that those involved in implementing policy may be given the space to exercise discretion (granted) or may exercise discretion of their own initiative (assumed).

While discretion is a term with contested academic meanings, here it is taken to mean decisions made within elements o f the WSE which may influence smoking policy effectiveness. Gordon & Turner (2003a) have mentioned that SMT often exercise discretion in the enforcement of bans and that factors influencing the extent staff enforce policy have been unexplored. In schools, the major people making discretionary choices are staff, however, it is possible to argue that the discretionary choices made by staff enforcing bans is only one form of discretion and that discretionary choices can be made at two levels within the W SE related to smoking policy. Following from Moore et aVs (2001) suggestion that necessary future investigation into policy contexts should focus particularly on policy content and enforcement, these two levels are policy-level characteristics and enforcement-level characteristics. The six aspects of school smoking policy identified from the literature as being related to effective smoking policy (Section 3.1) can be categorised on this basis:

Policy-level characteristics

♦ The importance o f policies that ban smoking (smoke-free schools) ♦ Policy formality

♦ Introducing more restrictive policies into a school — methods,

rationales and attitudes.

♦ Policy dissemination

Enforcement-level characteristics

♦ Policy enforcement: identifying and addressing smoking misbehaviour

Policy has been identified above as one element of the WSE (St Leger, 2001; Williams & Jones, 1993/ Policy level characteristics relate directly to the smoking policy itself. These include the restrictions on smoking made by the policy; the rationale behind the policy; policy formality and policy dissemination Discretionary choices regarding these characteristics are made by staff at the policy-level and result in between-school variation in the policy itself. It is such characteristics that dominate the analysis into effective school smoking policy.

The second group can be labelled enforcement-level characteristics and are very important. These concern the implementation o f smoking policy and how implementation may contribute to policy effectiveness by either supporting or undermining the policy. These include the physical environment; staff implementation o f policy and role-modelling. This is an important group of characteristics because they are often, but not exclusively, influenced by discretionary choice at the individual level and can therefore vary within schools. Tubman & Vento’s informal (versus formal) enforcement response (2001) is an example of such individual discretionary choices in action. Due to time constraints, this work mainly focuses on the main group of people making discretionary choices regarding policy enforcement in schools and as such concentrates on the extent to which staff action either supports or undermines the policy. However, this could also include other members of the wider school community such as parents, the contribution of who will be mentioned. As Gordon & Turner (2003a) suggest, these are not a widely investigated area o f school smoking policies.