Vaping in a Low-Decile Secondary School
Te Kōwhai College is a decile 4 co-educational school with 1,180 students. A student wellbeing survey found 68% of Year 12 students had tried vaping, 31% vaped weekly, and 12% daily. Vape detectors in two toilets generated 47 alerts in term 1; suspensions rose from 6 to 19. The principal proposes a zero-tolerance policy with three-day stand-downs and a $50 fine for repeat offences. The student council proposes a peer-led harm-reduction programme, including nicotine replacement information and a 'quit coach' clinic, plus a ban on vaping within 200 m of the school gate. The board has $12,000 for one year. The local DHB public health unit says punitive approaches may push vaping underground; a recent national survey shows youth vaping has risen fastest among Māori and Pacific students. Staff are divided; some teachers vape.
1. Apply the Transtheoretical Model to explain why a zero-tolerance stand-down may fail for a daily vaper, and identify one stage-matched action.
Read the worked answer
The Transtheoretical Model describes stages: precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and relapse. A daily vaper who is suspended may be in precontemplation: they do not see vaping as a problem, or they see it as normal among peers. A three-day stand-down does not move them to contemplation; it may increase resentment, concealment and association with other suspended students. If the student is already in contemplation, punishment can tip them back into precontemplation because it removes their sense of agency. A fine is also regressive: $50 is a bigger burden for low-income whānau and may increase conflict at home rather than quit attempts.
A stage-matched action would be a brief motivational conversation with a trained staff member or peer coach: explore the student's own reasons for vaping (stress, belonging, nicotine dependence), affirm autonomy, and offer options such as nicotine replacement information, a quit date, or a text-based support service. For a precontemplator, the goal is not immediate abstinence but one step forward, such as recording vaping triggers.
Critique. TTM is useful for tailoring conversations, but it is not a complete explanation. It underestimates nicotine dependence, mental health, whānau vaping, marketing and school culture. Stage matching alone has weak evidence for behaviour change. It should be combined with environmental controls and access to cessation support, not used to justify punishment.
2. Evaluate the two proposals using a health promotion framework and recommend a decision within the $12,000 budget.
Read the worked answer
Zero-tolerance. Under the Ottawa Charter, this is mainly a public-policy response: rules, detection and sanctions. It may reduce visible vaping in toilets and reassure some staff. But it is likely to be inequitable: Māori and Pacific students, and those with existing disciplinary records, may be suspended disproportionately. Suspension can increase unsupervised time and exposure to vaping. A $50 fine is not a health intervention and may worsen financial stress. The policy also ignores the school environment: vape retailers near the gate, adult role models who vape, and stress among students.
Peer-led harm reduction. This fits supportive environments, community action and personal skills. A 'quit coach' clinic and peer leaders can reach students who would not approach teachers. It is more likely to be acceptable to daily vapers, but it must not normalise vaping or be delivered by untrained peers. $12,000 is enough for a small pilot: train 10–12 peer leaders, buy nicotine replacement information resources (not supply unprescribed NRT without clinical governance), run a quit-coach clinic one lunchtime per week, and fund a whānau evening. The 200 m school-gate ban is a reasonable public-policy component if enforced consistently and paired with signage.
Recommendation. Reject stand-downs and fines as the primary response. Fund the peer-led programme with clinical oversight and a Māori/Pacific student advisory group, keep the 200 m ban, and collect data by year, ethnicity and vaping frequency. Set a review at 12 months. If the school wants sanctions, use restorative conversations and cessation referrals rather than exclusion.