We have examined a complaint from a practical lessons teacher in a secondary technical school in which she asked for the opinion and recommendations of the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) about testing students for the presence of THC in their saliva. She turned to the Ombudsman with the question of whether the tests would violate any human rights. She also wrote that the testing would take place in a school advisory service room, where at least one additional expert would be present. The school would enter the possibility of the use of THC test kits in the school rules. The purpose of such testing would be exclusively to protect the student who is unable to follow or perform practical training under the influence of drugs and who may thus endanger themselves and others. The opinion of the Ombudsman was delivered to the complainant. In reviewing the regulations in the field of education as well as the regulations in the field of occupational safety and health, we assessed that there is no legal basis for testing students in schools, although the complainant is convinced that the Occupational Health and Safety Act is a sufficient legal basis for introducing testing in schools. Our opinion was that information about the use of drugs is medical information and that it is sensitive personal information, which should be handled with particular care. 2.15 CHILDREN’S RIGHTS With regard to this problem, we wanted to learn the position of the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport, and we also sent the Ombudsman’s opinion to the ministry. The response of the ministry encouraged us in the opinion that there is a lack of adequate legal basis for testing students in schools in the Vocational Education Act and in the Grammar Schools Act. The use of testing for the presence of drugs or alcohol for individual students is thus permitted only under certain conditions, which the ministry specified in its response. The Ombudsman recommends that the ministry include the regulation of THC testing of secondary school students, including the keeping and processing of personal data, in the planned amendments to education legislation. Recognition of last year’s result in this year’s secondary school graduation examination We examined a complaint from a secondary school graduate who had addressed an application to the National Commission for General Matura (DK SM) for the recognition of her conditional positive mark in the Slovenian language, which she gained in the last year’s spring examination round of the general secondary school graduation examination She justified the application with a long-term illness of the nervous and muscular system that started at the end of 4th grade, just before the examination. She took the secondary school graduation examination again this year. Due to the illness and based on an expert opinion from the Commission for the placement of children with special needs (KU), she took the examination in two parts. The National Education Institute did not issue a decision on the placement, because the student had completed her secondary school education, it is only that she had not taken the secondary school graduation examination. The commission did not take into account other recommendations from the KU for certain adjustments and did not provide them for the student. In the 2014/2015 school year, she was successful in four subjects in the examination, while she failed in the Slovenian language. This is why she asked the DK SM to recognise her previous result from the spring round of the examination, when she passed the test in the Slovenian language with a conditional positive mark. The DK SM rejected her application with the explanation that the exception proposed by the student would be in violation of the existing legislation. The Ombudsman then also asked the DK SM for an explanation. We were interested in learning which article of the Matura Examination Act or other relevant act on secondary education the DK SM had referred to in its decision, or which article expressly prohibits the examination of any extraordinary circumstances over which a person has no control. under equal conditions, which is a fundamental principle of the examination. The authorities were of the opinion that in order to ensure equality, the relevant legislation should precisely define all possible exceptions, the procedure for their recognition and the body which decides this. The explanation from the DZ SM was suitable and understandable. Despite this, the Ombudsman believes that the student’s application could have been accepted given her exceptional situation without any harm or suspicion that not all candidates were treated equally in the examination, because there is currently no outright prohibition in the legislation on positive decision-making in exceptional cases. Screening of films with controversial content to students We examined a complaint in which a complainant expressed his opposition to the screening as part of an elective course of a film with homosexual and erotic content to students at a grammar school. The selection of the film for the said course, which is mandatory for students, was commented on in the media by the head of the school. We explained to the complainant that it was a problem of a substantive and expert nature, which falls within the responsibility of an individual school. This is primarily the responsibility of expert workers at the school (teachers, educational consultants and leadership), who decide and include in the annual curriculum of the school whatever elective content they offer to students. The parents’ council gives its opinion on the annual curriculum, which is discussed and confirmed by the school council, where parents and students have representatives, which means that they can influence the selection and creation of elective content. Therefore, if individual students or parents do not agree with the content of elective courses, they can appeal to the school council, and eventually also to the Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for Education and Sport. We explained to the complainant that there are several possibilities and means of appeal to the relevant authorities, who can influence the work of schools, including in terms of content. Example: Head lice still a problem in schools The Ombudsman again examined the problem of head lice infestation in primary school students. Some schools are quite unable to get rid of this pest. A headmaster who warned us about this problem explained that parents want teachers to examine children’s scalps. He did not receive adequate information from the relevant ministry or useful instructions in this regard. In his opinion, there is no adequate legal basis for teachers to examine children’s scalps. He turned to the Ombudsman with an appeal for advice. We told the headmaster that the Ombudsman had already dealt with the problem of head lice infestation in schools in 2009, when it also formed its opinion. We assessed back then that the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport (MIZŠ) provides insufficient support to schools. We established that schools which discover head lice infestation act very differently. Some schools paid for an expert examination of all students’ scalps, which was entrusted to the community nursing service. The latter does not provide this service as part of the public health care service, which is why parents are expected to pay. In fact, expert workers in schools are not trained to diagnose or treat infectious diseases, including head lice infestation; they are not allowed to examine students, and that they need to inform parents about their children having head lice. Therefore, when a school detects a head lice infestation, two measures may be taken: for the examination in school to be carried out by a paid expert, or for the school to request certificates from the parents that their children do not have head lice. Medical certificates need to be paid for. With regard to the problem, we turned to the then Public Health Protection Institute of the Republic of Slovenia (now the National Institute for Public Health – NIJZ), which explained that, in accordance with the Contagious Diseases Act, the elimination of head lice is the obligation and responsibility of parents. Parents failing to do anything to eliminate head lice in their children are committing an offence which is penalised with a fine. In its response to the Ombudsman, the DK SM said that the existing legislation does not allow any exceptions in the examination of individual cases. Students need to take the secondary school graduation examination 156 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 157 2.15 CHILDREN’S RIGHTS Testing of students for THC