6th form exclusion ...?

Culture of silence and collusion needs to be stamped out.
If you know who is responsible for something and you do not (discreetly and anonymously) tell the authorities then you are part of the problem.
thing 'I'm not a grass' thing is ridiculous at his age.
Tell him to name the culprits.
Otherwise, take the punishment.
I often have situtions where it is uncertain who is responsible.
I speak (separately) to the suspected perps, and explain that if they do not tell me the culprit, they will share the sanction.
They always tell me the name, and it is never revealed who spoke up.

Asking students to write statements implies an investigation.

Why do you think they have not investigated the incident properly? What else would you suggest they do?

Of course they are hoping that peer pressure will result in a confession, but it's not the only or even the main reason they have acted in this way. It's a serious incident and they need to show that vandalism will not be tolerated to act as a deterrent.

No they cannot. The OP said her DS was excluded. That means it is subject to the exclusion policy. That is the way it works. Anything else is not an exclusion and should not be used by schools to get at the truth. If it is not an exclusion, the parent has no right to state the case of a child. This is partly why this whole episode is wrong, despite what the hang em and flog en brigade think. There are policies for a reason! It is perfectly possible to list the type of misdemeanor that would lead to an exclusion but say the list is not exhaustive. It gives a clear indication as to what is likely to be an excludable offence. There is no such thing as an exclusion from the premises on selected days! Therefore the whole thing does not actually matter.

If you are employed, your employer will list misdemeanors which can get you you dismissed. They are not exhaustive but this is similar. It might help if some of you read an exclusion policy or even read the law surrounding exclusions. Of course if the school is circumventing procedures, as they appear to be, they can make the law up as they go along. At no point am I saying the DS of the OP is right, but the school has not investigated this properly. If you just look at CCTV and make assumptions, this is not investigating. How do they know the OPs son is not at serious risk of violence if he tells? They have not investigated, so they just do not know. However, as this is not a real exclusion, anything goes!

Milly - no way can a behaviour or exclusion policy list all the misdemeanours that might lead to exclusion.

milly - the OP says he does know who did the damage. But has omitted to mention this in his statement.

We don't know if he witnessed it or not. If he did, he is certainly in the wrong for not telling 'the whole truth'.

I think it must be fairly obvious from CCTV that there was a period when several students went into the toilets and stayed there together for longer than the normal in and out footage, and these are the 10 who have been singled out.

Whether or not he joined in or was part of a supportive audience or it was just bad luck and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, by not fully cooperating in the investigation he is now in the wrong. We are talking criminal damage here and he is 18.

Agree with EvilTwins & CamelHump.

This lad is an 18yo man, not a child. He is still able to sit his exams & attend timetabled lessons, so his scheduled activities aren't affected - he's not, in fact, been excluded.

If he is desperate to use the school facilities to study independently (why? It's the C21st. The internet is a thing) then he needs to co-operate by helping with the school's investigation into the criminal damage caused by one or more of his mates. Otherwise, it's understandable that they'd prefer not to have him wandering freely about the place in between supervised sessions.

I'd be telling my ds to shut up already & be grateful the police aren't wanting to chat to him. I'd also be marking his card that any more involvement in 'shenanigans' would seriously prejudice my enthusiasm for supporting him at Uni.

Exactly. This isn't an exclusion in the real sense. He is allowed to lessons and exams but not to socialise in school.

Oh and with reference to "parents paying for damage", if this was MY 18 year old, he'd bloody well be paying for that damage himself if that's the route the college goes down.

Totally agree camel . Anyway, referring to this as an exclusion is wrong. It isn't. Essentially, he's on study leave. The fact that others are not is irrelevant.

It is clear that a 6th form at a school is covered by the legislation but a 6th form college is not. However, it would be unheard of for a 6th form college not to have an exclusion policy. The school or college must abide by the policy. It has no alternative. Usually such a policy will list the type of offence which leads to a permanent exclusion. Normally this will include causing damage to school property. It will not list "knowing who it is, but not telling". The school can investigate properly!!! It is up to them to talk to the students and get statements. They do not seem to have done this.

I don't agree with not telling, and it is misplaced loyalty, but usually exclusion policies are clear - a permanent exclusion is for actually causing the damage.

My son has been off on study leave since last Friday and won't go in at all except to take A levels. Lots of schools don't have lessons from now on. As long as he can take his papers, does it make that much difference? Could he email work to teachers, if necessary?

He does know, however, who did the damage but has not said this in his statement.

The Op says her DS DOES know who has committed this crime.Why on earth isn't he telling the school?
This is not telling tales on a bit of classroom mischief.It is a serious criminal offence.If your DS and his peers are witholding information, then really they have left the school with no option.

Oh yeah sorry I think keeping quiet and not spilling might be loyal etc but the school are right.

If it's a perm excl then the governors have to meet - have you been told when? You can go and make representations, and they decide if the perm excel should be maintained or overturned. Where is he going after yr13 - will there be any impact?

And given that he's allowed in for exams and timetabled lessons, the college is fulfilling all obligations. Clearly they think he can't be trusted to spend his study lessons actually studying, so why should they let him on campus? They are not preventing him from studying, just saying he can't do it on their premisis. It's not actually an exclusion, is it?

As a previous Head of 6th Form, I am well aware that the processes for excluding a post-16 student are not the same as for a child below 16, thank you very much.

At 18 years old, this boy should know better and I am appalled that so many posters are taking the stance that the school is out of line. Why on earth are 10 or more 17-18 year old boys going into toilets together and messing around to the point that damage is caused? Total lack of respect for school property and mindless immature behaviour. 6th formers are one step away from work and/or university. Why on earth should the college condone it?

When he says a bit of shenanigans took place - was he there when they took place or does he just know that they took place and who was responsible but wasn't actually there to witness them (in which case he knows by hearsay rather than directly?)

I think it makes a difference - if it is the former then could he say that when he left the loos the damage hadn't been done and therefore the school are being unreasonable to expect him to be able to say he knows exactly who did it as he wasn't there to witness the damage being done in person. And that by checking the tape as to when he left the toilets they could narrow down the group of possible suspects.

Not so easy to do that if he was actually in there when the damage was being done (unless he was using another cubicle and could therefore say he wasn't able to see who was doing the damage and as there was lots of shouting (or none) he couldn't work out who was doing what.

I can understand the school are hacked off about the vandalism and want to get money back as well as punish the perpetrators. However, given that it is so close to A level exam time and given that there is a very good chance that some or all but one of the ten suspects are innocent, then it is also worrying that they are willing to stress out up to nine innocent kids which could have a big knock on effect on their exams and thus a big knock on effect on their university choice or other post school plans, and thus their lives and careers beyond that, if my child were one of those that were innocent but being punished in this way, I would be spitting furious that the school are effectively hoping that they could guilt the guilty person into admitting their wrongdoing at the expense of everybody there - given that as he already hasn't, there's a chance (making wild assumptions!) that as he was happy to damage the toilet doors then he might not be bothered about others being punished at the same time he is if it means a lesser punishment for him. (I assume that if the school find out for definite who did the damage then they will be punishing them more strongly? Maybe not.)

If your ds is a good kid who has never been in trouble in school before and he wasn't involved then it is particularly harsh to punish him like this. I always thought that you were innocent until proven guilty, not innocent until you got down to the last 10 suspects and then punished them all when you couldn't figure out who the perpetrator was. It's a horrible thing to happen to him at an already stressful time and not something you'd want on your school record.

I'd also put it to the school that what are they expecting your son to say if he doesn't know who did this (by witnessing directly) - are they expecting him to guess? Because if he did and guessed wrongly then that has huge repercussions for your ds, the person accused and the person that gets away with it. They are putting him (and others in the same situation) in an impossible situation as they can't dob somebody in if they don't know. Again this doesn't work so well if he did see what happened but that's not clear from your op. Given that he hasn't said who did it yet, the school are not to know if he saw what happened or now so theoretically it's a valid question.

Sorry that's all a bit muddly but if your ds is worried about repercussions from others then that's a genuine additional stressor that the school haven't mentioned from what you've said that they will deal with. And what happens if somebody else decides to name him rather than the guilty party for example as they decide they are more worried about the guilty party taking revenge on them or think that if several different people are named it will confuse the issue more...

In the original post, the OP says her son does not know who did it! If here are 15-20 people mucking about, then not everyone will know what is happening to a toilet cubicle. I do not condone any bad behaviour, but the exclusion rules do apply to these young people. I is not "reasonable probability" for the school to assume every young person in the room has caused the damage. Obviously, this cannot be the case. It is therefore using exclusion to get at the truth. The question is: is this reasonable? Clearly the main culprits should say who they are. Blaming everyone is not the best way to conduct the investigation.