'My son was expelled for telling the truth' - Sunday Times

[MimiDul]

'School bullied my son for telling truth about drugs’

The only GCSE pupil honest enough to admit drug-taking during an investigation at a top private school was forced out earlier this year — while the 34 boys who stayed silent were allowed to remain.

Today, Julian Dodds, the father of the 16-year-old, has gone public to highlight what he says is gross injustice because of the widespread variation in how private schools handle drug-taking among pupils; he says the practice is at “epidemic levels” among teenagers. The case comes more than two decades after the same school, Whitgift, in Croydon, south London, was criticised for taking a similarly hardline approach, expelling 10 pupils for smoking cannabis.

Whitgift told the 16-year old he would have to leave in February, just a few months before he was due to take nine GCSEs. The teenager was one of 35 boys interrogated by teachers in the school for several hours after a tip-off by other pupils about an alleged drugs problem. Parents whose sons refused to take a drugs test were also called in and quizzed during what was called “Operation Swoop”.

The boys were interrogated in five different rooms and told that “things would go better for them if they wrote an admission statement of what substances they had ever taken”.

Dodds’s son said he had tried marijuana and “some pills”, though not on the school premises.

“My boy was the only one to tell the truth and for that he got kicked out of school,” said his father. “Why are schools allowed to bully kids in this way when drug use is widespread among teenagers, particularly at private schools? Some boys at the school have a bingo card on which they tick off all the drugs they have tried.

“The Whitgift boys get targeted by drug dealers on the train they travel to school on. This is the issue: how do you tackle drug use among teenagers when police have largely given up?”

The Dodds family were given a choice between withdrawing their son or attending a meeting with the headmaster, Chris Ramsey, at which they were warned that their son could be expelled. They chose to withdraw him.

The school, to which they had paid about £90,000 for five years’ tuition, said he could come back there to sit his exams if no other school place could be found for him. He revised at home with the help of private tutors, and returned to Whitgift to sit his exams.

Whitgift said: “After long consideration, a student was asked to leave the school four months ago after an investigation . . . pupils and parents are aware that the school cannot tolerate involvement with drugs and the safety of all our pupils is our primary concern. The presence of drugs [among] young people is a societal issue that can ruin lives.”

“But presumably since they did not admit to it, there was no actual proof, just suspicions.”

Exactly; which is why an ‘investigation’ relying solely on confession favours the liars.

As the article says, there was a tip off from a pupil. And word is that more than 1 boy was expelled...

Of course an investigation where there is no proof favours the liars. The same happens with police investigations. Still does not mean that illegal behaviour can be ignored just because those breaking the law confessed.

Whitgift is awash with kids who use drugs at parties.
The post A level party season has been drug and alcohol fuelled.
In years past the post GCSE parties have been the same.
Maybe they managed to haul in 35 kids of whom only one was a genuine drug user, but that would then suggest that the operation had been an over reaction and their tip off unreliable.... again, inept at tackling drug use.

I don’t know what can be done.

Restricting their disposable income, search their bags that contain the fake id that enabled them to buy alcohol, and parents can get home drug-test kits. I rely on health and safety lectures and emphasising their role in a brutal and murderous supply chain.

But I know they still do it to some extent.

“And word is that more than 1 boy was expelled”

Oh, OK, so more have kept their heads down rather than complain publicly. Makes sense.

I would be amazed if-

1. This was that boys first offence, even first drugs offence. At most schools you get a second chance (unless dealing) and offered counselling/regular drugs tests etc...

1. Under questioning some of the other 34 didn’t crack and point fingers. (In fact the more I think about it I would imagine this boy was accused of dealing by others and didn’t convincingly state he wasn’t).

If it’s all true (which I imagine it’s not as the school has no right of reply here and the father is obviously emotional about it) then it appears the schools only mistake was stopping at expelling 1 of them.

We don’t know how many others were put on drug rehabilitation programmes, regular testing etc... because the father would not be privy to that information.

Agree that the boy likely did have other transgressions against his name. I suspect this admission re drugs was the final straw.

I would imagine there are very few schools that don't have some pupils heavily immersed in the drug culture. However, I think if the pupils involved are bright and 'going places' in life, there is more of a reluctance for schools to exclude or expel them for fear of ruining a potentially glittering career.

The private schools where I lived in NW Surrey were very open with the parents that they tended to have a bigger problem with drug use amongst pupils because they unusually had the ££££ to buy them in first place.

Was an issue at DC boarding school and if you got caught disciplinary measures were taken.

Parents are being incredibly naive if they don't think drug use is widespread amongst teens across the social spectrum, weed is seen as utterly harmless and often preferred to alcohol...

Parents of boys who refused to take a drugs test were pulled in. So what happened then - did those boys then taken the test ordered by their parents, or continue to refuse?
I would lay money this kid is lower-achieving than some of the others hence made an example of. Twas ever thus. In my own school 25 years ago certain girls were expelled for smoking or smelling like weed (allegedly) while others could get away with anything. After I got a GCSE prize and 6th form scholarship, I knew I could get away with anything, and did.

^that is simply not a picture I recognise from C21st independent schools.

I read this story this morning and thought to myself - why on earth would the father do this story? Now every future employer will search your son's name and this will come up as part of his past. Way to go, daddy! And I came to the conclusion that it stinks of the same reason people think Boris Johnson's misdemeanour should not have been reported. People with money think they are exempt from certain punishments. My children are privately educated but I make them aware that it is a privilege they must never take for granted. The lessons I teach them are lessons I learnt from my parents who were wealthier than me. Apart from a good education, nothing was handed to us on a platter. Our pocket money was zero because in my father's book he was paying for everything - food and board and therefore we had no need for spending money. My children's friends talk about their PlayStations, Xboxes and fortnite even though they are not old enough for that. Sometimes I feel sorry for my children with their single electronic device, a kindle fire. They've never complained but they are aware of children that don't even have a kindle fire. So they feel blessed to have one each. There are now far too many children (both rich and poor) with an entitlement mentality and it makes for a poor society.

The dad's reaction smacks of a knee-jerk response. Yes, MimiDul, I think he hasn't thought through the long-term consequences of his actions, from his DS's POV, has he?

MimiDul, I'm guessing your DC aren't teenagers yet?

I went to private school years and years ago and it was well known then that private schools had a bigger drugs and alcohol problem as the kids had the cash to pay for it.

And there would have been kids in our school that were more loseable than others depending on how likely parents were to make big donations to the school/ how famous they were/ how amazing their kids results were.

I suspect this child was an easy scapegoat.

You're right NewModel, both dc are 10 and under. I have not yet worked out how to manage problems like this dad faced but I hope I never have to. I really feel for parents of teens in this age and especially in London. But psychologists say that anything you accept when a child is aged between 3 and 8, you must be prepared to live with for the rest of that human's life. So parents with under 8s must help their dc establish the right patterns and behaviours that will help them in later life. Hopefully, I have done that.

As this point it should be pointed out that we will only ever hear one side of the story because the school is unable to put theirs forward.

Red you must be near to be as Whitgift is actually the closest school to our house but my big kids are at state secondary further out. Eldest was at local Church school before we moved him, now that does have issues with drugs as hadn't culture is so embedded, but equally recognises the risk so does amazing work with the Dan Spargo Mabbs Foundation educating kids about the truth/choices/risk and reality of the drug supply chain. He went to my Church and so the eldest DCs are petfrified of taking drugs as they remember when he was ill/died.

We were doing far more drugs with far less awareness than young people have now. I do think the affluence of them helps, they have far greater disposable income than we had.

I just think it's still this poor kid had been made a massive scapegoat, yes he made bad choices but then did the right thing and can't clean, especially as leniency was promised. For school to renege on this and believe that only one kid was involved is grossly unfair.

Agree that by going public father could potentially be making things harder for the boy going forward

But psychologists say that anything you accept when a child is aged between 3 and 8, you must be prepared to live with for the rest of that human's life. So parents with under 8s must help their dc establish the right patterns and behaviours that will help them in later life. Hopefully, I have done that.

I detect just a teensy bit of sanctimony here. In the nicest way possible, you can't predict how your children will cope with drugs and alcohol. They're rife across the social spectrum, certainly not peculiar to private schools or less academic ones (lol @ohtheroses).

I have a nearly-17 year old and I'm v proud of how sensibly he's turned out, but a lot of it is personality and luck - he's just generally a restrained sort, always has been. I worry things might go differently with my 13 year old who's voracious in all respects.

I can only imagine that Whitgift took this decision very seriously and the boy in question must have had another mark against him. More cynically, I wonder about his GCSE predictions...

The father has made a decision that will alter his son's life considerably, he'll have to answer for that when the boy comes to grasp the implications.

I feel for him.

I think it is a great shame, I doubt he's a heavy drug user, probably had a bit of puff.

It goes to show that honestly isn't always the best policy, sometimes it's best to keep schtum. Having admitted it, the school felt they had to take action but what they didn't know wouldn't have hurt them.

Poor kid. I hope he finds a decent college of further education to continue his studies and does very well.

I'm always very suspicious of articles like this which present only the parent's perspective. I imagine there is significant context and backstory to this that the school won't comment on. Why the father thinks it is a good idea to name his son publicly I have no idea.

I have a son at Whitgift. My observations are that this boy has taken drugs and admitted doing so. The father has blamed all and sundry apart from his son. The school have been measured in their approach in that they have offered a meeting with the Head and also allowed a return to school to sit GCSEs. Drug issues are not confined to fee paying schools but when they are reported there is outrage overload.

Those that know the school are also aware it is not solely the home of over privileged rich boys. It is full of boys on bursaries and scholarships and indeed is atypical of most Independent schools in the area.
The father has not helped his son’s future by going public with his perceived grievance.

The Dodds family were given a choice between withdrawing their son or attending a meeting with the headmaster, Chris Ramsey, at which they were warned that their son could be expelled. They chose to withdraw him.

He wasn't expelled. They chose to withdraw him.

It also occurs to me that had the father attended that meeting he may well have discovered that they had considerably more ‘evidence’ than he is currently aware of.

But according to the article, they did attend the meeting, given that the meeting is where they were told their child could be expelled, AppleKatie. So if the father was told they have more evidence against his ds than a confession, going to the press was a somewhat odd choice.

Hard to imagine they got that far without a meeting. No one would withdraw their child from school without one. Impossible.