'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.”

True - I tried to delete it. How can I do that? I just feel like there are a lot of people damning the school without knowing all the facts, including me. Please tell me how I can remove it as don't want to cause any extra grief

It was our first choice and both sons left whitgift school with A*s, GCSEs and A levels. Whitgift school caters for both academic and non academic boys.

Walkaround

You don't know "thinking he is doing it for "sympathy" is ridiculous"

In your opinion it is ridiculous.

In the same way that in my opinion saying that the school is scapegoating the boy with out all the details us ridiculous.

As for allowing him to take his exams, What would you want them to do?

As it is he will be escorted from reception to an empty room where he will sit his exam and then be escorted back out of the school

BoneyBackJefferson - I am 100% certain the school still has drug taking pupils, including some of those it interviewed at the time. Yes, it is possible other boys confessed and it is possible others were also asked to withdraw their children from the school. It is even possible other boys told the school this particular boy was the ringleader. It is also possible this boy was asked to leave the school for reasons other than drug taking.
I would be surprised if drugs were found on this boy, though, as surely it would then have become a police matter? If it became a police matter, I'm even more surprised by the father's decision to publicise in the newspapers that he feels the police do nothing about the problem, although it is possible he was actually annoyed nobody punished his ds sufficiently.

Basically, I think having publicised this opinion that schools' approaches on drug taking are inconsistent and unfair, if Whitgift believes it is neither inconsistent nor unfair in its approach, it could share the secret of its fairness by publicising the policy it follows in cases like these, and the standard of evidence it requires to justify expulsions/requests for withdrawal of pupils on the basis of illegal drug taking. It would not take much effort for the school to confirm whether or not it would expel a boy on the back of a confession alone. It could maybe also share details of its drugs and alcohol education. Without going into details of specific cases, Whitgift couldmdo everyone a service by explaining how it is dealing with the issue in general - or is it fighting an inconsistent and losing battle and at a loss as to what to do?

I'm sure a lot of schools would benefit from a clear and consistent policy on this issue! Particularly given the mixed messages sent out by society.

Hi All, I'm the Dad, Julian Dodds. let me answer some of the points people have been raising / speculating about. The article on Sunday wasn't very accurate. The school swooped on 35 boys who had been fingered by 2 boys (the Head told us this). They were the 'right' 35 albeit there could have been a whole lot more too. I know quite a few of the boys and the parents. We talk. I picked my boy up that afternoon after a 5 hour ordeal and the Assistant Head told me that I should be proud of my boy. "He was the only one that told us the truth." "We know the others are lying" he said. Keep your boy at home to give us time to get the truth out of them. But they couldn't get anything more than weed. Smart boys! The school drugs policy is clear. it's on their website for all to check out. It specifically restricts the school's jurisdiction to school premises, school events and when in school uniform. There were no specific allegations against any boy and certainly nothing that fitted that jurisdiction. The Head agreed that that is indeed what the policy says but he chose to ignore it saying he would expel him for bringing the school into disrepute (even though no one knew he had taken anything specifically). We did have a meeting with the Head. The Sunday Times got that wrong. We were told that if we withdrew him they would help us find another school and agreed to find a different place to sit his exams or, if they couldn't, then at Whitgift. BUT if we didn't withdraw him then he would be expelled and we would be out on our own with nowhere to sit the GCSE's. We were coerced into this decision. Despite being promised that things would go better if they confessed (by the original senior masters), the Head told our son in the meeting "You can't expect leniency just because you were honest". He said "there may be others sitting up there in their places who haven't been honest but we just have to assume that things won't go well for such people in the long run". He also told us that this was NOT a totting up exercise with other behaviour points being taken into consideration. It was purely on the drugs confession. In fact one other boy was also expelled. In the family interrogation the father told his boy that he might as well fess up and once the school got the info they too were told to withdraw their son or face expulsion. Many of the other 34 parents are livid with the school. One mother who was interrogated with her husband and boy had just finished chemo and said that it was worse than chemo and couldn't sleep for a week. Why am I doing this? Because they have hurt my family. Because someone has to stand up to the bully in the playground. I think I've said enough. I could go on but I'm probably overstaying my welcome. thanks for reading - if you got this far!

One other point. I have been myself to Croydon Police and told them everything. They told me that they would not be allowed to conduct an interview with 15 year olds like the school did. They would have to caution him and have a parent or adult present. They also said they would not act on historical usage - which this was. The Department for Education and ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) issue advice to schhols re how to handle drugs cases in schools (and this was NOT IN school anyway). The advice is clear. "Suspensions (now called temporary exclusions) should NOT be the automatic response to a drug incident and permanent exclusion should only be for the most serious cases". (My niece tells me some girls were thrown out of her school for taking LSD in class). There was not even an incident at Whitgift. The incident was created by the school. There were no drugs, there wasn't even a search. It was all about what they may have done at parties etc at the weekend or on holidays. I told another Headmaster this story and he told me that I should consider legal action as this was not in his view a fair, reasonable or proportionate action (referring to the Swoop) or decision. Thanks and good night all x

@Juliandodds, a brave thing to come on here and explain your case. I hope your DS is able to find some peace and time to recover from this ordeal over the summer, moving forward with the rest of his life.

Not only among the children, at DD's school, one of the students has posted a 'photo of his father taking drugs.
I was totally appalled.

Juliandodds - thank you for explaining further. I would not be happy if the school's written policy was not followed, either.

If Heads started getting strict and sanctioning pupils for 'out of school' reports of drug use' there would hardly any of some cohorts left in education, surely?

DS knows full well who the ones are who take drugs from his school. One nearly died from taking ecstasy a year or so ago and was in hospital for quite some time afterwards. He would never think to dob them in though.

Thank You. I know I am being critised for coming forward by some people on here and I can understand their reasoning to some extent. But I am proud of my boy for being honest and he is heartened by my actions to try to ensure, using the court of public opinion, that the school cannot abuse those in their care again like this

So, Whitgift rounded up 35 boys for smoking pot outside of school hours/grounds, told them there'd be leniency for a confession, and then essentially expelled the one poor kid who was honest?

Has your son sorted his sixth form? Good luck Julian.

Thank you @Juliandodds .

It goes to show how we all need to be clued up on our fights, doesn’t it? Ironic: since I have a non white sons on the streets of S London I have made sure that they understand their rights should they be stopped by police. But it has never occurred to me to say school have no right to interrogate you about out of school : out of uniform activity.

All the boys and all the parents should have said “your own policy is clear and as such and in principle I will give no details of our family life outside school”.

Interesting that the police held their boundaries and the school did not

My original response on this thread was that the school had been incompetent but with the clarity that they went against their own policy and presumed to interrogate families about activity behind their stated reach, and on the basis of this blackmailed you into withdrawing your son, I think they are worse than incompetent.

I can see why you have spoken out: it means they cannot claim your son as the sacrificial ‘example’.

Is he the same Head who announced the cancellation of the inter/school rugby match without actually apologising for or acknowledging the awfulness of some Whitgift boys and parents shouting ‘chav’ at the state school team and supporters? (Yes both sides shouted stuff but taking responsibility means not descending into whining ‘but they said....’, or brushing it off as ‘heat of the moment ‘),

I really hope your son comes out stronger for this, with your support.

Good luck.

He is going to our local State school for an induction day today. I have to say that all heads of other schools we have met at interview, both independent and state have been appalled at Whitgift. Some have suggested we should take legal action. They say the test of using the "bringing the school into disrepute" clause is that the decision has to be "fair, reasonable and proportionate". It is widely beleived that this decision cannot be classed as that. Thanks for your interest

Thank You. Not sure about the rugby incident

Good for you Julian. Well done for speaking out.

There is a time and a place for righteous indignation.

I suspect the parents whose DC were pulled up (but not withdrawn) have chosen to keep a low profile so as not to jeopardise their sons' passing into the sixth form.

Hope your DS settles in well and thrives at the state sixth form he will be attending, @Juliandodds.

thank you New model Army Mayhem. Fingers Crossed

Do you not think it is a little unfair to use "the court of public opinion" to try the school when you know full well they cannot publicly answer the accusations you are making?

I hope your son continues to be "heartened by your actions" when it comes to applying to university and jobs.

hi PCohle. I do think what were grossly unfair were the actions of the school. I am happy for the school to take me to court if I say anything that is untrue. Like my son I am open and honest. We have nothing to hide. "The truth will set you free" as John Whitgift, the Archbishop of Canterbury who set up the school no doubt said in some of his sermons. The school have much to hide and someone needs to shine a light on it. Thank You

@Juliandodds

While the school tries to protect the privacy of your family and other boys family, is it proper to mention other family on a public forum?

And I have the same question as PCohle, do you not think it is unfair to use "the court of public opinion" to try the school when you know full well they cannot publicly answer the accusations you are making?

Sorry? Where have I mentioned another family that gets even close to anyone being identified? I notice that you are writing under a pseudo name so I and no one else can know who you are. I on the other hand have nothing to hide. No hard feelings but I can't see where the injustice is from my side. The recent communication to the parents of the school by the Headmaster is full of lies in their denials like "we value honesty". Pah, I know exactly what the headmaster said about honesty in our final kick out meeting with him and its not what most people would say is valueing honesty. It's the opposite.

@juliandodds I feel like we've only heard a part of the story. What is it that your son did that was so bad that the school felt he had to be removed immediately? Was he the source of the drugs? Otherwise I can't see why the police needed to be involved or why the school reneged on its promise of leniency in exchange for honesty. I am one of those who've criticised you for going to the press because I feel your action may have disenfranchised your son. I do hope your son gets whatever help he needs and he moves on well from this episode.

Thank You MimiDul. My son is fine. He likes the idea that I am taking on the school and so do his mates who are still there. they were cheering the Sunday Times article as I read it out to them. I have had many people say the opposite to what you have said. The second most liked comment on the comments page for the Sunday Times article was one saying that "I am glad the father is backing his son in such a manner - good for him." It received 26 'likes'. We have a letter from the school acknowledging that he did nothing in connection with the school at all and did not sell, distribute or push anything. I have just checked the exact wording and that is what it says. What has given me the steel to mount this campaign is that a number of Headmasters we have recently had interviews with consider the actions of Whitgift to be "unfair, unreasonable and disproportionate". I understand everyone will have their own opinion on this and thats fair enough. Thank You