Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

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

160 replies

MimiDul · 23/06/2019 07:36

'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.”

OP posts:
choosechilli · 27/06/2019 22:16

Julian - Hopefully you have ignored the posters who are claiming that this will affect his reference for Uni etc.
Sixth form and F.E teachers will have seen all this before. Their concern will be how he performs and behaves while in their setting.

Adrian5089 · 03/07/2019 06:37

I read your story with shock. In 1993 at Whitgift School 10 boys were expelled and 15 suspended for ‘serious drugs related offences’.
The newly incumbent headmaster Dr Barnett at that time decided to show a hardline on drug use.
The drug was cannabis and bar one who had been dealing they had all committed the same offence but had different punishments. It was only when parents got together it was established that all those expelled were on scholarships or bursaries so not full fee paying.
5 of those expelled ended up going to Oxford or Cambridge. Independent Schools can expel you for wearing pink socks if they so desire (things may have changed now). There was no system of appeal and the fear and intimidatory tactics used by the teaching staff amounted to bullying.
I was one of those boys and understand your pain. They still cannot take away his education and I learnt some great life experiences and it ended up transforming the direction of my life and doing something much intune to my skills set rather than the results drive School it has become.
The injustice can eat away at you so please try and think about what you want to achieve.
Kids from all backgrounds will come across drugs at various points in their life.

cmlfj · 05/07/2019 11:09

Roses this is an appalling thing to say. Whitgift and Trinity rank among the top schools. They achieve amazing results especially as they take a broader range of kids than those rated top. Anyone can get top grades across the board if you only take the cream. The real test of teaching is what do you do with a broader range. Also, what else do you add?

Hithere12 · 05/07/2019 11:13

This is what happens in the real world though. If you told your employer you took illegal drugs you’d likely lose your job. You don’t get an award for honestly.

Walkaround · 05/07/2019 23:13

Hithere12 - oh ffs. This was not an employer/employee situation. Besides, if an employer failed to follow its own policies, it would be in deep shit, legally speaking.

Walkaround · 05/07/2019 23:14

In the real world, Michael Gove still has a job, too.

Walkaround · 05/07/2019 23:16

And various City lawyers I know...

opinionatedfreak · 05/07/2019 23:28

I went to a prominent public school 25yrs ago.

We all knew sex & drugs = immediate expulsion.

In a boarding environment in particular they have to keep it reigned in.

I'm appalled at things I've heard from friends of a similar vintage at SE England schools - there seemed to be a much more tolerant eye and makes me worry about the pastoral care these schools were offering.

cmlfj · 06/07/2019 01:15

Things move on in 25 years.

seriouslymum · 06/07/2019 16:47

I agree with you @homegirl1. DS got sucked in when we visited by the grounds, peacocks, facilities... Most of which the boys have no access to anyway.
The whole experience felt like an anticlimax after a few months.
@Juliandodds I really hope things go extremely well for your son.
Something good has to come out of this for his sake.

Juliandodds · 06/07/2019 16:55

Thank You. My boy has moved on and is I beleive pretty unaffected by the whole thing as we have had so many people, including headmasters from other schools, being prepared to say that Whitgift's actions were appalling and that he was wronged. The boys i feel sorry for are the many other boys who get forcd out by Whitgift each year and who have to live with the apparent shame of it. Parents of such boys have come forward to me since going public and have some unpleasant stories to tell. Regards

cmlfj · 06/07/2019 17:31

Julian, you have my sympathy. This is a really appalling thing to happen to your son. Drugs are not only happening at Whitgift but in every school, private or otherwise. It is no longer related to money as fixes are now very cheap for some drugs; and it is not a London phenomenon either, it is very much in the country too as kids have less to do.

Additionally, schools are increasingly controlling the actions of their pupils outside of schools and, as Julian points out, punishing when even the police would not have acted. My local policeman couldn't believe this had happened and felt it was ridiculous.

The way to tackle this would have been a significant suspension, followed by some pretty heavy duty drugs education, brutal if necessary. The whole cohort should have been involved in this. After THAT, it would be fair to issue a stern contract with students that if any such thing happens again within the time remaining at school, they will face expulsion.

Drug education is wholly insufficient. For this age group, it needs to be a little more graphic. But when I refer to age group, I realise that many parents need more education too. Many of the current parent generation indulged in some drug taking, often at college or university, and many still do. But drugs have moved on.

Part of the problem is that youngsters are finding it an easy way to earn money. With the advent of fees at universities, large numbers find this an easy way to help with loans (prostitution too is now not uncommon). So often, the children are offered drugs by their mates and this cascades down to schools too. It is easy for them to trust their friends as selling "good stuff". But of course, behind their friends, there is often an addict who is so desperate for a fix they will sell anything to support their addiction. The higher up the chain you go, the more people you find who have dragged little or weak youngsters into a drug habit and will keep them controlled through it or worse, violence or murder. Every buyer always thinks their source is safe and providing good stuff.

But we should also get this in perspective. In this country, the received wisdom is to teach our children to drink responsibly. It is not uncommon for parties from age of 16 to provide some amount of alcohol. But, if you read or listen to/read Aric Sigman who is an expert psychologist focussing on youth issues(lecturing to children and parents at many schools), he lists for us the ten most dangerous drugs. Alcohol sits firmly at the top. During his talk, he points out that in the UK we believe in teaching our kid to drink responsibly by introducing them to alcohol early.....and yet alcohol is responsible for more damage, accidents, fights and deaths amongst youth then any other drug. Further, he tells us that it causes damage to the developing brain up to the age of 24 and that the younger a child drinks alcohol, the more likely he is to develop of regular drinking habit through life. During his talks, he then points to the 6th most dangerous drug on his list which is cocaine. He then turns to the audience and asks parents when they will be teaching their children to sniff cocaine responsibly. The silence that descends on the audience is total.

In a nearby school, the very sensible head of many years (sadly recently retired and replaced by a man with little understanding or sensitivity) had a view he shared with new parents. He said that he knew the boys entering the school were bright because the entry tests were hard. But that between 10 and 18, many challenges could happen: illness, death, divorce, testosterone/teenage and, some may not turn out quite as academic as originally thought. Nonetheless, barring serious crime, the school committed to see them through to 18 and produce the very best individual version of themselves. He was wise to life and the things that happened in growing up.

He dwelt for a while on explaining that boys can do very stupid things in teenage and gave us an example of a top student with a good record of discipline who had been caught joyriding. This stunned both parents and school. He told us that boys took risks and thought they were indestructible. He didn't encourage it but was realistic enough to know it was common and should be handled as part of growing up. These are young people and, barring extremes, should have their misdemeanours handled firmly but with understanding.

Sadly, the change in the school has meant that more than four boys were asked not to return in 6th form as they had previously been suspended. This is expulsion in fact. Much like Julian's boy who had the chance to withdraw or be expelled...same difference...(and 9000 in IBM in the early 1990s offered "voluntary redundancy" or their life was made so hard they were sacked....)it all comes to the same thing, it's arm twisting and dereliction of handling the problem. In addition, one boy has been on a very strict behaviour bond for the whole of the sixth form under threat of expulsion as he had, (outside school and with an outside school friend) taken a short cut across a railway line (something often done by both adults and kids). Unfortunately, the friend tripped and was severely electrocuted; the boy had to deal with it, call out the emergency services and the whole experience was so traumatic (extensive surgery needed on his mate) that he is having to have therapy. But the school saw it as trespassing. Anyone with compassion and common sense would have thought the trauma of what happened was sufficient punishment (the police took no action). The boy had no discipline issues in school or history of bad behaviour. Another boy had suffered through a particularly extended and poisonous family breakup which caused him (as it often does) to fall behind. The boy had to have psychologist help and the Ed Psych reported the situation had been largely responsible for his academic issues. His GCSEs will be badly affected. Despite this, the school chose not to offer him a place in the 6th form, EVEN if he achieved the required grades; a request for a three year 6th form was also rejected. There were no discipline issues with this boy either.

It seems to me that these schools have lost sight of their role of educating and developing real young people, not only the highly intelligent and problem free. Anyone can do that. The skill is in handling teenage with all the warts and helping each young person make a success of it. It doesn't mean ignoring misdemeanours but it does mean handling them in a balanced and fair way.

What we have now are schools focussed only on image and results. It's easy to cast the first stone when your life has run without incident but that may be through luck rather than judgement.

Julian, you have all my sympathy as does your son. You have been moral and honest and a brilliant role model for him. You have shown courage in speaking out. As someone said earlier, I doubt very much it will harm his future. I wish you all the best.

WhosThere · 06/07/2019 17:51

A policy change to introduce random drug testing and zero tolerance is what is needed.

Juliandodds · 06/07/2019 18:37

Wow. what a great piece. wise words. So true. thank You

Juliandodds · 06/07/2019 18:57

It's interesting you say that WhosThere. i have some sympathy with that view. At the heart of my beef with Whitgift's actions is that there is no clarity or consistency in their approach to drugs and they ignore their own drugs policy. In the last 7 years they have not communicated with parents once about drugs. Their drug policy document which is there for all to read on their website self restricts their own jurusdiction to school premises, events and when identifiable as a Whitgift student. None of these criteria applied to any of the 35 fingered by the other boys and then interrogated by the school. The Headmaster admitted to me in our final plea meeting that his policies could do with some re-drafting to make matters clearer. The whole thing is painfully bizarre. Your suggestion may well be the best policy to adopt as long as it is clear to all - parents, teachers and students. regards

WhosThere · 06/07/2019 19:18

Well IMO the parents and students shouldn't have any reason to refuse. If they have nothing to hide why would they refuse?

cmlfj · 07/07/2019 02:51

The school has let this boy down. They didn't meet their own policy and in fact they lied to the boys. It is manifestly untrue that being honest would be better for them.

I'm not certain testing would help that much. If it was done in this particular case, would all the culprits have been caught in a random test? Only if everyone was tested. How practical is that? There is a point to testing but not if it's followed by immediate expulsion. Education has to be the best way forward but needs to be excellent and often repeated and include parents.

It also takes no account of the fact teenagers do stupid things. Whether it's shop lifting, joy riding, some drugs at parties, getting drunk or into fights, smoking etc these things have always existed and will continue to be done by teenagers. Some do it for kicks, some do it to get attention, some do it for rebellion, depression, frustration or dares. If you can't stand the heat of teenagers, get out of the kitchen. These things will happen and do happen, sometimes to the most unexpected kids from nice families, kids with good behavioural and academic records. Schools must have ways of dealing with this without defaulting to expulsion. Clearly there have to be limits, but the school should have other options before resorting to expulsion (except in extreme circumstances). Suspensions are an alternatives and then good behaviour contracts put together with the offender and signed by both sides agreeing future good behaviour and resulting sanctions for breaking the contract. This could then be expulsion but the student must be well aware.

In my opinion, the schools should in any case meddle less in what goes on outside of school unless it directly affects the school. Outside school is the parents jurisdiction. The best scenario is for parents and school to work closely together with a common sense approach.

Will all those who behaved like angels in their teens please step forward!

Mugglingstrum · 07/07/2019 12:15

Hi Julian. I have some sympathy with the plight of you and your son. He does seem to have been dealt with harshly but I’m acutely aware we are getting one side of the story here and the school is unable to defend itself.

Was this your sons first infringement? Did he have previous issues with behaviour?

The school are not looking to persecute individual Whitgift boys. It would be pointless to have such an agenda. I can’t help thinking the whole truth has not quite come out.

Your continuous mentioning of other Headmasters thinking your son has been dealt with unfairly also seems a little strange as they are passing judgement without hearing the case for the defence.

I would hope a decent HM would be a little more circumspect on such an issue.

Rockylady · 08/07/2019 08:07

Also, hoe many of those HMs actually offered you a place?

Boom25 · 08/07/2019 09:25

I don't think mandatory drug testing is the answer. Kids are surrounded by drugs nowadays, not to mention politicians tacitly saying its on to take drugs! I don't think their educations should be over of they try smoking weed at a few parties, like millions of other kids, and adults. Obviously dealings and harder drugs are another matter, but I still think education and awareness is the way to go, not just chucking them out.

cmlfj · 09/07/2019 00:55

@boom25 I totally agree.
@mugglingstrum I'm afraid HMs do make decisions like this, I highlighted some of these above. Until something happens to your child or a child you know well, it doesn't seem possible. Ultimately the reputation of the school comes above any one child.
@rockylady It will depend when it happened. If it was recent, most schools have already interviewed and offered places for next autumn so most schools will be full. The next lot of opportunity comes at the time the results come out when some decide to stay put, others don't make the grade, others had several offers and select one. It's very tough to find a school with places midyear. So the HM making offers is to this boy is not really a proof of their thinking.

Mugglingstrum · 09/07/2019 10:14

cmlfj my point is that I would be worried about a headmaster from another school expressing a strong opinion on Whitgift’s actions having only heard one side of the story. And according to Julian there were many.

I think we are only hearing a part of the story. What previous issues were there? What type of pills? Was there any interaction with other students with drugs?

The boy’s behaviour is the issue and Julian would be better served spending energy addressing that as opposed to playing the blame game.

Rockylady · 09/07/2019 15:20

In the end I rather agree with @Mugglingstrum. The decision must not be taken out of context, whatever this was. Maybe Julian could say that there were no previous issues, in which case we would have more of the story. But it looks like it was all the more complex than an isolated episode.

Hence I was wondering if other HMs (and there are private schools with places available now, by the way) had made an offer in face of all available information, which they would have been offered to review.

cmlfj · 09/07/2019 16:02

Well I guess only Julian can answer on other issues involving his son that is true.

However, it is not unknown for off the wall decisions to be made.

On the other hand, I believe this story did hit the papers and therefore the school have every opportunity to answer this which it clearly has not done.

I totally get your point about both sides of a story but also know it is easy to have total faith in a school till something happens to you. We all can be very defensive about the schools we select while all is going well for us. Other heads may comment, they are captains of their ship.

I guess available places depends where you live. Not around here.

Rockylady · 10/07/2019 12:47

It is also easy for other HMs to say they do not have spaces (because they don't or they do but do not want to get involved / do the assessment work for a special case) and then go on commenting "how outrageous" etc. So the comments from other HMs are not really worth much unless they are followed by the goodies.