6th form exclusion ...?

[MadameSin]

Does anyone have any knowledge of this kind of thing? ... we have received a letter from our ds's 6th form informing us that with effect after half term, ds, along with 10 others, have been excluded from the premises due to damage in the toilets and subsequent lack of cooperation regarding who did it. They have cctv footage of ds and many others entering the loos during the period that this damage took place. My son wrote a statement that the doors in the loos had been broken for a while and that he had occasionally put them back on their hinges. There was a bit of shenanigans that took place according to ds, but no damage had been caused by himself. He does know, however, who did the damage but has not said this in his statement. Can a school collectively exclude several pupils formerly, if they do not tell them who did the damage? Obvs we are gutted as he is mid flow A-level exams and for good reason, he is also very stressed out about it all. He doesn't want to name names through fear of the backlash on him. He has never been involved in any trouble at college and the head of 6th form has told me he does not think ds is responsible for the damage. They are also talking about making the parents pay for the damage

No knowledge, but:

• if the other boys are your DS's friends, then they shouldn't let him suffer for their silly actions, so should own up

• if the other boys are not your DS's friends, then he doesn't owe them anything and he should say what he knows

• what kind of backlash is he afraid of? He is taking a massive hit for being suspended mid-flow A-level exams. I struggle to think of any backlash that could have more long term consequences than messing them up.

Surely they will be on study leave anyway so it just means he can only go in for exams, can't go in to revise? He can do that at home.

The school only has to say there is reasonable probability that he caused the damage, but he has stated he did not. The Governors must hold the review meeting, and you and he can attend, before his first exam. Make sure this happens and you need to read the guide to the law on exclusions. It would be unreasonable for them to make him miss exams if they do not have proof he did the damage. They must also take his statement into account.

The school can exclude for a serious breach of the bahaviour policy or because a pupil puts other pupils' safety in jeopardy. Not saying who did the damage (even if he knows) is NOT either of these. This is how you should argue the case. None of what has happened is worth a permanent exclusion - assuming this is what it is. What have they said about him taking exams? You will be in a strong position if he has an unblemished behaviour record until this incident. He should be allowed to take his exams and if this is a maintained school, contact the LA immediately for parental support. His future should not be in the balance if he is innocent.

He can go in for exams and only time tabled A-Level lessons. No study time allowed in college. They haven't blamed him for the damage, but they have blamed all 10 boys for behaviour leading to damage of school property even though, collectively, all 10 could not be responsible. I think it's a case of guilty by association to be honest and a lesson to be learned by him. All boys are members of a tight sports team and I fear the whole 'team' mate ethos has kicked in and they are protecting the guilty party. Personally, I feel the lad that did the damage should fess up and let the rest off the hook and I suspect that's what the school are waiting to happen. The impact isn't massive, it was just the process and harshness of it all on ds that I wondered about. The HT also threatened to withold any exam certificates if they didn't trell on who did it!! thanks for your replies. Don't think I will take it further as ds is anxious about it already without it being escalated. A sad end to his school career which is unblemished so far

They cannot withhold exam certificates. Obviously it is best to get the culprit to admit to what they have done and there is still time. As they have not stopped him sitting the exams and he can go in for timetabled lessons, then the damage is limited. If he is well behaved normally, I am a bit surprised they came down so heavily on the whole group. They obviously do not have the culprits but blaming everyone is not fair. You have nothing to lose by seeing the governors - he is not obliged to go.

If he won't name names, then he is in effect colluding with the perpatrator.If this were a police investigation, he would be committing an offence if he did not say what he knew.

But it is not a Police enquiry. It is up to the school to investigate the incident. If someone says they did not do the damage, then the school has to decide if there is reasonable probability that they did do it by a proper investigation. Guilt by association is punishable but the tariff here is draconian for that misdemeanor, especially for a child with no previous bad behaviour or exclusions. Excluding a young person to get at the truth is not acceptable.

He's post-16, so the school can do what it likes. Milly is incorrect in her interpretation. The school can exclude for this - and I suspect many would. Damage to premises is unacceptable. Not sure what the point of appealing would be - if he's yr 13, then he'd only be in for a short while anyway. Any UCAS references will have been done long ago.

EvilTwins, the rules on permanent exclusions apply just as much to post 16 pupils as to others, and schools cannot just do what they like. OP, the school should have given you details of what you can do to challenge the exclusion. You do however need to think about whether it is worth doing so in all the circumstances.

The school cannot make parents pay for the damage. The school was in loco parentis and it is their responsibility; also, if the boys are over 18 they are adults anyway and their parents are not responsible for them.

What do you think the school should have done?

Vandalism needs to be firmly discouraged for obvious reasons. Putting this right will cost money and cause inconvenience.

But from the tone of your post, you seem to be blaming the school, rather than the idiot(s) responsible. Your ds is at fault in that he knows who did it, he was there when it happened, but is withholding information which would enable the school to punish the guilty.

If he stays silent, he has to take the consequences.

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.

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...

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?

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?

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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.