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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

Oooh, sorry - disappeared for a few days. Many thanks for all your feedback, they vary lots! I wasn't thinking of appealing the exclusion to be honest as many of your have mentioned, he is in minimal from now anyway but he has been excluded from his B-Tech lessons and can only submit work via post?? Not sure why this is .. maybe because they aren't as worried about B-Tech results than A-Levels ...? He is doing A-levels and can go to those. I think I was more interested in getting views on the 'blanket exclusion' stance the school had taken. One of his team mates is off to study law at Cambridge and he's also been excluded because he was seen on cctv walking out of the loos around the time of everyone else ... not saying that if you study law he's incapable of taking part in the 'shenanigans', but surely the school have to apply a bit of logic. Many of the lads genuinely did not know who actually did it. I also agree that at his age pissing about in the loos is stupid and ill-thought out but it wasn't this that caused the damage which, by the way, was a broken door pulled off it's hinges, that had been broken many time before due to it being very flimsy - as their head of 6th form told me. However, that isn't the point and yes, he's a silly arse for being around when others were being over boisterous. Maybe it was an release to exam stress at this time as their dep head also pointed out. I don't think it's a case of them not trusting my ds to be in the building EvilTwins as he has a geat track record throughout his education and Ive been told verbally they do not think he caused the damage. I would probably feel more inclined to want him to 'fess up' on the culprit if someone had been injured, but he obviously doesn't feel able to be the one to do it. I can't find any policies on behaviour or exclusion on their website which I thought they had to provided...? He's in a 6th form attached to a school, not sure if I made that clear or if it has any bearings on their decision. Anyway, thank you all ... I can see how it's divided opinions as i have felt pissed off and angry at both sides over the last week and we will take it on the chin and hope it's a lesson to ds going forward into our big wide world where, as one of you rightly pointed out, it would be a very different case.

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.

Mrs He is taking the punishment without argument, and probably rightly so. School know who the culprit is as the name has cropped up sevaral times during their investigations, but as he hasn't confessed, so they have taken this stance. I don't think a door off it's hinges is criminal damage but I do think the HT is making an example of the group for future reference. Not all of the lads knew who did it as they had left the area, including law student. HT is making a point as she had no other choice. I don't think a police investigation would hold up tbh, loo door off hinge - that would be a severe waste of resources and valuable time for all parties - complete over reaction. Please don't think I'm a lightweight.. I've given it to ds with both barrels and he is in no doubt of how I feel about his involvement - it's stressed him out at a really shit time and he does't want to go in at all as he feel embarrassed.

Tiggy I'm neither soft touch or looking to minimise anything - you have no idea of the convesations I've had with ds about the situation. You are assuming I'm trying to make excuses for him. It is what it is and I haven't spoke to HT, Governor or LEA and probably won't. The Dept Head was embarassed aout what he felt was an 'over reaction' by the head but as I said she had no choice in my opinion. Blimey, you'd have thought ds had put and axe to the door by some reactions .. a crap, flimsy door that spends most of it's life off it's hinges cos its been fitted badly and cheaply and all of a sudden ds is a deliquent - dont think so. He's 18, still learning and as we all did, will make mistakes a a few bad choices along the way, unless he's perfect which no one is. He didn't damage any property and didn't want to get involved due to looming exams that are stressful enough.

But he does know who damaged school property. Similar things have happened where I work for exactly that.

MadameSin - So many people have over-reacted. I agree. Calling in the Police for a door off its hinges? The Police would, correctly, refuse to attend. The school would be laughted at! Lots of schools have "muck up days" where a bit of steam is let off prior to the exam season. It should have been dealt with in this context.

The Exclusion Policy (not behaviour policy!!!) should have been given to you with the exclusion letter if it is not on the web site. This says to me that the school is doing what it wants. It is not giving parents a chance to see if their actions are fair by not publicising their policy. I would have thought that each child should have been interviewed. Normally a statement is Ok if you are a wittiness but NOT if you are being excluded. This is not a correct way to investigate when all the boys have been exluded. If they think they know who it is, the pressure should be applied to that child. Exclusion could be used for the culprit but not as an investigation tool. Reading some of these messages you can see why some schools exclude all the time! Half of what has been said does not comply with the law surrounding exclusions.

But he does know who damaged school property. Similar things have happened where I work for exactly that.

Sorry for the double post. I think it is serious. Muck up days are not usually 'allowed' in that way. At our school, those sitting A levels are on study leave, similar behaviour would result in the student only being welcome for their exams.
A student who went on the cricket tour after his a levels caused similar damage and isn't allowed on school premises. He wasn't allowed to come on to the site to collect his a level results.

Doctor ... I understand how damage to school property is serious and I'm not playing it down. My OP was basically caging opinion regarding the severity of the exclusion Vs ds's 'crime' .... he did not damage property, but in the same breath did not name the culprit. Hey ho, we all live and learn and this has been an interesting thread and food for thought. thanks all!

It doesn't sound like an exclusion though. If he was excluded he would only be allowed back for exams and would take them somewhere else, sounds like they're minimising the chance of it happening again.

What are these 'muck up' days? Not allowed in any school I've taught at.

Special precautions were put in place for the Yr 11's last day before study leave to prevent any sort of mayhem. The sixth formers were far too cool to do anything silly.

OP - I'm sorry your ds got caught up in this, but I do think the school had no choice, if they were all covering up for each other. Interesting life lesson as to the difference between loyalty to the team and collusion.

Milly - he hasn't been excluded. The OP has used the term incorrectly. You need to understand that as it is making all of your comments irrelevant. Given that you're setting yourself up as some kind of expert in the field of exclusions, surely you realise that this is not an exclusion?

A school is perfectly at Liberty to do this. It does not need to go through the governors. For what it's worth, my school has done the same with half a dozen yr 11s who have caused similar issues. They are allowed in for exams and for scheduled revision sessions but nothing else. It's not an exclusion - it's enforced study leave. We are fulfilling all obligations to the students, and plenty of other schools in our area have complete study leave now anyway.

I used the term 'exclusion' because that's what the school called it. Not my wording. EvilTwins they have gone via the governors because their letter also stated that and they supplied me with the County education dept contact should I wish to appeal ... all sounded pretty formal. However, I get what you mean by not a total exclusion, but was only using their terminology although there are conditions attached. Neither he or I will not be paying for any damage as he didn't do it.