Temporary exclusion and threatened permanent exclusion

[user1483060276]

I have a resolution meeting at the school in the New Year. Son (15) was caught with cannabis in school and excluded. They have also threatened to permanently exclude him.

Has anyone been to an "resolution meeting", what should I expect, and how can I best prepare?

You are the epitome of what I hate about parents.
My child is in S 4 at a high school in scotland...your attitude and your nonchalance over drugs is what I hate about the education system that we are Stuck with. You and your son both feel totally entitled to something - but feel you are above following the rules and responsibilities that these require you to follow...

I hope to hell he is excluded.
And I hoe you then realise that your attitude is rubbing of on him.

Bloody hell - you don't care if what he does is legal - as long as he is morally a good person.
Let's tell you now - he's not moral - and I suspect he gets that from you.

Give your head a wobble - please. And rethink this before you go to the school.

If I were a school official, I would be demanding he name the supplier before I'd even consider allowing him to remain in school. That would be a firm condition. Sorry. Misplaced loyalty IMO.

I think it's unlikely he will be permanently excluded over this one incident as it will just cause the LA a massive headache to try and find a place for him in education but in another provision.

What is making you think he may be permanently excluded if this is not your local authority policy?

I think asking for the thread to be deleted just about sums up your "I know best" attitude. I hope it doesn't cost your son his place at school

I haven't noticed much in terms of judging young people about drug use. I spent some of my life working on a needle exchange so I don't get my knickers in a twist over cannabis. My best friend has serious mental health problems partly brought on by cannabis use so I don't minimise its use either. I have never said I think op s son should be expelled, OP asked how to play it in the meeting, many of us have suggested a reasonable approach. It was fairly foolish to use drugs on school premises, that's not a morality judgement, just a statement of fact.

I'm in Scotland too, an area where drug use is a major issue. ESPECIALLY cannabis. Local schools have a zero tolerance policy and temporary exclusion is pretty much automatic.

Permanent exclusion is rare but it DOES happen. If you look at the actual legislation op, failure of the student and/or parent to engage with the school on what the school believes is necessary to address the bad behaviour, whatever that might be is ALSO a reason to exclude permanently with that in mind you REALLY need to adjust your and your sons attitude! You're speaking as if the school had done something awful to your son for no reason NO Your son BROKE THE LAW ON SCHOOL GROUNDS!

He has rights but MORE IMPORTANTLY he has a

RESPONSIBILITY to take his education seriously and appreciate it

A RESPONSIBILITY to NOT break the law on school grounds

A RESPONSIBILITY to NOT break school rules on school grounds

A RESPONSIBILITY to be held accountable for his actions

A RESPONSIBILITY to NOT bring the school into disrepute

A RESPONSIBILITY to NOT cause the school to have to deal with this kind of shite!

Mutual respect? Where's your and his respect for the law and his school?

From your own attitude on this thread I strongly recommend you AND your son learn more about the effects and dangers of cannabis especially on teenagers whose brains aren't yet fully developed.

Are you a cannabis user op?

Have you enacted ANY consequences for him for this?

"A parent who goes in and says "We've been in touch with XYZ charity, have seen the GP, and Son has an appointment with a drugs counsellor on Monday" is going to come across so much better than a parent who refuses to see it as a big deal and bangs on about her "bunny" and his rights." Yep!

You are coming across as very arrogant and massively minimising his serious misconduct.

I also agree you're out of order asking for thread to be deleted I really hope it's not because there's no good reason for it to be and if we don't get through to you maybe we'll get through to another reader with a similar attitude.

What is making you think he may be permanently excluded if this is not your local authority policy?

This is what he was told by the Headteacher and what I was told in the phone call to let me know about this incident.

Your 'rights' diminish as soon as you break the rules / law. Other students have the right to be educated in a drug-free environment and in a school where the law is respected.

Have you insisted to him that he divulge the name of the person that sold it to him to the school?

I am well aware that it is not up to me, the future education of my son once he turns 16 is up to him.

Errr... no, at this point it's up to the school.

To be fair, although I think there has been massive overreaction on here, he does need to give up the supplier. That's a dealer, happy to deal to kids. Not on.

All right then, you were told that on the phone. That must have been pretty scary to hear. Obviously this is worst case scenario.

As posters from Scotland have told you a permanent exclusion is rare but can happen.

Are there any other factors that would stand against him? I'm thinking general behaviour and so on.

user1483060276
What is making you think he may be permanently excluded if this is not your local authority policy?

You put it in the title of the thread. So that is what people are responding too.

Perhaps because the headteacher had already had a conversation with your son where your son wasn't remorseful and full of his 'rights'?

Or you or your son not being entirely honest about supplier? Son hasn't named supplier, if school think/know he was supplying/dealing (and yes I know you said he wasn't) that would likely be considered acceptable grounds for permanent exclusion.

If he refuses to name supplier, they are likely to think he was the supplier. Unless he actually was.....

Boneyback I think the OP was quoting my question before answering it.

My understanding is that drug use in school will lead to a temporary exclusion but that a permanent exclusion for USAGE would be unusual ( but not impossible) However the school may well believe that, because the OP's son refuses to name the dealer, that the incident has gone beyond "simple" usage and into more severe territory.

www.eis.org.uk/Glasgow/images/mc08_0215%20exclusion.pdf might be useful.

As a minimum, you and he would be expected to sign a written assurance of co-operation. He will not be readmitted unless this is done.

SetPhasersTaeMalkie

Apologies

The school still has more than enough time to follow the process and formally permanently exclude him. As far as I am aware whilst completing this process he would not be allowed back into the current school- is this different for Scotland, can anyone correct me?

I am still confused how the teachers saw them, where they actually smoking it in on school premises?

My other thought is if he is smoking weed is he really not smoking cigarettes either?

I am sure the lawyers you have seen are very good but the school will know the policies and processes inside out/back to front and spelt backwards - if they are going to get him out they will. If they are wavering it will very much depend on how he and you conduct yourselves in the meeting - arrogance never gives a good impression but a bit of remorse and a touch of humility may go a long way.

If they think he is the dealer, he will likely be put in the position of "name the dealer or we will assume it is you." And frankly, I can't blame the school for that.

I think the school is also a bit slow to change terminology. "Permanent exclusion" isn't used any more, it's "removal from the register" and OP is correct in saying this is very uncommon. However, the stats don't record the children who are excluded and whose parents agree that it would be better for them to move to another school. Local Authority responsibility ends age 16 - after that, they don't have to arrange alternative education for the child excluded.

The Local Authority have to keep educating OP's child until 16, but that doesn't have to be at his school. It could be at another school in the area or they could arrange home tuition.

www.gov.scot/Publications/2003/11/18496/28827

Still think the best strategy is a very apologetic, contrite and embarrassed one rather than an all guns blazing I KNOW MY RIGHTS one.

The school must consider the temporary exclusion satisfactorily resolved before the child gets back again.

I know of someone who is in the position of having refused to leave post compulsory education. They didn't commit a crime but behaved extremely poorly time and time again yet refused to sign their leavers form. It is a really awful situation for everyone involved to be in. And not one which any sensible parent, student or school wants to be in.

Seeing as there were a number caught I don't see how they can pin it on op's son.

My understanding from the op was that they were on school grounds and were seen. CCTV possibly? But I may be making that up. Our grounds are extensive and have a big grey area between public access and our area. It would be extremely easy for kids to do this.

If all the other students involved state that OPs son provided the weed (and he was found with it on him), and the OPs son refuses to name a dealer, I imagine the school is thinking that the supplier is the OPs son.

Good advice from spanieleyes and luna.

Does it say that they are all pointing the finger at him?