My 13 yr old son, excluded permanently for having cannabis at school

[NickiBH]

Can anyone offer me any remotely positive advice please? My sons school called me in today, he has been found with a very small amount of cannabis at school and excluded. He was given it (for free) from another student. The school have said it is 99.9% sure that he will be excluded permanently and that no other school will take him on, as they all have a zero tolerance approach to drugs. They did however ask him for as much info as possible about the other child. My son was very honest and told them that he had smoked it quite a few times outside of school with 2 friends who attend another school, one of which has contact with a dealer. The boy in his school and him have had a few conversations about weed, and today he apparently called my son over and gave him this free (Tiny) bag. The school have told me that there is a massive drug problem locally and that dealers are often recruited this way, with freebies which will have to be paid back somehow later on. This boy has also told my son that he grows it at home...I can only assume he means his parents?? .... and that he gets £5000 a shipment and makes a lot for himself. Anyway, it seems that this boy may well get to stay in school, as he is saying he found the weed on the street, but my son’s only option is now a CSS unit with other excluded kids and limited GCSE options.
Needless to say, I am absolutely devastated. I didn’t realise this was happening and feel like a complete failure as a Mum. I just feel like he has now blown so much opportunity for the future over one stupid thing.
The school have said I will have the right to appeal, but that this will most likely come to nothing.
Does anyone know anything that may help me?

If your son has a clean record up til now, i'd fight tooth and nail to avoid him attending a PRU.

He will see and learn really bad behaviour
He will meet and get to know really badly behaved and quite often disturbed teens who will manipulate him and if there is any connection to the dealers he is being groomed by, it will get his name even more well known.

What a shock OP. I assume my 13 yr old is nowhere near drugs but this just goes to show it can happen to anyone.

He hasn't ruined his whole life. The next few months will be difficult but he'll be fine, so long as he stays away from drugs.

Do you think he understands that? I suspect it would take a while to get through to my boy that these people are not his friends and he needs to stay away.

Is he ok in himself, do you think he is worried or frightened? It will be hard for him to say no to these people if they approach him again but I hope he can. I'm sure he can.

Op hoping your conversations with the school go well today. You've had some great advice particularly from Governorgal.

@Sewbean Hi, yes I think he does realise now and understands that he needs to stay away from drugs altogether. He is worried, but I am trying to focus on how we will move forward with this now. Thanks @TwoRedShoes we will watch the documentary.

Also, the school did not drop any work off as promised today and have not returned any of my 3 phone calls as yet today. I am keeping notes of this for his hearing.

This is excellent news but the numbers, which will be only the tip of the iceberg give an indication of the extent of the problem.

Pleasing they they refer to "men" and "women" so it sounds like they've got some of the adults involvesd rather than arresting the exploited kids, which is what often happens.

Hi @NickiBH re the school not providing work do keep pressing them on this. The LA (even if it is an academy or free school) has a legal duty to provide “suitable full time education for the pupil to begin no later than the 6th day of the exclusion” that’s from the DfE guidance on exclusions (section 5 I think) in practice - where I work - what usually happens is the schools set work for days 1-5 and then the LA has responsibility for education from the sixth day. The letter informing you about your child’s exclusion should make reference to this and should state if the school is providing work for the first 5 days. If it doesn’t this would be something I’d want to question at the PX review meeting.

If the LA hasn’t already or doesn’t subsequently provide suitable full time education from day 6 again this is something I’d want to question at the review meeting. In some areas LAs struggle to fulfil this legal duty because they are so woefully under resourced and don’t have spaces at their PRU to accommodate all excluded pupils but, essentially, that’s their problem not yours. The law is clear that they have to provide suitable full time education no later than day 6.

If you get to the PX review meeting stage and school still haven’t provided any work, do raise this so governors are aware. A school not providing any work for an excluded pupil should suggest to governors that the school has not necessarily done all it can to support the pupil or that it has not fully considered any alternatives to exclusion and this might, along with other things, put sufficient doubt in their minds as to whether the PX really was a ‘last resort’ (language used in the DfE guidance) or whether going straight to PX was more of a knee jerk reaction.

In reality, that line of thought might help or it might not but I’d definitely want the review panel to know that school, if they don’t provide any work, appear to have ‘washed their hands’ of your son post PX.

Sounds like he was lucky to be caught by the school and removed from the situation so quickly.

Reads as obvious grooming to become a dealer. GIfts = reciprocal obligations.

Of course the other boy said he grew it himself - he's hardly going to say 'yeah, it's imported by huge, violent criminal gangs and I'm just a tiny expendable pawn in their enterprise. Want to be one too?'.

Sorry, last message I promise! point 51 of the exclusions guidance says “school should take reasonable steps to set and mark work for the pupil” (p17)

Unfortunately stories of people our age who smoked harmlessly when younger aren't very helpful, because those people, or their genuine, pre-existing friends, bought theirs from small-scale dealers. They weren't directly befriended by dealers.

I have managed to have a conversation with the head of safeguarding today who did call me back eventually. I have raised lots of points with him thanks to all the advice and he has agreed to get back to me with some answers. @GovernorGal I did ask why a managed move had not been mentioned and what the school were willing to do to try and arrange this, I also asked about whether there would be arrangements in place for my son within 5 days as required, I mentioned the DfE guidance on not only considering exclusion in this situation, that I felt the school had acted too hastily, my sons previously good and clear school record, and in fact I did say it felt as though they were ‘washing their hands of him’ without due consideration. I also said that I felt their safeguarding responsibilities and duty of care should indicate that whilst my son poses no risk to others at the school, he could be at much higher risk of exploration following exclusion. I advised I was told work would be dropped off this morning, but it was not and I asked when I should expect to receive confirmation from the head teacher of his intended actions.
The Safeguarding Lead has promised to address all my concerns and get back to me today.
This was all thanks to the great advice I have received on here. Was feeling upset and shocked yesterday, but much determined to try my best to turn this around today.
My son and I have had a long talk today. We watched the County Lines documentary and discussed drugs and the long term effects. I agree with @TwoRedShoes, cannabis has such mixed publicity which is confusing for kids.
My son is at least accepting now that the boy who gave him the weed, could not be the ‘genuinely alright boy’ he thought he was and may well be involved in something incredibly serious.

Also @GovernorGal Thank you so much for all the tips, I am noting it all down

I think the school’s attitude would worry me. Zero tolerance shouldn’t be a policy for this at all. So they, by doing this, ensure they never have to consider MM or fixed term and reintegration. It’s presumably a policy and flies in the face of DofE advice.

That brings me to the second problem. The Governors will have approved this policy. They know what the Head will do in these circumstances and obviously condone it. The zero tolerance policy would not exist if they didn’t agree with it.

Lastly, I too have clerked exclusions meetings. I have also been a secondary school governor where I was the lone voice who wanted to ensure we had an appropriate policy, that the Head followed the policy and that Governors were trained in handling exclusion hearings. I failed on all three. The Head did what he wanted, excluded without justification, added in poor educational performance for good measure and a majority of governors agreed. I resigned. In those days parents could appeal to an independent panel so DC were reinstated. However when it’s all handled by the school, I’m afraid I have a very cynical view of whether governors are prepared to follow legal guidance and act appropriately. Many are in thrall of the Head and don’t challenge.

As a former LA employee I have also been thrreatened by Governors who would not listen to the correct way to proceed. I hope you get decent Governors but too many just support the Head: no real questions asked!

There is a safeguarding officer at your LA. Look up the details on your LAs web site because you can talk to appropriate professionals about this. Don’t bother with the Police. They rarely know the time of day about safeguarding. Well around here anyway! Please seek out professionals who understand the predicament your DS faces. Also get a contact in the LA who knows about excluded DC and offering places at schools. Try and speak to them. You need their help.

You’re very welcome @NickiBH

I also agree with @BubblesBuddy definitely ring the LA exclusions team for support and advice. It’s sadly true that a lot of governors do just blithely support the Head teacher. Such a lot depends on the quality, experience and impartiality of the governors on the panel.

You did brilliantly there OP. Glad you're DS sees sense too.

Would contacting the EWO on your DSs behalf be helpful too??.

Different situation, but I've called on them for help with a different issue, but one that still involved governors & head of school not playing ball & it affected the welfare of my DD, as this dies your DS. I found them to be extremely helpful.

Thank you @RockinHippy I will try them. The more help the better. Thanks @BubblesBuddy too. I will call the LA for advice. I have never been entirely happy with this school, so I can only hope the head and the governors will be reasonable and fair. The schools policy does say that permanent exclusion is generally following persistent defiance, but for a one off event, can occur if illegal substances are bought in to or supplied within school. Technically, my son did neither of these acts, but I am not sure that this will help his case.

I think, in your position, you need to understand why your DS was given the drugs and accepted them. You can state he neither brought them into school or bought them. Could he have said “no thanks” and would this have been ok with the donor? If it was part of a grooming exercise, saying No wouldn’t have been an option. If your DS just wanted the free drugs, then it becomes more difficult to argue that he was duped or innocent! Just do your best. Don’t let the Head muddy the waters with new evidence at any hearing. You must have the full case from them (written statements etc) with the notice of the meeting. You can question the accuracy and any incorrect assumptions in it. They should stick to what they know instead of what they choose to believe.

At DS school a few years ago some kids were found with legal highs, the users were given a fixed term exclusion, the dealers a permanent exclusion. They were older.

Their behaviour policy still has fixed term exclusions listed as a possible sanction for drugs "offences" along with permanent exclusion.

Excluding permanently for using seems rather harsh to me and it's not helpful to say no other school will take him. Why is the other boy getting a lighter sanction when he gave your son the drugs?

And it is becoming more normal for 13 year olds to get involved with drugs. We live in a very naice area but it's not far from London or the M3/M25 and county lines is a big problem. I had no idea until I went to a parents meeting at the school and the headteacher gave a presentation about it.

A representative from the LA may attend but can not speak for you.
You can bring your own representative but as this is a simple case you could probably pose the same questions.

The Head will provide information about why the child was excluded.
Governors ask questions of the Head.
You can ask questions of the Head.

The you can offer a statement or argument of why he should not be expelled.

The Head and Governors can ask questions about this.

When questions are finished, You and the Head leave whilst the panel decides to a) Uphold the headteacher’s decision to exclude b)
Reinstate the pupil. There are no other options

The child can attend or not and speak for himself or not. You and the Governors will receive the same paperwork about a week before the meeting. The Governors will not discuss it with the Head or other Governors. Each Governor forms their own questions but sometimes they are virtually the same.

The panel will consider whether the decision to exclude the pupil was lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair, taking account of the headteacher’s legal duties and any evidence that was presented to the governing board in relation to the decision to exclude.

The clerk will confirm the decision asap.

If your child is caught up with County Lines being permanently excluded is the least of your worries!!

There is a lot of over reacting going on here. None of the county lines links has been proven. The police need to work on that. We might warn but we cannot be sure.

Also this DS had not taken drugs on school premises. They were in his possession. That’s different. He cannot be accused of taking drugs in school when he hasn’t. I think the permanent exclusion is too hash and I second GovernorGals views about how to put a case forward.

Also be aware that Governors who know about the exclusion cannot sit on the panel. The Governors only hear evidence from the Head at the meeting. Not before.

Disagree about overreacting. The child is 13 and either being gifted or frankly used as a courier for cannabis. That is grooming whether county lines or local gang.

He was found to have it, why was he being checked? Does school have a problem & having a clamp down or has his behaviour changed?

I would be taking his phone off him so these 'mates' aren't in touch. If he is home alone during the day while you are at work he is vulnerable. He didn't have the common sense/resilience to say no thanks I'm not carrying drugs. Most 13 yr olds fall to some peer pressure & dont grow up suddenly overnight. Be overly vigilant for now OP.