Missing school trip as extra punishment - fair?

[Khaite]

DS (15) is going out with a classmate. Today they were caught coming out of a disabled toilet together by HoY.

HoY didn’t say whether there would be a consequence for this, but DS confessed to me anyway.

Late this afternoon HoY emailed me and said DS would miss the practice Duke of Edinburgh school trip on Monday and have an internal exclusion that day instead. Then I was to come in for a meeting on Tuesday morning.

i completely accept DS having an internal exclusion. However it feels an extra punishment that he has to miss the DoE trip. He’s practised for it. His year have had no whole-day school trips at all , ie throughout years 7-10, because of Covid and then the school being crap about it, so he was really looking forward to this.

Do you think it’s unfair he has to miss the trip? I want to ask if he can do the day’s exclusion on Tuesday instead.

When I was at school, "catchy kiss" and lifting girls' skirts was commonplace.

The whole "me too" movement has taken place since then, and schools have to be very much on top of safeguarding issues. Schools are changing their policies and practices on the back of it.

Those were the days. I remember sneaking into the boys changing room after PE and spying on them showering. I would probably be in a young offenders institution for doing that now 😅

@cryinglaughing seriously though, why did you ask if "he had sex with him in the toilet?"

Thank you for the responses. Some very good advice. This has really helped to clarify things for me, and I've sent an email to the school.

Amongst other things, I wrote that I fully support the school sanctioning my son for this and that he is very remorseful (both of which I'd essentially already said in my first email response yesterday asking if they could call me back). I respectfully asked if they could clarify whether DS missing the day trip on Monday was simply due to timing, or if it was an additional consequence due to them thinking he was a safeguarding risk to take.

That sounds like a constructive approach @Khaite

The day’s exclusion means to be excluded for the day and whatever is happening on that day. If it includes trips or rewards or tests then it does. It’s not a double punishment- it is the punishment. And it follows the day of the incident. You can’t break a rule then dictate when you’ll do the punishment because of what’s happening on certain days. And if the school allow the op’s ds to change his exclusion day because of DoE then other parents could make similar demands- my child can’t do detention tomorrow because they have football practice for example. Missing the DoE trip is the consequence/ punishment rather than an additional one because it falls on the day of exclusion. If the trip was Tuesday, the day following the exclusion, that would be an additional punishment which, in my view, is up to the school.

I disagree with most. Exclusion is punishment enough. Losing out on your DofE, given that it involves a lot of historical effort, seems harsh.

It says on the D of E website that practice expeditions are not required for the Bronze Award:

Expedition section (eDofE) – DofE

Because if you do it for one you do it for all. Then you have to decide whose excuse reason is reasonable.

it’s my birthday

my nana is poorly and I am very upset about going to visit her

its my PE day and I’m in the football team

we are going away for the weekend so he needs to leave early

I am going on the DofE practise outing.

At my school we treat two kids in any cubicle as if they have been smoking or vaping, even if we think they are in a relationship. We sanction and drug test.

And now he needs to accept his punishment. I wish parents could see how letting their children off the hook thoroughly comes back to bite them on the ass. I've seen it a million times.

But it's just the practice, not the real thing.

Except obviously the school doesn’t pro-actively arrange, recommend, charge for and host during school time students’ birthdays, visits to nana or weekends away, so hardly equivalent examples but bless you for trying.

I think you missed my point. All those excuses are as irrelevant as each other, but the DoE one sounds better doesn’t it?

No I didn’t miss your point. You missed putting logic in your point.

The DoE trip is school-related. It’s not “irrelevant” in the same way as the other “excuses” when it would be doing something with the school - as requested by the school and not optional* *- instead of being in the internal room that day. Secondary school teachers on here have said they think it’s reasonable for the day to be changed.

If the sanction day happened to fall on one of DS’s art mock full-day making days, as it nearly did, I’m pretty sure the school would have changed the day of the sanction. They changed the day of someone’s SLT detention recently so it didn’t clash with a rehearsal before the day of the drama GCSE performance. I appreciate that a practice DoE trip isn’t a mock, but it’s still something the school is reasonable for providing training for.

I accept it happening tomorrow, but unlike you, the school itself - and I heard back from them yesterday - don’t think it’s an irrelevant excuse.

Typo: “reasonable” should be “responsible for”.

What did school say?

School were very lovely. I had my meeting with DS and them this morning. He did the day’s internal suspension yesterday. School said they weren’t going to tell him off, they know he didn’t hurt anyone, but they were concerned that he understood the safeguarding risk of being in a locked cubicle with someone and how they could lie.

DS pro-actively apologised to all of us for betraying the trust we had in him. School said that showed the type of person he is. School reiterated that he’d had a fantastic year and was really committed to working hard and school life generally, and they’d had to see him throw that away with a stupid mistake.
School thanked me for my support and said privately they were impressed by the way i spoke to DS about it in the meeting.

Thanks again for the replies. I was tired and emotional when I started this thread and very upset about him missing out on the trip (even though justified) as he’s not had any. I wanted a sounding board and this has been helpful (with a few exceptions )

Good positive outcome @Khaite. Thanks for coming back with an update. Onwards and upwards!

That’s a stretch to think being in a cubicle with another dc is a safeguarding issue. Unless other dc was an adult or a teacher or there was coercion which would bring about risk of safety around that person.

Last year the Government published a lengthy safeguarding document. To be a safeguarding issue, there has to be a concern about harm being caused. It also makes it clear that schools should work with parents. So a knee jerk suspension isn’t what safeguarding is about - at all. It’s about protecting dc. In this case, dc broke the rules but it’s difficult to see where safeguarding comes in. Has SS been involved? Have they reported this misdemeanour to other agencies? I suspect not because it was, purely and simply, unacceptable behaviour. However I’m glad @Khaite , you are happy with the outcome. Safeguarding it wasn’t though.

It is not a good idea of course but women do it all the time. Go to Aintree races if you don’t believe me.

Comes under the peer to peer section of KCSIE no?

It specifies sexual violence and sexual harassment. Schools must be vigilant for all signs of this.(part 5). It’s difficult to see that kissing a friend away from view is likely to lead to harassment or violence. Therefore a warning, not punishment would suffice. The guidance talks about supporting dc. Unless the dc concerned was harassing another dc, then talking to them is better. In fact the school has now done this. Whether an exclusion is the correct punishment for using the “wrong” loo is debatable. A dc with a good behaviour record and a decent worker would (and has) responded to a meaningful chat. Safeguarding was meant to be a response to possible harm. Not sure it was present here.

I think this bit is very relevant, though:

...School said they weren’t going to tell him off, they know he didn’t hurt anyone, but they were concerned that he understood the safeguarding risk of being in a locked cubicle with someone and how they could lie.

The safeguarding point being the possible hazardous position he could be putting himself in?

Two lads making an equally stupid, but equal, decision to do something, even of this nature, is one thing - but the suggestion from the other party that actually, the OP's DS coerced him into the action would turn it into something else entirely.

Yes, that was the point.

And I know they don’t think that the other boy would do that, they basically said so. I said that DS and The Other “really liked each other” and they said they were happy for them.

They were talking hypothetically.

It was the safeguarding lead saying it who has (as both staff members have) known DS since year 7, and they said that they didn’t think DS had a bad bone in his body but other people could make false claims.

Well yes. However you then talk to each young person. If school believed it was untoward they must act and escalate. They didn’t. They would have no option if there was evidence of harm. The supposition about what might happen should result in a chat. Which has happened. Clearly if there was coercion, that’s entirely different. It’s a bit of a grey area but I always felt not letting him do DofE practice was ott. An explanation to both dc and a calm chat is much better when you have no evidence of anything. The school know the DCs and can make reasonably informed judgements. I assume the school hadn’t informed any other body via their policy.