Ilkley online community

I read with interest in the Gazette that a pupil has been excluded from the Grammar School having been caught with some cannabis in their possession. I don't pretend to know the details of the incident and as a parent whose kids may one day attend the school I suppose a head-teacher taking a hardline on drugs is a good thing, but exclusion does seem a bit OTT for what amounts to possession of a (then) class c drug. What does everyone else think.

http://www.ilkleygazette.co.uk/news/newsroundup/display.var.2240026.0.ilkley_school_ban_on_girl_found_with_drug_is_rescinded.php

I think drugs are very bad.

Treat cannabis as a normal recreational drug and harder stuff is bound to follow. A small but significant proportion of ilkley peole are snorting coke and there are several people openly dealing in the pubs.

A certain recent tragic event is likely to bring things to a head for one local supplier...I'll say no more until it's public..

If you find the report of the same story in the T&A there is a quote within the comments section from somone who is the solicitor that dealt with the appeal. Or rather there is a quote from someone who says on the internet that they are the solicitor. They may not be.

He says:

QUOTE:
I am the solicitor who represented the parents. The school's policy said the punishment for possession of drugs was a fixed term exclusion. The school did not follow its policy in permanently excluding for possession of a very small amount of cannabis. If the policy had been permanent exclusion, then the school would have been on stronger ground. Parents were not saying their child should not be punished, but that the policy should be followed. You cannot tell kids "The punishment for possession of drugs is fixed term exclusion" and then permanently exclude them for possession. And permanently excluding the pupil because the other kids got up a petition to keep her in school was just daft.

This seems sensible to me - dems de rules

Quite right that there should be some punishment involved, and temporary exclusion seems fair. People do make mistakes when they are young (not hiding their stash carefully enough to avoid detection for example), and permanent exclusion seems quite severe. It would be more understandable if the pupil was a repeat offender, or if the supply of drugs were involved.

I can't imagine the pupil in question is the only one in the school using cannabis, if the school really wants to impact on drug use rather than just being seen to be doing something, then some kind of education programme is needed as well.

Agree with Frankie and the quoted solicitor.
Punishment was deserved but needs to be consistent with the schol's stated policy. Fixed term exclusion is more appropriate than permanent exclusion, which needs to be reserved for even more serious offences.
The issue of the pupil petition is not directly relevant to the drug posession offence & should be dealt with, as such, independently.

Oh to be a headteacher - you need the judgement of Solomon!

My view, for what it's worth, is that permanently excluding a first-time offender (by which I obviously mean "first-time caught" for possession is entirely counterproductive. It's saying "make one mistake, and we'll feck up your education and do our best to increase your chances of ending up on the streets with your nose in a bag of glue".

Drugs are everywhere - you can't shield your kids from them forever. Many, if not most, young people have tried drugs, and a number of them may go on to become occasional recreational users before getting more staid as they get older.

Alas a not insignificant number of these people will get addicted, and that is pretty grim.

I would add that, in my book, there is no difference between alcohol and other recreational drugs. Indeed, alcohol causes more harm through its ubiquity. But banning the sale of alcohol doesn't solve the problem - and causes many new ones (viz prohibition in the US and attendant gangster-related crime).

I think it's important to keep some sense of perspective - the vast majority of people who smoke the odd spliff here and there (and even some who smoke every day) do not go on to become hardened addicts of class A drugs who will mug you or burgle your home. Most people get bored and grow out of it. A small minority will become addicts. I also believe that propensity to addiction is at least partly something that people are born with - in my experience anyway.

Moral panic never solved anything, nor did heavy-handed punishment.

PS I think I know what you're hinting at mcnab - sometimes these things happen - regardless of the "quality" or otherwise of the source.

Just seen the letters page of the Gusset, with three rather "hang 'em and flog 'em" letters of support for the headteacher at IGS.

I wonder whether the writers of these letters would be of the same view if it was their little darlings who were caught in possession?

I liked the letter from the person 'who wants to put on record their support for the Head Teacher'. And who is this person? Uhhr, 'name and address supplied'.

Yep, thats really going on the record.

Heh!

Well there are none of us on here leaving our name and number

I've had to tone down my posts now everyone knows who I am.