Fifteen-year-old Riley Stoddern, a student at Poltair School in St Austell, Cornwall, found himself suspended for three days following an incident in his computer science class. Driven by boredom, Riley, who has been diagnosed with ADHD, autism, and severe social and emotional anxiety, hacked into the school’s IT network. This act raised concerns from both the school and Riley’s father, Daniel Stoddern, sparking a debate about the adequacy of the school’s support system for students with special educational needs and the security of their network. While the school viewed Riley’s actions as a serious breach, his father questioned whether the school had fulfilled its commitment to provide the necessary supervision and support that could have prevented the incident.
Daniel Stoddern expressed his concern over the school’s portrayal of his son as a “genius terrorist” capable of shutting down the entire network. He emphasized that Riley’s actions stemmed from boredom and a lack of intellectual stimulation, highlighting previous incidents where Riley had resorted to playing games or watching YouTube during class. Daniel questioned the school’s focus on punishment rather than addressing the root cause of Riley’s behavior, particularly given his son’s documented special educational needs and the agreed-upon support plan that included regular check-ins and verbal interactions from teachers. He argued that the school’s failure to provide the promised support directly contributed to Riley’s boredom and subsequent actions.
The incident has further strained the already complex relationship between Daniel and the school. He has spent countless hours in meetings and phone calls advocating for appropriate support for Riley and his brother Jason, both of whom have special educational needs. Daniel stressed the importance of increased supervision to prevent distractions and keep them from getting into trouble. He felt that the school had not honored its commitment to provide this supervision, leading to a recurrence of the very issues they had discussed and promised to address. This incident, he argued, was a direct consequence of the school’s failure to implement the agreed-upon support plan.
The school’s response, a three-day suspension, was outlined in a letter to Daniel from the headteacher. The letter stated that Riley’s suspension was due to “inappropriate use of social media or online technology,” emphasizing the seriousness of the offense. It detailed Riley’s obligation to remain off school premises during the suspension period, warning of potential penalties from local authorities if this condition was breached. The letter also stipulated that schoolwork would be provided for Riley to complete during his suspension and emphasized the importance of its timely completion and return.
Daniel, however, criticized the school’s disciplinary approach, particularly the efficacy of the appeals process. He argued that by the time an appeal is processed, the suspension has already been served, rendering the process essentially meaningless. He also raised concerns about the security of the school’s IT system, questioning how Riley, while in a computer science class, could access information on hacking the network. This, he suggested, pointed to vulnerabilities in the school’s system, either in its speed, strength, or firewall protections. If the system was so easily compromised, he questioned the justification for Riley’s three-day suspension.
The incident highlighted the clash between a student’s individual needs and a school’s responsibility to maintain order and security. While Riley’s actions were undoubtedly a breach of school rules, the circumstances surrounding the incident—his diagnosed conditions, his boredom, and the alleged lack of promised support—paint a more nuanced picture. The incident raises crucial questions about how schools can effectively support students with special educational needs, how they can ensure their IT systems are secure, and how they can balance disciplinary measures with a focus on addressing the underlying causes of student misbehavior. The case of Riley Stoddern underscores the need for a more proactive and understanding approach to education, one that prioritizes the well-being and individual needs of all students.
