Until the publication of the updated statutory exclusions guidance in May 2023 it was our experience and seemed to be well established in the sector that a “managed move” was often an arrangement whereby a pupil moved from one school to another on a trial basis, in order to give a pupil a “fresh start” in another placement where there have been serious behavioural issues. The new Exclusions guidance makes it clear that managed moves are required to be considered before moving to the more serious sanction of permanent exclusion. The consent of the pupil and parents is needed before a managed move can take place.
Historically, managed moves often involved a trial period during which the pupil remained on the roll of the transferring / original school, whilst attending the receiving school. If by the end of the trial period, for example, 12 weeks, the pupil had successfully integrated into the receiving school, the pupil’s name was removed from the roll of the transferring school and added to the roll of the receiving school.
If, however, the manged move was terminated, due to the pupil’s failure to comply with behavioural expectations at the receiving school, the pupil could return to the transferring school, where they remained on roll.
Managed moves took place via a mixture of local policy, headteacher discretion and negotiation. There was and is no statutory framework relating to manged moves.
New Guidance from DfE
It seems that following the publication of the May 2023 statutory guidance the Department for Education (DfE) have indicated that it is no longer possible to have a trial period built into a managed move and that manged moves are used to “initiate (more of that later), a process which leads to the transfer of a pupil to another mainstream school permanently”.
We are informed that the DfE’s view is that the law does not allow for ‘trial admissions’, and it is our understanding that, if the managed move breaks down, the DfE are treating the removal of the pupil from the roll of the trial school as an unlawful exclusion.
It is the view of the DfE that if a trial period is required there should be a “direction off-site”, and that a managed move could be offered, after an off-site direction has initially been used.
This raises its own questions as the Alternative Provision guidance places a lot of emphasis on reintegration. For example, it is unrealistic to think that a school will direct off-site to another mainstream school without there being some kind of conversation about it possibly resulting in a managed (or permanent) move, if that is the real intention i.e. that what the pupil really needs is a fresh start at another school. This opens up questions about the real intention behind the off-site direction and whether the parent may feel pressurised into accepting the place at the other school at the end of the process.
It also feels disingenuous to talk about reintegration if the understanding (official or otherwise) between headteachers is that it may ultimately result in a managed move. Would the lack of clarity about whether the ‘off-site direction’ is intended to reintegrate the pupil back into their original school or support them with a permanent move to the new school cause any difficulty in terms of the approach the receiving school takes and / or give mixed messages to the pupil?
In many cases a ‘genuine’ direction off-site will not be appropriate if the original headteacher does not want the child back and many mainstream schools simply do not have the specialist resources needed to support additional pupils with significant behaviour issues, which is the purpose of an off-site direction. This is why directions off-site are often (but not always) to alternative provision, instead of another mainstream school.
The statutory guidance provides at paragraph 48:
“A managed move is used to initiate a process which leads to the transfer of a pupil to another mainstream school permanently. Managed moves should be voluntary and agreed with all parties involved, including the parents and the admission authority of the new school. If a temporary move needs to occur to improve a pupil’s behaviour, then off-site direction (as described in 36 to 47) should be used. Managed moves should only occur when it is in the pupil’s best interests.”
The words “initiate a process which leads to the transfer” are ambiguous, and arguably the established (but apparently unlawful) practice of trial manged moves did exactly this.
We are aware that some areas already follow the model advocated by the DfE whereby the move to the receiving school is permanent from the outset. Supporters of this model say that it creates more buy-in from the receiving school, otherwise, some argue, that it is too easy for a receiving school to terminate the placement if it is on a trial basis which is not a satisfactory position for the pupil or the transferring school.
However, there have been many success stories with the ‘trial period’ model and it is our view, and we are already seeing this, that this interpretation by the DfE will inevitably lead to a reduction in the number of schools willing to take any pupil on a managed move basis if, should the placement breakdown, they then have to go through a statutory exclusions process. However, unless or until the DfE revises the interpretation currently placed on managed moves this is the legal position, and we would caution against any potential receiving school agreeing to accept a pupil on a managed move on a trial basis as an alternative to permanent exclusion. This is also something that Independent Review Panels (IRP) need to be aware of as there is a common tendency for some IRPs to perceive managed moves to be the panacea to all behavioural issues in schools.
For help with this and all your other behaviour and exclusion queries including policy reviews and training, please contact our team of specialist lawyers on 0345 070 7437 or schoolsupport@wslaw.co.uk