Since the new Suspensions and Exclusions Statutory Guidance was published, we have received a lot of questions about the use of managed moves. For the first time, the Statutory Guidance does explain what a managed move is, but in relatively broad terms and does not cover the mechanics of how a managed move should operate.
Since the latest Suspensions and Exclusions Statutory Guidance was published, we have received a lot of questions about the use of managed moves. For the first time, the Statutory Guidance does explain what a managed move is, but in relatively broad terms and does not cover the mechanics of how a managed move should operate.
What the new Statutory Guidance does say is that a managed move should only be used where it is in the pupil’s best interests, and where initial interventions have been put in place prior to considering a managed move. Information sharing is required too, including on attainment and risk management, so that the new school is able to support a pupil from day one.
There is nothing in the new Statutory Guidance that prevents the use of ‘trial periods’, which take the form of a period of dual registration. Whilst the intention of a managed move is a permanent transfer of a pupil from one school to another, this is described as a “process” in the new guidance. Schools do, though, need to understand the limits of a period of dual registration.
If a young person is attending the school and receiving education, then they will need to be put on the roll of the school, as they will be caught by the relatively wide definition of ‘pupil’. Whenever a pupil is put on a school’s roll, the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2006 apply. These provide specific requirements on pupil registration and also the circumstances in which a pupil can be deleted from the roll. If a child is dual registered, then the requirements apply to both schools.
There is one specific ground for deletion from the roll that applies to circumstances where a pupil is dual registered. This would apply where a child who is dual registered has ceased to attend one of the schools, it is not a permanent exclusion, and where the other dual registered school has consented to the removal. The recent interpretation of DfE to these Regulations was that if the new school on a managed move wanted to terminate the placement during a trial, they would need to follow the permanent exclusion process in the normal way, with all the relevant rights offered. There is no other ground to remove a child from a roll due to behaviour.
That means that, whilst a short trial period can be used to ensure that the child is settling in well, it’s not akin to a probationary period for an employee — you still need to go through the usual exclusion process if the proposed reason for the removal from the roll is due to behaviour. That does mean that if both schools wish to remove the pupil from each of their rolls due to behaviour, both have to follow the permanent exclusion process.
Whilst this isn’t a change resulting from the new Statutory Guidance and has been the position for some time, the new wording on managed moves has raised questions about how these should operate, given the previous complete lack of guidance. In our experience, different areas had very different practice. It does also make managed moves potentially less attractive and places a much greater emphasis on information sharing between schools before the new school decides to agree to the managed move.
Managed moves have always operated on the basis of each school taking its share of managed moves to give pupils a fresh start. As there is no requirement to accept a managed move, reciprocity is the key to it working. Schools that decide not to accept managed moves, given the inability to easily terminate the placement due to behaviour, will likely find that other schools don’t want to offer their students moves in the future.
The DfE promised a wider look at pupil moves between schools, and we hope that such a review considers how managed moves fit into the wider admissions process as well as with the Pupil Registration Regulations.
We have included a model managed move letter in our Exclusion Support Pack, details of which can be found here.
Senior Associate
philip.wood@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)330 045 2274
There’s been little evidence of interventions or financial management reviews this year and it appears the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) has re-focussed on financial delivery. It’s also telling that there were no discernible changes to the reporting of financial irregularities in the Academies Trust Handbook 2022.
The Children’s Commissioner, Rachel De Souza, has recently published a report “Beyond the labels: a SEND system which works for every child, every time”, which she intends to sit alongside the DfE’s SEND Review (2019) and SEND Green Paper (2022) and which she hopes will put children’s voices at the heart of the government’s review of SEND system.
There’s greater opportunity than ever for parents, carers and guardians to voice any concerns they have relating to their child’s education and for their concerns to be heard and to be taken seriously. While most staff in schools and academies are conscious of their legal duties relating to complaints management, many are struggling to cope with such a significant increase in the volume of complaints they must manage.
We’re pleased to collaborate with Lloyds Bank, who recently asked us and audit and risk specialists Crowe UK to offer guidance that academy trusts would find helpful when considering setting up a trading subsidiary.
The DfE has published new guidance and opened the application process for window two of the Trust Capacity Fund (TCaF) for 2022/2023, with a fund of £86m in trust capacity funding focused particularly on education investment areas.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse was established in March 2015. We now have its report. As you would expect with such a broad scope, the report is long and makes a number of far-reaching recommendations. In this article, Dai Durbridge highlights seven of the 20 recommendations, sets out how they could impact on schools and suggests what steps to take now.
Browne Jacobson’s education team has been named as winner of the ‘Legal Advisors to Education Institutions’ category at the Education Investor Awards 2022 for a record sixth time.
Since the new Suspensions and Exclusions Statutory Guidance was published, we have received a lot of questions about the use of managed moves. For the first time, the Statutory Guidance does explain what a managed move is, but in relatively broad terms and does not cover the mechanics of how a managed move should operate.
Over 3000 young people from across the UK and Ireland took part in a virtual legal careers insight event, aimed at making the legal profession more diverse.
Holly Quirk, an associate barrister in Browne Jacobson’s Manchester office, was awarded the Legal Professional of the Year Award at this year’s Manchester Young Talent Awards.
The risk of assault against staff is, sadly, something that all schools need to consider carefully. Here one legal expert explains what they can do to protect staff and ensure they fulfil their duty of care.
Browne Jacobson’s education team has again been confirmed as a national powerhouse after securing five Tier 1 rankings relating to Education in the latest edition of Legal 500 and maintaining a Band 1 UK-wide ranking for Education in Chambers & Partners UK 2023.
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
In this article we set out the criteria, expectations and support schools should consider if notified they fall within this new category.
The words “Grammar schools” are once again being whispered in government and the question of whether the creation of new grammar schools will finally be implemented as a central focus to DFE policy has re-surfaced.
As a result of a recent Charity Commission legal action, the former trustee of a Welsh charity was ordered to pay over £117,000 to Wrexham charities which support cancer patients.
Academy trusts no longer need to seek consent for contractual indemnities within the ‘normal course of business’. What do trusts need to consider?
In this article we set out the most common issues we encounter, along with guidance on assessing and mitigating the risk from assaults.
