Listen to this story Members can listen to an AI-generated audio version of this article. 1.0x Audio narration uses an AI-generated voice. 0:00 0:00 Become a member to listen to this article Subscribe Managed moves could be “consigned to the history books” by new government guidance preventing oversubscribed schools from prioritising them in admissions. Use of the voluntary agreements between schools and families to transfer pupils at risk of exclusion varies between councils. The government does not collect any official data on the practice. However, about 6,000 managed moves are made each year, with criticism that parents are put under pressure to agree. New suspensions and permanent exclusions guidance released last week ordered oversubscribed schools not to prioritise pupils in managed moves over those on their waiting list, unless they better met their oversubscription criteria. Experts have warned this could effectively end the practice and force struggling schools to take on more pupils at risk of permanent exclusion. Move pupils further afield While managed moves are supposed to be a product of local partnership, Kieran Smith, an education consultant and youth justice education officer, said the changes could force pupils to move further afield. “A lot of our children don’t like travelling on a bus because they’re in different gangs and if it goes through different postcodes, they don’t know who they’re going to bump into.” Smith, who works across Leeds, Bradford, Kirklees and Manchester, estimated around 50 to 70 per cent of the schools he works with are at capacity. “I know the best schools for certain children and if we’re not able to get that child to that school … and we’re going to have to go to a different school,maybe even outside the local authority, then I lose all knowledge and influence that I’ve got. “I wouldn’t want to send the child to somewhere that I’m not sure of.” Managed moves used ‘responsibly’ Darren Lyon, a former head, told Schools Week managed moves were used “responsibly” during his time leading schools in Oldham, Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire. “They give an opportunity for a young person who might be at serious risk of permanent exclusion a fresh start … it means that they’re not automatically drawn into poor behaviours, and that bit of respite puts them back on the straight and narrow.” He said he had been at both ends of the system, and ran both a school with a waiting list and one with an “extremely challenging” cohort. Lyon said the new guidance meant struggling schools – those less likely to be oversubscribed – could be forced to take pupils via a managed move. “We would have taken a significant number of pupils on managed moves, or more likely we wouldn’t have done, and they would end up out of the school system. So I can’t really see a positive.” Schools become ‘wary’ John Walker, a partner and data protection officer at PHP Law, said schools hadbecome “very, very wary” of using managed moves. Under current rules, the accepting school can only remove the pupil via permanent exclusion. “I think managed moves are absolutely going to be consigned to the history books”. Philip Wood, a partner at the law firm Browne Jacobson, warned of a “knock–on impact” from the decision, as it could make more schools turn to permanent exclusions. “If you’re trying to reduce permanent exclusions – which we should be trying to do – then you’ve got to give schools another option,” Wood said. Research by the Education Policy Institute (EPI) found that in 2018-19, about 6per cent of England’s year 11 cohort had experienced a managed move during their five years at secondary school, amounting to 37,000 moves. EPI found these pupils were disproportionally from disadvantaged groups, including those with social, emotional and mental health needs, a child in need or from black ethnic groups. But compared with those who were permanently excluded with the same characteristics, FFT Education Datalab found pupils with a managed move tended to have higher attainment by the end of their school career. Guidance welcomed Experts welcomed other parts of the guidance, including the power for schools to temporarily remove a pupil from site for safeguarding reasons, for example following allegations of child-on-child abuse. This would not count as a formal suspension. Walker said this was “long overdue” as it would “give an opportunity to not label either the person being accused or the apparent victim, and the opportunity for it to be more of a neutral act”. The guidance also lists new examples of off-rolling, when pupils are illegally taken off a school’s roll, including placing a pupil on reduced timetable for behavioural reasons. Smith said the change could be beneficial as it forced schools to support pupils for the whole day – especially those at risk of child criminal or sexual exploitation.