Community based inclusion - Managed moves a case study

During 2005/6 Birmingham recorded 146 managed moves.  The main features of the process are similar to those being used effectively in other authorities.  The pupil whose move is being managed is registered at the original and receiving school.  This dual registration remains in place until the move is considered successful by mutual agreement, when registration at the original school is ended. Alternatively, the move may be considered unsuccessful and the child returns to the original school. 

 

45% of managed moves (2005/6) were successful and 32% were still working as dual placements.

 

Only 23% had broken down and resulted in a return to the original school. 

 

Surprisingly, a return to the original school sometimes works, perhaps because the pupil realises that ‘the grass is not greener on the other hill’.  So we can say ‘up to three-quarters of managed moves are ‘successful ongoing’ with some of the remaining pupils still managing to hold on to a mainstream place.

Good will, trust and positive regard between schools has underpinned the success of the programme. Developing positive relationships with the schools required leadership and a clear vision of what was proposed. Headteachers and local authority managers had to have mutual confidence in the logic of community based inclusion – whereby groups of schools work together to find a place for every child in their community and have increased control over how funds and resources are used to achieve that.  The managed moves process provides a relatively economic way to respond to the breakdown in relations between a pupil and their school.

 

What this means in terms of permanent exclusions cannot be established by looking at the overall rate, which has fallen, but not by 146.  The impact on fixed term exclusions, which have also come down, is probably a better indicator of their impact. What no-one can say is what the permanent exclusion rate would have been if no managed moves process was available.   Working from the other perspective, some (perhaps many) of the managed moves would otherwise have been permanent exclusions so we can say that managed moves do have a positive impact on  the number of exclusions.  It’s just that putting an exact figure on that is technically problematic.

 

Background

 

There are 6 secondary pupil referral centres (and three at primary phase) across the city of Birmingham, the largest metropolitan local authority in the country. In each centre there is one person responsible for reintegration. The centres provide support to each of the 6 new city networks.  Pat Day (acting Inclusion Leader) co-ordinates the reintegration programme across the city for permanently excluded pupils. Unfortunately, the centres are already ‘full to busting and more’. Pat knows that the answer is to reintegrate more children into mainstream school or onto individualised places bringing together school, college, and PRU options, and Birmingham is succeeding in doing this. However, place availability is being swallowed up in the city with a constant influx of new arrivals in this cosmopolitan, multi-ethnic megacity.  So the managed moves option has been crucial in reducing the pressure on the pupil referral service by enabling students who are not succeeding in one education setting to move on more quickly and more directly.

 

In the last year Birmingham have piloted two sharing panels. The pilot is now being extended two all six networks. Pat says the sharing panels are working:- ‘It’s a way of moving our children on.  We put children to the sharing panel who are ready to return to school. Next year all the networks should be up and running  with their own sharing panels. Its generally for hard to place pupils.  We’ve used 2 criteria for whether they can come to the panel: if the child is on roll at one of the network schools or by their postcode.  Its about sharing the children out and keeping a tally of which school is next in turn. Although we have a set of criteria based on the schools’ previous managed moves and exclusions (‘the baseline adjustment’) we also try to match the pupil’s profile with the receiving school. (for instance a Catholic child would go to a Catholic school).’

 

Pat does the negotiating between schools and also with the parents, acting as honest broker for all parties, and seeking their agreement to the proposals based on what is best for the child and what is fairest for the community.  She also manages the sharing panel, induction and in-school support. This seamless approach encourages a responsive and consistent service.