Why we prefer managed moves to permanent exclusion

We have two main reasons for disliking permanent exclusions and a host of minor ones. 

Q: Whether it's a permanent exclusion or a managed move, what does ‘moving a pupil’ really mean, on the ground?

A: It’s a three stage process !!!

Permanent Exclusion can only ever accomplish process one, and so can never deliver this.  There is a management discontinuity between process one and process three.  Process one is accomplished by the school whereas the LA must both find a place for the pupil and fund it.  It is therefore of very limited use strategically whilst doing harm socially. A permanent exclusion without arrangements in place for stges two and three really amounts to an unmanaged move!

Imagine if you asked a delivery firm to transport a parcel.  How thrilled would you be if you were told that the parcel would be brought half-way by one van and then left by the side of the road for another van to collect?  However many reassurances the company gave you that the arrangements were water-tight it's obvious prcels are going to go astray, especially if the delivery company is under pressure.  Clearly, this is not a perfect analogy. 

However, the same kinds of risks arise when a school permanently excludes and the local authority is not in a position to pcik up the pieces.  The sixth day of exclusion passes, the hard-pressed case officer just cannot get to the new file, and the young person starts to drift away ... Well, we rejected them so why shoudl they care what we think they should do?

Where a school has worked with the local authority to make transition and integration arrangements that are secure this is no different from a managed move - a sort of mandatroy managed move instead of a voluntary one.  In which case, was the permanent exclusion relly necessary. Far better to obtain the voluntary agreement of parents/ carers and achieve the move with a tenth of the paperwork, less chance of later challenges or claims, and avoding the need to reject the student and the child.  Which leads to the second major reason

Q: How does being permanently excluded feel?

A: Expletive deleted!!!

• Exclusion rejects people, breaks social links and risks losing the child to the streets.
• It takes the child out of a context in which we can engage with
  them, intervene and help.
• It marginalises the child and their family, which cantrigger more resentment and antisocial behaviour.

 It's a fair bet that at some time in your educational career, on more than one occasion, someone in their thriteis or forties has confessed to you:  "I failed my 11-plus!"  They still feel the pain.  With exclusion, the pain is worse nd so is the impact on social expectations and feelings of alienation.

Here are some minor reasons

The direct cost of administering a permanent exclusion is in the region of £1,000.  The lifetime social costs have been estimted as many times higher than this (see www.npc.org.uk reports)

With permanent exclusion, indirect and time costs are much more liable to mount up. These include:

• Staff feel they have 'failed' and are discouraged
• Staff time to write reports for the ‘exclusions dossier’.
• Senior management time spent preparing the exclusion documents for the
• local authority (this can be considerable).
• Governor and senior management time spent in hearing the parents’ appeal, which often follows a permanent exclusion.
• Time and stress when parents request an independent appeal.