Can someone explain managed move to me?

[youarenotkiddingme]

Ds is year 7 and has ASD.

Chose school based on local offer and believed it to be the best place for DS.
They are doing all they can through Sen support. I've applied and been refused an EHCP assessment and have appealed to tribunal.

Ds has been deteriorating since not long after starting secondary school and now has clinical levels of anxiety which has resulted in a referral by Camhs options to the primary health service for CBT.

Meeting with school yesterday resulted in them suggesting a managed move as they are concerned my relationship with school is deteriorating. I have to say this took me by surprise - not least because I've never felt this is about me or what the school are doing but about DS and what he needs or any more he made need to meet his needs - based on his deteriorating MH.

I declined at the time stating I didn't feel a transfer to another MS school would resolve situation if they have exhausted everything. It would just be same difficulties, same solutions but with the added pressure on an already anxious child to transition and settle somewhere new.

However having come home and read about managed moves all the literature seems to suggest it's done when the child is at risk of exclusion and to give them the chance of not having it on their school records and giving them a fresh start.

I'm confused!

Is it common practice to suggest a managed move on the basis a school feels a parent doesn't trust them because they've applied for an EHCP needs assessment?

[Brownfiesta]

This may well be about the school wanting to move the "problem" elsewhere. Sorry.

Is the school an academy?

[octoberbundle]

My understanding is it's something they do when they feel they've exhausted all options, and no longer feel they are the right environment, or to avoid exclusion. I also think any managed move is for a set trial period initially to see if it works for both sides....

[youarenotkiddingme]

Yes it's an academy.

What I don't understand is why in one breath I'm being told they care and doing everything they can within Sen support and DS is doing ok and then in the next being told they suggest a managed move because they think I don't trust them.

I've never said I don't trust them - just said it's clear through evidence of DS MH he needs more or different.

[youarenotkiddingme]

That's my understanding of a managed move from reading literature online - but it's not the reason the school gave.

Hence my confusion!

[Scarydinosaurs]

Maybe they're using it as a tool to serve a different purpose? A bit like using a spanner to hammer a lid.

Would your son be able to be transferred to a SEN school?

[Brownfiesta]

Some academies manipulate their intake to improve their results by making children with SEN or SEBD unwelcome or by excluding or threatening to exclude them so parents move them elsewhere

[TheNotoriousPMT]

For the managed move your ds would attend a different school for a trial period, usually a half-term. If he seems to settle in, then yay, he stays there. If not, he goes back to previous school.

Obvs I have never met your ds or seen him in school, but unless he has anxieties relating to his specific school it seems like a strange way to help an anxious student.

You could re-post this in SN Chat; lots of very experienced bods over there.

[youarenotkiddingme]

I post in SN chat all the time. They are a wonderful crowd!

I invited myself into staff room wondering if any teaching staff had any insight as clearly I am missing something.

Ds anxiety isn't around that school in particular from my understanding. More around the general demands of MS secondary. This is the smallest school locally so that alone gives him more than others can offer.

I did wonder if there was some element of game playing and deflecting after reading about managed moves. Eg we won't admit we can't support DS but we'll get him out anyway by making it about mum. And everytime I mention DS anxiety I often get they'll contact me to discuss my concerns. I keep saying it's not about my concerns but rather about how DS is feeling.

At the end of yesterday's meeting they literally sat and told DS he has to go to school and stop giving mum a hard time about going. I felt quite sorry for him TBH. I don't believe for one minute he's having meltdowns to make my life hard, self harming to make my life hard or physically throwing up to make my life hard.

[TheNotoriousPMT]

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to teach anyone to suck eggs re: SN Chat.

Sadly, as brownfiesta says, some schools are prepared to put a lot more effort into helping troubled young people than others.

The school need parental consent for the mm.

It should be a last resort - it's what schools do when they have exhausted every strategy they have. By suggesting a managed move the school are absolutely saying they can't support him. They should be able to show you evidence (emails, minutes, etc) of the strategies they have used and what impact those strategies did or didn't have.

While a smaller school may be less intimidating in some ways, sometimes larger schools are better equipped to support children with additional needs - specialist staff, specialist resources. They might have smaller classes, separate areas for break/lunch times.

Obviously this is all very general; I hope it might help.

[youarenotkiddingme]

Don't worry I knew what yiu meant with SN chat! There are times having multiple sections is helpful and times it's hard to know where's best to post for information.

It's pretty ironic the school that suggest a managed move because they claim I don't trust them lied to me about what it's about and for

And the I don't trust them all stemmed from me emailing asking for a phonecall because DS hurt a student again and had a weeks social exclusion again. He uses student services at break and lunch anyway.
I simply asked that they put something in place to stop students being able to physically contact DS as he's reacting like lightening to it and also ensure his peers were safe from him.

I didn't think it was that major an issue. I thought it was pretty standard where a child has repeatedly reacted violently to keep all partied safe where possible. Also DS anxiety is increasing more the more he's reacting like this because he then worries that he can't control his temper.

[FullMoonTonight]

I have come across managed moves in the context of permanent exclusions and as PP have said as an alternative to permanent exclusion. I don't want to be alarmist but in your position I would be wondering whether the school is building a case for permanent exclusion? So that if there is another incident, they will be able to substantiate a claim that they tried to avoid a permanent exclusion, including considering a managed move, but all strategies have been unsuccessful or exhausted?

[FullMoonTonight]

I have come across managed moves in the context of permanent exclusions and as PP have said as an alternative to permanent exclusion. I don't want to be alarmist but in your position I would be wondering whether the school is building a case for permanent exclusion? So that if there is another incident, they will be able to substantiate a claim that they tried to avoid a permanent exclusion, including considering a managed move, but all strategies have been unsuccessful or exhausted?

[youarenotkiddingme]

They haven't indicated permanent exclusion is a possibility - and actually after reading up MM last night I began to wonder if they would try it. They cited that they feel our relationship is breaking down.

I'm not sure though if they'd be able to when I've asked them to support DS to ensure no more violent incidents are possible but they've said they can't as they are providing all they can under Sen support - and la are refusing to take responsibility. I also asked them what their intentions were with the internal exclusions and how they are working with DS alongside this to support him to reduce anxiety.

They wrote him some rules saying he mustn't give mum a hard time about coming to school.

[bigTillyMint]

I agree with FullMoon. It COULD be that they are trying to get him into a smaller school with better SEN provision, but given it's an academy...

Why did the EHCP get turned down? It smacks of not being applied for correctly (ie with properly evidenced support strategies and outcomes, etc) - is the SENCO really on the ball with how to get an EHCP and are they going to reapply given that he is clearly not coping.

Can you get support from your local Parent Partnership to push for a proper assessment/application?

[pieceofpurplesky]

I think you answered your question in your post at 1726. Your DS has been violent and is in isolation and you have asked that other pupils be kept away from him.
School know that they cannot do this as he has 'repeatedly reacted violently'
I am not judging here by the way but just pointing out that I can see why the school want a managed move. If they cannot protect the other pupils from him it is not the best place for him

[youarenotkiddingme]

Spoke to latent partnership last night. Id already emailed for support with appeal and it was just convenient they responded last night!

They are seeking advice and will ring me back.

There aren't any smaller schools with better Sen provision. That's why I questioned whether a move to another MS was appropriate and what it aimed to acheive. They kept citing me building a positive relationship with school and DS having a fresh start.
That's when I asked why they felt my opinion of school was bad and what evidence they had for this? Apparently the LA EP who assessed DS state she felt there were issues.

I've since pondered why she may say this but the la have tried to say there are issues with me and school because I've said they can't meet need - and EP herself told me she'd received a copy of my EHCP application before the assessment. So I can't help being paranoid there was intention there rather than a true reflection. The EP basically twisted what I said and used things such as me disagreeing with school that DS has difficulties with reading comprehension. Senco disagreed that he did and said the problems were inferring from text.

I have emailed school re the meeting and said I don't feel a move to same provision would benefit DS as I can't see how if they are using all Sen support taking same identified needs and same inputs elsewhere will change DS MH.
I did say that if it was a move to a specialist placement with view to him remaining there with EHCP if it was correct placement and LA were in agreement with this I would be open to discussion about it.
Is that the wrong thing to do?
I just said I wasn't sure a trail in identical place and then possible return to current place would be in the best interests of an already anxious child with ASD who struggles with transition.

I assume they did a good application and provided all information they needed? They were way over their deadline and myself and la chased it up. I didn't feel the actual wording on their part was necessarily how I'd have worded it "fair to say DS is socially immature and sulks when he doesn't get his own way" (he has ASD!) but surely their wording is irrelevant and the evidence is what matters?

I don't know - it feels like the school and la are playing a game of see who can get mum to crack first!

[youarenotkiddingme]

School don't think there's an issue with the incidents. Ds has hurt a few students but it's been because they have physically assaulted him, grabbing arms etc in corridors and he's reacted. He has never and they admit this been the one to initiate physical contact.

Ds reacts the way he does due to his disability. He knows it's not ok and the fact he can't control it is causing him huge amounts of stress.

Personally I think if I was walking down a corridor and someone grabbed me by the arms rendering me feeling helpless my reaction would probably be to fight back.

And school haven't said they can't support him or he's at risk of exclusion. They said they suggest a managed move because I don't trust them.

[FullMoonTonight]

Is the social exclusion you referred to above a disciplinary response to the violent incident? I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say the school don't think there's an issue with the incidents? There is surely an issue there- for instance, it could be the case that the incidents happen because the school are not providing appropriate support (in which case you have a reasonable adjustments argument) or alternatively the incidents are unrelated to DS's disability (in which case a disciplinary response is appropriate).

If I were you I would be careful about making any links between a tendency to violence and the incidents (I know this may not be what you meant, so that rather than saying the violence is a result of DS's disability, perhaps he reacts too quickly or the disability is relevant because it explains the goading which leads to the incidents or something ?) The reason I raise this is that I have a vague recollection of a case which essentially held that a tendency to violence is not regarded as a disability under the Equality Act 2010 (I may have paraphrased incorrectly here, just relying on recollection) and so that would mean that if your position is that DS can be violent because of his disability, then the disability comes out of the picture and the appropriate response from the academy is disciplinary (for everyone involved in the incidents).

[youarenotkiddingme]

Thanks that's very useful advice.

No DS doesn't have a tendency to violence. whats happening is that other students are cornering DS in the corridor and holding his arms. I've not established if this is 'horseplay' or meant as a way of triggering DS.
But when they do this DS reacts by hitting back or kicking. His response is usually quick and it's been confirmed he has sensory issues with touch alongside anxiety - which incapacitating him triggers it.
The first incident I never raised with the school. A student held his arms and he tried to kick them but missed and kicked the student adjacent who was egging him on.
Ds received detention and I got a whole letter about how the other students hadn't wanted DS punished but they had to as he has to learn not to use his feet. I was a little that they didn't address or disapline the other students actions but like I say I'm supoortinve of school. And I know this because school named pupils involved and that they weren't punished in letter.
There have since been increasing incidents of the same manner - which the school admit, and have agreed have resulted in other students being physical with him and him reacting - rather than him getting cross and hurting students who are just happening to be nearby or deliberately targeting students iyswim?
They don't seem to have an issue as such as just say to DS everyone makes mistakes, there are consequences and he needs to stop getting worried about being in trouble.
The social exclusion is basically spending break and lunch is a room. So what I called lunchtime detention when I was at school. Students receive it for all sorts including uniform infringements.

After the last incident I emailed school and asked them to make arrangements so that other students didn't get the opportunity to be physical with DS, therefore protecting him and also them.

Then we meet and I'm getting MM suggested because they think our relationship has broken down.

[LuluJakey1]

I was a Deputy Head until January in a secondary school- with oversight of provision for students- including alternative provision, managed moves, additionally resourced provision, behaviour needs and SEN.

Managed moves were designed to give children in need of one a new start with a bit of support to help them settle, especially if they were heading towards exclusion or the situation was going to be really hard to rescue. Usually, the new school-about which their is parental choice- will offer some support and will monitor them for 6 weeks or so and if it works they are taken onto the schools roll permanently. If it does not work the Managed Move is ended and the student returns to their original school.

The do often work if the child and the parents are determined to support them and make them work. They do often also fail- especially if they are about ingrained behaviours that are related to SEN - unless the new school is more skilled at managing these effectively. That kind of change is often even harder for children with SEN to manage.

Some schools end up using them when the situation has broken down - for example where parents feel they can no longer trust the school or the school feels the relationship with parents is not supporting the situation and there is no further way of working with the child and parents.

The truth is secondary schools are finding behaviour increasingly difficult to manage for a whole range of reasons- curriculum change, public service cuts, youth service cuts, health service cuts, education support service cuts- EPs, School Nurses, CAMHS etc. There are rapidly increasing numbers of mental health issues in secondary schools and not the resources to deal with them. Academies often just will not admit children with SEN issues or challenging behaviour, or they get rid of them. Secondary schools pass them around using a range of methods like managed moves.

[youarenotkiddingme]

Ds masks his Mh difficulties at school. He has his meltdowns at home. A lot of work has gone into this. There's no denying the level of anxiety he is suppressing is high ATM due to the invading thoughts and dreams he's experiencing, physical sickness and the self harm.
School don't see any of this.

The see flashes of anger but DS goes into flight mode. He has an exit pass for these times to remove himself. He uses it therefore there isn't meltdowns etc.

What I'm trying to work out is why when I've asked school to prevent students from hurting and physically restraining my DS between lessons a managed move has been suggested due to relationship breakdown.
It seems a big jump?

In fact if these students didn't do this then none of the violent incidents recorded for DS would have happened.
Except the one he and his friend were being idiots and DS swung his bag around and it hit his eye. Ds was wrong for being stupid but the injury was an accident born out of stupidity - he got into trouble, fair enough! But surely they must come across incidents like this frequently of stupidity in teens? You wouldn't manage a child out due to it?

The suggestion was just a move to Ms school. I could understand if it was trial in specialist provision - I've said I'd support that with a proper plan in place and la agreement. But the only specialist provision here needs EHCP plan and the la refuse to assess.

It's like ever decreasing circles

I want to be supportive but I can't make sense of decisions made and really need some help to make sense of them to be supportive iyswim?

[weirdsister]

Have you phoned IPSEA or sossen op? They give very useful advice.

[youarenotkiddingme]

I have spoken to them before re EHCP and appeal etc. They are very helpful.

Spoke to my mum last night (she's abroad ATM and been a teacher for over 40 years). She didn't say much other than they are playing games and wants a meeting when they get back.

Is it possible schools will move children because they can't meet their needs whilst denying the real reason and trying to deflect 'blame' as some kind of saving face exercise? Would they feel they've failed if tribunal rules DS needs assessment and EHCP?

[FullMoonTonight]

I do think that schools (of all types, including academies) will try to move students on because of challenging needs/lack of resources/lack of understanding of needs.

[youarenotkiddingme]

So was I right to say moving him to the same set up but elsewhere didn't, IMO, seem like it would change anything?

I did say if it was to specialist placement I'd be open to conversation about it.