In-year appeal - is this a strong case?

[senshayshonal]

DC (year 8) has had lots of behaviour and attendance issues at current school. School suggested a move and a fresh start elsewhere. DC is up for it and likes the look of another school nearby, but it is full, hence the apoeal. Current school has arranged for a member of support staff (not employed by school, but comes in to support) to write a really good letter saying why they think a move would be a good idea. Will this be enough?

A managed move would not be the right solution in all situations, but sometimes a fresh start can help to break the bad behaviour patterns.

Since the receiving school can say no, they're going to need convincing that the fresh start might be most of what is needed. The move can also be reversed, so it's not in the original school's interest to suggest it if it's unlikely to work - both because they'll get the kid back and because the receiving school will be less likely to take anyone in the future. So a school is only likely to suggest a managed move if they think it will work.

If this is actually what happens in your LA I have serious concerns about their compliance with the law.

All schools should be involved in the Pupil Placement Panel (or Fair Access Panel), not just those who want to arrange managed moves. A school may choose not to be involved, but it then risks having to admit any pupils allocated by the panel.

Whilst there is no statutory scheme for managed moves, putting them through the Pupil Placement Panel is not best practise. Regardless of which schools are on the panel and whether they deal with managed moves, there is no way schools should be negotiating swaps and bartering. I suspect the LGO would have a field day if they discovered anything like this happening. Indeed, if parents discovered this was going on, the schools and LA involved could face a very costly court case. Whatever process is followed, the best interests of the child must be at the heart of it. Negotiating swaps clearly shows that has been forgotten in favour of administrative convenience.

This is what happens, very openly, in every LANGUAGE and MAT I have ever had any involvement with

Sorry. LA not language. Autocorrect getting a bit above itself

Even if every single LA did this (and they don't - those I know about wouldn't dream of doing anything like this), it wouldn't make it legal. Basic public law principles apply - any decision must be lawful, rational and fair. My view is that a process that relies on swaps would fail on at least two of those principles should a parent take it to judicial review, possibly all three. The fundamental in child law is that the child's best interests must come first. A process that, instead of looking for a move to the school best placed to serve the child's best interests, looks for a school with another problem pupil that is willing to do a swap, is clearly not about the child's best interests.

So, things have moved on, and a managed move has been arranged to the school DC is appealing for. But a managed move isn't a firm place, just a trial, and the appeal team say there's still a right to appeal so no obligation to withdraw. Am I right in thinking now the case for appeal is stronger, because if they'll take DC for a managed move it's proof they must have enough space?