Off Site Direction
In the landscape of alternative provision, there are established guidelines governing the use of off site direction for maintained schools, as outlined in various pieces of guidance, including the document titled Arranging Alternative Provision – A Guide for Local Authorities and Schools. This guidance, along with the Suspension and Permanent Exclusion guidance, imposes specific responsibilities on maintained schools that may not necessarily apply to academies.
Academies possess the authority to direct students off site for behavioural improvement, provided that such powers are explicitly stated in their articles of association and/or funding agreements. According to Child Law Advice, the documentation must also state it complies with the legislation that grants off site direction powers to maintained schools, specifically Section 29A of the Education Act 2002. However, this requirement is not commonly referenced in other sources.
Legal firms have published briefings on this topic, such as the one from Stone King titled Academies Directing Off-Site to Improve Behaviour: Getting It Right. This briefing emphasizes the language typically used in academy documents regarding off site direction, particularly in Point 5, which mentions “educational services and facilities…wider community…public benefit.” It is crucial to note that this language clearly indicates that off site direction should be for educational purposes, not punitive measures.
The Suspension and Permanent Exclusion guidance does not exempt academies from its provisions concerning punishment and off site direction, reinforcing the notion that no school can utilize off site direction as a form of punishment. Additionally, it is essential that the authority to direct students off site is properly delegated to the headteacher within the scheme of delegation, as highlighted in the aforementioned Stone King briefing.
Academies also have obligations under equality law, particularly concerning students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and those with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). They are required to inform the SEND team when making decisions about off site direction, as detailed in the document Directing a Pupil to Alternative Provision.
If a student is directed to another mainstream school, they must be dual registered, as specified in the Arranging Alternative Provision – Guide for LAs and Schools.
The potential misuse of one- or two-day off site directions as a form of punishment is addressed in a Q&A session from a recent webinar, which can be found in the document Offsite Directions, Managed Moves and Dual Registration.
Moreover, academies must adhere to public law obligations, as discussed in the article Public Law Pitfalls for Academies (see bottom of page 5 and top of page 6).
To ensure compliance in many areas, many academies adopt model policies provided by the Department for Education (DfE) without modification. This policy, here , states in section 2.4 that academies will follow the laws, guidance, and regulations applicable to maintained schools when working with children in care, as outlined in the Suspensions and Permanent Exclusions Guidance. This may be interpreted in different ways, but does provide a foundation for challenge in some cases where children in care are place in other settings and the processes appear to not have been followed correctly.
It’s important to note, there is currently legislation going through Parliament to equalise the powers of academies and maintained schools in this area. See here.
In conclusion, while academies have certain flexibilities regarding off site direction, they must navigate a complex legal landscape that includes adherence to established guidelines, equality obligations, and the necessity of ensuring that off site direction is not misused as a punitive measure.
Find out more about alternative provision in your area here.
Photo by Nguyen Khanh Ly on Unsplash
Leave a Reply