The Loss of Local Control: Policy and the Fragmented System

To understand why our system is fragmented and struggling, we must trace the policy decisions that dismantled the central control of local education. The current system is of dual accountability where the Local Authority holds the legal responsibility but the school holds the operational budget.

The Great Policy Shift: From LA Control to Academy Trusts

The Academies Act 2010 was the turning point for this shift.

Before this, the Local Education Authority (LEA) was fully responsible for the governance, budget, and admissions for the vast majority of schools. The LA was the primary decision-maker in a child's educational journey.

The 2010 Act accelerated the process of converting schools into Academies, publicly funded independent schools that operate outside of Local Authority (LA) control, managed by an Academy Trust (often a Multi-Academy Trust, or MAT). This created a fragmented system:

Who is Responsible for the Child's Care Now?

This dual system means that when a child with complex needs is struggling, the LA has the legal duty to fix it, but the Academy Trust controls the operational levers (budget, staffing, and discipline).

This can result in conflict, where the Trust fights to protect its budget and performance data, while the LA fights to find a place for every child. This creates an incentive for schools to minimise the number of expensive, high-need pupils they retain.

The Cycle of Displacement: Strategies for Struggling Children

When a child with underlying, unmet needs becomes disruptive or struggling, schools frequently employ the following strategies:

• Reduced Timetable: The child's school week is cut. While intended as a short-term intervention, this leads to significant lost learning time and contributes to the persistent absence statistics. Crucially, a permanent reduced timetable is often illegal if not accompanied by a formal process like an EHC Plan or formal medical advice.
• Internal Exclusion: The child is isolated from peers within the school, removing them from the classroom but keeping them officially on the school roll.
• Transfer/Swap: The school pressures the parent to move the child to a different mainstream school in the MAT or LA area, often simply displacing the problem to another setting.
• Fixed-Term Exclusion / AP Placement: The child is formally excluded for a short period or sent to an Alternative Provision.
• Permanent Exclusion / Off-Rolling: The final stage, where the child is removed from the school's roll, officially or unofficially.

Which Strategies are Most Effective?

The highest impact interventions include:

• Co-location of Specialists: Models like the AP Specialist Taskforce (APST) and Attendance Hubs, which embed Educational Psychologists, mental health workers, and family support workers directly in the school or AP setting.
• Restorative Practice: Moving away from punitive discipline to approaches that help the child understand and repair the harm caused, addressing the underlying trauma or need.

However, these preventative models require staffing and budget that many Academy Trusts are unwilling or unable to provide, leading to an over-reliance on the cheaper (but ultimately more costly) displacement cycle.

Call to Action

If your child is on a reduced timetable, insist on a documented, time-bound plan for its increase and demand that the school provides evidence of effective internal support before considering external exclusion.