Do the Conservatives think we are stupid?

Yes, permanently excluded pupils become the responsibility of the Local Authority. As to what happens, it depends on what is available in the area. Another school may be persuaded to take the pupil, with extra funding; the pupil may be sent to a Pupil Referral Unit (but that is usually considered a short-term solution); the child may be sent to a special school; the child may be sent to a residential special school in or out of the county.
Secondary school age pupils may go to "providers" of educational services where they follow a very limited curriculum with (in my area) poor facilities. I know of a case where an academy "suggested" this last route to a young man a few weeks before taking his GCSEs, hoping he would transfer voluntarily and they wouldn't have a permanent exclusion on their record. His mother refused to allow it and they backed down. He is a statemented pupil.

What happens if there is no other school in the area?

But presumably once all the processes have been gone through it is most likely that a child excluded from an Academy will become the responsibility of the LEA.

Ooops, typo. www.schoolexclusionproject.com/

trisher The School Exclusion Project www.schoolexclusionproject.comgives this advice to head teachers:

Golden Rules of Permanent Exclusion for Head teachers:

Permanent exclusions should only take place in response to a serious breach or persistent breaches of the school’s behaviour policy and where allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupil or others in the school.
All exclusions must follow the correct procedure as set out in the Department for Education’s Statutory Exclusion Guidance.
All exclusions must be officially recorded as exclusions.
All exclusions must be for disciplinary reasons only.
All schools must have a behavioural policy for pupils to follow.
Head teachers should, as far as possible, avoid permanently excluding looked after children.
Head teachers should, as far as possible, avoid permanently excluding children with statements of/ EHC plans for special educational needs.
Pupils cannot be excluded for poor academic attainment or for reasons relating to actions of their parents.
The head teacher’s decision to exclude must be taken on the ‘balance of probabilities’. That means that it is more likely than not that the pupil did what they are accused of.
Head teachers must not send a pupil home to ‘cool off’ even if parents or carers agree; this would amount to an unofficial and therefore unlawful exclusion.
Head teachers must give a pupil the opportunity to share their views.
If a child with SEN is showing poor behaviour or is at risk of exclusion, the head teacher must look first at what additional support could reasonably be put in place.
Head teachers must demonstrate to the Governors that their school is already using a range of strategies to support this pupil.
Head teachers must find out if there is anything that hasn’t already been mentioned at school by other members of the school community that will help them come to the right decision.
Head teachers should look at providing extra support to groups who are known to be at a greater risk of exclusion.

At the PRU we argued that a child with a statement who was showing behaviour problems required a review of statement to see if the right provision was being made. If a child is given a fixed-term exclusion, the school is responsible for setting and marking work for the first 5 days. From the sixth day of the exclusion the school is responsible for arranging alternative full time education.
Quite often schools were in breach of the ban on unofficially sending a child home. Headteachers don't seem to believe that it is unlawful.

Yes, Lilygran but most schools chose to buy into the LEAs provision of Advisery Services. That option hardly exists not, even Music Services is hugely reduced.

An interesting development.

opendemocracy.net/transformation/andrew-smith/arms-companies-are-making-money-by-taking-over-uk-schools

Do we really want this? I know I do not.

Tresco you might know the answer to this-can Academies just exclude pupils regardless of if they have a statement of special needs and if they are excluded does the responsibility for their education return to the LEA? If so it would seem that there will be a 2 level system of education with the LEA taking responsibility for the more difficult/expensive pupils.

I worked in a Pupil Referral Unit whose services were provided free to local primary schools. This meant that we could work with them to deal with behaviour problems and prevent permanent exclusions from schools. When I retired 2 years ago there were not many primary academies in my area, but that is changing. Academies will have to pay for services previously provided for free. I doubt whether many will bother as it will be easier for them just to exclude children.

One of the problems with Academies is that they are never content with one school.They want to take control of feeder schools as well. We have a 3 tier system locally-the High School (13-18s) became an academy and then took over a failing Middle School (9-13s) The First schools in the area have formed themselves into an association to stop one of them falling to the Academy steam roller. When these schools were LEA controlled there were meetings of all 3 tiers to ensure curriculums matched and pupil transfers were managed effectively, especially important with children with problems. That has all gone. There is no doubt that the Academy movement is Tory policy to remove money from LEAs and limit the power of local government and to restrict the influence of the unions. Teaching staff in Academies do not have the protection of the nationally agreed pay scales and need not have qualified teacher status.

LMS gave schools the 'freedom' to choose their own providers for such services as cleaning and school meals. Significantly, many schools, having tried private contractors, then returned to LEA provision.

Actually started in the 1980s, Anya with 'Local Management of Schools', the incorporation of polytechnics and then FE and 6th form colleges.

Just to put the record straight, the demise of the LEAs (as they were) began before the 2010 election.

I worked for the LA in Children's Services which attempted to bring together Education, Social Services and other departments under one umbrella. In 2005 there were the first redundancies in the Advisery Services. When I retired in 2006 I applied to go a year early because I could see the writing on the wall (being the NAEIAC Union rep) and my department was amalgamated with another, before both being disbanded in 2009.

See GO has been advised by both the IMF and OECD to ease up on the austerity plan - we will see in July. I think he intends to make the state as small as he thinks he can get away with. So glad they spelled this out in their manifesto, and people were able to understand what they were voting for.

soon Once a school has gone into the process of becoming an academy, the LA can only play an advisory role. Schools have been made to become academies in spite of the wishes of the parents, the staff, the local community and the LA. Some academies stay linked in to their local community because the sponsor is another local school or a church or other faith organisation or a local business. Others are run by commercial organisations which may be based anywhere in the world and have to answer only to the DoE.

www.childrenengland.org.uk/make-sure-the-emergency-budget-protects-children/

Sorry, that link does not work. This one should. It's from CPAG.

www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=WuoAlx4OMFrMsRhcJgucEUsAFUpmgVsqHBGf2XmHSFQ%3d#q1

Another neat trick by the Tories. They are asking us to submit ideas for the budget. By tomorrow.
Then they will ignore us.

Soon, it's been a long time since an LEA told schools whether they should make staff redundant. It's the governing body of the school. The local authority just hands over the money for the governors to decide how to spend it.
The governors lied both before and after. They are usually the same governors, because they are the same pupils. Governors only resign if they have a conflict.

I am quite sure that they set out with that intention, I'm afraid soon. They have not changed from the days when Thatcher was determined to destroy the miners unions and stock piled coal to make sure she could do so.

I am also sure they would be quite persuaded that this is a "good" thing to do but even though they may have strong views their underhand methods are back to what they have always been. No Lib Dems and the brakes are off.

So they were told by the LA that there would be no redundancies. Yes that matters if they lied. Bad behaviour.

But the other point is it wasnt the LAs job to guarantee jobs. They couldnt, as far as I can see.

Ana, yes. I do wish that people believed what I say from the off on gransnet. It would have made gransnet life simpler.
But it takes times to trust, if at all. So nothing can be done about that. I am just having a moan.

Gracesgran. A very neat trick from the Tories. Not sure they set out with that intention though, from the beginning. But they are probably more than happy with the result.

Soon, they were told that if they became an academy there would be no redundancies. They were lied to. Does that not matter to you?

Well said, Gracesgran.

I'm afraid that nothing has changed when it comes to the Conservatives wish to destroy the unions soontobe

You really have led a sheltered life haven't you, soontobe?

Just realised that that may be a local saying, so apologies if that is a bad expression.

Heck may be better.

Good grief.