New Government Guidance on School Suspensions and Permanent Exclusions

The Department for Education (“DfE”) has published updated guidance on school suspensions and permanent exclusions, introducing a number of important changes that schools, academy trusts and local authorities will need to understand and implement. While much of the guidance consolidates the current practice, there are a number of developments which are likely to have significant practical implications, particularly in relation to off-site directions, off-rolling, alternative provision, safeguarding separations and managed moves, as well as the grounds and procedures for permanent exclusion. Below, we examine some of the most notable changes.

Academies’ New Power to Direct Pupils Off-Site

One of the most significant updates reflects the new statutory power for academies to direct pupils off-site to alternative provision. The guidance confirms that academies exercising this power must comply with the relevant regulations governing off-site directions. Schools should therefore ensure that any use of alternative provision is properly documented, justified and reviewed in accordance with the statutory framework.

Under the previous guidance, issued in 2023, maintained schools should use the statutory “off-site direction” power under s.29A Education Act 2002. Academies did not have the equivalent statutory power, although they could arrange off-site provision under the general contractual and management powers. However, under the new 2026 guidance academies are now brought within a statutory off-site direction framework. Essentially, they must now comply with the same procedural requirements as maintained schools when directing a pupil off-site for behaviour-improvement purposes.

The significance of this is that for academy trusts the guidance removes any ambiguity about process. Failure to follow the statutory process is likely to create both public law and regulatory risk.

Greater Focus on Unlawful Off-Rolling

The 2026 guidance does not create a new legal definition of “off-rolling”, but it expands the warnings and examples given to schools and governing boards. The updated guidance provides further clarification on what may constitute “off-rolling” and places a focus on preventing schools from removing pupils from their rolls inappropriately.

The guidance highlights several practices that may amount to off-rolling, including:

• Directing a pupil to alternative provision where doing so is not genuinely in the pupil’s best interests;
• Using part-time timetables primarily for behavioural management purposes rather than as a carefully justified educational intervention; and
• Encouraging post-16 pupils to discontinue their studies where remaining in education would be in their best interests.

Parents who feel they have been pressured into electively home educating their child or that the relevant suspension or permanent exclusion procedures have not been followed can challenge the decision by following the school’s complaints procedure with the governing board (and in the case of a maintained school, the local authority). This provides greater clarity on the law surrounding exclusions and guidance on the process parents can follow if they feel their child has been unlawfully excluded.

The guidance provides that schools should ensure that any decision affecting a pupil’s educational placement can be clearly evidenced as being educationally justified and centred on the child’s welfare and educational needs. Essentially, the guidance is that schools should be able to demonstrate a clear educational reason for a decision to remove a pupil from their school.

Safeguarding Separation Not Treated as a Suspension

One of the more significant substantive additions is the recognition that a pupil may be temporarily prevented from attending school premises for safeguarding reasons without automatically constituting a suspension. The updated guidance introduces a safeguarding protocol which permits temporary separation from the school where attendance would create an immediate safeguarding risk to others.

The Department for Education appears to be drawing a distinction between:

• A disciplinary response to misconduct (which remains a suspension or permanent exclusion); and
• A safeguarding response designed to protect pupils or others from immediate harm.

The key point is that where the removal is genuinely for safeguarding and not disciplinary reasons, it does not count as a suspension for exclusion purposes. However, in this instance where the absence is not classified as a suspension, the local authority’s duties under s.19 of the Education Act 1996 to secure suitable education for children who cannot attend school may still be engaged, depending on:

• The duration of the separation;
• The reason the child cannot attend;
• Whether the child remains on roll; and
• Whether the school can continue to provide suitable education.

Importantly, the new guidance does not provide schools with an opportunity to avoid their duties regarding arranging alternative provision purely by labelling a placement as safeguarding-related. In practice, prolonged safeguarding separation without suitable education arrangements would be subject to challenge. However, the guidance also makes clear that where such a separation results in a child being unable to attend school, the local authority retains responsibility for arranging suitable education under section 19 of the Education Act 1996.

Managed Moves

Perhaps the most practically important section of the revised guidance relates to managed moves. Managed moves have long been used as an alternative to permanent exclusion, allowing a pupil to move to another school by agreement. However, the updated guidance introduces several important clarifications.

Most notably the Department has confirmed that “trial periods” are not permitted. While trial arrangements have often been used informally to assess whether a placement is likely to succeed, the guidance makes clear that such an approach is inconsistent with the legal framework governing managed moves.

The updated guidance is explicit that a managed move:

• Is a permanent transfer;
• Cannot be treated as a trial placement; and
• Should not involve “trial admissions” or probationary arrangements.

Voluntary Nature

The guidance continues to emphasise that managed moves must be:

• Voluntary;
• In the pupil’s best interests; and
• Agreed by all relevant parties, including parents and the receiving school.

Not a Substitute for Exclusion

The updated guidance also tightens the distinction between:

• A managed move;
• Off-site direction; and
• Permanent exclusion.

A managed move must not be used as a way to avoid proper exclusion procedures or to pressure parents into removing a pupil. This aligns with the strengthened messaging around off-rolling.

Conclusion

The revised guidance does not fundamentally alter the legal framework governing suspensions and permanent exclusions. However, it provides clarification in several areas that previously created uncertainty. Schools, trusts and local authorities should familiarise themselves with the changes now to ensure compliance and minimise the risk of challenge.

How We Can Help

The impact that a permanent exclusion can have on your child’s education and future can be incredibly serious. If your child is facing a permanent exclusion and you wish to challenge the decision made by the school or governing body, our education law solicitors can provide independent and impartial advice whilst also providing robust grounds of appeal. Our education solicitors can also provide representations at the board of governors meeting and/or the independent review panel.

If you would like to discuss your matter further, please feel free to contact us and one of our education law specialists will be in touch to discuss your matter and outline how we can help.

We also have a dedicated Education Law website which provides further information: Education Law Advice