In England, responsibility for ensuring the educational entitlements of young people in the compulsory years has been shared between schools and local authorities. Local authorities have been the providers of educational services for young people who are permanently excluded from school or who have particular educational needs due to illness, school phobia and the like. Schools have had responsibility for young people on their rolls, including those who they suspend and exclude on a short-term basis. Schools have been able to call on local authorities to assist them with specialist services, and with transferring students from one site to another, although in some locations this has been taken over by clusters of local schools acting together to ‘manage moves’ (Abdelnoor, 2007; Thomson, Harris, Vincent, & Toalster, 2005). Local authority Pupil Referral Units and other support services as well as schools were able to use a range of alternative education providers in order to provide enhanced options for young people.

There has been a range of concerns expressed about these arrangements (Centre for Social Justice, 2011; House of Commons Education Committee, 2011; Office of the Children's Commissioner, 2012; OfSTED, 2011; Taylor, 2012). The government is now changing the ways in which statutory obligations are distributed. Some funding for specialised support services has already been devolved to schools. Pupil Referral Units, previously run by the Local Authority, are now able to become Academies. The government is now trialing the devolution of other statutory responsibilities to schools so that they become responsible for ensuring that permanently excluded young people and others unable to attend school are ensured a full-time education, meaning acquiring the mandatory subjects in the General Certificate of Secondary Education. Schools in the devolution trial have moved from becoming partial commissioners of alternative education services and programmes to becoming totally responsible for the educational needs of all young people on their rolls. The government’s intention is to make this a universal approach. This is out of step with policies in other UK countries and in most of Europe.

Abdelnoor, A. (2007). Managed moves. A complete guide to managed moves as an alternative to permanent exclusion. London: Gulbenkian Foundation. Bacchi, C. (1999). Women, policy and politics. The construction of policy problems. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage. Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What's the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest NSW: Pearson Australia. Centre for Social Justice. (2011). No excuses. A review of educational exclusion. Westminister Palace Gardens, London: Centre for Social Justice. Department for Education. (2012). Exclusion from maintained schools, Academies, and pupil referral units in England. http://www.education,gov.uk: Department for Education. Department for Education. (2013). Children missing from education. Statutory guidance for local authorities. http://www.education.gov.uk: Department for Education. House of Commons Education Committee. (2011). Behaviour and discipline in schools: Government response to the Committee's first report of session 2010-12. London: House of Commons. Institute of Education (University of London) and the National Foundation for Educational Research ( NFER). (2013). Evaluation of the school exclusion trial (responsibility for alternative provision for permanently excluded children). http://www.education.gov.uk/researchandstatistics/research: Department for Education. Mortimore, P. (2013). Education under siege. Why there is a better alternative. Bristol: The Policy Press. Office of the Children's Commissioner. (2012). "They go the extra mile": reducing inequality in school exclusions. London: Office of the Children's Commissioner. Office of the Children's Commissioner. (2013). "Always someone else's problem". Office of the Children's Commission's report on illegal exclusions. London: The Children's Commissioner. OfSTED. (2011). Alternative provision. Manchester: OfSTED. Ogg, T., & Kail, E. (2010). A new secret garden? Alternative provision, exclusion and children's rights. London: Civitas. Taylor, C. (2012). Improving alternative provision. http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/pupilsupport/behaviour: Department for Education. Thomson, P. (2011). ‘The local’ and its authority: the Coalition, governance and democracy. In R. Hatcher & K. Jones (Eds.), No country for the young: Education from New Labour to the Coalition (pp. 85-99). London: Tuffnell Press. Thomson, P. (2013). Romancing the market: narrativising equity in globalising times Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education, 34(2), 170-184. Thomson, P. (2014). What's the alternative? Effective support for young people disengaging from the mainstream. Consultation paper. London: The Princes Trust. Thomson, P., Harris, B., Vincent, K., & Toalster, R. (2005). Evaluation of the Mansfield Alternatives To Exclusion (MATE) programme. Nottingham: Centre for Research in Equity and Diversity in Education, School of Education, The University of Nottingham. UK Government. (2012). School Discipline (pupil exclusions and reviews) Regulations 2012. Available on http://www.education.gov.uk: Uk Government.