Alternative provision (AP) has become a contentious topic in education, with some advisers cautioning against its use while others recognise its value as part of a wider support strategy. Drawing from DfE guidance, current literature and frontline experience, there’s a strong case for a more nuanced approach that prioritises mainstream inclusion while thoughtfully utilising AP when appropriate.

The Urgent Need to Prevent Exclusions

Recent research from the Education Policy Institute (2024) reveals stark statistics about the long-term impact of school exclusions and suspensions, painting a concerning picture of life outcomes for excluded young people.

Educational Impact

The research demonstrates a clear ‘suspension grades gap’:

– Young people who experience even a single suspension are significantly less likely to pass crucial GCSEs in English and maths

– They are 2.1 times more likely to not achieve Level 3 qualifications by age 19

– The likelihood of attending higher education by age 24 is reduced by 1.6 times

– The impact appears cumulative – each additional suspension correlates with poorer outcomes

Economic and Employment Consequences

The ‘suspension employment gap’ shows profound long-term effects:

– By age 24, suspended pupils are twice as likely to be not in education, employment or training (NEET)

– They are 2.5 times more likely to receive out-of-work benefits

– These effects persist well into adulthood, suggesting long-term economic disadvantage

– The societal cost in terms of benefits, healthcare, and lost economic contribution is substantial

Health and Wellbeing Outcomes

The impact extends beyond education and employment:

– Suspended pupils are 2.7 times more likely to receive health-related benefits by age 24

– This suggests significant mental or physical health challenges

– Multiple suspensions appear to have a compound effect on health outcomes

– Pupils with ten or more suspensions show outcomes as poor as, or worse than, those who experience permanent exclusion

The Role of Early Intervention

The research emphasises several critical points for schools:

– Early identification of pupils at risk is crucial

– The first suspension often indicates a need for immediate intervention

– Multiple suspensions suggest a failure of support systems

– Schools need better guidance on supporting pupils experiencing repeated suspensions

These statistics make a compelling case for maintaining pupils in mainstream education wherever possible. The research is clear: maintaining a pupil’s connection to mainstream education offers the best outcomes for most students. When students remain in their school environment, they benefit from:

– Consistent relationships with teachers and peers

– Access to the full curriculum and qualified subject specialists

– Ongoing participation in school community and activities

– Maintained sense of belonging and identity

– Regular opportunities for social development

The Role of Alternative Provision

However, there are times when alternative provision, particularly when used as part of a hybrid approach, can play a vital role in preventing exclusion and supporting successful reintegration. The DfE recognises this, stating that “good alternative provision is that which appropriately meets the needs of pupils and enables them to achieve good educational attainment on par with their mainstream peers.”

John Tomsett expands on this in AP Huh with theidea that:

“While the emphasis upon core subjects in AP is similar to mainstream, there are crucial differences… The children being educated in AP require a great deal of flexibility initially their main need is often social and emotional. Until the children are ready to learn emotionally there seems little point in insisting they engage in the academic. Small, flexible organisations … can provide the environment that children need. Mainstream is not for every child as Jess Mahdavi-Gladwell so brilliantly points out in her pithy aphorism ‘It’s mainstream – not all stream’.”

In fact, during an Ofsted inspection as a headteacher in 2023, it was noted that a pupil attending AP part-time was getting an enhanced education. The inspection team felt this pupil was accessing an exceptional standard of SEMH support which was having a markedly positive impact on their behaviour and outcomes when they were in school. The rationale for commissioning the AP placement was also deemed to be rigorous and sound. The pupil had been repeatedly suspended on the days when their teacher was on PPA. This pattern was becoming more regular and severe, and AP provided the perfect reset in this case.

There have been several other cases in my career where the carefully considered use of AP at an early stage has effectively supported pupils in times of great need. In at least two cases, it has prevented repeated suspension and potentially permanent exclusion. For this reason alone, I would never write off AP as a consideration when it comes to supporting our most vulnerable young people.

Key benefits of a thoughtful hybrid approach include:

– Providing breathing space during periods of acute crisis

– Allowing for intensive support while maintaining school connections

– Creating a structured pathway back to full-time mainstream education

– Preventing the escalation of behavioural challenges

– Supporting skill development in a different environment

It is crucial that AP is used as a fresh start rather than a last resort. In my experience, if it is left to the point where a young person is imminently at risk of permanent exclusion, then AP is not as effective. Just to give this some balance, neither is anything else (or at least in my own experience)!

Making Hybrid Approaches Work

For schools considering a hybrid approach, several factors are critical:

1. Clear Planning and Communication

– Set specific objectives and timeframes

– Maintain regular contact between school, AP provider, and family

– Monitor progress systematically and keep a detailed record of communication, review and decisions made

2. Quality Assurance

– Use only registered providers meeting DfE standards. Local authorities usually have an alternative provision directory (ensuring minimum standards around the safety and legality of provisions) as well as information about best practice in terms of the process of commissioning support from AP providers

– Ensure provision complements school curriculum

– Maintain oversight of safeguarding and health and safety arrangements. Your local authority’s guidance documents are likely to include a list of the documentation you will need to acquire

3. Integration Strategy

– Plan for reintegration from day one

– Use gradual transitions where appropriate

– Provide support during transition periods

Conclusion

Mary Myatt sums it up perfectly for me:

“I’m struck by the sheer commitment the alternative provision community demonstrates to the young people in its care. Whether that’s catering for medical or SEND needs for SEMH needs or providing a fresh start so that those children have a fighting chance to go on to be the best they can be, AP is truly remarkable.”

Of course, we can’t apply this to all providers. As it is with schools, the best weave magic and the worst ones put futures at risk. This is where your own professional judgement, autonomy and courage comes into play.

While keeping pupils in mainstream education should always be the primary goal, there are times when a carefully planned hybrid approach using alternative provision can promote the wellbeing and education of a young person and support successful reintegration. The key is to view AP not as a last resort or long-term solution, but as a strategic tool within a broader support framework aimed at maintaining some mainstream education wherever possible.

The evidence is compelling – exclusion and suspension can have life-long consequences for young people, affecting their education, employment, health, and economic stability. Given these significant personal and societal costs, finding ways to maintain pupils in education – whether through full mainstream provision or carefully planned hybrid approaches – must be a priority for all educational leaders. As a pupil who was internally isolated; regularly kept in long term stints of detentions; and suspended from school, I speak about these issues from the heart, from personal and professional experience. Just being in the school building does not equate to inclusion, and repeated punitive measures only serve to erode a young person’s trust in their school.

Schools that develop thoughtful, strategic approaches to supporting challenging pupils, including the considered use of alternative provision when appropriate, are not just helping individuals – they are contributing to a future education system where we aren’t losing so many of our most vulnerable young people at such an alarming rate.

References

Department for Education (2013) Alternative Provision: Statutory guidance for local authorities. London: Department for Education.

Joseph, A. and Crenna-Jennings, W. (2024) Outcomes for young people who experience multiple suspensions. London: Education Policy Institute.

Myatt, M. and Tomsett, J. (2023) AP Huh: Curriculum conversations with alternative provision leaders. Woodbridge: John Catt Educational Ltd.