A blog based on a recent podcast by,

Yannick Buditu: Educational Consultant (email: enquiries@buditu-consulting.co.uk)

Featuring, Omowunmi Fagbemi: Senior Practitioner (ohfagbemi@icloud.com)

In today’s educational landscape, Alternative Provisions (APs) play a crucial role in supporting students who face significant challenges within mainstream education. However, these institutions are often subject to stigma and misconceptions. Public narratives frequently portray APs as "last resorts" for students deemed too challenging for mainstream education. This perspective not only undermines the vital work being done in these settings but also impacts the young people who attend them. In a recent podcast , I sat down with Wunmi (Multi-Agency Special Task Force Manager at an AP in East London) to discuss the realities of APs, the challenges they address, and the successes that emerge from these unique educational environments. This blog draws from that discussion to examine APs in greater depth, engage with relevant research, and consider both their benefits and potential limitations.

One of the key points raised in the podcast was the distinction between Alternative Provisions (APs) and Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). While these terms are often used interchangeably, they serve different functions. PRUs primarily cater to students who have been permanently excluded from mainstream schools, often due to behavioural or disciplinary concerns. APs, on the other hand, provide education for a broader range of students, including those with social emotional or mental health needs, or special educational needs (SEN) that mainstream schools cannot accommodate. The distinction is not merely theoretical but has legal and practical implications. PRUs are formally recognised within government policy as state-funded institutions, while APs may encompass a wider variety of providers, including independent organisations, special schools, and therapeutic settings. The Department for Education (DfE) (2017) acknowledges that students in PRUs often experience high levels of unmet needs, particularly in relation to mental health and trauma, further reinforcing the need for more tailored interventions.

Despite stigmas, research highlights the value of APs in re-engaging students with education. A study by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) found that 72% of students in APs showed improvements in engagement and emotional well-being when provided with personalised support. Similarly, the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) (2020) reported that small class sizes and individualised learning approaches in APs lead to better student outcomes compared to mainstream settings for those with complex needs.

Wunmi emphasised the importance of a multi-disciplinary approach within APs, involving teachers, mental health professionals, and therapeutic staff. Research from the National Autistic Society (2020) supports this model, showing that integrated academic and emotional interventions are particularly effective for neurodiverse students. Moreover, trauma-informed teaching practices are becoming increasingly common within APs. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2019) highlights that trauma-informed education can significantly improve students’ emotional regulation and capacity for learning. This is particularly relevant given that a high proportion of AP students have experienced adverse childhood experiences (ACEs).

While the improvements in engagement and well-being are promising, an important question remains: is this enough? Critics argue that APs, despite their best efforts, may not always provide students with the qualifications and skills necessary for long-term success. The Social Mobility Commission (2021) warns that students in APs are less likely to achieve comparable academic outcomes to their mainstream peers, raising concerns about whether APs truly offer a pathway to upward mobility or merely function as a containment strategy for vulnerable youth. Furthermore, while APs provide an essential safety net for students who struggle in mainstream education, are they inadvertently compensating for broader systemic failures? As mainstream schools face increasing pressure to raise attainment and manage behaviour, exclusions have risen sharply, leaving APs to address the fallout. A report from the Children’s Commissioner for England (2019) noted that 70,000 children were excluded from school in a single year, many of whom ended up in APs. But if mainstream schools were better equipped to provide inclusive education, would the need for APs be as great?

One of the more provocative questions that must be considered is whether APs, despite their relational and therapeutic approaches, are merely "babysitting" disadvantaged students under the guise of inclusion. If AP students leave without equivalent qualifications, are they being set up for long-term disadvantage? The Local Government Association (2020) reported that while up to 30% of students in APs are reintegrated into mainstream schools, many still struggle to access further education and employment opportunities. Additionally, the types of qualifications offered in many APs may not align with the broader labour market demands. A lack of rigorous academic pathways could limit students' post-16 choices, reinforcing cycles of educational and economic marginalisation. This is not to undermine the crucial emotional and social support that APs provide, but it raises a critical challenge: how can APs balance relational and therapeutic approaches with robust academic and vocational training?

Alternative Provisions play an undeniably vital role in the education system, offering a lifeline to students who might otherwise be lost within mainstream schooling. The success stories are real and inspiring, as Wunmi shared in our podcast students overcoming significant barriers to achieve personal and professional success. However, as researchers and advocates for social justice, we must also ask the difficult questions:

- Do APs truly provide students with equivalent educational and career opportunities, or are they compensating for systemic failures in mainstream education?

- What reforms are needed to ensure AP students have access to the same qualifications and pathways as their peers?

- How can we ensure that APs are not just seen as containment strategies but as genuine avenues for social mobility?

By reframing the narrative surrounding APs while also critically examining their limitations, we can push for a more equitable and effective education system for all students.

References

Behaviour and Discipline in Schools Review (DfE). (2021). Restorative Practices in Behaviour Management

Children’s Commissioner for England. (2019). Children’s Lives: A snapshot of children in England today.

Department for Education (DfE). (2017). Excluded from school: Evidence from the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England

Education Endowment Foundation (EEF). (2020). Improving Attainment in Alternative Provision

Institute for Education. (2018). Engaging Parents to Improve Student Outcomes

Local Government Association. (2020). Best Practices in Reintegration from Alternative Provisions

National Autistic Society. (2020). Autism and Education: The Need for a New Approach

National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). (2019).Alternative Provision: Outcomes and Lessons Learned

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). (2019). Trauma-Informed Approaches in Education

Ofsted. (2019). Engaging Families: A Guide to Best Practices

 Social Mobility Foundation. (2021). The Role of Alternative Provisions in Social Mobility

 University of Leicester. (2020). The Impact of Creative Arts on Learning in APs and PRUs