3-Tier AP: Rethinking Alternative Provision from sanctions to support

Sarah Johnson has worked in senior leadership roles in Pupil Referral Units, Alternative Provision and psychiatric inpatient services. Sarah has enjoyed roles including being a member of the DfE AP stakeholder group, keynote speaker and author of books relating to social, emotional and mental health.

Contents

It has been more than two years since the Department for Education (DfE) published the SEND and Alternative Provision Green Paper. While the policy world moves quickly (lots of conversations around specialist resource provision, inclusion, curriculum reviews), some moments are worth reflecting on more deeply.

For those of us working within Alternative Provision (AP), the Green Paper marked a rare and welcome shift. For the first time in a long time, AP was not treated as an afterthought to education reform but recognised as a vital part of the wider SEND and inclusion landscape. Phrases such as continuum of provision and AP were said in the same breath.

Disconnect in thinking about AP and SEND

As a member of the DfE’s AP stakeholder group, one thing that became clear during very early discussions was the disconnect between conversations around SEND and AP. Too often, the two were seen as separate domains. AP was viewed narrowly through the lens of behaviour and exclusion, while SEND was discussed in terms of diagnosed needs and educational support. Yet the reality in the classroom is that the overlap is undeniable.

Many of the children who find themselves in AP settings—those who are vulnerable, marginalised, and often excluded—are later identified as having special educational needs. According to the Department for Education’s most recent figures, in state‑funded Alternative Provision (AP) settings, 83.4% of pupils were identified as having an EHCP or receiving SEN support, up from 82.2% in 2024. In independent schools (including independent special schools), the percentage was 24.1%, a slight rise from 22.3%. Data may be skewed and unreported, considering the use of unregistered AP means there are fewer data points to rely on.

What is perhaps less widely discussed, though undoubtedly true, is for many pupils, it’s only after entering AP that these needs are formally recognised. Local data from areas participating in the Change Programme suggests that a notable proportion of young people leaving Alternative Provision go on to receive an EHCP, although nationally consistent tracking data is still emerging.

Join us on BlueSky

SNJ WhatsApp Channel

Three-tier Alternative Provision model

This is why the development of the Three-Tier Alternative Provision Model is so important. Over 70% of local authorities involved in the Change Programme, launched in late 2022 as part of the government’s broader SEND and AP improvement plan, are now implementing or embedding this model. It offers an important rethinking of how AP should work: not as a last resort, but as an integral, proactive part of a local inclusion system. However, for this to be sustainable and effective, funding must also be front-loaded. Without it, AP will just be used to fulfil statutory obligations, rather than offer early support.

The introduction of Tier 3 provision is particularly symbolic. It represents an attempt to stop children from falling into the river, rather than merely catching them downstream. It is about early identification and early support, not punishment and rescue. Tier 3 acknowledges what many of us in the sector have long known. The best outcomes happen when AP works alongside mainstream schools, sharing expertise, providing outreach, and supporting inclusion, rather than operating as a outside alternative.

From Department for Education PP “3 tier model for Alternative Provision”

The Tier 3 model signals a cultural shift. It moves away from blaming the child and turns the focus towards examining the systems around them. When we concentrate solely on a pupil’s behaviour without examining the context, unmet language needs, undiagnosed SEND, and trauma histories, we risk missing the point entirely.

Promoted

“Short, sharp shock” behaviour policy concerns

This tension is especially clear when we consider current behaviour policy. While it allows for children to be directed into AP to “improve behaviour,” there is an implicit assumption that concerns me. The idea of a short, sharp shock may appeal in theory, but in practice, it often fails to address the root causes of behaviour. It overlooks the fact that many of the children being moved into AP have significant, frequently hidden amongst the chaotic behaviour, special educational needs.

Research has long highlighted the strong links between language difficulties and behaviour. A 2017 report by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists found that 60% of young people in youth justice settings, many of whom have histories of school suspensions and exclusions, also had speech, language, and communication needs. A short, sharp shock does little for a child who cannot fully comprehend the expectations being placed on them. What they need is support, not sanctions.

3-Tier AP philosophy

The 3-Tier AP Model, at its best, encapsulates this philosophy. It provides a blueprint for rethinking the role of AP, not as a destination or the last resort, but as part of a network of support working with mainstream colleagues to keep children included and thriving. It isn’t about changing the child, but about seeing the child within the wider context.

Nor is the programme about diluting school standards or making excuses for poor behaviour. It’s about recognising that real improvement comes when we engage with the full complexity of children’s lives and needs. It’s about remembering alternative provision, when understood properly, is not a holding space for difficult children awaiting an EHCP, but a place where most of our children can be supported.

As the programme develops and the lessons from the 3-Tier Model begin to spread beyond those pilot authorities, we have an exciting opportunity. An opportunity to move beyond gestures of inclusion, to build systems that work for the children who need them most.

As families, practitioners, and advocates, it is important that we pay close attention to how these models are being implemented locally. The principles are promising, but real change depends on how they are translated into practice. We must continue to ask the right questions. Are needs being identified early enough? Are children receiving support rather than sanction? Is AP being used as a partner to inclusion, not an endpoint for exclusion? The 3-Tier Model offers a starting point of effective practice, but it is up to all of us to make sure the reality lives up to the promises.

Disabled Children’s Rights are Under Attack.
We’re fighting, but we can’t do it alone: we need your help more than ever.
We’re volunteer-run, but costs are rising. To help us keep going, please consider a one-off or, if it’s possible, a regular donation.
Read more about being a regular donor here.
We use Zeffy to fundraise, which doesn’t charge us a fee, so 100% of your donation reaches us.

DONATE TO HELP
KEEP SNJ ONLINE!

Don’t miss a thing!

Don’t miss any posts from SNJ – simply add your email address below. You must click the link in the confirmation email you’ll receive to activate your free subscription.

You can also keep up with us by following our

WhatsApp Channel!

Want more? Be an SNJ regular donor!

SNJ is a non-profit and everyone who writes here does so voluntarily. We need your support to help us with costs by donating once or as a regular patron. Find out more here

About
Latest Posts

Follow:

Sarah Johnson

Alternative Provision expert at Phoenix Education Consultancy

Sarah Johnson has worked in senior leadership roles in Pupil Referral Units, Alternative Provision and psychiatric inpatient services.Sarah has enjoyed roles including being a member of the DfE AP stakeholder group, keynote speaker and author of books relating to social, emotional and mental health.

Follow: