Alternative Provision, SEND, and Inclusion: Should AP even exist in an inclusive system?

Contents

My work in Alternative Provision has spanned 20 years and in that time, the landscape has changed significantly. Reading the newly-updated Department for Education Guidance on Alternative Provision (AP) felt like revisiting a journey I’ve travelled for over two decades. The updated guidance is long overdue and welcome.

When I first started working in a Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) things looked very different. The term “Alternative Provision” didn’t exist. Back then, PRUs stood alone. They provided an important function but were often an overlooked and marginalised part of the education system, a bit like the children who attended them.

As the years passed, the term “Short-Stay Schools” emerged, reflecting attempts to reaffirm that PRUs were, by nature, transitional, designed to support a return to mainstream education. The thinking was that changing the name may change the outcomes for the children who attended these settings. Yet the Timpson Review (2019) highlighted how such name changes rarely affect the reality of exclusion. What matters isn’t what we call these settings, but how they function in the wider education system.

Systemic changes needed to reduce exclusion

Ed Timpson’s review was important, acknowledging that systemic change is required to reduce exclusions and build a system that truly supports children to thrive. The solution lies not in endless rebranding but in creating a joined-up, inclusive system that meets children’s needs before exclusion becomes an option. This includes stronger collaboration between AP, mainstream schools, SEND services, and health partners, and a clear understanding that AP has an essential role in that system, not as a separate, temporary fix, but as a meaningful part of the educational landscape.

Over the past few years, we’ve worked hard with the proposals in the SEND and AP Green Paper to reaffirm the transitionary purpose of AP, but we need to go further. We need to ask bold questions: Should AP even exist in an inclusive system? Shouldn’t all schools be prepared to meet the needs of every child?

APs shouldn’t be used as a cheap alternative to specialist placements and a shortfall in resources in the area. There is still ambiguity, depending on the lens you look through (LA, school, AP). But if AP is here to stay, shouldn’t it be regulated in the same way as mainstream schools, ensuring that every child who attends is given the same protection, opportunity, and quality of education?

Join us on BlueSky

SNJ WhatsApp Channel

Why is education struggling to meet many children’s needs?

Children who attend PRUs and AP are often the most vulnerable and marginalised. For children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), this vulnerability is amplified. They are overrepresented in exclusion statistics, often because their needs are unrecognised or unmet. When I read the guidance, I couldn’t help but reflect on the question what is it about our education system that leaves so many children struggling to have their needs met?

The Timpson Exclusions Review reminds us exclusions are often the final consequence of unmet needs. Behaviour is often seen as communication. Too often, behavioural difficulties are misinterpreted as defiance rather than distress, avoidance, or a reflection of current circumstances. If we want fewer children in alternative provision, we need to equip all schools to be genuinely inclusive. That doesn’t mean just in words or policies published on websites but in practice.

Promoted

“Leaning in” to Alternative Provision

At the same time, we must also lean into the role of AP as part of an inclusive system. AP should not be seen as a last resort but as an integral part of the wider education offer, where children can find a place to belong, learn, and flourish. AP can be a lifeline, providing highly personalised support for children who have been failed elsewhere. But to fulfil that role, it needs to be properly funded, recognised, and celebrated for what it does well.

When we are “leaning into” the role of AP, I also want to look more closely at an issue that’s often overlooked or perhaps ignored as the cost implications are likely to be huge: the cliff-edge of support for PRU/AP students once they transition to post-16 education. Having faced significant challenges through their education, these young people too frequently find themselves without adequate support as they move into employment, further/higher education, or training, if they get there at all.

Young people don’t “age out” of their needs, just the available services

Children’s needs do not suddenly stop to matter or exist the moment that they turn 16. Children with previous attendance at PRUs and AP often have significant needs that don’t disappear at Post-16. In fact, many young people’s needs intensify, requiring continued, ongoing support to ensure they succeed in 16+ environments. The system should not view the transition to adulthood as an endpoint to their support but as part of a continuum, with a focus on getting them ready for adulthood in the same way as children with EHCPs. Their transition deserves the same level of careful planning, funding, and resources to ensure that they can thrive.

For me, inclusion is not about keeping every child in a mainstream classroom at all costs, but making sure every child has the right environment, the right support, and the right opportunities to succeed (these ideas are echoed in the SEND and AP Green Paper). I’m not sure if that’s in mainstream, special schools, or AP. But I do know it’s about creating a system that fits flexibly around the child, rather than expecting the young person to be the one to bend to fit a rigid structure.

The Timpson Review and the SEND and AP Green Paper (whose future is still uncertain) have offered a framework to reflect and challenge the education system. Nevertheless, we need to go further. We need to imagine an education system where no child is pushed out, where the idea of “last resort” is replaced with the “best option”. It is where each school whether mainstream, alternative, or special, is held to the same high standards of care, education, and inclusion.

Please consider a one-off or regular donation to help SNJ keep going in 2025!

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: