Do the time limited placements support high standards? 

At the end of August the DfE published its much-anticipated Non-school Alternative Provision: Voluntary National Standards Framework; at the same the DfE’s response to last year’s consultation with stakeholders was released – the two documents can be read together as an expression of the government’s intentions for the non-school AP sector.

I’ve been able to speak  with many providers since the standards appeared, not least through the well-attended ALIGN network meeting on 11th September. Without exception the providers I have been in contact with are positive about the standards, grateful to have a set of  clear expectations in their work and pleased with the more helpful terminology. Overwhelmingly, though, the greatest anxiety among colleagues in non-school AP is the emphasis, in the response document, on time-limited placements. The response makes it clear that legislation will be passed to mandate the standards, and that this will include the requirement that  all AP placements are restricted to a maximum of 12 weeks, 2 full days or 4 half days*.  These restrictions will dramatically reduce the level of work non-school AP can do with the children who need their support.

* – The document indicates that the particular  needs of  children on  EOTAS packages will be taken into account and that in these cases the 12 week/2 day maximum will not apply. ALIGN members are united in the belief that this will significantly increase the number of children on EOTAS pathways, thus negating the intended impact of the DfE’s plans. 

Concerns raised at the ALIGN meeting include the patience needed to engage effectively with children who have struggled in education, which would be impossible in a 12 week placement; the impact of 12 week placements on the ability to deliver qualifications; the fact that a significant number local authorities are already implementing time-limited placements rigidly. These concerns inevitably cause operational difficulties for providers; more importantly, though the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable and marginalised children is jeopardised.. One attendee at the meeting, a head teacher at a non-school AP contacted ALIGN after the meeting to share a harrowing example of the consequences of the time-limited placement directive. The head teacher describes having spent the summer working to get in place purchase orders needed for the 6-12 week placements insisted upon by the LA. In the meantime one of the children in question has attempted to take their own life as the AP was unable to confirm their place for the new school year. Just one awful illustration of the potential for harm.

It’s obvious from the qualitative and quantitative analyses provided in the response  document that respondents to the consultation expressed misgivings about time-limited placements. It is not made clear the reasons the DfE disregarded this input; when ALIGN met with the DfE as part of the consultation their representative indicated an understanding within the Department about the importance of needs-based flexibility in this aspect of their plans, and we were reassured by this. The way in which Local Authorities are interpreting the, still voluntary, guidance does not reflect this approach, indeed, colleagues in the sector are finding it difficult to negotiate the more rigid understanding some LAs demonstrate.

My concern, and that of the providers ALIGN represents, is that the response conflates the notion of  standards with an ideological and/or economically driven policy. We fear that the imperative of time-limited placements, far from improving protections, is already resulting in a lowering of standards, and, more importantly, in significant harm to children who are among the most vulnerable and marginalised in society.