The DfE are describing what we may have labelled ‘internal alternative provision’ as inclusion bases and have released some guidance around these which does have some implications for external Non-School AP’s who are looking to partner more closely with schools. Here I’ve shared a few points I think are important as non-school AP looks to position itself in the sector and market to commissioners in the light of this guidance.

Some key points from the guidance:

1. There is a continued focus on pupils moving towards an increase in mainstream education. Those who work regularly with struggling young people know that for some this isn’t a feasible option but both the DfE and Ofsted continue to see attendance in mainstream as the successful end of an AP placement. We know that realistically some of our young people, most likely will never return due to school-based trauma or because the triggers in the mainstream environment are difficult to change.

It may make a difference in terms of marketing and commissioning if you’re not aiming in the same direction as the sector seems to be. It will be important to communicate that you’re working towards re-integration and share that ambition in marketing and the design of programmes. If your students stay with you long-term then it is worth thinking through what it is that is stopping students from engaging with mainstream and building programmes around interventions in these areas. If you are working with the kind of needs which make it highly unlikely to ever re-engage then this should be seen as an ‘exceptional circumstance’ – at the very least you want to be able to evidence progress towards it. In my visits across lots of settings I have seen AP support the neediest young people back into mainstream, into stable college placements or apprenticeships and we should have high hopes that these can be destinations for at least some of our young people. In a perfect world we would also have influence on mainstream schools to adapt and support the reintegration process for the young people where it happens – that’s key to success but I realise it doesn’t often happen.

2. The guidance talks about making the inclusion bases a part of the main school in terms of communication and ethos to support movement to mainstream and this brings a helpful point. Is there more you can do as an AP to help any school commissioned young people to continue to feel a part of their mainstream place? What communication or support could be facilitated to enable greater connection and a sense of belonging with their home school even if they are at your AP?

3. The guidance suggests some QA for school inclusion bases and suggests local system leaders including AP as leading that. This may be difficult as a Non-school AP without a close partnership with a school but you are experts in working with young people who are non-attenders, disengaged and struggle so you could sell this aspect of support to schools you partner with. The challenge for the schools is that they are being asked to set up inclusion bases but staff don’t have the required expertise, training or know-how. Offering support from your experience can help strengthen partnership.

4. The guidance talks about schools commissioning places in other schools inclusion bases. This bit has the possibility of impacting on Non-school AP and the level of commissioning they receive if a local school set up a successful provision that other schools want to use. It is worth remembering though that a successful inclusion base is difficult to run in a school and certainly takes time to develop. This DfE strategy isn’t going to happen overnight. There will also always be young people for whom the mainstream school experience is so overwhelming and traumatic that they need a totally different approach.

5. Inclusion bases are supposed to have clear re-integration strategies – again, this just reinforces the type of language we need to use now – it’s all about outcomes and progression rather than AP ending up as a permanent place for students or a safe holding placement.

6. The guidance talks about base staff engaging and learning from peer networks including APs. An extra element you could deliver as an AP is to develop some training for schools around supporting young people with the kind of needs that you specialise in. This is probably most appealing for schools if it looks at EBSNA, ASD or ADHD young people – these are particularly challenging problems for most school settings because the numbers of pupils with these needs have increased so much without the infrastructure in place to support them properly.

7. Similarly to themes in the SEN white paper, the guidance encourages LA’s to be strategic around commissioning and development of inclusion bases as part of a wider sufficient offer. This reinforces the importance of doing everything possible to build a positive partnership with local LA’s. 

 8. The DfE’s inclusion bases guidance strengthens the case for a planned local continuum of support. It makes clear that school-based inclusion bases should support pupils with SEND, behavioural or pastoral needs, risk of exclusion and low attendance, but it also recognises that local authorities must plan strategically for both inclusion bases and alternative provision. A strong non-school AP position would be to provide a complementary pathway for specific and defined cohorts of young people whose education has broken down and who need a local, therapeutic, safe and education-focused placement.

9. As you communicate with commissioners it wouldn’t hurt to add something to sharpen the distinction between non-school AP and school-based inclusion bases. The fact that AP picks up students where the school placement has completely broken down and moves them towards re-engagement (which may eventually be the school inclusion base).

10. To strengthen that focus on outcomes and progression it could be worth mapping out a really detailed referral and review pathway to share with commissioners. It could visually outline what you do for induction, referral and baseline assessment, the support a pupil gets during placement and then how review and re-integration would be planned. It could include entry and exit criteria, QA and governance and how communication is built with schools and families. Sharing that with commissioners will help them understand how focussed you are on helping young people to progress.

In summary then – the DfE and then school and LA’s are focussing strongly on progression and outcomes for young people in alternative pathways. They believe (even if we don’t) that mainstream is the best destination for all children. The best position as non-school AP is to market yourself to meet the gaps the sector has and the needs they feel. Making sure you’re set up to evidence successful and build progression will be important – too many AP’s are perceived as being safe holding areas rather than life-changing interventions. We know the power a good AP can have but we need to shout about it. All the DfE guidance is also pushing the idea of partnership too. Of AP’s, specialist provisions and independent schools fitting into the needs and wider strategy of the local authority. Sometimes, in the name of standing up for young people the relationships between schools, LA’s and AP is strained. If you want to remain sustainable long-term then building those relationships and supporting the wider sector with your expertise is key.