I have the enormous privilege of working alongside a lot of non-school alternative provisions and independent special schools in my day to day work. Since the publication of the SEND Reform consultation and White Paper documents a few weeks ago, I have been reflecting on the variety of responses from the providers I support.
Some are cautiously optimistic about the opportunities to contribute to a fully inclusive education system, others are deeply concerned that their model of operation will become untenable as a result of the implication that specialist settings are a destination of last resort.
The lack of clarity on how pupils who cannot engage in any way within a school environment will be supported has not been helpful here I suspect. Most agree that the proposals represent a highly idealised vision for a system designed for the pupils of the future – one less likely to succeed for those already struggling to engage with education, for whom mainstream inclusion often feels like a ship that has sailed.
The truth is that the changes represent a mixture of both opportunity and threat to specialist settings like non-school APs, and will precipitate creative thinking to ensure providers can continue to meet the complex needs of vulnerable pupils. The following are my reflections on key areas that non-school alternative provisions may want to consider in the months ahead as reforms begin to take shape in schools in England and Wales.
Non School Alternative Provisions are conspicuous by their absence in the White Paper & Government Consultation Documents, which could mean both restriction and expansion…..
Non-school APs barely feature in the government consultation “SEND Reform: Putting Children and Young People First” or the White Paper “Every Child Achieving & Thriving”. They are, however, a part of the perceived “problem” at the heart of the question of SEND reform; a truth that underprops what Bridget Phillipson, in her Executive Summary describes as “two parallel” education systems. In the former, the glossary entry for “alternative provision” defines it as:
Settings that provide education for children and young people who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school, or otherwise, may not be able for any period to receive education (p.4)
Interestingly, throughout the SEND Reform consultation document, the term “AP Schools” is used. A clear distinction is made between non-school AP (still described here as “unregistered”) which can “play a valuable role” (p.79) and registered settings such as AP free schools, pupil referral units, hospital schools and independent special schools.
Notably, non-school AP is not mentioned specifically in relation to the “specialist” layer of support planned for children and young people who cannot access “targeted” or “targeted plus”. The language strongly implies registered settings (“AP Schools”) will provide this. However, it is open enough to interpretation that (particularly in areas where specialist placements will be slowest to emerge) high quality non-school APs could fill the gaps in the short to medium term.
AP is less likely to be relied upon longer term to meet the needs identified within the seven “specialist support packages” by the time full implementation of the SEND reforms happens, it is claimed, by 2035. EOTAS provision may well constitute a fourth layer of support for pupils requiring a more individualised package but details on how this will fit into/overlap with the tiered approach have yet to fully emerge.
There is likely to be a slow reduction in the use of non-school AP for anything other than temporary provision pending return to school over the next ten years. The movement away from its widespread use is fundamental to the government’s plan to cut costs and re-position the system with an emphasis on mainstream inclusion. Despite this, high quality AP will remain vital as both a time limited intervention used earlier and more strategically by schools, and, presumably, as part of EOTAS provision for pupils unable to access targeted, target plus or specialist support in schools.
Limiting the use of Independent Special School placements marks a shift in policy that will likely affect whether non-school APs decide to register
In 2017 I was part of a team running a non-school AP. We were asked by two local authorities who referred to us, to register as an independent SEMH school. This was so that they could continue to commission places in the wake of new restrictions, themselves responding to growing concerns about the rise in illegal schools. The rationale was clear, and we made the move. The cost of placements increased significantly as we were required to operate more like a traditional school in order to fully meet the Independent School Standards.
There remained a clear need for pupils to work gradually towards a full timetable. However, in many cases (particularly with long-term school refusers) it struck us that a part time placement in non-school AP might have been better suited to the pupil and significantly less costly to the commissioner. Despite this, we saw pupil numbers rise over time – a fact underlined by DFE research cited in the SEMH Reform document showing that the population of pupils in independent special schools with SEMH needs, communication needs, and autism has grown exponentially since 2014 (pp.13-16).
Notwithstanding increased demand for specialist placements, it is clear that the government’s trajectory has shifted, and the commissioning of placements at more costly independent special schools will be discouraged. The local picture will vary depending on the availability of alternative placement options, but over time the DFE intends that the use of these settings will decrease as more specialist support becomes available in mainstream and more maintained specialist placements are created.
While the consultation is clear that “no child will be asked to leave a special school”, (SEND Reform p.23), increased capacity in maintained settings will, in theory and over time, lead to reduced demand for placements in independent school settings. Whether we believe this likely (and I have serious doubts as to how quickly, if at all, this can happen) it marks an ideological shift away from the, mostly, positive way in which independent special schools have been viewed vis-a-vis their non-school AP counterparts. While the use of non-school alternative provision is also set to be further restricted, it is likely that the relative cost comparison between part time, time-limited intervention work and longer term full-time packages may favour non-school AP in terms of sourcing stable long-term commissioning opportunities.
With the introduction of a robust set of National Standards for non-school AP, the decision to register as an independent school may no longer be the right one for settings who, as recently as a year ago, would have been encouraged to do so. The current government has made clear its hostility to private and profit-making schools through both its tax policy and public criticism of for-profit independent schools. Given the broader ideology underpinning the SEND reforms and the government’s overall approach to inclusion, the movement towards reducing placements and capping fees seems entirely consistent.
There is no explicit vision for drawing on expertise within the non-school AP part of the sector – but there should be!
Every Child Achieving and Thriving sets out a plan to:
Reform the role of Alternative Provision so that expertise in supporting children with SEND – particularly those whose needs present as disruptive or unsafe behaviour– can be used more effectively across the school system (p.54)
This approach is integral to the three tier model (introduced as part of the last government’s SEND & AP Improvement Plan) wherein registered Alternative Provision settings such as pupil referral units and hospital schools will work more closely with mainstream schools. These “AP Schools” are distinct from non-school AP and it is envisaged that alongside time-limited placements, these settings will provide support through both expert training and outreach.
Neither of the government’s documents refer specifically to the wealth of expertise within non-school APs. It is absolutely right that the staff within “AP Schools” bring to bear their significant skills and knowledge to support children in mainstream. However, it seems a substantial oversight not to also leverage the incredible depth of experience within the non-school AP sector.
Staff in non-school APs support pupils with the most complex needs, often when they have been excluded from multiple maintained alternative provisions or “AP Schools”. The level of disruptive behaviour managed by staff in non-school AP is often far in excess of what could be supported in a school environment, and there is much that could be learnt from the models deployed in non-school AP by those hoping to better include more pupils in mainstream.
Any hesitance to draw upon the non-school part of the education landscape is consistent with the focus on lowering the cost of inclusion– after all, non-school AP is already funded in ways that have become increasingly unsustainable due to high demand. However, with some creative thinking, non-school APs could easily be part of the solution for bridging the SEND skills gap within some mainstream schools, at least until the maintained part of the system is able to maximise its capacity.
To conclude….
The vision set forth in the reforms, one of a future system that identifies needs early and provides support before costly interventions are needed further down the line, seems a long way off. For those of us working in and with a system already on its knees, the idea that already-overwhelmed “AP School” staff will have the time, energy and funds to effectively deliver meaningful support to their mainstream counterparts seems unlikely in the short to medium term. Perhaps this will change over time, but in the meantime, non-school APs may provide the answer through outreach and other services.
There is an opportunity for non-school APs to provide a bridge between the vision set forth by the reforms and the challenges of the current system – if I was still running a non-school AP I would be seeking to develop this with mainstream and AP School partners. With new and improved regulatory frameworks backed by government, non-school APs have an opportunity to showcase what they have to offer and should begin to consider how best to position themselves to do so.