In a week which will see Children In Need hit our screens once again, and on the day the Michael Gove delivered one of his more universally agreeable speeches to the NSPCC, I have attended a number of meetings that aim to develop the Alternative Provision landscape within Leeds. Both events provide a timely reminder around what Alternative Provision should really be about; meeting the needs of young people who cannot thrive in mainstream education and, as a result, see their life-chances significantly diminish.

Context

In 2011 eleven Local Authorities were chosen to be part of an exclusions trial which was designed to explore alternatives to permanent exclusion by devolving money reserved for provision such as Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) to schools and, eventually, devolving accountability for the students even after permanent exclusion. Leeds was one of the authorities who signed up to the trial and as such the PRUs, as a part of the EOTAS service, were thrust into a period of uncertainty over what the future would hold. The trial ends next year, with a report to be published in Spring 2015. It is almost certain that the devolution of money & accountability to schools will happen and, frankly, that in itself is no bad thing.

However, no matter what the political appetite for inclusion is, either locally or nationally, there are some very simple facts of life; some kids will misbehave and some will be worse than others. In fact, some of the young people these schools serve will be unable to behave in a way that can support their education, or that of those around them, and as such they will need an alternative. Although not quite as black and white, it is also fair to say that during a time of increased autonomy, many Head-teachers will also retain some strict liability offences that ultimately end in a student being unable to return to the school site. Drugs, violence, physical intimidation and criminalised, anti-social behaviour are all, sadly, relatively common place in some British schools and usually end in the assailant facing exclusion from accessing mainstream schooling.

So at a time when PRUs will be gradually phased out (Mr Gove’s aim is 2017) schools, rather than Local Authorities,will become the commissioners of Alternative Provision designed to meet the needs of their pupil population. Schools will be able to do this independently, within their sponsored chains or as part of a family of schools and, once established, they will form part of the free market for schooling the most vulnerable young people within our education system.

Challenges

You cannot do Inclusion on the cheap:

The notion of the free market for AP is a double edged sword; on the bright side, sub-standard providers will not last and during a period of hugely increased focus and accountability, it will take little longer than 12 months to really figure out the poor ones.

However, there will be an enormous pressure from commissioners (schools, sponsors & head-teachers) to do things as cheaply as possible. At one end of the continuum, this is feasible. Somewhat disinterested, low-ability learners who have become disenchanted with a traditional curriculum offer can be taught in bulk and can be successfully re-engaged with a vocational curriculum that is taught well, has tangible outcomes and leads to a clear post-16 vocation and / or industry. However, as you move further along the continuum of need, the needs of the learners become more specific, more complex and, most likely, more expensive to cater for. A low-ability, disenfranchised, persistent absentee with a complex home-life and “interesting” social life, will require a completely different environment, smaller grouping, more intense relationships some behaviour support and, most likely, some pastoral input. The pursestrings just got a little tighter!

Lets jump a couple of steps forward and consider a really difficult case. On top of learning needs, there is a long history of risk taking behaviour, externalising behaviour leading to isolation and persistent absence from school. S/he cannot build nor sustain relationships with professionals or peers and as a result of these difficulties, the learning chasm stretches across most of key stage three. What now? What needs to be commissioned so that this young person can access enough of an education that they will be able to avoid the inevitable evils that used to follow permanent exclusion (crime, jail, life expectancy!). There is probably three blogs worth of answer to that question but a tweet-worthy response would be high quality teaching, small groups, effective transition, some specialist input and multi-agency support for a start. That, however, is not cheap and becomes far more difficult to make competitive in an open market.

Assessment v Range of Provision:

Assessment for young people requiring educational alternatives is generally the domain of the SENCOs and Educational Psychologists but often leads to action once schools or young people are approaching crisis point and bridges are being burned. For all that there is scope to improve processes around needs assessment, there is little point in having nuanced assessment if appropriate or adaptable provision does not exist. Similarly, there is little sense in having a continuum of provision if the assessment is not appropriate nor the gatekeeping robust. The students requiring Alternative Provision are those who have fallen through the one size fits all approach to schooling or maybe even personalised curriculum pathways. Generic provision will not provide the answers we are looking for. We have to develop the ability to do in-depth assessment of need that makes use of qualitative & quantitative data and do it early enough that poor behaviour and bad habits have yet to become ingrained. It may also be possible, albeit difficult, to look at risk indicators and, combined with performance data develop a system to action early intervention. However, even if we can provide the most nuanced of assessments, which pinpoint need, cause and remedy, if the Alternative Provision market continues to be vocationally focussed and there is not a willingness to invest in expertise, then the systems and assessment will prove futile. The scope for innovation here is significant but it requires strong leadership, real expertise and joint thinking that is currently all too rare.

Re-inclusion could be a Myth:

Depending on the commission, and the desired end game, it could very well prove impossible to re-integrate students. If the AP has been commissioned as a short term or turn-around provision, there has to be a professional trust and willingness to adapt practice once a student is due to return. There is no sense in providing a service to re-engage, break habits & find what works for a young person unless there is a genuine appetite on the behalf of the home school to start again, provide unconditional positive regard and adapt practice in the classroom to ensure every young person can succeed. Sometimes, what is required to be successful is simply not replicable in mainstream school, there is no shame to this, it just requires honesty, integrity and high quality alternatives to ensure the young person isn’t the one who misses out as a result of an inflexible system.

Collegiate Economics will be King

A simple rule of thumb around the economics of alternative provision is that the more complex the need, the more expensive it will be to provide for the young person. There is no way that schools will be able to provide a good range of alternative provision without significant investment and for this to be efficient, there has to be bums on seats. By working together, to commission provision in response to local need, there is a greater chance that a continuum of provision can be developed to ensure no child is left behind.

Honesty Required:

The greatest risks to Alternative Provision are if the purpose of the commission is not clear or, more so, if head-teachers begin to access the provision as a means to a different end. There has to be absolute clarity over entry and exit criteria for any young person and colleagues presenting referrals to each provision have to be open and honest about what has gone before. If there is a nuanced assessment of need, by an independent professional, prior to referral then all the better, but realistically, we may just have to settle for clarity, honesty and faith that all decisions will be taken with a young persons best interests at heart.

In Summary:

Despite the uncertainty that PRUs find themselves in, I actually support the intended changes to Alternative Provision. With a real commitment to investing time, money and expertise, the current landscape could provide real opportunities for creativity, innovation and a driving up of standards of alternative provision that truly ensures the needs of every child is met, genuinely moving the Inclusion agenda forward. However, the risks posed through weak systems, doing things on the cheap or unscrupulous school leaders could also do untold damage and lead to a generation of vulnerable young people becoming lost in a system that is supposed to protect them. The cost of this happening to the UK will be far, far greater in the long term.