The government is pressing ahead with plans to limit the amount of time pupils can spend in unregistered alternative provision, despite widespread concerns raised in a consultation.
It has also revealed new national standards for unregistered AP will be “voluntary” initially, with plans to introduce statutory standards at a later date.
Under the previous government, the Department for Education last year ran a public consultation on plans to crack down on unregistered AP.
It followed a Schools Week investigation which revealed children as young as five are increasingly sent to unregulated institutions, which are not inspected by Ofsted or properly overseen by local authorities.
Government has now published new “voluntary national standards” for AP, drawn up in response to the consultation.
It “intends to legislate to introduce mandatory national standards…when parliamentary time allows”. Until then, it “encourages local authorities” to adopt the standards voluntarily.
Time limits for unregistered AP placements
The government has said it will push ahead with its plan to cap the length of time children can be placed in unregistered AP.
This does not form part of the voluntary standards, as the DfE says it will require legislation following further sector engagement.
Government figures show 24,325 children were educated in unregistered AP last year, with placements from councils almost doubling to 11,436 since 2019.
As of Spring 2023-24 the average placement lasted 276 days – equivalent to more than 39 weeks – according to a recent Children’s Commissioner report.
But under standards the government hopes to make mandatory, children can be placed in AP for “short, intensive periods of support, for a maximum of 12 weeks”, before returning to full-time education in mainstream or specialist schools.
Alternatively, they can be given longer-term, part-time placements for up to two days or four sessions a week, alongside attending school.
Almost two-thirds (65 per cent) of respondents opposed this plan at consultation.
While 63 per cent of local authorities agreed, parents overwhelmingly disagreed (90 per cent), as did more than three-quarters of providers (77 per cent) and half of schools.
Some said 12 weeks was not long enough for “effective” interventions, and that time limits “might impede successful reintegration”, while length and type of support should depend on individual needs.
Concerns for SEND pupils
There were particular concerns for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), who are often placed in unregistered settings because mainstream and special schools “do not have sufficient capability and capacity” to meet their needs.
Some said inflexible time limits could increase pressures on the crippled SEND system, leaving more parents choosing to home educate, or request education, health and care plans.
One unregistered alternative provider said: “Abruptly ending support disrupts momentum and can be detrimental.
“Unregistered alternative provision can address diverse needs. Some may require intensive short-term interventions (less than 12 weeks) while others might benefit from longer term, phased reintegration back to mainstream education.”
The government acknowledged these “legitimate concerns”, but said: “Too often vulnerable children are being placed in non-school settings indefinitely with no plans for transitioning back to mainstream education.”
It said there would be flexibility “in exceptional circumstances”, where there is “clear evidence” extra time in unregistered AP “would support sustained re-integration and regular attendance in school in the future”.
The government also said commissioners may place children on a part-time AP placement after their full-time placement ends, if needed, to “ease the transition” back to full-time in-school education.
The government also intends to introduce legislation meaning children in AP must also be registered with schools, so they are “connected with a school throughout their placements”, to support re-integration.
Government puts ‘education otherwise’ plans on hold
Some pupils with special educational needs receive what’s called “education otherwise than in school”, often abbreviated to EOTAS. This is sometimes delivered in unregistered AP.
The consultation included proposals to improve oversight of AP delivering EOTAS special educational provision, but the government has now scrapped these plans while it examines broader systemic issues.
Parents responded to the consultation with “heartfelt” testimonies saying their children had been “let down” by mainstream education and were in non-school AP “because they cannot access the good quality, specialised education and support that they need”.
“Respondents told us that before considering how the settings delivering this type of support are regulated, we should look in more depth at why the provision is being used, and why some parents feel that it is more suited to supporting complex needs than mainstream and special schools,” said the government.
It agreed, saying it now plans to “examine the use of EOTAS holistically and contextually as part of wider reforms to the SEND and alternative provision system”.
The DfE said it will confirm its plans “in due course”. For now, EOTAS special education provision is not included in the new voluntary national standards.
Local authorities to quality assure alternative provision
The government will also push ahead with most other proposals it consulted on, with minor changes.
It plans to legislate so local authorities are made responsible for quality assuring AP against the new national standards, to ensure interventions “are meeting individual needs”.
The government says it intends that Ofsted and the CQC will evaluate a local authority’s quality assurance process.
The government also said it would like to see more LAs create “multidisciplinary inclusion teams” to “routinely review” AP placements to “support successful re-integration”.
Concerns were raised in the consultation about the financial impact of the plans.
Seventy per cent of 57 local authorities that responded expressed concerns they would lead to extra costs, while just 7 per cent believed there would be savings.
Meanwhile just four per cent of AP providers felt the new standards would lead to savings, while a third said there would be no change to costs and over a third thought there would be extra costs.
In its response, the government said the measures “are subject to DfE securing the necessary resources and producing an assessment of the impact on local authorities”.
DfE will work with local authorities, schools and providers “to determine the most cost effective way of delivering the proposals”, including exploring whether local authorities “may charge schools or providers to access the frameworks”.
AP standards ‘streamlined’
The government initially proposed its new national standards would cover five areas: safeguarding and the wellbeing of children; health and safety; admissions, guidance and support; quality of education; and outcomes of children.
After feedback, it has now removed that fifth area from its voluntary standards.
“Compliance with the standards in all four themes will help to assure commissioners that providers have created a safe environment which allows children to thrive and achieve positive outcomes,” it said.
There do not seem to be any places in special schools even with an EHCP, so if a child cannot manage in mainstream or a mainstream school cannot support a SEND child, 2 days a week in unregistered alternative provision seems to be the best you can hope for. Many of these AP settings are good but Local Authorities failing to provide an broad education for our young people does not bode well for their futures or for the future of society.
Whilst mainstream schools continue to run on a factory regimented batch production model focused on terminal examinations with bullying going on in many schools unrecognized and therefore not tackled, we will continue to fail many thousands of children.
Both the ed tec and other more successful models exist to fundamentally change our system into one that tailors education to the individual needs of every child but governments and many uk professionals are blinkered or perhaps blinded by the claims that our system is the gold standard: unfortunately much of it is equivalent to iron pyrites: fools gold.