Inquiry Into Alternative Provision

Inquiry into Alternative Provision

November 2017

NASUWT evidence to the House of Commons

Education Committee

The NASUWT’s submission sets out the Union’s views on the key issues identified by the Education Committee in the terms of reference for the Inquiry. The NASUWT’s evidence is informed directly by serving teacher and headteacher members and also by the work of its representative committees and consultative structures, made up of practising teachers and school leaders working in the education system.

The NASUWT is the teachers’ union.

For further information, parliamentarians may contact:

Ms Chris Keates

General Secretary

Executive summary

• The alternative provision sector is a vital element of a genuinely inclusive education system, able to meet the needs of some of the most vulnerable children and young people in society.
• The commitment, dedication and skill of the alternative provision workforce are the sector’s greatest strength. However, it is clear that the achievements of the workforce are secured despite, not because of, current Government policy.
• A pervasive culture exists in some settings that is far too accepting of pupil violence and indiscipline and that regards open-ended tolerance of such conduct as an intrinsic feature of working life in the alternative provision sector.
• Local authorities retain responsibility for arranging suitable full-time education for pupils who have been permanently excluded from school or who are not able to attend school because of illness or for other reasons.[1] However, policy reforms mean that local authorities have very limited powers to establish and shape provision.
• The brevity of the current statutory guidance published by the Department for Education (DfE) impedes its usefulness. The comprehensive and detailed advice in place previously was replaced in 2013 by four pages of skeleton guidance that fails to reflect important principles of effective policy and practice.
• The DfE should establish an explicit requirement in statutory guidance that schools and local authorities must check and obtain evidence that alternative provision provides a curriculum offer that addresses the particular needs of individual pupils.
• The discontinuation of the frameworks of support for collaboration within and between sectors since May 2010 has undermined the ability of agencies involved in alternative provision to co-operate meaningfully.
• The quality of provision across the alternative provision sector too often falls below minimum standards of acceptability.

Background and context

1. The NASUWT welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the House of Commons Education Committee Inquiry into Alternative Provision.

1. The Union notes that the terms of reference for the Inquiry are relatively wide ranging. The NASUWT's evidence, therefore, focuses on issues of particular current concern reported to it by teachers and school leaders working in the alternative provision sector and addresses recent developments in this area of policy. However, it is important at the outset to locate current issues concerning alternative provision within their broader policy context.

1. The NASUWT is clear that alternative provision is a vital element of a genuinely inclusive education system, able to meet the needs of some of the most vulnerable children and young people in society.

1. The commitment, dedication and skill of the alternative provision workforce are the sector’s greatest strength. However, the NASUWT continues to note with regret that the achievements of the workforce are secured despite, not because of, current Government policy. It remains the case that the needs of learners and the workforce within the sector are consistently overlooked and that this relative neglect of alternative provision has undermined the quality of provision overall.

1. The Committee will be aware that, prior to May 2010, a clear and credible strategy had been developed by the former Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) to address many of the longstanding challenges faced by alternative provision settings. This strategy, set out in the Back on TrackWhite Paper, represented a concerted and long overdue attempt to bring greater quality and coherence to the sector.[2] Under Back on Track, plans were in place to:

• improve the planning and commissioning of alternative provision;
• develop the capacity of the sector;
• secure greater collaboration between the alternative provision and mainstream sectors through the establishment of mandatory school behaviour partnerships;
• streamline assessment and reporting arrangements in alternative provision settings;
• set common, minimum standards for pupils’ learning entitlements;
• ensure timely admissions into alternative provision for pupils requiring specialist support; and
• provide better support for those working within the sector, as well as improved accommodation and facilities.

1. The main elements of the Back on Track strategy were subject to extensive and independently reviewed piloting. The outcomes of this piloting confirmed that parents, pupils and members of the alternative provision workforce were positive about the potential of this strategy to address deeply rooted problems and challenges across the sector.[3]

1. It is highly regrettable that the Coalition Government did not proceed with implementation of the Back on Track strategy. As a result, many of the issues identified as priorities for reform in the strategy have not been tackled effectively. Policy implemented since May 2010 has served to compound these problems. It is therefore essential that the Department for Education (DfE) uses the opportunity created by the Committee's investigation into alternative provision to work with the NASUWT and other relevant stakeholders to develop a revised strategy for the sector. The principal concerns that would need to be addressed in this revised strategy are set out below.

Pupil behaviour and risk assessment

1. The NASUWT recognises that pupils educated in alternative provision settings can present highly challenging behaviour issues and have significant barriers to their educational and developmental progress and achievement.

1. It is for this reason that teachers, school leaders and members of the wider education workforce deployed in these settings need adequate support and sufficient resources to allow them to address the needs of the pupils for whom they are responsible. Such support and resources are also critical to ensuring that settings can safeguard the safety and wellbeing of pupils.

1. The NASUWT is concerned that, in too many instances, staff working in alternative provision settings are not provided with a working environment that supports them in discharging their professional responsibilities or that takes full account of their health, safety and wellbeing. In particular, the Union remains concerned by a pervasive culture in some settings that is far too accepting of pupil violence and indiscipline and that regards open-ended tolerance of such conduct as an intrinsic feature of working life in the alternative provision sector.

1. Evidence collected by the NASUWT through its most recent annual Big Questionsurvey of teachers and school leaders working in alternative provision settings highlights the scale of the issues faced by staff in this respect. Notwithstanding the focus of many alternative provision settings on the management of behaviour, over half (51%) of teachers and school leaders report that levels of pupil indiscipline are problematic. Over four in ten of respondents (43%)identified physical assaults on teachers as an area of most concern, while a comparable proportion (39%) expressed concern about the level of threatening behaviour they encountered in their day-to-day work with pupils.

1. Teachers, school leaders and members of the wider school workforce employed in the alternative provision sector have the same right to work in environments in which all possible steps are taken to promote the highest standards of pupil discipline as their colleagues working in other types of setting.

1. Meaningful risk assessment is central to ensuring that behaviour issues are managed effectively in alternative provision settings. In its most recent review of alternative provision, Ofsted has noted that in half of the settings it visited, risk assessment was little more than a paper exercise rather than a purposeful, evaluative process.[4] Ofsted also encountered instances where the risks posed by the behaviour of pupils were discussed but where no meaningful risk assessment was undertaken following these discussions. There is also evidence that, in some instances, previous risk assessments are not taken into sufficient account when pupils transfer between settings.

1. It cannot be acceptable that such practices are permitted to continue. The DfE must, therefore, ensure that as part of a revised national strategy for alternative provision, action is taken to ensure that all settings assess risks adequately and take steps to implement the outcomes of these assessments.

The role of local authorities

1. Local authorities retain responsibility for arranging suitable full-time education for pupils who have been permanently excluded from school or who are not able to attend school because of illness or for other reasons.[5] However, policy reforms mean that local authorities have very limited powers to establish and shape provision. These reforms, combined with cuts to funds available to local authorities to support alternative provision, mean that local authorities continue to face significant barriers to resourcing or ensuring the establishment of alternative provision that best meets the needs of particular groups of pupils.

1. Further, the emphasis on competition and creating a free market prioritises institutional and sponsors’ interests over the needs and interests of pupils, making it even more difficult for local authorities to arrange full-time education provision that is appropriate and best meets the needs of pupils referred to alternative provision. Current regulations and guidance fail to address these concerns, as noted below, and must be amended so that the needs and interests of pupils are given sufficient priority.

1. The NASUWT notes that there is no requirement in regulations and guidance on local authorities to maintain a self-standing pupil referral unit (PRU). The guidance states that local authorities have scope to ‘discharge their duties by other means.’[6]This stipulation is unacceptably vague and provides no assurances to learners, pupils or the workforceon the quality and appropriateness of the provision. The current statutory framework for alternative provision is therefore severely deficient in this respect.

1. Ofsted’s review of alternative provision identified ongoing issues with referrals by schools to unregistered providers.[7] Given the needs and vulnerabilities of pupils referred to alternative provision, it is entirely insupportable that Ofsted continues to identify schools that send pupils to alternative providers that should be, but are not, registered as independent schools or as PRUs. It is essential that local authorities are given the powers and resources necessary to ensure that all alternative provision settings are registered appropriately and are subject to common, minimum requirements, including those in respect of Ofsted inspection.

1. The Committee will be aware that many schools have sought to develop in-house alternative provision.[8] There can be no reasonable objection to mainstream schools resourcing additional provision to ensure that pupils avoid reaching a stage at which pupils may be at risk of exclusion. However, it is important to note that such provision should always be complemented by access to dedicated alternative settings if an objective assessment of pupils' needs indicates that placement in such settings would be appropriate.

1. The NASUWT remains opposed to the requirement that a local authority must seek proposals to open an academy, including a PRU academy, if it believes that a new school needs to be established. As indicated above, this requirement places the interests of providers over those of pupils and limits local authorities' ability to ensure that provision best meets the particular needs of pupils. The NASUWT is concerned that, over time, this requirement is likely to have the most significant adverse impact on the most vulnerable pupils in the education system, including pupils educated in alternative provision. The Committee should, therefore, recommend removal of this requirement on local authorities. In the case of alternative provision, the Union believes that local authorities should have the freedom to determine how provision will best be delivered and who is best placed to deliver it. Delivery options should include direct provision by local authorities.

Current statutory guidance

1. The NASUWT is extremely concerned about the brevity of the current statutory guidance published by the DfE. The comprehensive and detailed advice published as part of the Back on Track strategy was replaced in 2013 by four pages of skeleton guidance that fail to reflect important principles of effective policy and practice.

1. Notwithstanding the shortcomings of the guidance, a minimum expectation must be that it applies to all schools and other settings that are funded by the state. There is no justification for limiting the scope of statutory guidance to schools and settings in the maintained sector. The state, through local authorities, has an obligation to ensure that all children and young people can benefit from common minimum standards of provision. The scope of statutory guidance must, therefore, include all state-funded settings.

The curriculum, transfer and assessment arrangements

1. The NASUWT believes that every pupil has an entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum. This entitlement includes practical and vocational learning that is appropriate to children's needs and the development of social and emotional skills, critical, creative and independent thinking and problem-solving skills. The DfE must establish a requirement on all schools and local authorities involved in commissioning alternative provision from other providers to confirm that they will ensure that pupils can gain access to a broad and balanced curriculum.

1. It is important to recognise that alternative provision caters for pupils with different types of needs. While some pupils will be supported through alternative provision because their behaviour presents problems for teachers and other pupils in a mainstream school, others may be well behaved but have different needs and issues. These different needs may include school-phobia, mental health problems or other health or social challenges that prevent children and young people from attending school.
2. The DfE should establish an explicit requirement in statutory guidance that schools and local authorities must check and obtain evidence that alternative provision provides a curriculum offer that addresses the particular needs of individual pupils. The needs of pupils should be the starting point of any assessment, not whether the pupil can fit into the provision. This consideration underlines the importance of ensuring that local education systems can benefit from a diverse range of appropriately resourced, well-supported alternative provision.

1. The NASUWT notes that the DfE requires schools and local authorities to check and obtain evidence about aspects of alternative provision that they are using currently or intend to use in future. In light of the points made above, these criteria should be extended to include reference to checking and obtaining evidence about specialist support to address social, emotional and other issues that impact on a pupil’s ability to learn and engage in education.

1. Statutory guidance states that schools and local authorities should ensure that the provider of alternative provision is given information about the pupils' academic assessments and attainment needs, the barriers to educational progress they may face and their aspirations. It also states that commissioners should ensure that procedures are in place to allow providers to share relevant information with pupils’ home schools. These provisions have not proved sufficient in practice.

1. Teachers and school leaders working in alternative provision continue to raise concerns about the speed with which information is provided, as well as the quality of this information.[9] The DfE must set out a clear expectation that information about pupils’ attainment, needs, barriers to education and aspirations should be provided promptly. The DfE should also stress the importance of providing high-quality information that is useful and that does not place unnecessary workload burdens on teachers and other staff in schools and alternative provision. Statutory guidance should include examples to illustrate the features of effective information-sharing systems in this respect.

Collaboration and co-operation between the alternative provision sector, mainstream settings and other children and young people’s services

1. As noted above, the Back on Trackstrategy confirmed that collaboration between the alternative provision sector, mainstream settings and other services for children and young people is critical to ensuring that the needs of learners with complex additional needs can be met effectively.

1. The discontinuation of the frameworks of support for collaboration within and between sectors since May 2010 has undermined the ability of providers to co-operate meaningfully. Ofsted’s recent review of alternative provision identified partnership working as a key area of further development.[10]

1. It is essential that much greater emphasis is placed on the development of policy on supporting cross-agency/service working, including collaborative arrangements and policies, procedures and protocols for sharing information, identification, referral and providing support. The Government needs to develop frameworks that support effective co-operation on issues including the use of funding and the pooling of budgets, staff training and professional development.

1. The ability of local arrangements to allow for some degree of flexibility on the transfer of resources between distinct funding blocks supports effective strategic planning for alternative provision at local authority level. Such arrangements allow for resources to be allocated efficiently to identified priorities, minimise duplication and permit the generation of economies of scale.

1. It is therefore essential that the DfE allows transfers of a reasonable scale to take place under the terms of the new formula. The NASUWT believes that the DfE's current proposal to limit block transfers to 0.5% of the school block is too restrictive, notwithstanding that permission for larger transfers may be granted on application to the DfE.

The quality of accommodation