Non-school alternative provision: voluntary national standards (DfE)
Here’s a more detailed look at the DfE’s Non-School alternative provision: voluntary standards and their consultation response on unregistered alternative provision (A response to the Strengthening Protections in Unregistered Alternative Provision Consultation).
The dust has settled now after the Department for Education’s release of two documents of guidance for unregistered alternative provision at the end of August. The few weeks since have given chance for reflection, for talking to colleagues working on the frontline and for seeing how LA’s are beginning to approach their role. I wanted to post again with a bit more of a summary and some more practical steps to support you if you work in ‘non-school’ alternative provision. The term now used by the DfE for what was ‘unregistered providers’ is ‘non-school’ it’s a much better term that doesn’t suggest as much inferiority. It’s interesting to see though that the term didn’t make Ofsted’s new framework which still describes ‘unregistered’ providers.
A summary of the documents:
So, first a summary of what has been released and some links to read it for yourself if you haven’t seen it. The DfE have published two documents:
1) An explanation of the standards they want unregistered (now non-school) alternative provision to work to. (Non-school AP: DfE voluntary national standards (2025)
2) A response to the consultation they made back in the days of the previous government. This document outlines changes in legislation they hope to meet. (A response to the Strengthening Protections in Unregistered Alternative Provision Consultation).
Let’s look at the first one first:
1) Non-school alternative provision: voluntary national standards (DfE Aug 2025)
The DfE have published a set of standards that they will be expecting non-school APs to meet. You’ll have spotted the word “voluntary” in the title, at the moment these standards are optional but in their consultation response the DfE have outlined that they’ll be making these mandatory and checked by LAs. Local authorities are already responding by changing QA processes to match these standards and it makes sense for providers to immediately start working towards these. It strengthens your credibility if you can explain and evidence to commissioners that you meet them and it allows you some time to get the implementation right before they become a requirement.
Just a point to make before I go into detail about the standards. These are for APs that don’t meet the criteria of school registration. We’ve done a more detailed post about meeting registration criteria and protecting yourself against being seen as an unregistered school – you can read that here.
The standards are based around four areas:
1) Safeguarding, 2) Health and Safety, 3) Admissions, support and guidance and 4) Quality of education
You can read the full standards in the DfE’s document which helpfully includes both a summary rubric and some supportive detail around each standard to explain what they would expect.
I visit and talk with lots of APs and I don’t think there is going to be a huge shift in practice, I think the immediate thought of leaders will be that they are meeting the key elements already. I won’t go through each standard here but, from my experience of lots of AP visits, there are some elements that AP leaders don’t often have and are worth noting.
· Medical fitness checks - There is a requirement for medical fitness checks as part of pre-employment routines. Most settings do due diligence on safer recruitment but don’t include a medical fitness check, this is a good example of where the DfE have tried to match the Independent School Standards as closely as possible when writing this framework. That is good I think, less of a chance that non-school AP is seen as a substandard place for young people.
· Safeguarding training cadence - Safeguarding training for all staff should be renewed every year and DSL training every two years. Most settings would meet the one for staff but DSL training can slip especially where your safeguarding lead is really experienced and confident.
· 6 week reviews - Placements are expected to be reviewed on a six weekly basis. This isn’t always in place, especially as half terms often tend to last longer than 6 weeks so a half-termly cadence isn’t quite tight enough.
· Detailed fire safety - Providers are expected to have undertaken a fire risk assessment and match the standards for education premises you can find here.
· Admissions and Induction -There are increased expectations around clear admissions policies, referrals and induction so that all stakeholders know about the provision and the objectives and aims of the placement. This should be outlined in an Induction policy, not something many providers already have. The expectations around what induction involves with baseline assessments and an individual learning plan is more detailed than some providers do currently.
· Curriculum planning and policy - You are expected to have a curriculum policy in place to detail your approach to the curriculum and then plans and schemes of work that show the detail behind this. This isn’t in place formally in a lot of settings especially those who don’t work towards qualifications.
· Availability of policies - Policies are expected to be available and generally that means published on your website. I know some great providers who don’t have a website and loads that don’t publish their policies.
· Self-evaluation - AP leaders are expected to have processes of self-evaluation in place. This could be from internal development plans, stakeholder feedback and audits. I think self-evaluation does take place all the time in settings but there aren’t many who can share a formal evaluation or audit to support strengths and areas for development. We are already doing audits to support settings against these standards and if you’re interested contact us. If you’d like our self-assessment tool built around the standards we’ll give you it in exchange for your email on our mailing list which I think is a great offer!
Here's a full list of policies that are mentioned directly in the standards - they are different from LA lists which are often more comprehensive. It would still be good practice to have others, a managing allegations policy for example, but these are the ones listed explicitly in the standards:
Child protection policy
Behaviour policy
Staff code of conduct
Data protection policy
Visitors procedures
Health and safety policy
First aid policy
Admissions policy
Induction policy
Curriculum policy
If you’re an AP leader I’d recommend evaluating yourselves against the standard and then pulling together an evidence file against the standards with paperwork and examples to evidence against each point. You can then share this with commissioners and your LA during any QA session.
If this seems daunting we offer a package which provides all the paperwork with which to structure that evidence. It has over 50 downloadable and editable documents from policy templates to health and safety checklists, example induction plans and referral forms. Have a look at it in more detail here.
The document does note that these standards won’t become mandatory for those who only work with EOTAS or Post-16 students but that they are a useful guide for best practice for these settings. Don’t think they are sure about what to do with EOTAS students but I expect we’ll find out more as long-term SEN strategies are announced.
2) Strengthening protections in non-school alternative provision. Government consultation response (DfE Aug 2025)
This document summarised the consultation and the government response. It’s a useful read as it flags up their plans for future legislation and it is always good to be prepared. There is plenty of detail about responses to the consultation most of which I’ll skip over though it was interesting (and disappointing?) to see that there were only 308 responses and less than a third, only 96 where from unregistered providers themselves. I don’t think that is because of a lack of interest from the sector, I think it is because those working as unregistered provision are often isolated and information doesn’t flow well across the sector. If you’re an unregistered AP leader and not already signed up to Align please do (you can do it here). We’ve set it up as a non-profit support for non-school AP’s. We had meetings with the DfE around the framework and, if you’re reading this before December 11th2025 we have someone from the DfE joining our meeting then. The more members (membership is free!) we have the greater our voice can be.
Before I get into some points that could create issues for providers I think it is good to point out, especially if you are reading this as a commissioner or LA, unregistered providers really welcome structure and standards and credibility. The press coverage of ‘unregistered’ providers is on the whole negative and portrays an ‘under the radar’ group of operators. That is far from the truth and unregistered providers have only been operating under the radar because, up to now there has been no radar! The overall reaction to more regulation is very positive.
Key elements of upcoming legislation
· Legislation is expected to be put in place when there is parliamentary space. This means we aren’t sure of when exactly these responses will become law. It’s likely changes wouldn’t be till the next parliamentary cycle which begins in Spring 2026 though it will depend on the governments priorities exactly when it falls.
· Placements will be time-limited except in exceptional circumstances. It will be fine to put young people in AP placements full-time for 12 weeks or indefinitely for 2 days or 4 sessions a week. The full-time 12 week clarification is helpful but all those of us who have worked with vulnerable young people know that 12 weeks is too short to really impact and get long-term successful integration. This is the point that created the most dissension in the consultation response and we are seeing some changes in practice already from LAs that are causing problems for young people around this. Some LAs are now only placing students for 12 weeks in APs. They are leaving decisions to extend placements to the very last minute creating uncertainty and difficulties for those managing provisions but, more importantly introducing uncertainty for young people who most need safety and security and belonging. There are also implications for AP leaders who currently use 18 hours as a ‘part-time’ mark. If part-time placements are reduced to 2 days or 4 sessions it will reduce income from placements that currently go over those limits which are lower. There will now be a gap between what non-school providers can offer and when you are expected to register as a school.
· Young people in placements will have to be registered with a school. AT the moment local authorities place a lot of section 19 (excluded and students with medical needs) who don’t have a school registration with non-school APs. In the future they won’t be able to do this. Anecdotally, I hear that this is creating worry in LAs. There currently isn’t enough registered space to put these students and what exists is expensive. The only other option that is outlined for LAs to take is to place the students in registered online settings. As this is also a cheap option I expect we’ll see a lot of our most vulnerable students now placed in solely online offerings. I think that is a very worrying part of the plans.
· There is a real aim that non-school provision is a temporary destination with the aim of returning to a registered setting. We’d all love for that to be an accessible outcome for all of our young people but is difficult to see with the realities of our sector at the moment. Lots of APs are working with youngsters with needs for which there are no specialist provision places available or who are so anxious when they start that they don’t even make it out of their bedroom. Moving them to a place of success in a mainstream or full specialist provision in a school is a huge task.
· Local authorities will be responsible for QA checking providers against these standards. This will have to be done before commissioners can place young people with a setting (a bit like how you have to register as a school before you can take children). The quality of LA checks will be checked by Ofsted – whose inspectors are directed to try and visit all unregistered providers during a school inspection in the new framework by the way. A sign that non-school APs may get Ofsted visitors more often -what better way to prepare than having your evidence pack for the voluntary standards on hand to share!
· We need to wait and see for a response on EOTAS children. It reads like the fact that a lot of EOTAS parents had contributed to the consultation and that they felt let down by the system hit home. The DfE are doing more work around finding an appropriate solution for this – wait and see!
· There is an intention to include children in non-school AP on the Children not in School register via the Children’s wellbeing and schools bill. That is a good thing to stop vulnerable young people passing through gaps in the system.
Implications for providers, schools and LAs:
Unregistered or Non-School Alternative Provision
You need to be working towards meeting these standards. Also look at the upcoming legislation around placements, both timings and who can be placed. It would be wise to future-proof your setting by making sure you increase places directly commissioned by schools or with EOTAS pupils.
Schools/Commissioners
Ofsted’s new framework talks about making sure appropriate checks are in place for young people accessing unregistered AP. Here are your checks. Though the LA will do them for you in the future using the standards and making sure you have the evidence that the providers you use meet them will be a great way of showing that you’ve thoroughly checked them against DfE standards and you know they are a safe and positive place for your young people.
When LA checks are in place you’ll only have to check the pupil level things, their plans and outcomes and progress rather than everything, more about meeting the individual needs than whether a health and safety policy is up to date.
Local Authorities
Local authorities are going to be responsible for checking all providers against these standards before places are available to local commissioners. Ofsted will check their QA processes. This creates a big job for LAs – QAing everyone against new standards, re-writing current QA checks to fit the standards and building them into tendering frameworks as well as communicating to schools about the QA status of providers across their areas. Practice across LAs varies hugely already so it is good that this will bring some consistency, particularly for APs that work across several LAs.
Local authorities will also have the challenge of finding destinations for the section 19 young people currently accessing places with unregistered providers.
