The new Ofsted framework and Alternative Provision.
How does the new Ofsted framework affect the way schools use AP?
The education headlines last week were all around normal school inspections starting up again at the beginning of next month, now under the new framework. Whatever you think about the new Ofsted framework, it does have one good thing about it, inclusion and working with disadvantaged pupils does run through every area. If a renewed focus on young people on the margins of our education system comes out of it, then at least there will be some positives.
So, what does the new framework, the toolkit and the inspector guidance tell us about how schools should work with AP?
One point to note first – I’m coming at this from reading through the paperwork and having seen some great practice across schools. We haven’t had more than pilot inspections at the moment so we’re running without all the information and experience that came from having gone through the previous framework so many times. I’m pulling what I can from the published guidance and looking at that in the light of the evidence and practice you could present.
If you’re an AP it is also worth looking at the new framework. These are the standards the schools you work with will now be working towards. If you can support them as much as possible with these and, if you can deliver successful outcomes for the young people you work with you’ll be the AP of choice when it comes to further commissioning decisions.
Before we get into the detail, one interesting point is that Ofsted seem slightly at odds with the DfE at the moment when it comes to using AP. The recent DfE Non-School guidance and voluntary standards (and the DfE in meetings) have made it clear that they see ‘unregistered’ AP as an important part of the sector. They have re-named it ‘Non-School’ AP and are working to bring in standards and legislation to accredit settings working under this framework (find out more about these standards here). The new Ofsted documents still use the term ‘unregistered’ and phrases like “inappropriate, unregistered or unmonitored alternative provision” which makes it sound like a really negative option for schools. If decisions around providers are led by the needs of the child and QA and partnership is thorough and strong, then ‘Non-School’ AP which allows a really specialist approach can be a fantastic option for struggling young people. It’s still not unusual to hear phrases like ‘our trust doesn’t use unregistered providers’. I can see the added security that using registered providers has for schools but if, as a school, you’ve got everything in place in terms of QA and support for pupils then a specialist non-school provision may be a much better fit for a learner. Placements are now supposed to be in the pupil’s best interest so if, for example, a learner has a real ambition to move into motor mechanics is it better to place them with an unregistered vocational setting that teaches mechanics or a fully registered provision with an academic approach?
What does the new framework say about AP?
What is clear in the new framework is that Ofsted expects schools to treat AP more clearly as part of a positive inclusion strategy rather than a handy place to move problems to. They expect clear commissioning decisions in the best interests of young people, robust QA and assessment of the curriculum diet young people are receiving in the settings.
If we look at the places AP shows up in the new Ofsted materials, you can see it mentioned even before inspectors come through the door.
During the first planning call inspectors need to know:
Whether any pupils are in off‑site AP.
The name, address and registration status of each provider, and numbers, reasons, start dates and hours pupils attend there.
Whether any pupil support unit or on‑site “AP‑like” provision exists under the school’s URN, including size, purpose, timetables and who it serves.
In academy trusts, whether any pupils have been moved to a different academy acting as AP and are now on roll there.
In some contexts, AP and where pupils are attending hasn’t always been information at the fingertips of everyone one SLT – I’ve been on several visits where the head has given me a different picture of a schools AP use than the pastoral staff working on the ground. It’s important to keep records up to date but also accessible by any of your senior staff. As was the case under the last framework safeguarding will not be met in the framework if leaders don’t know where their pupils are. An up-to-date central record of providers and pupils involved is key, never keep all the information with one member of staff – you never know when absence could strike.
Under this framework it also includes internal AP and cross-trust AP. AP use isn’t just a small part of a meeting during the inspection, the use of AP is part of the basic risk picture of the school from the outset and your responses around it in the planning meeting could prompt greater scrutiny during the inspection itself.
It isn’t directly AP but very closely linked - the new framework materials are clearer about off‑rolling and inclusion. The language around off‑rolling is really explicit: moving pupils to AP or onto a different roll for the benefit of the school, rather than the child, will raise serious concerns. When you’re looking at managed moves, off‑site direction or transfers onto an AP roll they are all acceptable as long as they are:
1) In the pupil’s best interests.
2) Within statutory guidance.
3) Properly documented and reviewed.
It sounds a fairly obvious statement, but I think this theme of the ‘pupil’s best interests’ should run across all our decision making. You can say it easily, but it does throw up a tension. The decision to remove a student from the school site is sometimes taken because of the impact they have on others and the need for respite for the school community. I have heard justification for poor placements being the benefit on the rest of school and staff if that young person is off-site. There also needs to be a justification in terms of the young person and their interests however ‘difficult’ they are. It helps to have a really good grasp of the provision available in your area, the strengths and specialisms of each and to also have a good understanding of the barriers and challenges the young person faces. If you know these then you can match the best option to the needs of that young person.
“Inspectors will want to understand not just that you “use AP”, but why, for whom and to what effect – and whether there is a trajectory back into mainstream or towards a sustainable post‑16 destination.” Ofsted 2025
Recent movement in DfE guidance has reinforced the position of AP as a temporary strategy. It needs a clear purpose and defined outcomes. As well as working with parents/carers and the AP itself to define some targets for placements it is important to review these regularly to track that trajectory and make sure the interventions you’ve put in place are working.
In the new framework, safeguarding is a separate judgement on a met / not met scale.
Inspectors evaluate whether leaders:
“Ensure procedures protect pupils who are at greater risk of harm, “for example those attending alternative provision”.
Get written confirmation that the required safeguarding checks have been carried out on all staff working at any AP used by the school.”
Safeguarding is “not met” if leaders cannot show they know where pupils are, or that they have taken steps to safeguard them, including those in “inappropriate, unregistered or unmonitored alternative provision”.
Note that this doesn’t say you can’t use unregistered provision, but you will have to check that it is appropriate and that you’ve taken steps to safeguard the pupils there. In terms of QA’ing settings and making sure you check all the things you should then using the framework of the Non-School standards is a great way to start. There’s an audit we’ve put together that you could use here. As promised legislation comes in it is going to be the framework that LA’s use to approve APs (some are already using it) so it demonstrates best practice in the standards expected by providers.
As well as QA checks covered in the framework (around Health and Safety and Safeguarding basics) it is also important to keep ensuring your pupils are safe with a provider. Regular contact, daily attendance reports and announced and unannounced drop in visits are all important. Keep a record of all contact with a placement to evidence you are close to the pupil and their education even if it is off-site. This has the added benefit of keeping strong links between pupils, your staff and their home school. It makes it easier when and if they transition back and re-integrate and keeps relationships positive making it much easier to deal with any problems that crop up in the placement.
AP use is also threaded through the Inclusion section. It looks at whether AP is suitable and safe, used in pupils’ best interests, and whether leaders take responsibility for education and welfare while pupils are there. A couple of tools to help do this are a strong individual plan for each student. If you look at the beginning of a placement for some objectives, you want from the AP it helps evaluate the suitability of the placement. If those objectives are put together and agreed with parents, the pupil, yourselves as commissioner and the AP they are more likely to be successful. The AP, if they are working to the DfE standards should be reviewing placements every 6 weeks so it makes sense to follow this timescale as a school too. The objectives could be around academic progress or softer skills that will help the pupils reintegrate or transition successfully. Improving attendance, dealing with conflict or a reduction in negative behaviours could all be tracked. It’s much easier to prove that a placement is suitable if the young person is meeting their targets. If they aren’t and the placement isn’t working, then it would be best to try something different.
In terms of taking responsibility for education and welfare, as well as QA’ing and checking the provision there should be regular contact with the young person and parents or carers to check welfare. This may mean home visits and regular checks outside the provision, certainly having a real understanding of potential risk and vulnerabilities for the young people and working to mitigate these. Every young person is different but a risk assessment for any that are out of school, especially if their provision is less than full-time hours is helpful. At one point the National Crime Agency had a study which stated that 100% of the young people involved in CCE had been excluded. Any child out of your immediate school is more vulnerable so think about how you can mitigate any risks.
AP is also mentioned in other sections:
In attendance and behaviour: the framework talks about monitoring AP attendance daily and over time and then reintegrating pupils carefully when they return and managing behaviour effectively. There is a descriptor in ‘Urgent improvement’ which talks about “leaders who do not monitor attendance properly, including at alternative provision”. An AP should be reporting attendance to school on a same day basis and within 30 minutes of their session starting. They should also support you in attendance interventions. The best are in regular contact with parents, do home visits and full intervention programmes, some even put on transport to get young people in. As the home school though, you are responsible for tracking attendance and making sure there is intervention where needed, working together with the AP setting if possible.
In personal development and wellbeing, it talks about ensuring pupils in AP continue to receive appropriate personal development and RHE/RSHE. When a young person moves to AP they don’t just lose out on their academic classes. They may also miss out on all the other support your school gives to make students successful. They miss out on your PSHE programme, on key safeguarding teaching and careers support. Make sure you know which of these the AP offers, what gaps that leaves for the young person and make arrangements to fill these gaps. The best APs will have great programmes but gaps at others may mean arranging careers interviews or delivering safeguarding interventions to ensure a young person in getting that same support as their peers.
The Reality:
I’ve been a school leader who heads up AP as one aspect of an overwhelming job. In my visits to schools I rarely see an AP lead who has time to really manage it well. That means 6 weekly reviews, the tracking of placements and QA can slip. If you need some support around embedding structures, QAing provisions or tailoring your approach then do get in touch. In the meantime here’s a checklist of questions you can ask yourself and evidence you can gather to make sure your practice around AP is excellent.
Alternative Provision - School Checklist
1) Is your approach to AP included in policy and process? Do you have an AP policy and is it covered in behaviour, attendance and safeguarding policies?
Evidence: AP Policy, AP considered in other key school policies.
2) Do governors understand and regularly review your use of AP?
Evidence: AP agenda on governors meetings, Annual AP report to governors
3) Do you have a good understanding of the strengths and limitations of the local provision on offer?
Evidence: Summary of all local provisions, cost, curriculum, strengths, weaknesses and specialisations.
4) Have you carried out and recorded QA checks on all the provisions in use?
Evidence: Records kept of AP Ofsted reports, school QA visits and (for non-school AP) audits against DfE standards.
5) Do QA checks include letters of assurance?
Evidence: Copies of letters of assurance from each provider used.
6) Is there a record of each provision in use including registration status, name and address, number of pupils, hours and starting/review dates?
Evidence: Centralised ‘live’ record including names, numbers, timetable and provision details.
7) Is there a communication agreement in place with each provision?
Evidence: Communication agreement to include key contacts for safeguarding, attendance, and finance.
8) Is there a record kept of placement communication including calls/emails and visits?
Evidence: Central spreadsheet tracking all contact including regular visits and calls.
9) Are young people and provisions regularly visited including to look at work and as unannounced drop-ins?
Evidence: Central spreadsheet tracking all contact including regular visits and calls.
10) Is there an SLA in place for each placement that outlines the school’s expectations?
Evidence: SLA that covers expectations of AP (in terms of days, hours, curriculum, attendance and safeguarding reporting).
11) Is the rationale for each placement recorded?
Evidence: Pupil-centred reasoning behind each placement.
12) Has the vulnerability for each student been risk assessed and welfare support put in place?
Evidence: Vulnerability risk assessment and, where necessary welfare plan in place.
13) Has accurate safeguarding, behavioural and academic information been passed on to support the success of the placement?
Evidence: Comprehensive referral forms including safeguarding and academic data.
14) Is attendance tracked daily with an intervention plan available for students falling below national averages?
Evidence: Attendance reports from APs. Joint intervention plans where attendance is falling. Impact data to show success of interventions.
15) Is there a pupil plan in place with objectives and agreed by parents/carers, pupils, school and AP?
Evidence: Individual pupil plans with relevant objectives and 6 weekly review points.
16) Is the placement reviewed every six weeks?
Evidence: 6 weekly reviews recorded on pupil plans. This includes input from all stakeholders including pupil voice and parents/carers.
17) Has the AP curriculum been checked against expected PSHE, RSE and Careers delivery and learning gaps filled?
Evidence: Curriculum reviews and details of additional support (e.g. Careers interviews) where necessary.
18) Are impact measures in place to understand the success of the placement?
Evidence: Baseline data is collected, and placements are tracked to show impact. There is evidence of placement change where placements aren’t working.
19) Is there a plan and support towards successful reintegration at the end of the placement?
Evidence: Plans in place back in school to support reintegration. Evidence of long-term success on return to school.
