Education system needs better alternatives
Anna Feuchtwang
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
The education select committee's inquiry into alternative provision in education is part of its stated commitment to social justice. This is a social justice issue.
Astonishingly, for children whose behaviour is too difficult to manage in a mainstream school, there is little clarity about the route into - and, more importantly, out of - alternative provision, and parents often have very little say about whether it is the right solution.
Pupil referral units (PRUs) can provide excellent support and education for some students but not always, and the decision to send a child there may well have motives other than providing the most appropriate education and care.
More than 70 per cent of children in PRUs have a special educational need or disability (SEND). Given the higher cost of supporting children with SEND in mainstream schools there may be a financial incentive for referring them to a PRU. As the Special Educational Consortium, based at the National Children's Bureau, told the inquiry, the funding system gives schools a perverse incentive to exclude these children because the costs associated with them transfer to local authorities.
All public bodies have a legal duty to make "reasonable adjustments" to ensure that children with special educational needs and disabilities can use their services - and schools are no different.
The high proportion of children with SEND in alternative provision reflects the challenges schools face in managing the behaviour of children that find it harder to fit into the mainstream, but there are legal provisions in the Children and Families Act 2014 for children to be provided with an education health and care (EHC) plan if the school can't meet their needs. The EHC plan is designed to enable children and carers to play a role in decisions about their education and care, including where they should go to school, and the right to challenge decisions at tribunal. But too many end up in alternative provision without a plan and no means to hold the system to account.
As the select committee heard in evidence, we have a tightly regulated mainstream education system - and a completely unregulated system of referrals for children educated outside of that.
Children in care, from ethnic minorities, with mental health needs and living in poverty - all have a higher chance of ending up in alternative provision. And these vulnerabilities can overlap with special educational needs.
Given the severe challenges these children face, it cannot be acceptable that there is precious little national data or published research to help us understand what these children are being taught in PRUs, who is teaching them, and what progress they make.
This is not simply a failure of individual services; it is a failure of the whole system to adequately plan provision. At present, this system leaves many of these pupils with no good alternatives.
Anna Feuchtwang is chief executive at National Children's Bureau