Heads of alternative provision: committed to realising young peoples’ potential in an unregulated market

Abstract

Heads of alternative provision: committed to realising young peoples' potential in an unregulated marketAlternative provision caters for pupils who are marginalised and excluded from mainstream schooling. In England it is generally conceptualised in policy terms as providing education to support behavioural improvements (pupils are directed off site to improve behaviour). There is very limited research on the experiences of those who work in alternative provision settings. That which does exist tends to report the commitment of these professionals to the young people with whom they work. Young people who attend these schools almost without fail talk about the relationships they experience there and the positive impact they have on them. As such there is a need to better understand the choices and motivations of those working with these young people if we are to understand the key relationships that make alternative provision work. This article fills a gap by focusing on the experiences of those managing AP settings across a geographical area and was undertaken as part of the author's professional doctorate. The findings are based on three interviews and 20 surveys and develop significantly our understanding of the motivations of those working in and managing alternative provision settings. Interesting divergences in practice are highlighted across settings and evidence is presented which shows that managers both see and work to realise the potential of the young people who attend alternative provision. Indeed, these findings suggest staff commitment should be conceptualised as belief in the potential of the young people who attend alternative provision.

Family engagement and compassion fatigue in Alternative Provision

“…But where AP resists easy categorisation by form, it provides some level of unity in terms of function: in the best APs, there is a sense of belonging and connectedness beyond that found in the mainstream (Jalali and Morgan 2018); the emphasis on relationships between children and staff and a flexibility of structure (Malcolm 2018); there is a tailored curriculum according to the interests and needs of the children (Mills and McGregor 2016); care is prioritised to create a safe space (O'Gorman, Salmon, and Murphy 2016). There is also some level of international uniformity for the sector found within the characteristics of the children that it serves with an over-representation of children from poorer backgrounds (Malcolm 2018;Skiba and Knesting 2002), children from black, Latino and mixed race backgrounds (Christle, Nelson, and Jolivette 2004;Smith 2009;Malcolm 2015) and children with special educational needs and disabilities (Trotman, Enow, and Tucker 2019;Brown 2007). Finally, there is the nature of the home contexts of children in AP: trauma, domestic and sexual abuse, teenage parenthood, neglect, family conflict, criminality, all featuring consistently in the international literature.…”

Family engagement in alternative provision

“…(p. 11) For Sliwka (2008), the defining factors of AP are its emphasis on innovation in pedagogy and curriculum-a definitional lens that focuses on the child rather than the organisational type-innovation that is 'gaining popularity among parents, to create more holistic approaches to education and focus on student potential for growth ' (Sliwka & Yee, 2015, p. 175). This focus on the child is a common theme across the literature: Jalali and Morgan (2018) highlight the sense of belonging and connectedness not experienced in mainstream schools; Malcolm (2018) discusses the emphasis on relationships between staff and children, the flexibility of structure and curriculum; McCluskey et al (2015) evidence how AP settings actively listen to parents' views on working with their children; McGregor and Mills (2012) argue that the Australian 66 D. Page schools in their study focused on changing teaching and learning rather than changing the children, as does Quinn and Poirier (2006) in the USA; Mills and McGregor (2016) detail how the curriculum was tailored to the interests and goals of students; O'Gorman et al (2016) emphasise the prioritisation of care that creates the setting as a 'safe space'.…”

“…However, while there is consistency internationally on the child-centredness, innovation and flexibility of APs, defining the sector by its characteristics is problematic for three reasons: it underplays the impact (or absence) of government policy on AP and its concomitant determination of organisational forms. In the UK context, for example, Malcolm (2018) follows the government definition provided by Taylor (2012) as 'an organisation where pupils engage in timetabled, educational activities away from school and school staff'. Here, the complexity of AP is a result of policy: just as mainstream schools are designated as local authority, independent academies or free schools, APs follow the same diversity, including pupil referral units under council control, free schools, special schools and academies within a multi-academy trust (MAT).…”

“…In the USA, Brown (2007) and Achilles et al (2007) find a similar trend of children with special needs being much more likely to be excluded and moved to AP settings. The third characteristic is an over-representation of children from poorer backgrounds in Graham et al (2019) and Malcolm (2018) in the UK, Skiba and Knesting (2002) in the USA and McGregor and Mills (2012) in Australia. Finally, there are those characteristics focused on the complexity of their family environments: life trauma, family breakdowns, domestic and sexual abuse, criminality and risk of offending, health problems, teenage parenthood, a lack of family support, neglect and family conflict, poor educational histories, all feature strongly in the international literature.…”

Turning points in a qualitatively different social space: young adults’ reflections of alternative provision

“…These pupils are the result, the wasted lives, of the neo-liberal, marketised English schooling system (Mills, Renshaw and Zipin 2013). However, those working in AP see hope in these young lives and work to support them through their education (Garner 1996;Grundy and Blandford 1999;Farouk 2014;Malcolm 2018a). The research reported below sought to explore the experiences of those who had attended AP and the impact they perceive it to have had on their opportunities and experiences in life since then.…”