It should come as no surprise that interest in internal alternative provision (IAP) – often referred to as an inclusion support base within a whole school inclusion strategy – is gaining momentum. What is surprising is how long it has taken us to get here.
An exploratory study published by the Department for Education at the end of January refers to a School and College Panel Survey from June 2023 that revealed that 12% of secondary schools and 4% of primary schools have an IAP, while 9% of secondary schools and 3% of primary schools were planning to open one. Even within this small-scale study of ten mainstream secondary schools, the research highlights a wide variety of uses and approaches. Within the key findings, the authors identify two factors for success: the importance of recruiting staff with the right skills – particularly expertise in SEND and behaviour support – and the significance of pupil-staff relationships. However, as they acknowledge, this research does not provide a clear definition of what best practice looks like for an inclusion base or specialist base within a school’s inclusion strategy.
Suspensions and exclusions have reached record levels, and while absence showed slight improvement in the autumn term, it remains a chronic issue. Current strategies to reduce both absence and exclusion are clearly falling short and the financial cost of external placements, whether respite or long-term, is becoming unsustainable. A 2018 AP market analysis showed that average costs per student ranged from £17,600 for PRUs to £20,400 for independent AP placements. Although internal AP is also a significant financial commitment, in a time of tight budgets and uncertain impact, it’s easy to see why schools are exploring internal inclusion bases or support bases as part of a broader whole school inclusion strategy to reduce lost learning.
However, establishing effective internal alternative provision — sometimes described as an inclusion support base — can be daunting. Schools face considerable obstacles, particularly due to the lack of codified standards and evidence-based practices for designing an effective inclusion base. From my own experience, I know this is no simple task. I didn’t want our provision to be merely a temporary reprieve from suspension but defining its purpose and structure was a significant challenge. In many ways, I was running a school within a school: a distinct support base serving a separate function, yet one that needed to be integrated to some degree to ensure students could successfully transition back into mainstream classes and minimise lost learning.
Fortunately, at that time, The Difference was developing a framework for internal alternative provision, which they later shared with attendees at their first symposium in June 2024. The framework focused on how internal provision can operate as part of a whole school inclusion strategy. Three key takeaways for me were:
-
It’s essential to clearly define, safeguard, and uphold the purpose, access criteria, and boundaries of your inclusion support base.
-
If students referred to IAP were to feel like valued members of the school community and be successfully reintegrated, all staff had to be involved in the process — reinforcing a genuine whole school inclusion strategy.
-
The space (its location, layout, and appearance) sends a message not just to IAP students, but to all students and staff, influencing whole-school inclusion either positively or negatively.
The good news is that schools already have – or have access to – the fundamental skills and resources needed for effective internal provision. The core challenge for schools introducing or refining their IAP or inclusion support base lies in implementing a carefully coordinated approach to allocating and managing these assets and ensuring ongoing professional development for all staff. Many school leaders, like I once was, are still working to decode this as part of building a stronger whole school inclusion strategy. As with many challenges we face in our sector, the answers exist – they just need to be shared.
To address this, The Difference has launched a network bringing together school leaders to explore strategic and operational approaches to setting up, managing, and improving internal alternative provision and inclusion bases. The stakes are high – no school leader wants to create a provision that becomes little more than a costly, short-term holding space before further suspension or permanent exclusion and further lost learning.
This is why the growing interest in internal alternative provision and specialist inclusion bases is exciting. With careful planning, adequate resources, and a whole-school commitment to inclusive practices, IAP offers a promising path to supporting our most vulnerable students while strengthening the wider school community and reducing lost learning.
At the first Internal Alternative Provision Network meeting in December, discussions focused on:
• Curriculum design and timetabling
• Using IAP to build long-term resilience
• Group dynamics
• Post-placement support
• Staffing and professional development for effective inclusion bases and support bases
Being part of this national network – the first of its kind – offers a unique opportunity to tackle this challenge head-on by collaborating with other school leaders who have faced similar struggles. Together, we aim to establish a robust evidence base that will inspire and guide future practitioners developing inclusion support bases as part of a whole school inclusion strategy.