ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION


to their mainstream offering – and does anyone know what is actually practical and effective? Alternative education Provision (AeP) is designed


Alternative ideas M


ore schools should find and fund their own schemes for tackling “problem” and excluded pupils according to new coalition policy. But how many schools are ready to come up with alternatives


to serve young people whose needs are not being met and who, for a variety of reasons, are not succeeding in a traditional learning environment. current AeP provision is highly diverse and there is no one single AeP delivery model, purpose or beneficiary group. Provision varies between public, private and third


sector initiatives, including online provision, work- based learning and vocational education. AeP matters because the costs of failing young people are significant, not just for the young person and their family but in terms of the wider cost for society. We need to have a clear picture of effective AeP – not only the what but also the how and why. From a political perspective there will also always


be a tension between the need to deliver an effective alternative provision for disengaged young people alongside the imperative for a clear return on investment in what remains a minority of learners. Young people may be in AeP for one or more


of a range of reasons – learning and/or behavioural difficulties and attendance issues to complex social and emotional needs, care responsibilities, health problems, history of offending, disadvantaged family backgrounds or challenging personal histories – and effective and comprehensive assessment is fundamental to making AeP work for individuals. effective assessment of need must balance the


levels of need against risk factors, identifying potential barriers to engagement in terms of maturity of thinking, literacy skills and lifestyle issues, all of which should influence how, where and when work is undertaken. It may be appropriate to involve family members as well as the young person, during or after the initial assessment process, so that parents/carers can provide support for the young person in engaging with their programme. Assessment should not be a “one-off” or “top and tail” activity – it must be ongoing, so that “distance travelled” can be assessed accurately at any stage of the programme. There is no standard blueprint for an effective


intervention. No single approach is manifestly more effective than any other, and many could arguably be characteristics or components of effective education in any setting or context. effective AeP typically


14


The government has said that schools should be responsible for finding and funding alternative provision for excluded pupils. Drawing on new research in this area, Paul


Gutherson discusses what effective provision looks like


demonstrates high expectations and aspirations, within an environment that fosters education, emotional wellbeing and a sense of pride and safety. small class sizes and high staff/learner ratios support


flexible “can do” programmes that are usually person- centred, and can be customised to individual needs, but are also purposeful, with a firm and transparent emphasis on goals and outcomes. Key to success is a stable group of caring, knowledgeable and committed staff, supported by ongoing professional development, within a wider “safety net” of links to multiple agencies, partners and community organisations. This enables them to foster relationships based on


respect, with careful and thoughtful use of appropriate incentives and rewards, and to cultivate a sense of “community” among students and between students, families and teachers. This in turn ensures that students have the support they need to persevere and make progress, characterised by listening, caring and respectful relationships, with teachers perceived as honest, sensitive and understanding. Programmes that give young people a voice and


are rooted in a culture of empowerment, collaboration and support are more effective than blame-based or aversion therapy approaches. Programmes around leadership, physical activity or physical challenge are particularly successful in building self-esteem and promoting positive social relationships. effective use of the curriculum is characterised by flexibility and the use of appropriate strategies to address issues such as anger-management, team-building, personal safety, self-esteem, sexual health, and opportunities for peer instruction. Approaches that avoid stigmatising or demonising


challenging young people, focusing instead on interpersonal, cognitive and social skills, give young people the confidence to manage relationships, complete their education, and live and work independently. one such programme is the “Turnaround” scheme,


which takes pupils from 13 years up with substance abuse problems. It has helped more than 300 young drug users – the great majority also with a record of


offending and below level 1 in literacy and numeracy. Turnaround is funded by the Welsh Assembly and is an intensive 11 weeks (25 hours-a-week) that offers young people a chance to step outside their problems through a mixture of mentoring, cognitive behavioural therapy and outdoor activities. recent outcomes show that 61 per cent completely


rejected or significantly reduced their substance misuse, 80 per cent avoided re-offending while on the scheme, and 71 per cent changed their lives, returning to school, going to college or getting work – 100 per cent of parents said the programme had made a positive impact on their child. Where reintegration to mainstream education is


the main aim of provision, the evidence endorses reaching out proactively to young people – physically, emotionally and repeatedly – through named contacts or key workers and flexible options in terms of curriculum, delivery and timetabling. Keeping young people on the school roll and/or maintaining contact through collaboration between the alternative programme and mainstream provision creates an expectation of a return to education and increases ownership by schools of a successful re-engagement and longer-term positive outcomes. effective re-engagement requires a whole school philosophy and approach, built on shared staff awareness and understanding, and the establishment of credible relationships of trust with young people, parents and carers. some potential outcomes are difficult to measure,


may not emerge until some time after the intervention or cannot be attributed solely to AeP. Disengaged young people are not a homogeneous group; no single set of outcomes is equally relevant and meaningful to all young people, or to the other key stakeholders – parents/carers, funders, providers and assessors. Typically, one would expect one or more of a range of hard and soft outcomes. “hard” outcomes may include: improved school attendance, academic attainment; reduction in disruptive, violent or offending behaviours; fewer exclusions or suspensions. “soft” outcomes may include greater self-esteem, confidence,


motivation and health awareness; increased ability to work collaboratively; ability to cope with authority and develop and sustain relationships (family, project staff, and peers). our review of AeP provision has identified evidence


of key characteristics of successful approaches, including the outcomes that could reasonably be expected and how they can be measured. But the ongoing sustainability of these programmes needs more detailed evidence of a direct causal link between the characteristics of successful AeP and positive outcomes, including rigorous evaluation research to more closely link specific programme characteristics with specific student outcomes. From this there is the potential for developing a


formal framework, used as a standalone assessment tool and/or as part of a quality badge process. The framework would identify the appropriate tools and evidence for measuring or assessing the effectiveness of both inputs and outcomes. It would include robust methodologies for involving young people in monitoring, evaluating and reviewing their own behaviours and identifying the impacts and outcomes that are relevant and meaningful from their point of view. AeP models for reconnecting and re-engaging young people may be equally valid in the mainstream setting. This would create possibilities for developing and extending a differentiated AeP methodology into mainstream provision. This approach would fit with the trend in some local authorities to support troubled or challenging young people within mainstream schools, rather than risk marginalisation in special units or programmes. There is some support for an accountability system


for AeP that captures a richer idea of “success in education”, as well as a quality badge scheme. The review supports this and aims to build a clearer picture of what any accountability system or quality badge scheme could capture, in order to evidence the effectiveness of AeP appropriately. The AeP framework, once developed and validated, could underpin any potential development of an accredited quality badge, as part of a wider accountability system for AeP. This would be available to all learning provision that comes within the definition of AeP and that has been judged to offer good quality teaching and learning experiences that are based on meeting identified needs.


SecEd • Paul Gutherson is a consultant at CfBT Education Trust.


Further information A copy of the paper Achieving Successful Outcomes Through Alternative Education Provision can be downloaded from www.cfbt.com


SecEd • April 14 2011


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16