Why Do Small Alternative Provisions Work Differently?
⏱️ Quick research overview
Evidence-based. Research-led. Shared clearly.
We are committed to evidence-based SEMH practice. We share trusted research, translating key findings into clear, accessible language to inform your professional practice.
❓ The question
What can we learn from small alternative provisions about re-engaging children in education?
This research looked closely at two small alternative provisions in England to understand not just what they did, but why they had developed their particular ways of working.
Research: Why do alternative provisions work in the way they do? Learning from small civil society alternative provisions in England
Authors: Laura Day Ashley & Jodie Pennacchia
Journal: Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties
Published online: 24 June 2026
DOI: 10.1080/13632752.2026.2679873
📌 At a glance
Select a finding to find out more.
1. Creating safety was an important starting point ▾
Staff in both alternative provisions described working with children they considered vulnerable and who had struggled in mainstream education.
Their approach included:
- trying to create a setting where children could feel safe
- believing that children could still learn and succeed
- building confidence
- taking an interest in the child as an individual.
The researchers describe an attitude of care towards children who staff felt had been marginalised or let down by wider systems. [1]
2. The provision was adapted around individual children ▾
Staff did not describe one fixed programme that every child had to follow.
Instead, they talked about adapting:
- curriculum
- qualifications
- assessment routes
- attendance expectations
- learning activities
- pastoral support
according to individual circumstances, needs and interests.
The researchers describe these approaches as personalised, flexible and responsive. [2]
3. Staff paid attention to what was happening and adjusted as they went ▾
Staff described watching closely for signs that something was or was not working.
They noticed changes such as increased anxiety, behaviour changes or difficulties at home and shared information with colleagues, families and other professionals.
They also described being willing to change a lesson or activity when it was clearly not working for the children in front of them.
The researchers describe this as paying attention to how things unfold. [3]
4. Removing barriers was part of re-engaging children in learning ▾
Staff described deliberately changing some expectations that they believed had created difficulties for their students in mainstream school.
Examples included greater flexibility around:
- uniform
- attendance
- stepping out of lessons
- behaviour
- how learning was organised.
One setting described behaviour as potentially coming from a difficulty or need, rather than automatically responding with punishment.
This does not show that removing particular rules will work for every child or every setting. It shows how these two APs had adapted their practice around the children they supported. [4]
5. Their way of working developed through care, uncertainty, attention and persistence ▾
The researchers found that these settings had not simply started with a complete educational model and followed it.
Their practices developed while working with children, often with limited information, resources and external support.
The researchers describe four connected features:
- caring to make a difference
- engaging with uncertainty
- paying attention to what happens
- finding a way to make a difference
The final idea — “finding a way” — was added by the researchers to describe the persistence shown by staff when they encountered barriers. [5]
💡 The key message
In these two alternative provisions, re-engagement was not described as coming from one programme or intervention.
It developed through care, close attention to individual children, flexibility, adapting when something was not working and continuing to look for a way forward.
🎯 Goal of the Research
The researchers wanted to understand why small alternative provisions work in the ways they do, rather than simply describe their practices.
They asked three main questions:
- Why and how did the alternative provisions start?
- How did they try to re-engage children in education, and why did they work in this way?
- How did they respond when they encountered difficulties?
The study looked at two small alternative provisions in one region of England.
Both:
- provided secondary education
- had fewer than 50 students
- were non-profit
- were outside direct state provision
- offered more flexible and personalised approaches than would usually be possible in a larger mainstream setting.
The researchers mainly gathered information through one-hour interviews with seven staff members, alongside documents about the settings and some brief visits.
🌱 What does this mean in context?
This research gives us a useful look inside two small alternative provisions.
The staff were supporting children who had found mainstream education difficult. Rather than expecting those children simply to fit back into the same structures, the settings described changing aspects of the environment and provision around them.
This included:
- smaller settings
- individualised learning
- close relationships
- flexibility
- pastoral support
- watching carefully for signs that something was not working
- changing their approach when needed.
Importantly, the researchers do not say that mainstream schools should simply copy alternative provision.
Small APs operate under very different conditions.
One setting had around 30 students and the other 16. Staff themselves felt that remaining small was important because it supported personalised relationships, communication and flexibility.
The researchers instead suggest that mainstream school leaders might reflect on which parts of these approaches could be adapted to their own context, while recognising differences in scale, pupils and institutional pressures.
So, the question is not necessarily:
“How can mainstream school become an alternative provision?”
It may be:
“What can we learn from the conditions that helped these children re-engage?”
💡 In a nutshell
- Relationships mattered. Staff described care, belief in children and knowing them as individuals as central to their approach.
- Flexibility mattered. Provision was changed around individual circumstances rather than expecting every child to follow exactly the same route.
- Attention mattered. Staff watched what happened, communicated closely and adjusted when something was not working.
- Barriers were questioned. Some rules and expectations were changed when staff believed they were getting in the way of learning.
- There was no finished formula. The researchers describe these APs as continually learning, adapting and trying to “find a way”.
🔗 Research & references
[1] Why were safety, care and belief in children important?
Day Ashley & Pennacchia (2026), Findings: Creating a place of safety / Believing in children and building their confidence, pp.6–7.
Staff described creating safety for children they considered vulnerable and maintaining belief in their ability to learn and succeed.
[2] How was provision personalised?
Day Ashley & Pennacchia (2026), Findings: Tailoring provision to children’s needs, pp.7–8.
The two settings described adapting curriculum, qualifications, attendance and learning around individual students and their circumstances.
[3] What did “paying attention” look like?
Day Ashley & Pennacchia (2026), Findings: Keeping an eye on students / Reading the room, pp.8–9.
Staff described noticing changes, sharing information and adjusting practice as they observed how children responded.
[4] What barriers did the settings try to remove?
Day Ashley & Pennacchia (2026), Findings: Removing barriers to learning, p.8.
Staff described greater flexibility around uniform, attendance, behaviour and leaving lessons when children needed space.
[5] Why did the researchers describe a “social learning” approach?
Day Ashley & Pennacchia (2026), Understanding why APs work in the way they do through the lens of social learning, pp.11–13.
The researchers connected the findings to caring about making a difference, working with uncertainty and paying close attention. They added “finding a way” to describe the persistence they observed in the accounts of AP staff.
