What can we learn from small alternative provisions about re-engaging children and young people in education?
- Study
- Why do alternative provisions work in the way they do? Learning from small civil society alternative provisions in England
- Authors
- Laura Day Ashley and Jodie Pennacchia
- Journal
- Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, published online 24 June 2026
- Who took part
- Two small, non-profit secondary alternative provisions in one region of England (around 30 and 16 students). Seven staff interviewed for about an hour each, plus documents and brief visits.
A small, interview-based study. It describes why these settings work the way they do; it doesn’t test whether the approaches cause re-engagement. Read the original research
What the researchers found
Select a finding to read more.
1Creating safety was the starting point
Staff in both settings described working with young people they considered vulnerable, who had struggled in mainstream education. Their approach included:
- creating a setting where young people could feel safe
- believing they could still learn and succeed
- building confidence
- taking an interest in each young person as an individual.
The researchers describe an attitude of care towards young people staff felt had been let down by wider systems.
Day Ashley and Pennacchia (2026), Findings: Creating a place of safety; Believing in children and building their confidence, pp.6–7.
2Provision was adapted around each young person
There was no fixed programme everyone had to follow. Staff described adapting curriculum, qualifications, assessment routes, attendance expectations, learning activities and pastoral support to individual circumstances, needs and interests.
The researchers describe these approaches as personalised, flexible and responsive.
Day Ashley and Pennacchia (2026), Findings: Tailoring provision to children’s needs, pp.7–8.
3Staff noticed what was happening and adjusted
Staff watched closely for signs that something was or wasn’t working, such as rising anxiety, changes in behaviour or difficulties at home, and shared what they noticed with colleagues, families and other professionals.
They were willing to change a lesson or activity when it clearly wasn’t working for the young people in front of them.
Day Ashley and Pennacchia (2026), Findings: Keeping an eye on students; Reading the room, pp.8–9.
4Removing barriers was part of re-engaging
Staff deliberately changed some expectations they believed had caused difficulties in mainstream, with more flexibility around uniform, attendance, stepping out of lessons, behaviour and how learning was organised.
One setting described behaviour as possibly coming from a difficulty or need, rather than automatically responding with punishment.
This doesn’t show that removing particular rules will work for every young person or setting. It shows how these two settings adapted around the young people they supported.
Day Ashley and Pennacchia (2026), Findings: Removing barriers to learning, p.8.
5Their practice grew through care and persistence
Neither setting started with a finished model. Their practice developed while working with young people, often with limited information, resources and outside 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 last of these was added by the researchers to describe the persistence staff showed when they met barriers.
Day Ashley and Pennacchia (2026), Understanding why APs work in the way they do through the lens of social learning, pp.11–13.
Re-engagement wasn’t described as coming from one programme or intervention.
It developed through care, close attention to each young person, flexibility, changing course when something wasn’t working, and continuing to look for a way forward.
What this means for mainstream settings
The researchers don’t suggest mainstream schools should copy alternative provision. These settings were very small, and staff felt staying small was part of what made close relationships and flexibility possible.
Instead, they suggest leaders reflect on which parts could be adapted to their own context.
In a nutshell
- Relationships matteredCare, belief and knowing each young person as an individual.
- Flexibility matteredProvision changed around the young person, not the other way round.
- Attention matteredStaff watched, shared what they noticed and adjusted.
- Barriers were questionedSome rules changed when they got in the way of learning.
- No finished formulaThe settings kept learning, adapting and finding a way.
This sits closely with The BOUNCE Approach®: looking beyond behaviour, understanding what may be happening underneath, and responding to what the young person needs rather than relying on one response for everyone.
Developing an inclusion base or alternative provision in your own setting? Our BOUNCE Consultancy can help you plan it.
What you may be seeing
A young person who couldn’t manage mainstream starts turning up somewhere smaller.
What may be underneath
It may not be the place itself. It may be feeling safe, known and believed in.
What helps next
Ask which of those conditions your setting could adapt, one at a time.
Have a good look around. No account needed.
