What happens to pupils who don’t quite “fit” into mainstream education? For decades, “alternative provision” (AP) has existed to support young people at risk of exclusion, or already excluded, from school. But how this support is structured varies widely across the UK’s four nations. According to new research, these differences reveal more than just policy preference. They raise important questions about equity, effectiveness, and the very purpose of education.
A study published in the British Journal of Educational Studies, Outsourcing Trouble: A Home-International Comparison of Alternative Provision Across the UK, brings together voices from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to paint a rich picture of the state of AP today. Drawing on interviews with more than 400 stakeholders, including educators, pupils and parents, this research surfaces deep contrasts in approach and some uncomfortable truths.
Alternative Provision: A Tale of Four Nations
One of the study’s central findings is that each nation’s AP system reflects its broader educational ideology.
-
England has embraced a quasi-market approach, with a large and diverse number of providers. Many of these are from the private or voluntary sector. The landscape is vast, competitive and fragmented.
-
Scotland, by contrast, keeps AP firmly within mainstream schools. Exclusion is treated as a last resort, and much of the intervention happens in-house through inclusive practices.
-
Wales takes a middle road. It retains publicly delivered provision but is starting to see more diversity among providers.
-
Northern Ireland remains almost entirely reliant on state-led core provision, with very little in the way of additional or complementary programmes.
More Providers, More Exclusions?
Interestingly, the study found that having more provision does not necessarily lead to fewer exclusions. In fact, England, which has the most varied and extensive AP sector, also has the highest exclusion rates.
The researchers suggest that in some cases, the presence of a wide range of AP options may encourage schools to refer pupils out of mainstream settings rather than support them internally. This could mean that increased provision creates more demand, raising concerns that AP may be used as a way to remove difficult pupils rather than reintegrate them.
Complementary and Core Provision
The study draws a helpful distinction between core provision (such as long-term placements in Pupil Referral Units or EOTAS settings) and complementary provision (short-term interventions like therapy, tutoring or sports mentoring).
England and Wales use both types extensively. Scotland relies almost entirely on complementary support that takes place within schools. Northern Ireland provides core services only, without a broader network of flexible support.
This matters because complementary provision, when used well, can help without cutting a pupil off from mainstream education. But too much reliance on it may reduce time in class and limit long-term progress.
Who Gets What, and Where?
The researchers found significant differences in access to AP across the UK. Local authority budgets, regional geography and provider availability all make a difference. In rural areas, for instance, pupils may be left with few or no options, making support a matter of chance rather than policy.
More concerning still, the study highlights that some of the most disadvantaged pupils—those on free school meals or from Black Caribbean backgrounds—are disproportionately likely to be excluded but underrepresented in alternative provision. This suggests systemic barriers that limit access to support for the pupils who need it most.
The Quiet Rise of ‘Hidden Exclusion’
In Scotland and Wales, where formal exclusions are actively discouraged, schools may still use informal methods to remove pupils from the classroom. These include internal seclusion, reduced timetables or off-rolling. These practices are not consistently recorded, making it difficult to get a full picture of exclusion across the UK. More importantly, they can result in pupils being sidelined without appropriate oversight or support.
A Call for Evidence
Perhaps the most striking conclusion from the study is how little evidence exists on what actually works. Across all four nations, there is a lack of reliable data on the effectiveness, long-term outcomes and value for money of both core and complementary AP models.
This lack of evidence makes it hard for policymakers and practitioners to design interventions that are based on what helps pupils thrive. Instead, decisions risk being driven by ideology or cost-saving measures rather than need.
Final Thoughts
This is not just a technical issue about education structures. It is about how we treat our most vulnerable young people. Whether a pupil receives support in a school classroom, a specialist unit or a third-sector programme can change the course of their life.
As this important study shows, the UK’s four nations offer four different approaches. The question now is what they can learn from each other to ensure all pupils, regardless of background or postcode, get the support they need.
Key Takeaways
-
England has the most alternative provision and the highest exclusion rates.
-
Scotland focuses on in-school support and inclusive practices.
-
Wales and Northern Ireland retain more public control of provision.
-
A higher number of AP options does not always reduce exclusions and may even increase them.
-
Access to support is uneven, raising serious equity concerns.
-
More research is urgently needed to understand which models deliver the best outcomes.
If you work in education, policy or youth services, this research offers valuable insights and a strong case for change. You can read the full study here:
📖 Outsourcing Trouble – British Journal of Educational Studies
