Re-engaging Disengaged Learners: What Alternative Provision Tells Us About SEND and Inclusion Policy
by Dr Claire Baird
Why are so many children falling out of mainstream education in England?
What does Alternative Provision reveal about gaps in SEND support and inclusion policy?
And most importantly, what must change to ensure every learner belongs?
England’s education system faces a growing disengagement crisis. Rising absence, persistent exclusions, unmet special educational needs (SEND), and deteriorating mental health are pushing increasing numbers of children out of mainstream education. For many, Alternative Provision (AP) is not a symptom of failure but the point at which education finally adapts to them.
Drawing on qualitative research with young people supported by Navigators, an AP provider operating across multiple local authorities, this piece examines what effective re‑engagement really requires, and whether current SEND and AP reforms enable or hinder it. With another round of SEND reforms imminent and uncertainty surrounding Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), these findings offer timely lessons for policy design, commissioning, and accountability.
Disengagement as a System Outcome
Educational disengagement is often framed as a matter of behaviour or motivation. Evidence paints a different picture. Longitudinal research shows that early disengagement predicts long-term dropout, which is linked to unemployment, criminal justice involvement, and substance misuse (Henry et al., 2012). These trajectories develop through cumulative system failure, not momentary lapses.
At the end of 2024, 907,000 young people aged 16–24 were not in education, employment or training (NEET), 13.4% of their age group (ONS, 2024). Once a young person becomes NEET, they are significantly more likely to remain so into adulthood (Thompson, 2021). For pupils with SEND, the risks arise earlier. Delayed assessment, rigid curricula, and exclusionary practices form a pipeline from unmet need to chronic absence, exclusion, often culminating in NEET status. Policy responses that focus only on end outcomes overlook these upstream dynamics.
The role of policy in SEND exclusion and inequality
School exclusion remains one of the strongest predictors of long-term disengagement. Pupils with SEND, those eligible for free school meals, and children from certain ethnic backgrounds are disproportionately excluded from mainstream schools (DfE, 2019; Black, 2022). These inequalities are entrenched, not incidental.
Young people attending Navigators have typically faced multiple fixed-term exclusions, years out of education, failed placements, and delayed or inconsistent SEND recognition. In many cases, exclusion occurs before needs are properly understood. This raises a key policy question: do current accountability and disciplinary frameworks incentivise early intervention or premature exclusion?
When exclusion becomes a management tool rather than a last resort, the system shifts from inclusion to triage. Alternative Provision then inherits risk that could have been mitigated through early, flexible, relational support.
What Re-engagement Actually Looks Like
The insights in this section are grounded in successful re-engagement practices at Navigators. We identified four features that were consistently present where young people re-engaged meaningfully, each carrying direct implications for national policy.
None of the pupils re-engaged through immediate full-time attendance. Attempts to enforce rapid reintegration often heightened anxiety and avoidance. Engagement began only once trust and relational safety were established, typically through one-to-one mentoring or phased timetables. Policies that prioritise attendance-first accountability risk misrepresenting recovery; for complex cases, attendance is evidence of progress, not a prerequisite for it.
Hands-on, interest-led programmes, such as construction, cookery, and hair and beauty, helped pupils reconnect with learning by providing agency, purpose, and a tangible vision of success. For young people who had internalised academic failure, vocational learning restored confidence. However, current accountability structures continue to privilege narrow academic outcomes, reinforcing disadvantage for those best served by practical routes.
Navigators staff were able to adapt timetables, expectations, and environments rapidly as pupils’ needs changed. This flexibility often enabled the first accurate identification of physical, emotional, or trauma-related needs. By contrast, standardised mainstream provision can inadvertently exclude complex learners when rigid policies fail to respond to lived complexity.
Once staff understood root causes, trauma, neurodiversity, anxiety, or instability, practice shifted from behaviour management to trauma-informed, relational work. This formed the foundation for sustained engagement. Systems centred on punishment and compliance, rather than relationships, are structurally set up to reproduce the disengagement they aim to prevent.
SEND Reform: Risk or Opportunity?
By late 2024, more than 1.7 million pupils (around 20%) in England were identified as having SEND (Gov.uk, 2024). The Right Support, Right Place, Right Time plan (DfE, 2023) emphasised the need for greater integration between AP and SEND systems. Yet proposals suggesting tighter EHCP thresholds or structural reorganisation generate risk for the very young people they intend to support. For pupils already facing instability, policy uncertainty actively causes harm, delaying decisions, disrupting provision, and weakening trust – the foundation of re-engagement. The evidence points to a need for SEND reform that prioritises what works for engagement over how systems are formally organised.
Policy Recommendations
Conclusion: Engagement Is a Process, Not a Metric
Disengaged pupils are not resistant to education; they are responding to systems that have failed to accommodate them. Alternative Provision reveals what becomes possible when education adapts to learners rather than expecting uniform compliance. As SEND and AP policy evolve, particularly in light of the new white paper, the key risk is not structural failure but erosion of the conditions, flexibility, trust, and relational practice, that make engagement possible.
If policymakers want lower exclusion rates, reduced NEET figures, and better life outcomes, reforms must be rooted in the lived realities of young people and the professionals who support them. Inclusion cannot be achieved by tightening systems alone; it requires designing systems capable of listening, flexing, and responding to every learner.
As the new SEND white paper takes shape, what must be protected from the current AP evidence base? How can reform strike the right balance between earlier mainstream support and genuine flexibility? And what would meaningful co-production with young people and frontline practitioners look like in the next phase of SEND and inclusion policy?
About the Author – Dr Claire Baird
Claire brings over 20 years of experience in higher education, with a strong and growing focus on Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and inclusive practice. Her work examines how entrepreneurial thinking, creativity, and innovation can engage diverse learners and widen participation, particularly for those facing barriers in traditional education.
She is deeply committed to advancing inclusive education and developing learning environments that recognise and respond to varied student needs. Alongside her academic work, Claire actively advocates for children with SEND and their families – raising awareness, informing policy and practice, and supporting parents navigating complex education systems so that every child can thrive.
