Internationally, the term alternative education settings (AES) is used to describe schools or programmes that serve young people who are not succeeding in traditional school environments, offering those pupils an opportunity to achieve in different settings adopting different, and often innovative, approaches to learning (Aron, 2006). Forterms et al. (2023) suggest it is difficult to provide an all-encompassing definition of alternative education because of the variation between alternative education options globally. Indeed, in Finland it is referred to as Flexible Basic Education (FBE), while in Australia, programmes that cater to young people not attending mainstream school are called Flexible Learning Options (FLO). However, in England specifically, the term alternative provision is employed, referring to education arranged by local authorities for children and young people of compulsory school age who, because of reasons such as school exclusion, short or long-term illness or behaviour issues, would not otherwise receive suitable education in mainstream schools (DfE, 2013). In England, this includes settings such as pupil referral units (PRUs), alternative provision academies, free schools, and hospital schools. According to the latest report in January 2022, the number of pupils attending alternative provision has increased by over 3,100 (10%) to 35,600 since 2020/21 (DfE, 2022).

Young people attend alternative education settings for many reasons, often because of a combination of academic, economic, behavioural, social, cultural and/or emotional issues, which have caused them to become disengaged or excluded from mainstream schools (Mills & McGregor, 2010). In fact, those attending alternative provision are often identified as being ‘at-risk’ or marginalised, may have suffered neglect or trauma during their childhood, or come from low socio-economic backgrounds (Forterms et al., 2023). Moreover, a 2018 House of Commons briefing paper reported one in two pupils in alternative provision in England having social, emotional, and mental health (SEMH) as their primary category of special educational need (SEN). Most alternative provision settings therefore seek to re-engage pupils with learning, as well as promote social and emotional development, with the aim of pupils re-integrating into mainstream education.

Crucially, physical education can play a key role here, offering a means of engaging young people in positive youth development (Holt, 2016), reducing risky behaviours (Audrain-McGovern et al., 2006), and providing opportunities for the development of healthy and supportive peer friendships and adult relationships (Eime et al., 2013; Vella et al., 2014). Moreover, Ayvazo and Aljadeff-Abergel (2019) suggest that physical education is a fruitful setting for the learning of values and social skills, engaging pupils in activities which inherently require social interactions (e.g., team games) and the demonstration of pro-social behaviours (e.g., self-control, treating others safely and fairly) in emotionally stimulating situations. As such, they argue that physical education can serve as a therapeutic setting for learning and practising social objectives (Ayvazo and Aljadeff-Abergel, 2019). Hence, physical education may represent a viable context for re-engaging disaffected youth within alternative provision settings, and could serve as a catalyst to facilitate the transfer of pupils from alternative provision schools back to mainstream schooling.

However, there is no prior research exploring physical education within alternative provision schools in England, specifically, nor internationally. As such, the aims of this novel paper are twofold: (1) to map the provision of physical education in alternative provision schools in England and, (2) to identify barriers and facilitators to the delivery of physical education from the perspective of practitioners (i.e., those tasked with delivering it).

To address the two aims of this paper, we draw from a broader study that explored the role and value of PE in alternative provision schools in England across three distinct research phases. In phase 1, an online survey was distributed to lead practitioners of all alternative provision schools across England. This sought to identify how many alterative provision schools offer physical education as part of their curriculum, and how this is supported. To achieve this, a Freedom of Information (FoI) Request was approved by the Department for Education for the contact details of all alternative provision schools in England (approximately 350). A survey – containing a range of closed and open questions – was then distributed to these schools by the Youth Sport Trust (a UK charity promoting young people’s education and development through sport). Phase 2 involved a purposive sample of lead practitioners from those alternative provision schools that responded to the survey in phase one (n=48). Specifically, 14 individual, online semi-structured interviews were conducted using Microsoft Teams, with each interview being recorded and the audio subsequently being transcribed verbatim. In addition to the 14 individual interviews, we held a focus group interview with 15 practitioners who attended an event run by the Youth Sport Trust. The conversations for this focus group were centred around some of the key findings from the survey. The dialogue between practitioners was recorded using a Dictaphone and later transcribed verbatim. The final phase included four case studies of children/young people within alternative provision settings (n=25) who took part in focus group interviews using a range of different creative methods. The data reported in this paper draws from phases 1 and 2 only. The quantitative data from the survey was analysed using descriptive statistics, while the qualitative data was combined with the transcripts from the interviews and analysed thematically using both inductive and deductive procedures. The former (inductive) allowed the identified themes to be strongly linked to the data whereas the latter (deductive) allowed the data to be explored in relation to the socioecological model (McLeroy et al., 1988) which helped to illuminate the multidimensional influences that shape behaviour (in this instance, the delivery of physical education).

Findings from the survey revealed that 90% of alternative provision providers delivered some form of physical education, though less (78%) suggested that physical education was compulsory. In addition, physical education was reported to be delivered by a range of individuals with just 57% suggesting it was delivered by a specialist physical education teacher. The survey and interviews identified a range of barriers to delivering physical education in alternative provision schools. At the intrapersonal level of the socioecological model, our research found challenges included, but were not limited to, teacher confidence and competence, and a perceived lack of pedagogical content knowledge. At the interpersonal level, pupil needs and abilities, their behaviour, confidence and competence, and motivation were also reported as key barriers. Most prominent, however, was the space available (at the institutional level) to teach physical education. For instance, just 57% reported having access to an outdoor playground, while more than half (51%) did not have access to a dedicated indoor space. Furthermore, the standard of equipment and facilities, and the challenges of employing staff with relevant expertise were also cited, with interview data highlighting a ‘recruitment crisis’. Finally, negative perceptions and stigma of the children/young people who attend alternative provision at the community level, and a lack of financial support at policy level, were also reported as key barriers. This original paper is therefore the first to offer key insights into the challenges associated with delivering physical education in alternative provision settings and, given the extent of the barriers identified, it is worth noting that any interventions that aim to enhance physical education in alternative provision should seek to address multiple barriers across all levels of the socioecological model to increase the chances of success.

Aron, L. (2006). An Overview of Alternative Education. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Audrain-McGovern, J., Rodriguez, D., Wileyto, E., Schmitz, K. & Shields, P. (2006). Effect of team sport participation on genetic predisposition to adolescent smoking progression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 63 (4): 433-41. Ayvazo, S. & Aljadeff-Abergel, E. (2019) Classwide peer tutoring in a martial arts alternative education program: Enhancing social and psychomotor skills. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 63 (4): 359-368. Department for Education (2022). Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January 2022 [online] Available at: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-pupils-and-their-characteristics Department for Education (2013). Alternative provision statutory guidance for local authorities. London: Department of Education Eime, R., Young, J., Harvey, J., Charity, M. & Payne, W. (2013). A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and adolescents: informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10 (98): 1-21 Fortems, C., Hansen, B. & Glazemakers, I. (2023). Characteristics of youth in alternative education settings: A scoping literature review. Children and Youth Services Review. Holt, N. (2016). Positive youth development through sport. London: Routledge House of Commons Education Library (2018). Alternative provision education in England: Briefing paper. Number 08522. [Online] Available at: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8522/CBP-8522.pdf McLeroy, K., Bibeau, R., Steckler, D., et al. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15: 351–377 Mills, M. & McGregor, G. (2010). Re-engaging Students in Education: Success Factors in Alternative Schools. West End, Qld: Youth Affairs Network of Queensland. Vella, S., Cliff, D., Magee, C. & Okley, A. (2014). Associations between sports participation and psychological difficulties during childhood: A two-year follow up. Journal Science and Medicine in Sport, 18 (3): 304-309