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).
