Mainstream education, as it stands, works really well for only about half of all pupils.

That might sound harsh, but it’s something I’ve seen again and again, both in and out of the classroom. 

The structure, the expectations, the pace - all of it is geared towards a certain kind of learner. If you’re wired that way, great, but if you’re not, it can feel like the whole system is stacked against you.

Alternative provision versus mainstream

But what if the models and mindsets we see in alternative provision weren’t the back-up plan, but the starting point? Would mainstream be far more inclusive than it is now, or just exclude a different set of children?

I’ve been working in alternative provision for a while now, and what strikes me most is how different it feels from the mainstream. Not just in terms of the behaviour we see or the curriculum on offer, but in the basic assumptions we make about young people.

There’s a huge emphasis on relationships, relevance and flexibility. That’s not because we’re being “soft”, but because that’s what works.

Models of education

Of course, some pupils thrive in traditional settings. I’m not suggesting we throw it all out. 

But when a system is working well for only 50 per cent of young people, we’ve got to ask what’s happening with the other half. Are they disengaged? Misunderstood? Labelled as “low ability”? Or are we just asking them to learn in a way that doesn’t play to their strengths?

Take a look at how we organise the curriculum. It’s heavily focused on academic subjects and written outcomes. There’s value in that, absolutely, but it can’t be the only thing we value. 

What about the pupil who’s brilliant with their hands? Or the one who comes alive when they’re on stage, in the studio or leading a football session?

Vocational courses

We need to create more space for those kinds of strengths. Not as an afterthought, but as a core part of what school is. 

Imagine a system with different routes - academic, creative, vocational, therapeutic - each one equally valued, properly resourced and open to all. It wouldn’t mean lowering standards; it would mean broadening the definition of success. Everyone would benefit, not just a few. 

Would it look different? Yes, it would. Timetables would shift. Staff roles might adapt. Some schools might focus more on music or sport or enterprise, but that’s not impossible. 

Teacher training

We already have specialist schools and trusts with different focuses. What I’m talking about is extending that thinking across the board, so all pupils - not just the ones who happen to land in the right place - get a shot at an education that fits.

Of course, people will say it’s too expensive, but here’s the thing: we’re already paying. We’re paying for the fallout when the system doesn’t work, for rising mental-health needs, for the cost of young people leaving school without qualifications, for costly interventions that come too late. We’re funding expensive crisis responses instead of early support.

I’ve seen young people in AP who ended up there simply because the mainstream system couldn’t stretch to meet them. If we’d been able to plan for their needs earlier - and I mean really plan, not just bolt on a bit of support - they might never have needed to leave mainstream school. 

That early planning matters. It’s not just about SEND or behavioural needs, either. It’s about recognising that not all pupils learn best in the same way, and that when we personalise education and make it feel meaningful, behaviour and engagement improve. Teachers’ lives get easier, too, because they’re not spending every day firefighting.

Class-size myth

People often think AP is all about small class sizes, but that’s only part of the picture. The real difference is that pupils feel known. They’re seen as individuals. Their voices matter. You can’t replicate that by cutting class sizes alone, but you can build a culture that values relationships and flexibility, no matter the setting.

We have the people to do this already. We’ve got teachers with passions beyond their subjects - musicians, athletes, entrepreneurs - who could inspire the next generation if given the chance. We can also open up new pathways into teaching. Assessment-based routes, for example, could bring in professionals from other fields, especially in creative and vocational areas. It already happens in the independent sector. There’s no reason it couldn’t happen more widely.

I’m not pretending any of this is easy - system change never is - but we don’t have to wait for a national overhaul to get started. Schools can begin by building out their own areas of strength; trusts can collaborate more; and local areas can think more strategically about provision. The shift can happen step by step.

Too many young people go through school feeling like they’re failing. Too many leave thinking they’re not good enough. That’s not their fault, but a symptom of a system that isn’t built with them in mind.

Phil Denton is chief operating officer of EdStart Schools

You can now get the UK’s most-trusted source of education news in a mobile app. Get Tes magazine on iOS and on Android