The Alternative School Review 2026: Relationship-led alternative provision with a specialist SEN focus

This is an independent, co-educational day school designed for pupils and students who have not managed to thrive in mainstream settings. The core promise is re-engagement, a smaller setting, and a timetable that flexes around need rather than forcing uniformity. The most recent independent inspection describes a model built around personalised programmes, strong relationships with staff, and a wellbeing-first approach that is intended to remove barriers before academic progress can follow.

Leadership is structured across a wider group of sites, with an executive head and campus leadership. Ms Kirsty Swierkowski is listed as headteacher in the latest inspection documentation and is also named as lead headteacher in the school’s published staff information.

Families considering this option should view it less like a conventional “apply once a year” school and more like a placement route that can be commissioned when a child needs it, often following exclusion, anxiety-related absence, or an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) process.

The school’s identity is tightly linked to alternative provision done with intent rather than as a holding space. Official inspection evidence points to pupils feeling supported, with staff persistence when young people initially resist school routines, and a setting that rebuilds trust through consistent adult relationships and clear expectations.

There is also a distinctive “multi-campus” feel behind the scenes. The inspected provision references several small sites and specialist campuses, including EdSpace in Accrington, plus additional small provision locations and a “Floating School” concept referenced in official inspection documentation. That variety matters, because it suggests a model where placement can be matched to the pupil, rather than every pupil being forced into one standard building, timetable, and peer group.

The school’s published safeguarding information indicates a formal safeguarding structure with designated safeguarding leads and deputies across different sites. For parents, the practical implication is that safeguarding leadership is not simply “one person in one office”, it is designed to be present where pupils are, including in smaller provisions.

This review uses the published outcomes metrics provided for the school’s GCSE phase. On those measures, attainment sits well below the England average benchmarks used for comparison. The Attainment 8 score is recorded as 1.6 (England average: 0.459), with 0% recorded achieving grades 5 or above in the EBacc measure.

On the FindMySchool GCSE ranking (based on official data), the school is ranked 4,459th in England and 6th in Accrington for GCSE outcomes. This places it below England average overall, within the bottom 40% band on the same ranking framework.

It is important to interpret these numbers in context. Alternative provision and high-needs cohorts do not behave like mainstream exam factories. Placement can be short-term, entry can be mid-year, and many students arrive with disrupted prior schooling. That does not remove the need for academic ambition, but it does explain why comparing raw outcomes to a stable mainstream intake can be misleading. The more relevant question is usually whether a young person who was not attending school at all is now achieving, participating, and moving forward into education, training, or employment.

A-level outcomes are not available even though the school is described as serving up to age 18. Families who need a clearly evidenced post-16 track record should ask directly how many students are entered for A-levels or equivalent pathways each year, and what typical destinations look like.

Personalisation is the defining theme. The most recent inspection describes tailored timetables and an approach where learning is matched to interests, assessed needs, and readiness to re-engage. That includes academic and work-related options and a strong emphasis on making learning feel relevant and achievable, especially for pupils who have learned to associate school with failure.

One practical feature that stands out in the inspection evidence is the focus on assessing the nature of learning difficulties and then setting precise targets that are reviewed. In an alternative provision context, the value here is that “progress” can mean building attendance routines, tolerating classroom time, or completing meaningful units of work that prepare a student to step back into mainstream or into a specialist next phase.

The school also references a structured internal framework for progression, with curriculum strands presented as staged levels. For parents, a named framework can be helpful if it is used consistently, because it gives a shared language for targets across staff, families, and commissioning local authorities.

Published destination statistics are not available here, and the school does not present a standard “university pipeline” narrative in its public materials. Instead, its stated purpose centres on stabilising education, securing qualifications where appropriate, and supporting transition into a next setting that fits.

The most persuasive indicator of “next steps” for a school like this is often transition practice rather than headline percentages. The school describes its offer as including short-term intervention, respite, assessment work linked to EHCP processes, and planned transition back into local education wherever possible.

Parents should ask for specific examples: how reintegration is planned, what a successful transition looks like in practice, and what typical pathways are for students who do not return to mainstream. You are looking for clarity on who leads transition, how risk is managed, and how the school coordinates with local authority teams, social care, and external agencies.

Admissions work differently here than they do in most independent day schools. The school describes an open admissions approach and offers full-time, part-time, home education, and remote packages. That signals a placement model that can respond to need at different points in the year, rather than a single annual intake.

For many pupils, entry is likely to be linked to local authority funding decisions, school referrals, or EHCP naming processes. The latest inspection notes that a substantial proportion of pupils have special educational needs and disabilities, and that a number have EHCPs. That matters because it usually means admissions conversations are multi-agency, and the “parent choice plus fee payment” model is often not the reality for the typical pupil.

If your child is currently in a mainstream school, a sensible starting point is to understand the route:

• Is this being considered as an early intervention placement, a post-exclusion placement, or part of an EHCP pathway?

• Who will be the commissioning body, and what evidence is required?

• What is the expected placement length, and what does reintegration planning look like from day one?

When comparing local options, families can use the FindMySchool Saved Schools feature to track shortlists and keep notes on referral criteria, assessment steps, and transition plans across providers.

Pastoral support is central rather than an add-on. Inspection evidence describes daily routines that encourage pupils to talk about challenges and engage in goal-setting, with a broader culture that treats mental health as discussable rather than taboo.

The safeguarding picture is described as a high priority in the latest inspection documentation, with systems intended to make it easy for pupils to raise concerns privately as well as in person. For families, the practical takeaway is that a child who has struggled to communicate worries in mainstream should have multiple routes to do so here.

There is, however, a clear caveat in the most recent inspection findings about access to therapeutic specialists. The report highlights frustration around limited access to therapists and educational psychologists, and the risk of delays in putting the right support plans in place for new arrivals. For some families, that will be a decisive question, especially where rapid stabilisation depends on timely external input.

A common weakness in alternative provision is a narrow offer, limited to basic supervision plus a small number of GCSE subjects. The evidence here suggests something broader, with enrichment and distinctive learning experiences used as part of re-engagement.

The wider group describes an alternative model that can include unusual vehicles for learning, including the concept of a floating provision and other non-standard delivery routes referenced publicly. In a re-engagement context, this matters because some young people respond better to practical projects, outdoor learning, or vocationally aligned experiences than to traditional desk-based schooling.

Within campus descriptions, there is a strong emphasis on outdoor learning and adventurous activities, and a rhythm of educational visits used as part of the programme. The implication for families is that the school appears to use experiences and structured activity as a lever for behaviour regulation, attendance confidence, and social skills, not just as “nice extras”.

Parents should also ask how enrichment is supervised and risk assessed, especially for pupils with high anxiety, trauma histories, or behavioural volatility. The quality marker is whether the school can explain how off-site activity is integrated into individual plans, and how it supports reintegration goals rather than becoming a distraction.

As an independent specialist setting, the funding reality is often different from a conventional independent day school where parents pay published termly fees. Publicly available materials for this school focus on referrals and commissioned packages rather than publishing a clear 2025 to 2026 fee table.

Parents should expect fees to vary depending on the package, for example full-time versus part-time, on-site provision versus remote, and the level of specialist support required. In many cases, costs may be met through local authority commissioning or placement agreements. If you are self-funding, ask for a written breakdown of what is included, and what additional costs arise from therapies, transport, examinations, or alternative curriculum components.

On financial assistance, there is no clear public presentation of a bursary or scholarship scheme in the standard independent school sense. Families who need help with costs should raise this early, because eligibility and process, if any, will not mirror mainstream independent school bursary models.

This is a day provision with multiple sites within a wider group structure. Travel and transport can therefore be a meaningful part of the decision, particularly if a pupil is placed outside their immediate neighbourhood. Families should ask early about transport expectations, who funds it, and what happens if attendance becomes fragile.

Published information does not clearly set out standard start and finish times or wraparound care arrangements in the way many mainstream schools do. If those details matter for your family logistics, it is sensible to confirm them directly as part of the placement conversation.

• Academic outcomes in the published GCSE dataset are very low. The FindMySchool GCSE ranking places the school 4,459th in England. This will worry families seeking a conventional exam track, even though cohort context matters.

• Therapeutic access can be a pinch point. The most recent inspection identifies limited access to therapists and educational psychologists, which can delay the right support plans for some pupils, especially new arrivals.

• Admissions are likely to be referral-led and multi-agency. This can be beneficial when a child needs urgent change, but it can also feel slower and more complex than a straightforward application form.

• A multi-site model can mean travel and logistics challenges. Families should be clear about where learning will take place, what the transport plan is, and how attendance will be protected if travel becomes difficult.

This is a specialist alternative provision offer aimed at re-engaging young people who have not succeeded in mainstream education. The strengths lie in personalised timetables, relationship-led work, and a structure designed around wellbeing and safe routines. It suits families, and commissioning teams, who need an option that can meet a pupil where they are and rebuild education from first principles.

The main hurdle is fit rather than prestige. Families should look for clear evidence of stabilisation, attendance recovery, transition planning, and the practical ability to deliver therapeutic support at the pace their child needs.