Education Endowment Foundation:Understanding the use of internal provision for pupils at risk of persistent absence or exclusion

Understanding the use of internal provision for pupils at risk of persistent absence or exclusion

Implementation costThe cost estimates in the Toolkits are based on the average cost of delivering the intervention.
Evidence strengthThis rating provides an overall estimate of the robustness of the evidence, to help support professional decision-making in schools.
Impact (months)The impact measure shows the number of additional months of progress made, on average, by children and young people who received the intervention, compared to similar children and young people who did not.
-
Project info

Independent Evaluator

NFER logo
NFER
The Difference logo
The Difference

The project

This study is a ​‘School Choices’ project. School leaders make choices about school-wide practices and approaches that are intended to produce positive outcomes for students. However, there is limited or no research evidence on the overall impact of some school-level decisions, creating opportunities to explore how evidence-based approaches can support better decision-making.

This study aimed to explore different approaches to internal provision to support students considered ​“at risk” of persistent absence and/​or exclusion and the impacts of these different approaches on student outcomes, including attendance.

A scoping phase survey explored secondary schools’ internal provision approaches and whether distinct groupings of schools could be identified to make an impact evaluation viable. The following approaches were identified by classifying schools’ responses:

  • ‘Embedded support’: schools in this group more often delivered ​‘tailored’ provision for at-risk students, to a larger number and over longer periods, while ​‘at-risk’ students typically remained in mainstream classes while receiving additional support.
  • ‘Parallel support’: schools in this group tended to provide ​‘standardised’ provision, usually delivered outside mainstream classrooms, to fewer students and for shorter periods (e.g., social, emotional and mental health support, or provision of vocational courses)
  • ‘Undefined provision’: schools in this group had no (or unknown) alternative provision for students at risk of exclusion due to challenging behaviour and/​or persistent absence

The impact evaluation examined how the alternative provision approaches affected the likelihood of student absence, suspension, exclusion, and unexplained school exits. Student outcomes were analysed for all students and the ​‘at risk’ group.

NB: This project originally used the term ​‘internal alternative provision (AP)’. This term has been revised because definitions of internal AP vary across government guidance, research, and individual interpretation, and are used inconsistently. The broader term ​‘internal provision’ is used throughout the study to encompass the widest range of school support for pupils at risk of persistent absence and/​or exclusion.

Outcome/​Group
ImpactThe size of the difference between pupils in this trial and other pupils
SecurityHow confident are we in this result?
Probability of suspension, exclusion, and/or unexplained school exits among the ‘at-risk’ group of students
Effect size 0.02

EEF summary

The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) partnered with the Youth Endowment Fund (YEF) to commission a series of research projects to identify effective approaches for supporting students at high risk of absenteeism and/​or exclusion and reduce their risk of involvement in violence. This study was funded through that programme.

The use of internal provision in secondary schools has grown rapidly in recent years. This growth reflects efforts to reduce permanent exclusions, limited access to high-quality external alternative provision, and rising social, emotional, and mental healthneeds among students, which tend to link to higher absence rates. However, schools define, deliver, and use internal provision in very different ways. As a result, there is limited evidence on which approaches are most effective in improving attendance and outcomes such as suspension, exclusion, and unexplained school exits. This study was funded to address this evidence gap.

The research is unable to draw firm conclusions about the relative impact of using ​‘embedded’ or ​‘parallel’ approaches to internal provision on students’ likelihood of suspension, exclusion, or unexplained school exit. This was true for all students, as well as students in the ​‘at-risk’ subgroup, and other subgroups (including students eligible for free school meals, different year groups, ethnicities, and sexes). The study also found no clear differences when comparing schools with defined internal provision models (‘parallel’ and ​‘embedded’) to those with ​‘undefined provision’.

The implementation and process evaluationAn IPE is used to understand how and why an intervention has (or has not) been successful. Data is analysed to explore programme quality, reach, adaptation and differentiation, as well as setting fidelity and responsiveness to the trial design. (IPE) identified the following key findings:

  • Schools’ approaches overlapped more than expected, making it difficult to distinguish clearly between models or compare their impact.
  • Across the 12 schools who provided detailed case studies, internal provision varied widely.
  • Most schools appeared to develop their own approaches, shaped by their context, ethos, capacity, and students’ needs.
  • Schools reported a range of perceived benefits for students who accessed internal provision; with some students experiencing substantial improvements, while other students experienced more limited or short-term improvements, particularly where their needs were more complex.

Were the schools in the trial similar to my school?

Schools in this study:

  • 478 secondary schools across England, using outcome data from the 2022/23 academic year.
  • 12 schools were involved in case study visits to understand different approaches to supporting students at risk of absence and/​or exclusion.
  • Were broadly representative of secondary schools nationally. Locations included the East Midlands and South East, (less likely to be in London), the North West or the West Midlands
  • Were slightly larger on average but otherwise had similar characteristics.
  • Student characteristics were also broadly similar to the national picture across a range of indicators.
  • Some minor differences were observed between the two internal provision models:
    • Schools using ​‘parallel provision’ were somewhat more likely to be located in the East Midlands or London.
    • Schools using ​‘embedded provision’ were slightly more likely to be rated Ofsted ​‘Outstanding’, have marginally higher Progress 8 scores, and somewhat different student demographics.

How much will it cost?

The cost evaluation examined the resources involved in delivering internal provision, based on information from seven case-study schools. Because schools organised and defined their provision in different ways and often found it difficult to separate costs for ​“at risk” students, it was not possible to produce reliable average costs per school or per student.

Overall, staff time represented the largest resource, with time split broadly between managing and delivering support. Some schools also reported additional financial costs, particularly where provision involved dedicated internal spaces.

Downloads