As schools prepare for a new academic year, there is an important change in the landscape around suspension, permanent exclusion and alternative provision that school leaders and SENCOs need to understand.
Updated Department for Education statutory guidance on suspensions and permanent exclusions came into effect on 26 July 2026. It reinforces something that, for me, should sit at the heart of inclusive education: permanent exclusion is a last resort, and there is a lot that can happen before a child reaches that point.
This matters particularly for children with SEND.
Because behaviour is rarely just behaviour.
It can be communication. Overwhelm. Unmet need. Anxiety. A learning environment that simply isn't working for that child.
And if we only respond to what we can see on the surface, we risk missing the information that actually tells us what needs to change.
The DfE guidance is clear about the role alternative provision can play in preventing exclusion.
It specifically describes high-quality alternative provision as an important way of managing behaviour and providing an alternative to exclusion, including outreach into mainstream schools and short-term, time-limited placements for pupils who need an intervention away from their usual setting.
It also tells headteachers to consider off-site direction and managed moves as preventative measures to permanent exclusion. Any use of alternative provision should take account of the individual child's needs, including SEND and health needs.
That's significant.
It doesn't mean that a school has to work through a checklist of every alternative provision provider in the country before a child can ever be excluded.
It does mean there is an increasingly clear expectation that schools understand the pupil, intervene early, consider appropriate alternatives and have a proper evidence base for the decisions they make.
The guidance goes further around off-site direction. Before using it, the original school should be able to evidence that appropriate initial intervention has taken place, including multi-agency support or statutory assessment where relevant.
This isn't just about doing something.
It's about being able to understand and demonstrate what was tried, why it was tried, what happened and what should happen next.
This is perhaps one of the most important shifts in thinking.
Alternative provision doesn't have to be the end of a child's relationship with their school.
The guidance recognises that off-site alternative provision can be full-time or can sit alongside continued mainstream education, depending on the individual child. Placements should be time-limited, have clear objectives and be reviewed.
That creates space for a very different conversation.
Instead of:
They're struggling → behaviour deteriorates → suspensions increase → exclusion.
We can ask:
What does this child need right now?
Could they step away from part of their timetable?
Could specialist provision help us understand what is driving their disengagement?
Could they continue some learning from home, from a nurture space or another environment where they feel safer?
Could we test different approaches before making a permanent decision?
And critically: what can we learn from that intervention?
This is where I think schools need to look beyond attendance alone.
Knowing that a pupil attended six sessions of alternative provision doesn't tell us very much.
Did they engage?
What helped them engage?
Were there subjects, educators, times of day or approaches where we saw a different response?
What changed over the six weeks?
What didn't?
Did their confidence increase?
Were they able to communicate more?
What did we learn that could help their teachers, SENCO, family, educational psychologist or other professionals supporting them?
The updated guidance says that the nature of an alternative provision intervention, its objectives and its timeline should be clearly established at the outset, with the plan then monitored and reviewed.
That evidence shouldn't exist simply to prove that a school has followed a process.
It should make the next decision about the child better.
At Gaia Learning, we have been supporting neurodivergent children through specialist online alternative provision for years.
Sometimes that means a learner works with us for a relatively short period while their school and family work out what comes next.
Sometimes we're the bridge back into the classroom.
Sometimes the first step is simply helping a child engage with learning again.
We can work alongside school rather than replacing it: a learner might access Gaia from home, from a nurture space, from the school library or as part of a wider personalised timetable.
And increasingly we've realised that delivering the provision is only half of the answer.
Schools also need to be able to see its impact.
That's one of the reasons we've built Bloom.
Bloom provides the infrastructure to deliver, track and evidence learning. Rather than information sitting in disconnected emails, documents, systems and providers, it builds a picture of the learner over time -- helping the people around that child understand what is actually happening.
For a school trying to prevent exclusion, that distinction matters.
Not:
"We referred them to alternative provision."
But:
"This is what we tried. This is how the learner responded. This is what changed. This is what we've learned about their needs. And this is what we believe should happen next."
There will be circumstances where permanent exclusion is necessary. The DfE guidance recognises that.
But exclusion should be the last resort, not simply the next available step.
For children with SEND in particular, we should be asking whether we've understood enough before reaching that point.
Have we understood the need beneath the behaviour?
Have we given the child another way to engage?
Have we brought together the people who know them?
Have we tested different environments or approaches?
And can we actually see the impact of the interventions we've put in place?
Because sometimes a six-week intervention doesn't just give a child somewhere else to learn.
It gives everyone around that child the information they needed to make a better decision.
If you're a school reviewing how you support pupils at risk of suspension or permanent exclusion this September, we'd be happy to talk about how Gaia Learning and Bloom can support short-term intervention, continued learning and the evidence behind what happens next.
This article is an interpretation of the Department for Education's statutory guidance and is not legal advice. Schools should refer to the full DfE guidance when making individual exclusion or placement decisions.
Bloom enables schools to deliver live learning, track engagement, wellbeing, progress and support in real time. Helping schools intervene earlier, evidence impact and spend more time with pupils and less time on paperwork.
