Alternative provision & PRUs · England

Report cards under the renewed framework

Every alternative provision school and pupil referral unit inspected under Ofsted's renewed education inspection framework, with the grade awarded in each evaluation area, what inspectors praised, and what they asked leaders to do next.

25 report cards 18 Nov 2025 – 9 Jun 2026 Source: Ofsted, checked 8 Sep 2026

The grading scale

From 10 November 2025 there is no overall effectiveness grade. Each evaluation area is graded on a five-point scale, and safeguarding is judged separately as met or not met.

Exceptional

The strong standard, plus practice of the highest quality that could be shared.

Strong standard

All expected and strong standards met.

Expected standard

All standards met, including legal requirements.

Needs attention

Expected standard not achieved; practice inconsistent or limited in impact.

Urgent improvement

Lowest quality provision; urgent action required.

Where the grades landed

Across the 25 report cards, the pattern is consistent: this sector inspects well on relationships, inclusion, attendance and personal development, and less well on curriculum, teaching and academic achievement.

No setting was graded exceptional for curriculum and teaching or for personal development and wellbeing. Only four settings received an exceptional grade in any area — and every one of those was for inclusion, achievement, attendance and behaviour, or leadership and governance.

The report cards

Grades read in the order Ofsted publishes them. Strengths and next steps are drawn from the report text; quoted phrases are the inspectors'.

Show
School Grades by evaluation area Strengths Areas for development

What the reports say collectively

Recurring findings across all 25 report cards, and what they imply for settings yet to be inspected.

The two settings placed in special measures

Two of the 25 were graded urgent improvement in every area with safeguarding not met. Their next steps read as a single warning about oversight rather than about classroom practice.

Bishopton PRU (Stockton-on-Tees) and The Skills Hub (Hillingdon)

Neither report describes staff who do not care. Both describe positive relationships, a coherent PSHE curriculum, pastoral coaching and enrichment. What failed in both was the system around that goodwill:

  • Safeguarding oversight of pupils educated off site. Both trusts were told to review arrangements for pupils not on the main site — the structural risk that defines AP, where rolls are fluid and pupils are often dual-registered.
  • Leadership capacity and specialist expertise. Bishopton's trust was told to ensure leaders have "the capacity, and the necessary knowledge and expertise, to lead a pupil referral unit" and that staffing is sufficient. Running AP is treated as a distinct competence, not a variant of running a mainstream school.
  • Assurance that policy is actually enacted. Both were told leaders must be able to prove that agreed policies and the curriculum happen as intended — having the policy is not the standard.
  • Delivery of EHC plan provision. Bishopton was told staff must effectively deliver the provision set out in pupils' EHC plans or individual support plans.
  • Statutory curriculum entitlement. Both were told pupils must receive their full entitlement — careers education at Bishopton, statutory RSE at The Skills Hub.

Where to put the effort

The eight things this set of reports would have a setting check first, in rough order of how often they appear.