Blogs
Disclaimer: Blog content published on this website is provided by individual contributors and reflects their personal views, interpretations, and experiences. These views do not necessarily represent those of the Alternative Provision Research Network (APRN), its members, partners, or affiliated organisations. Reference to any products, services, organisations, or commercial materials does not imply endorsement or recommendation by APRN.
About the Author:
I grew up in a deprived community in Ghana, where education changed the course of my life. After twenty years in UK schools, I founded School2U Virtual Academy CIC because I refuse to accept that any child should be written off. We work to reach young people before they disappear from education, and to bring back those who already have.
Gloria Dalafu | Founder and Chief Executive, School2U Virtual Academy CIC
www.school2uvirtualacademy.com | gdalafu@school2uvirtualacademy.com
Invisible Learners:
The pupils our data marks as present while real life says otherwise
Gloria Dalafu, June 2026
The Pupils Who Do Not Trigger Alarms
Some of the pupils most at risk are the ones who do not set off any alarms. I call this group Invisible Learners. They are on roll, often in school, polite, compliant, and fine on paper, yet slowly disconnecting from learning, belonging, and support. Their names appear as present on the register, but their relationship with education is quietly breaking. In too many cases, they are not noticed until the situation has escalated into anxiety, school avoidance, persistent absence, a move into alternative provision, and for some, a NEET outcome.
That delay is not a small issue. It is one of the reasons schools end up intervening late, when support is harder, more costly, and far more painful for the child and their family. For over twenty years I have worked in UK schools, sitting in countless meetings about attendance, behaviour, exclusions, and safeguarding. One pattern has been painfully consistent across all of them: we spend far more time in crisis meetings than in prevention. Too often, we only come together around a young person once they are already on the edge of exclusion, severe absence, or placement breakdown, rather than when the first signs of withdrawal began to appear.
Research conducted across three UK local authorities has documented this pattern in detail, mapping a predictable descent from early anxiety through alienation and isolation to depression and educational disappearance.¹ The evidence is clear. The window for intervention exists. We are not using it.
A Quiet Pressure Point in UK Education
We are living through a quiet pressure point in UK education. Persistent absence remains significantly above pre-pandemic levels. In the 2024/25 autumn term, 17.79% of pupils in England were persistently absent, compared with pre-pandemic rates of around 11%.² The proportion of pupils who are severely absent, missing at least half of all sessions, has risen to around 2% of all pupils.
Schools are legally required to closely monitor pupils missing 10% or more of sessions.³ That threshold matters. But it also reveals a structural gap. The system is designed to catch pupils who are visibly absent. It has no equivalent mechanism for pupils who are physically present but functionally absent, attending school while quietly stepping away from learning, belonging, and connection. Referrals to children's mental health services have increased sharply in recent years.⁴ Some of those young people will be known to multiple services. Others will be in school every day, appearing to cope, not yet meeting any threshold for concern. Those are the Invisible Learners.
A Working Definition
Invisible Learners are students who are formally enrolled and often physically present in school, but who are emotionally, psychologically, or practically absent from education, such that their disengagement is not recognised by existing systems until it has significantly progressed.
This definition shifts the conversation away from blame and towards design. Labels such as unmotivated, hard to reach, or low aspiration place the problem inside the child or family. They do not capture how a learner can be sitting quietly in a classroom while internally withdrawing or masking. The concept of Invisible Learners points us towards system design and early detection, not judgement.
Invisible Learners often present in recognisable ways.⁶
• Quiet compliance and avoidance of attention.
• Masking and perfectionism alongside internal anxiety.
• Withdrawal from peers and a low sense of belonging.
• Unidentified SEND needs not yet formally recognised.
• Hidden pressures at home.
• Identity-based isolation.
These barriers may not show up as disruption. They show up as disappearance in plain sight. Research into school belonging has demonstrated that relational disconnection is a measurable and detectable precursor to disengagement, and that schools have both the capacity and the responsibility to identify it earlier.⁷
Why Current Systems Miss Invisible Learners
Policy pressure is part of the context here. The narrowing of the curriculum under high-stakes accountability frameworks, and the relentless focus on measurable attainment, has created school cultures in which the pursuit of performance can inadvertently push vulnerable young people further from visibility.⁵ Schools are not failing these pupils through malice. They are failing them through design.
Most school systems are built to respond to what is visible and measurable: Absence that crosses thresholds. Behaviour that disrupts learning. Attainment drops that stand out clearly. Safeguarding concerns that trigger referral pathways. Invisible Learners do not always trigger these signals early enough. At the stage where early intervention would be most effective, their profile can look unremarkable.
In a pressured environment where staff are triaging daily crises, this pupil can understandably be interpreted as coping. And so they remain unseen.
Why This Matters for NEET Prevention
Invisible Learners are an upstream risk group. Disengagement trajectories often begin long before formal absence becomes severe.
When a pupil starts to withdraw while still attending, the pathway can become predictable. Reduced participation. Rising anxiety. Loss of belonging. School refusal. Placement breakdown. Fragile post-16 participation. In some cases, the transition into alternative provision, or out of education entirely. The research literature documents this trajectory clearly. Young people who arrive in alternative provision rarely do so suddenly. The signs were present earlier, often in primary school, and were either missed or managed without the underlying causes being addressed.¹
The lifetime public finance cost of one young person becoming NEET is estimated at between £50,000 and £56,000, with wider economic costs exceeding £100,000 per individual.⁸ Beyond the financial impact is the human cost for the young person, their family, and their community.
Why This Is a Society Issue, Not Just a School Issue
When Invisible Learners are missed, we are not just losing grades. We are losing time, trust, and stability at the point where a young person is still reachable.
At scale, the consequences are predictable. Increased demand on mental health and specialist services. Greater pressure on alternative provision and high-needs budgets. More young people leaving without secure post-16 pathways. Reduced life chances and avoidable long-term costs for individuals and communities.
If we only respond once a child is in visible crisis, we will always be paying the highest price, human and financial. Recognising Invisible Learners earlier is a preventative act with systemic consequences.
What Needs to Change?
We need to stop treating crisis as the entry point.
Attendance must be seen as one indicator, not the whole story. Functional absence needs to be made visible earlier through simple, usable indicators aligned with what staff already notice. Children should not have to break before they are believed. Schools need low-friction pathways to flag early concerns and access proportionate support. And we need shared language across schools, local authorities, and alternative providers, so that identification is consistent and action is timely.
The Milburn Review, published in 2026, confirmed that the current system is failing one million young people who are now NEET. The solutions phase now asks what government should build. The answer must include a prevention layer that intervenes before young people become visible in the crisis data.
At School2U Virtual Academy CIC, we work with schools and local authorities to identify pupils at risk of disengagement earlier, using a six-domain early warning methodology that reads the signals a young person is giving before those signals become visible in standard data. The methodology has been developed through direct practice with young people. We provide trauma-informed and relational hybrid learning programmes that keep pupils connected while they stabilise, and support reintegration with clear plans, regular updates, and whole-family involvement. Pupils remain on roll with their home school. Our role is to prevent them from disappearing from education. The work of the University of Bath Connected Belonging research team, led by Professor Ceri Brown and Dr Alison Douthwaite, on school belonging as a driver of engagement and wellbeing underpins the relational dimension of our methodology.⁷
An Invitation to the Sector
This blog names a blind spot. It does not offer a simplistic blueprint. The definition and the problem are public because they need to be named and owned across the sector, not just within individual schools.
The children this work is trying to reach are still in school. They are still reachable. The question is whether we are willing to look before they disappear. Let’s continue the conversation and share our experiences and our ideas.
References
1 Trotman, D., Enow, L. and Tucker, S. (2019) Young people and alternative provision: Perspectives from participatory-collaborative evaluations in three UK local authorities. British Educational Research Journal, 45(2), pp. 219-237.
2 Department for Education (2025) Attendance in schools: Autumn term 2024/25. Available at: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk
3 Department for Education (2024) Improving the attendance of children with a social worker: Attendance, why it matters, key data and guidance. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/improving-the-attendance-of-children-with-a-social-worker
4 NHS Digital (2023) Mental Health of Children and Young People in England. Available at: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/mental-health-of-children-and-young-people-in-england
5 Trotman, D. and Tucker, S. (2018) Performance capital and the betrayal of youth, in: D. Trotman and S. Tucker (Eds) Youth: Global perspectives, challenges and issues of the 21st century. New York: Nova Science.
6 Trotman et al. (2019), op. cit. The spiral of vulnerabilities framework documents the recognisable early-stage presentations preceding crisis-level disengagement.
7 Brown, C., Douthwaite, A., Donnelly, M. and Shay, M. (2025) Connected Belonging: A relational and identity-based approach to schools' role in promoting child wellbeing. British Educational Research Journal. Available at: https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/berj.4112
8 Coles, B., Godfrey, C., Keung, A., Parrott, S. and Bradshaw, J. (2010) Estimating the life-time cost of NEET: 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training. University of York.
Reframing the Narrative of Alternative Provisions (APs)
A blog based on a recent podcast by,
Yannick Buditu: Educational Consultant (email: enquiries@buditu-consulting.co.uk)
Featuring, Omowunmi Fagbemi: Senior Practitioner (ohfagbemi@icloud.com)
In today’s educational landscape, Alternative Provisions (APs) play a crucial role in supporting students who face significant challenges within mainstream education. However, these institutions are often subject to stigma and misconceptions. Public narratives frequently portray APs as "last resorts" for students deemed too challenging for mainstream education. This perspective not only undermines the vital work being done in these settings but also impacts the young people who attend them. In a recent podcast , I sat down with Wunmi (Multi-Agency Special Task Force Manager at an AP in East London) to discuss the realities of APs, the challenges they address, and the successes that emerge from these unique educational environments. This blog draws from that discussion to examine APs in greater depth, engage with relevant research, and consider both their benefits and potential limitations.
One of the key points raised in the podcast was the distinction between Alternative Provisions (APs) and Pupil Referral Units (PRUs). While these terms are often used interchangeably, they serve different functions. PRUs primarily cater to students who have been permanently excluded from mainstream schools, often due to behavioural or disciplinary concerns. APs, on the other hand, provide education for a broader range of students, including those with social emotional or mental health needs, or special educational needs (SEN) that mainstream schools cannot accommodate. The distinction is not merely theoretical but has legal and practical implications. PRUs are formally recognised within government policy as state-funded institutions, while APs may encompass a wider variety of providers, including independent organisations, special schools, and therapeutic settings. The Department for Education (DfE) (2017) acknowledges that students in PRUs often experience high levels of unmet needs, particularly in relation to mental health and trauma, further reinforcing the need for more tailored interventions.
Despite stigmas, research highlights the value of APs in re-engaging students with education. A study by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) found that 72% of students in APs showed improvements in engagement and emotional well-being when provided with personalised support. Similarly, the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) (2020) reported that small class sizes and individualised learning approaches in APs lead to better student outcomes compared to mainstream settings for those with complex needs.
Wunmi emphasised the importance of a multi-disciplinary approach within APs, involving teachers, mental health professionals, and therapeutic staff. Research from the National Autistic Society (2020) supports this model, showing that integrated academic and emotional interventions are particularly effective for neurodiverse students. Moreover, trauma-informed teaching practices are becoming increasingly common within APs. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2019) highlights that trauma-informed education can significantly improve students’ emotional regulation and capacity for learning. This is particularly relevant given that a high proportion of AP students have experienced adverse childhood experiences (ACEs).
While the improvements in engagement and well-being are promising, an important question remains: is this enough? Critics argue that APs, despite their best efforts, may not always provide students with the qualifications and skills necessary for long-term success. The Social Mobility Commission (2021) warns that students in APs are less likely to achieve comparable academic outcomes to their mainstream peers, raising concerns about whether APs truly offer a pathway to upward mobility or merely function as a containment strategy for vulnerable youth. Furthermore, while APs provide an essential safety net for students who struggle in mainstream education, are they inadvertently compensating for broader systemic failures? As mainstream schools face increasing pressure to raise attainment and manage behaviour, exclusions have risen sharply, leaving APs to address the fallout. A report from the Children’s Commissioner for England (2019) noted that 70,000 children were excluded from school in a single year, many of whom ended up in APs. But if mainstream schools were better equipped to provide inclusive education, would the need for APs be as great?
One of the more provocative questions that must be considered is whether APs, despite their relational and therapeutic approaches, are merely "babysitting" disadvantaged students under the guise of inclusion. If AP students leave without equivalent qualifications, are they being set up for long-term disadvantage? The Local Government Association (2020) reported that while up to 30% of students in APs are reintegrated into mainstream schools, many still struggle to access further education and employment opportunities. Additionally, the types of qualifications offered in many APs may not align with the broader labour market demands. A lack of rigorous academic pathways could limit students' post-16 choices, reinforcing cycles of educational and economic marginalisation. This is not to undermine the crucial emotional and social support that APs provide, but it raises a critical challenge: how can APs balance relational and therapeutic approaches with robust academic and vocational training?
Alternative Provisions play an undeniably vital role in the education system, offering a lifeline to students who might otherwise be lost within mainstream schooling. The success stories are real and inspiring, as Wunmi shared in our podcast students overcoming significant barriers to achieve personal and professional success. However, as researchers and advocates for social justice, we must also ask the difficult questions:
- Do APs truly provide students with equivalent educational and career opportunities, or are they compensating for systemic failures in mainstream education?
- What reforms are needed to ensure AP students have access to the same qualifications and pathways as their peers?
- How can we ensure that APs are not just seen as containment strategies but as genuine avenues for social mobility?
By reframing the narrative surrounding APs while also critically examining their limitations, we can push for a more equitable and effective education system for all students.
References
Behaviour and Discipline in Schools Review (DfE). (2021). Restorative Practices in Behaviour Management
Children’s Commissioner for England. (2019). Children’s Lives: A snapshot of children in England today.
Department for Education (DfE). (2017). Excluded from school: Evidence from the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England
Education Endowment Foundation (EEF). (2020). Improving Attainment in Alternative Provision
Institute for Education. (2018). Engaging Parents to Improve Student Outcomes
Local Government Association. (2020). Best Practices in Reintegration from Alternative Provisions
National Autistic Society. (2020). Autism and Education: The Need for a New Approach
National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). (2019).Alternative Provision: Outcomes and Lessons Learned
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). (2019). Trauma-Informed Approaches in Education
Ofsted. (2019). Engaging Families: A Guide to Best Practices
Social Mobility Foundation. (2021). The Role of Alternative Provisions in Social Mobility
University of Leicester. (2020). The Impact of Creative Arts on Learning in APs and PRUs
