Explorative Research into In-School Support units (ISUs): A Summary & Reflections
It is timely with the increase in IAP enquiries from mainstream Primary and Secondary schools, of which the Department of Education release an Explorative Research Report on In-School Support Units, (January 2025). The document reported 50% of Secondary Schools either have or are planning to open a PSU compared to 11% of Primary Schools. Additionally, 20% Secondary Schools are likely or planning to have an IAP, compared to 7% of Primary Schools.
The term ISUs maybe new terminology for some professionals working in education, as the DfE have used this as a blanket term for all adaptive provision within mainstream schools to meet the increasing needs of pupils whilst keeping them within mainstream education. From Internal Alternate Provisions (IAPs) to Pupil Support Units (PSUs), the term ISUs covers the breadth of what mainstream schools are providing for their pupils diverse needs. The report supported the cohorts of pupils which are needing ISUs, with what I reported on 27th January 2025 in How to Develop a Successful Internalised Alternative Provision (IAP) - Payhip. Schools are using multiple units for different purposes to support the education of their children, including:
· SEMH / EBSA support: support for pupils with Social, Emotional and Mental Health (SEMH) needs and Emotionally Based School Avoidance (EBSA), with many focusing on mental health and wellbeing. Some of these units did have crossovers with wider Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), with SENCO support.
· Academic support: support for pupils who are struggling academically and require additional support to improve their grades. This included 1-1 tutor support for skills such as numeracy and literacy but also counselling support for pupils whose home life may be impacting on their ability to perform in school.
· Proactive behaviour support: early intervention support for students who are struggling with behaviour in mainstream classes. These units offered holistic support with a focus on understanding underlying pupil needs to improve behaviour, attendance and attainment. Holistic behaviour support was described as understanding and addressing the physical, emotional and social factors that may influence behaviour.
· Reactive behaviour support: reactive behaviour support used as a result of misbehaviour once it had reached a certain threshold as per the school’s behaviour policy. In some cases, these types of units were viewed primarily as a sanction, though this was not always the case. Occasionally, reactive units also included removal rooms.
· Removal rooms: these units were out of scope for the research, though some schools did operate them. This type of unit was described as a space where pupils were removed from the classroom and their peers and supervised by staff in a separate space.
Positive Pupil Outcomes
What we do know and what the research report found, was the ISUs were most successful when they were used as a pro-active approach which was built on open communication and relationships with all stakeholders. The schools which opened an ISU found re-branding the provision in a positive way to remove the stigma of being educated apart from mainstream helped the pupils to transition and still have a sense of belonging within the mainstream school.
Many Secondary schools ensured pupils still had lessons within the mainstream school as well as receiving assessed and targeted support within the ISUs. If a strength-based approach was used and communicated with the pupil from the beginning as to how the ISUs could support their education overall, the pupils were more likely to want to be in the unit therefore making it a positive experience and success. When the provision adopted a holistic approach, and was inclusion focused, the outcomes for the pupil were also more successful.
Additionally, parents were more likely to be supportive of the ISUs if the purpose was communicated from the beginning and there were regular meetings scheduled throughout to focus on their child’s learning for both SEMH and academic outcomes.
When the ISUs were less successful, the units were used as ‘removal rooms’ as part of a reactive approach. The ISUs were seen more as a sanction rather than an adaptation to close the gaps on learning. The report concluded that when this approach was adopted, there were poorer pupil outcomes, poorer parental engagement and there was less of a positive experience for pupils. The report commented when the ISUs were used as ‘removal rooms’ these were also ‘out of scope’ for the research.
The findings
Overall, the findings showed when there was a graduated response with a proactive approach, there was an increase in pupil outcomes, which included:
· An increase in positive behaviour, attendance and attainment
As well as an increase in what the report called ‘softer outcomes’, such as:
· Pupil happiness
· An ability to self-regulate emotions
· A decrease in the pupil’s ill-mental health
· Reengagement with education
· An increase in feelings of belonging.
Considerations
Schools who are considering an ISU, would need to consider how ‘soft outcomes’ could be measured so the classification of is not used a lesser outcome of what schools are historically rated on. As an SEMH specialist, I believe these outcomes are crucial to the success of the pupil as incremental steps to progress, to be able to gather the evidence for the reduction in behaviour incidents, attendance and attainment. Without the development and increase in SEMH skills such as the above and the development of Emotional Intelligence, there would not be the positive pupil outcomes which the report concluded on.
Schools also need to consider the graduated response to pupils being referred to the ISUs. Some schools used a ‘points system’ to mark against behaviour incidents whereas many schools used the needs of the adults above the needs of the child as ‘staff not being able to cope with the pupil in mainstream classrooms’. This again reinforces the importance of assessment tools and frameworks as well as a thorough referral system.
In schools where the ISUs were successful, a panel of professionals discussed the referrals case by case and in certain schools panels consisted of SLT members from other schools. Some panels had the pupils and parents on the panels as building a team around the child in a relational approach. Some of the schools also had pupils from other schools in attendance and the ISUs were used as a reintegration programme back into mainstream school.
Overall the success of the ISUs was based on a proactive, relational approach with all stakeholders. The purpose of the ISUs were clear and shared with all professionals and parents to maintain relationships and a sense of belonging. A strength-based approach was used to support the pupils learning and the pupils were part of the process to help them to close the gaps. The ISUs were not seen as an addition to the mainstream school but a part of it and clear links between the mainstream classes and the ISUs contributed to the positive pupil outcomes.
Budgets were supported from the mainstream schools, and the ISUs were more cost effective than outsourcing provision for the pupils. Staff felt a part of the mainstream school and were supported with training to understand meet the need of the pupils. Overall, when the approach was proactive the staff found the experience for themselves and the pupils a positive one.
To read the full report:
Explorative research into In-school support units
__________________________________________________________________________________
Hi I am Helen,
I am an Education Consultant from East Yorkshire. I have been in education for over 20 years as a teacher, SENDCo, Deputy Head and Acting Head. For the past 7 years I have had the role of a LA Specialist SEMH Advisor, before becoming the Director of Iris Consultancy.
I am passionate about driving a more of an inclusive Education System for disadvantaged and marginalised children/young people by developing internalised Alternative Provisions, Alternative Provisions (registered and unregistered) as well as PRUs.
I have worked with IAPs, APs and PRUs across the country in both Primary and Secondary ages; I have also successfully developed my own IAP to prevent exclusion and improve attendance, behaviour and inclusion. Services include consultancy work to set up, develop and run an IAP / AP as well as staff training on IAPS and Relational and Restorative Practice.
contactme@irisconsultancy.co.uk
www.irisconsultancy.co.uk
Helen Hatton