Research School Network: Multiple Transitions, Lasting Impact Mathematical Confidence and Progress in Alternative Provision

The increasingly significant role of Alternative Provision (AP) within the educational landscape reflects the growing number of young people who, for a variety of reasons beyond the scope of this discussion, require an educational experience different from that typically offered within mainstream settings. Alongside the benefits of this type of provision come a number of inherent challenges, including the increased frequency of transitions experienced by these pupils — not only in number, but also in their quality and consistency.

There is often considerable investment into key transition phases in education, such as the KS2 to KS3 transition.

However, the same level of planning is not always evident in the transition to and from AP settings, despite much research highlighting the importance of these periods of change. Learning and progression are inevitably influenced by this, particularly in mathematics where continuity and sequencing is so important.

The Department for Education noted in their ​‘Creating opportunity for all’ roadmap that only 4 percent of students enrolled in AP achieve a passing GCSE grade in Maths and English (DofE, 2018). Transitions for learners in Alternative Provision (AP) and Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) settings represent one of the most vulnerable phases in a learner’s mathematical development. Such transitions frequently disrupt continuity of learning, with implications for both attainment and learner confidence.

Mathematics when taught as a cumulative subject, develops proficient mathematicians (Mayfield et al., 2002). The NCETM’s Teaching for Mastery framework (2017) emphasises the importance of carefully sequenced learning, in which concepts are developed through small, coherent steps. However, learners who experience repeated transitions between educational settings may not always encounter this same coherence. Differences in curriculum design and delivery can interrupt the development of mathematical thinking and reduce opportunities to consolidate prior learning. Although it is widely recognised that incremental progression is essential for establishing secure mathematical foundations, transitions may exacerbate existing gaps, potentially leading to stagnation or even regression.

These disruptions can also contribute to mathematics anxiety, further inhibiting engagement, confidence and attainment. It can also, due to the time bound nature of the work in AP, limit the foundational skills learners require, as the teaching can veer towards curriculum prioritisation and gap filling rather than long-term sequenced progression (Kinsella et al., 2019).

In line with this view Skemp (2002) distinguishes between relational understanding characterised by comprehension of both procedures and underlying concepts and instrumental understanding, which focuses on the application of memorised facts. In contexts where learners experience fragmented or transient educational experiences, there may be an increased reliance on instrumental approaches as a means of addressing gaps in knowledge. While such approaches may yield short term procedural competence, this can pose a risk to learners later facing difficulty when generalising skills and making meaningful connections.


Barriers associated with transition often arise from misalignment between systems, pedagogy, and learner need. Recognising these barriers is an important first step. By applying research-informed approaches consistently — particularly those advocated by the NCETM (2017) — teachers can help close gaps in knowledge while supporting deeper and more meaningful mathematical learning.

Research relating to Alternative Provision remains relatively limited — including in relation to mathematics teaching and learning. As a result, maths teachers must remain informed by emerging evidence and smaller-scale studies that may offer valuable insights into effective practice in AP. It also reinforces the need for both mainstream schools and AP settings to give greater strategic consideration to transition processes, including maintaining an informed understanding of each other’s curriculum approaches in order to make appropriate adaptations that best support pupils’ learning. Without this collaboration and continuity, pupils experiencing AP face the risk of continually ​‘starting again’ in maths, rather than being supported to build solid and connected understanding over time. This collaboration and continuity should not be viewed as a luxury, but rather a fundamental expectation.