The EOTAS consultation ends on September 18th. My answers are below. Clicking on eg A7 or A19 will take you directly to the specific numbered answer. Scroll down for the GOV.UK consultation link plus a page link for all my EOTAS consultation articles.
A1 . . . . . A2 . . . . . A4 . . . . . A7 . . . . . A8
A9 . . . . . A10 . . . . . A11 . . . . . A12 . . . . . A13
A14 . . . . . A15 . . . . . A16 . . . . . A17 . . . . . A19
Q.1. How can we best support the needs of children and young people who are not eligible for a Specialist Provision Package but are unable to continue their education in a formal setting?
Provide any information you consider helpful (optional, up to 250 words).
For children of compulsory school age the education provided should be suitable to age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs. For post-16 the provision should meet their identified and emerging needs. Young people are overlooked in the EOTAS consultation since section 19 duties no longer apply. Access to provision should not be restricted to pre-determined “health needs” on the same lines as current hospital schools or medical needs tuition. Specialist Provision Package eligibility should not become the criterion for being able to access longer term personalised [age, ability, aptitude, SEND] education outside a formal setting. This is taking the worst elements of how the current system operates in terms of lengthy delay combined with rigid rules for access to alternative provision plus an inflexible provision offer which is not accessible or appropriate for all – current law notwithstanding – and enshrining them in new law. Local authority policy is seemingly now the basis for law-making. In fact the proposed new law goes even further than the worst of current local policies because it would unwarrantedly narrow the definition of “otherwise” in section 19 and dismantle case law which has built up over section 19 in terms of alternative provision having to be “available, possible, and accessible to the child”. It would also remove the possibility of tribunal being able to direct the contents and placement section of an EHCP which is the only sure route to EOTAS suitable to age ability aptitude and SEND currently, especially for post-16.
Q.2. Which approach to commissioning and overseeing EOTAS arrangements do you think would work best? Select one option:
*Responsibility should be shared between the local authority, who would decide whether EOTAS is arranged as part of any package, and the named school or further education setting who would manage EOTAS provision on a day-to-day basis
*Responsibility should sit with the named school or further education setting. The setting would determine whether EOTAS is required as part of the child or young person’s package of support and would oversee and manage the provision on a day-to-day basis
*Another approach (please specify)
*Don’t know
Provide reasons for your answer (optional, up to 250 words)
Responsibility for EOTAS should rest with local authorities. EOTAS provision must be suitable to age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs for both pre and post-16. Suitability to age ability aptitude and SEND must always be the starting point, rather than finalising the delivery model first and then finding the least bad fit for the child or young person (or worse, minimising or denying need when there is a dearth of appropriate provision for that need or the bar for access is too high) Adopting any other approach may seem administratively easier but the obdurate wrangling of square pegs into round holes is not appropriate for human beings. I completely disagree with the proposal to make schools (and colleges) responsible for deciding whether EOTAS is necessary and how and where it should be delivered. Some children and young people are unable to attend ANY setting, not just school/college and it will never work to hand decisions OR arrangements over to school/college. I have supported a number of families where children and young people were only able to learn and make progress – relative to themselves and not to age-related or school-centric expectations – when the pressure to attend somewhere is removed and when provision – through EOTAS and EHCP – finally met their needs. Future EOTAS – pre and post-16 – should cater for the full range of need, extending far beyond the current medical needs tuition and pupil referral unit (or academy equivalents) and local authorities’ compiling lists of approved alternative providers.
Q.3. Under your preferred approach, what support, capacity or safeguards would be needed to enable the named school or further education setting and/or local authority to undertake their roles effectively?
Provide reasons for your answer (optional, up to 250 words)
I disagree with the premise of the question as I believe schools and colleges should NOT be responsible for deciding whether EOTAS is necessary nor for how and where it should be delivered.
Q.4.What safeguards should be in place to support consistent, needs-led decisions about when Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS) is the most appropriate way to meet a child or young person’s needs, including where suitable school or further education provision may be limited or unavailable?
Provide any information you consider helpful (optional, up to 250 words).
Schools and colleges should NOT be responsible for deciding whether EOTAS is necessary nor for how and where it should be delivered. The responsibility MUST lie with the local authority and EOTAS must start from consideration of the child or young person’s needs and then tailoring provision to need, not just presenting a finite list of approved providers where the child or young person must attend. Equally I would prioritise making local authorities’ section 19 provision duty more rigorous, which I believe would greatly reduce the need for EOTAS via an EHCP as well as enabling alternative provision to be delivered at a much earlier stage. I would overhaul the Alternative Provision Guidance to introduce a hard and fast time limit for when the local authority MUST consider its s19 duty in respect of “illness or otherwise”; the guidance must spell out – as does the Ombudsman Focus Report on Children Out of School – that “illness” is not just medical needs, and “otherwise” is not just for “behaviour” or when the LA can’t find a school place. “Otherwise” must be explicitly understood as covering situations where anxiety makes school attendance impossible. Moreover, the actual provision via section 19 must be suitable to age ability aptitude and special educational needs, including circumstances when the child or young person is not able to be educated in a group either in person or online. There is far too much focus in AP on attending a setting and participating in group learning aimed at reintegration.
Q.5 What factors are important for effective reintegration planning for children and young people receiving EOTAS provision?
Provide any information you consider helpful (optional, up to 250 words)
Q.6 What safeguards are needed to ensure reintegration planning best supports progress and the child or young person’s long-term outcomes?
Provide any information you consider helpful (optional, up to 250 words)
Q.7 What arrangements are needed to provide parents with a clear route to resolve disputes if decisions are made: about whether new EOTAS provision should be put in place; or to change or cease EOTAS provision that has already been put in place?
Provide any information you consider helpful (optional, up to 250 words)
The proposals for “Appealing decisions regarding EOTAS arrangements” reveal that virtually no appeal rights will remain and hence virtually no access to EOTAS either. New-style EOTAS will only be possible after surmounting the threshold for a Specialist Provision Package as this is the criterion for the new-style EHCP. It appears that tribunal could overturn the initial decision not to assess for a specialist package and/or the subsequent decision that the specialist provision threshold is not met. That’s about it. The part about being able to appeal the specialist provision package is unclear – does it mean the tribunal being able to order elements from different packages or just one discrete package over another? References to SPP(s) appear both in singular and plural inconsistently. Furthermore, the supposed right to appeal placement (p22 EOTAS consultation) is misleading as we have already been told that tribunals will not be able to overturn a placement decision but only ask the LA to reconsider. One of the most devastating proposals for new-style EOTAS is that there will always be a school or college named on the EHCP – so in addition to not being able to get the named placement CHANGED, there will also be no appeal right to get the placement OFF the EHCP altogether as is possible now. Page 15 asserts that the SPP named placement “will likely be a setting that has not previously supported the child or young person” but there is zero guarantee that it won’t just be the same.
Q.8. Do you agree or disagree that non-school alternative provision delivering EOTAS special educational provision to children of compulsory school age should be required to comply with new national regulatory standards? Provide any additional information you consider helpful (optional, up to 250 words)
Yes, I agree
No, I don’t agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Don’t know
I have checked Don’t Know as I find the proposals unclear. I raised concerns already in the previous unregistered alternative provision consultation https://edyourself.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Alternative-Provision-Consultation-Response-2024-%E2%80%93-Ed-Yourself.pdf The government response at the time was to press pause on these proposals for longer term EOTAS and yet here we are again. If it is proposed that any and all EOTAS provision must take place in an alternative provision setting then I would vehemently disagree, as some children are unable to attend ANY setting and making attendance the norm would be wholly counter-productive. From the provider’s perspective, delivering provision to a group gathered in the same place is logistically sensible and financially preferable. It can also be rationalised on grounds of peer group socialisation and preparation for reintegration but reintegration is NOT always an appropriate goal. It has some limited justification in interim alternative provision but is not right as a cornerstone of EOTAS. It is fundamentally wrong to make alternative provision the paradigm for EOTAS – they are not interchangeable. I am further concerned that focusing on “safeguarding” and “curriculum” would lead to an increasingly standardised and homogenous offer of the providers remaining, with opportunistic – less idealistic – new providers springing up better able to play the system. Furthermore, as everything narrows to named settings and approved providers, we hear nothing about protections for personal budgets and direct payments in EOTAS. What is to happen with PBs and DPs as bespoke provision can literally be a lifeline?
Q.9. Do you agree or disagree that local authorities should be responsible for quality assuring non-school alternative provision delivering special educational provision EOTAS for children of compulsory school age? Provide any additional information you consider helpful (optional, up to 250 words)
Yes, I agree
No, I don’t agree
I agree there should be regulation quality assuring non-school alternative provision delivering special educational provision for children of compulsory school age, but I don’t agree it should be undertaken by the local authority.
Neither agree nor disagree
Don’t know
The question asks Do you agree or disagree that local authorities should be responsible for quality assuring non-school alternative provision delivering special educational provision EOTAS for children of compulsory school age? I checked neither agree nor disagree. I don’t object to regulation of AP in principle but I do object to mission creep regarding AP and EOTAS – the drag and drop approach to problem solving. AP is not EOTAS and AP solutions are not transferable to EOTAS. The 2025 government AP consultation response https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68b17bca3f3e5483efdba7ff/strengthening-protections-in-non-school-alternative-provision-government-response.pdf noted reservations about extending AP regulation into EOTAS, eg that it would be insufficiently personalised, inflexible, not responsive to individual complex need, also unduly burdensome for small providers who would close down. And yet here we are again. Some form of AP regulation is arguably overdue as none exists currently and it is widely agreed including latterly by Ofsted that independent school standards – ISS – are inappropriate. Up till now, APs legitimately bypass regulation by capping hours below “full-time” for schools (around 18 hours) meaning that Ofsted’s’ monitoring of AP hyperfocuses on hours and catching providers potentially operating as an unregistered school, hence the proposed 2024 AP national standards so providers could be legitimised without having to become independent schools (or future “independent educational institution” as set out in Part 4 of the Children’s Wellbeing Act 2026 yet to be commenced) My concern is over-reach – stretching the AP solution across EOTAS in order to save having to find a proper answer for EOTAS.
Q.10. For young people aged 16-25, should quality assurance and oversight arrangements of EOTAS provision align with the approach proposed for children of compulsory school age?
Yes, I agree
The quality assurance arrangements should be different (please specify)
Neither agree nor disagree
Don’t know
Provide any additional information you consider helpful (optional, up to 250 words)
The question asks whether quality assurance and oversight arrangements of EOTAS provision for 16-25 should “align with” the approach proposed for children of compulsory school age. It’s not clear what “align with” means here. When the proposals were being put forward for school age children only (as the LA’s section 19 duty only applies to CSA) the proposed national standards centred on child protection; safeguarding; controlled access (children not mingling with unchecked adults); reporting attendance to commissioners; providers constantly monitoring and reviewing learning progress and raising concerns with the commissioning school if less than expected progress; lesson plans and schemes of work; also prioritising reintegration. In other words it was very much aimed at school-age children in interim alternative provision. What exactly would align for post-16? Based on the single cursory paragraph covering post-16 on page 22 I infer that the post-16 quality assurance proposals are at such an early stage that they can hopefully be dropped or transformed beyond recognition. I already couldn’t see how proposals for compulsory school age alternative provision – AP – would translate as suitable for school-age EOTAS and it is an even bigger stretch to imagine the same system being appropriate for post-16. In any event – were this even intended – I don’t see how it could be the same providers delivering to pre and post-16 because it would be virtually impossible in less formal settings with smaller group size and limited adult ratio to separate children from adult students (which is what post-16 students would be)
Q.11. When should assessment take place, if at all, for children and young people on existing EOTAS arrangements?
(Select one option)
Assessment at key transition points for all children and young people
Assessment at key transition points for younger children (those in early years and primary phase)
A different approach should be taken (please specify)
Don’t know
Provide any additional information you consider helpful (optional, up to 250 words)
The question asks when should assessment take place, if at all, for children and young people on existing EOTAS arrangements. I have checked “A different approach should be taken” because the same continuation arrangements proposed in Chapter 2 for existing secondary and post-16 EOTAS should also apply to existing primary EOTAS. In other words, I support existing EOTAS continuation across the board. I do also have some queries about “existing arrangements”. On the one hand, the EOTAS consultation says “For those in secondary and post-16 phases at the point reforms are introduced, existing arrangements would continue, i.e. they will keep their existing EHCP and the rights and duties associated with it, with local authorities retaining oversight for the remainder of the child or young person’s education.” However, the consultation also says “We intend for the same quality assurance arrangements to apply to both new and existing EOTAS provision“. There is even a visual on page 32 which says both things in the same box ie “existing EOTAS arrangements continue” AND “receives provision in a setting that has met quality standards.” This could create an expectation that attending a setting would become the norm for future EOTAS provision and thus requires the government to acknowledge that some children and young people are not able to attend a setting. Clarification is also urgently required regarding “retains existing rights and protections” including explicit confirmation that this includes full tribunal rights as set out in Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014.
Q.12. If a needs assessment takes place and a child of primary age is assessed as eligible for an EHCP, do you agree that they should move onto a Specialist Provision Package, with any EOTAS arrangements managed in line with the proposals set out in Chapter 1?
Yes, I agree
No, I do not agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Don’t know
Provide any information you consider helpful (optional, up to 250 words)
This question presupposes that existing EOTAS will cease at the end of primary, to be replaced – for some but by no means all – by a pre-determined Specialist Provision Package [SPP]. In the EOTAS consultation this is described as “ensuring regular opportunities to consider whether, with the right support, different forms of provision could better meet their needs and support long term outcomes.” I do not agree with existing primary EOTAS being removed. There will be no longer be any such thing as an EOTAS package since all SPPs will have a named school – which can no longer be changed by tribunal – and it will be the school which makes all the the day to day decisions about the child’s provision; the SPP will only set out the broad outlines. It will also be up the school to judge whether EOTAS is necessary and if it decides it is – for whatever length of time it deems appropriate – it will commission a non-school provider from an approved list. I do not believe that SPPs with a named school are appropriate for EOTAS, nor that it should be left up to the school to decide whether EOTAS is necessary. I think existing EOTAS arrangements should be able to continue beyond primary; it would be a relatively small additional number compared to total EOTAS; according to the parent guide for the EOTAS proposals, “Currently, more than 90% of children who receive EOTAS are over 11.” https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/send-reform-education-otherwise-than-at-school/send-reform-education-otherwise-than-at-school-what-parents-and-carers-of-children-and-young-people-need-to-know
Q.13. If a need assessment takes place, what should be the next step for those who are not eligible for an EHCP? (Select one) Provide any additional information you consider helpful (optional, up to 250 words)
Move onto a structured transition plan receiving support from a school, alternative provision school or further education setting
Continue EOTAS arrangements and review annually (as part of annual review)
A flexible, case by case approach
Other (please specify)
Don’t know
Children are set to lose their existing EHCP at the end of primary. Some will meet criteria for a new-style EHCP but many will not. The plan for those previously meeting criteria for EOTAS is that instead of going into mainstream secondary “one proposal is that the child moves onto the roll of an alternative provision school. The alternative provision school will oversee the education provision and support the child and facilitate a return to a school (alternative provision or mainstream), when this is appropriate and achievable.” Purportedly “there would be no fixed timeframe for a when a child should be supported back into a school” although apparently there would be 3 monthly reviews. I absolutely cannot see this working! State-funded AP schools comprise pupil referral units run by the LA, plus their academy equivalents. State-funded AP fundamentally lacks capacity to cater for former EOTAS so the plan seems to be clutching at straws ie I think it would end up being mainstream or nothing, with very high drop-out rate. Nor is there any clue as to what “oversee the education provision” could possibly mean. Previous EOTAS funding linked to the previous EHCP would not be renewed so presumably it would just be the standard per capita AP school funding going forward? Crucially also though, EOTAS under s61 would only have arisen if it were inappropriate for provision to be made in ANY school but now the child is to be placed on roll and presumably expected to attend regularly.
Q.14. Which factors best support stable transitions and progression for children receiving EOTAS, including return to education where appropriate?
Provide any information you consider helpful (optional, up to 250 words).
Q14 asks “Which factors best support stable transitions and progression for children receiving EOTAS, including return to education where appropriate?” The consultation says “For those in secondary and post-16 phases at the point reforms are introduced, existing arrangements would continue, i.e. they will keep their existing EHCP and the rights and duties associated with it, with local authorities retaining oversight for the remainder of the child or young person’s education. For those who wish to return to a school or further education setting (for example as identified through an annual review of the EHCP), the local authority should provide a voluntary reintegration offer, setting out how the child or young person would be supported to transition to the most appropriate provision.” Leaving EOTAS for a named placement is presented as though only ever arising if initiated by the family, but everyone knows that annual reviews present an opportunity for LAs to make amendments to the EHCP. Hence clarification is urgently required regarding “rights and duties” including explicit confirmation that this includes full tribunal rights as set out in Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014 such as appealing a decision to cease the EHCP or to gut the provision in Section F or to name a setting in Section I. Secondly, it is presumably only “existing EOTAS arrangements” that would be protected via the retained EHCP, so surely a voluntary exit from EOTAS would trigger a new-style assessment for Specialist Provision Package with no choice over placement?
Q.15. How effective is the current system in enabling schools to put in place early support for children whose health needs affect their participation in education, before requiring the local authority to arrange alternative provision?
Q15 asks how effective is the current system in enabling schools to put in place early support for children whose health needs affect their participation in education, before requiring the local authority to arrange alternative provision. I have checked Highly ineffective. Regrettably there is currently no hard and fast time limit for when the local authority MUST consider its s19 duty in respect of “illness or otherwise” as there is for exclusion. I provide EOTAS consultancy to families in situations where children are – or become – unable to attend school because of anxiety and unmet needs. It frequently requires formal complaints escalated to the Ombudsman which can take a year or more. In my experience, schools will not mark the register with the illness code unless a doctor writes that illness physically prevents the child from attending, hence a pupil absent for mental health reasons (which some call EBSA or Emotionally Based School Avoidance) is recorded as unauthorised (or the child leaves after registration or is put on a reduced timetable, neither showing as “absent”) Secondly, the only state-funded alternative provision available for “health” – ie which would not have to come out of the schools budget – tends to be a short term offer via the medical needs tuition service or hospital school which sets its own restrictive admissions criteria and which also requires the child to attend the alternative setting which is frequently not possible. In addition, local authorities generally require schools to undertake the entire medical needs referral process themselves.
Q.16. How could roles and responsibilities between schools, local authorities and health services be clarified to support more timely and effective support for children who are unable to attend school due to health reasons and require alternative provision?
Provide any information you consider helpful (optional, up to 250 words)
Q16 asks How could roles and responsibilities between schools, local authorities and health services be clarified to support more timely and effective support for children who are unable to attend school due to health reasons and require alternative provision. For everyone unable to pass the future “most complex needs” bar, it appears that the only non-school option – apart from deregistering for home education and taking on any local authority battles that may ensue once part 3 of the Children’s Wellbeing Act is commenced – will be for what the LA and school accept as “health needs”. This will create a perfect storm. As minimum mitigation, LAs’ section 19 duty must align with case law rather than local policy, plus the Alternative Provision Guidance must formulate a specific deadline for when the local authority MUST consider its s19 duty in respect of “illness or otherwise” to prevent its all remaining in-house with the school. Additionally the AP guidance must spell out – as does the Ombudsman Report on Children Out of School – that “illness” is not just medical needs, and that “otherwise” can also cover situations where anxiety makes school attendance impossible. Moreover, the actual provision via section 19 must be suitable to age ability aptitude and special educational needs, including circumstances when the child or young person is not able to be educated in a group either in person or online. There is far too much focus in current AP on attending a setting and participating in group learning aimed at reintegration.
Q.17. Where an alternative provision placement is required to meet health needs, how can children be better supported to transition back into a school?
Provide any information you consider helpful (optional, up to 250 words)
I work with families where chronic intense anxiety, sensory challenges, and social and communication difficulties – often but not always accompanied by an autism diagnosis – preclude the child or young person’s attending any placement not just school or college. They may never have attended or may have had to drop out. Eventually they are able to access EOTAS via an EHCP. Future generations will not have this option. Conceivably they might get a Specialist Provision Package for “Social and emotional development focused on externalising or internalising behaviour” but otherwise their only recourse – if still school age – will be alternative provision on “health needs” grounds for time-limited alternative provision at an approved AP setting with the goal of reintegration. Anxiety as a lasting significant impairment does not feature in the EOTAS consultation, instead the consultation talks about “mental health difficulties” which apparently can be nipped in the bud if caught early in the new transformed school system. Future generations will apparently be further inoculated against social anxiety by always staying in groups and always staying closely linked to school. This beggars belief. The EOTAS consultation p36 deplores alternative provision which “is limited or isolated, especially where it is delivered away from peers or without clear links to a school, which risks entrenching disengagement, negatively impacting the child’s mental health rather than supporting recovery, confidence-building and a return to formal education.” This approach is fundamentally misguided and counter-productive because for some children reintegration is an impossible and inappropriate goal.
Q.18. What approach, if any, should be taken to the duration of placements for children receiving alternative provision through Online Education Accredited Providers?
*Placements should be time limited, with extensions in exceptional circumstances
*Placements should not be time limited
*The duration should depend on individual circumstances
*A different approach should be taken (please specify)
*Don’t know
Provide any additional information you consider helpful (optional, up to 250 words)
Q.19. Should children receiving alternative provision through Online Education Accredited Providers remain on the admission register of a school?
*Yes
*No
*It should depend on individual circumstances
*Don’t know
Provide any additional information you consider helpful (optional, up to 250 words)
Q.19 asks whether children receiving alternative provision through Online Education Accredited Providers should remain on the admission register of a school? I have checked “It should depend on individual circumstances”. More broadly though it is imperative to press pause allowing time fully to consider all unintended or unforeseen consequences. Online group classes via accredited providers could come to dominate the AP sector – and hence the EOTAS sector – as the most convenient and economical option. In-person AP approved settings will quickly reach capacity and online classes would presumably be cheaper if there were sufficient economies of scale ie NOT one to one or small group. P41 of the EOTAS consultation document says “These proposals are intended to complement the use of online education accredited providers to support children and young people receiving special educational provision through EOTAS arrangements, which are covered in chapters 1 and 2.” For children with autism I suspect that online group classes would be presented as the catch-all solution for anxiety, sensory challenges, and social and communication difficulties. Online group classes may be appropriate and welcome for some children who cannot physically attend a setting but one size does not fit all and some children would buckle under social and other demands. Furthermore, the proposed safeguard for children not being “seen” – time-limited placements with continuous oversight and monitoring from school – would pile on further anxiety, leading to children being taken in desperation out of the school system altogether which I assume is not the government’s desired outcome?
GOV.UK Consultation Link
All My EOTAS Consultation Articles
https://edyourself.wordpress.com/2026/08/31/pages-on-eotas-for-2026-consultation/