Overview of the EOTIS consultation

The Government’s latest consultation on Education Otherwise Than In School arrives at a moment when confidence in the wider SEND reform programme is already strained. Although presented as a technical exercise aimed at improving clarity and consistency, the proposals sit within a much larger restructuring of how specialist provision is conceived, commissioned and contested. What is striking, even before delving into the detail, is how far-reaching the implications are for children, families and the institutions expected to shoulder new responsibilities. As with the broader SEND reforms, the language of coherence and modernisation masks a set of changes that risk fundamentally altering long‑established rights, processes and safeguards. This article examines those proposals in detail, and why, despite the stated intentions, they raise profound concerns about the future shape of specialist education.

EOTIS or EOTAS?

Throughout this article I have used the abbreviation EOTIS (Education Otherwise Than In School) rather than the Department for Education’s preferred abbreviation EOTAS. This is intentional. Section 61 Children and Families Act 2014 provides for special educational provision to be made otherwise than in a school. The legislation does not refer to “Education Otherwise Than At School”. As the consultation relates to changes to the existing legislation, I have taken the view that we should use the correct language, rather than adopt the DfE’s approach of inaccuracy.  

Overview of the EOTIS consultation

While the consultation is presented as a review of EOTIS, it is, in reality, something much broader. It proposes a fundamental reorganisation of how specialist provision is commissioned, delivered and governed, with EOTIS becoming one component within a new framework of Specialist Provision Packages.

That distinction is important. Much of the discussion surrounding the consultation has centred on whether access to EOTIS will become more difficult or whether existing rights will be diluted. Those are legitimate questions, but they risk missing the more fundamental changes proposed. The consultation is less concerned with redefining what EOTIS is than with redefining who commissions it, who oversees it, how decisions are reached, and how those decisions can be challenged.

The Department proposes that EOTIS should no longer operate as a standalone statutory decision under Section 61. Instead, it would become one method of delivering a Specialist Provision Package for children whose needs cannot appropriately be met within a school or further education setting. Responsibility for commissioning and overseeing provision would largely transfer from local authorities to named specialist schools or colleges. National standards would be introduced for providers delivering EOTIS, and there would be a stronger expectation that all provision should be subject to regular review with a view to reintegration into formal education wherever that is appropriate.

As such, EOTIS seems to no longer be EOTIS – in a similar rebranding exercise to EHCPs in the main consultation. Rather, it becomes a specialist educational pathway delivered under the oversight of educational institutions operating within a nationally defined framework. For those already concerned about the burden that the SEND consultation was putting on schools, this will not be welcome news. 

The consultation does not seek to repeal Section 61. Instead, the Department argues that the context within which EOTIS operates has altered significantly over the past decade. Numbers have increased rapidly, local authority practice has become increasingly inconsistent, and provision has developed in ways that were not envisaged when the current legislation was introduced.

Approximately 16,000 children and young people are now educated otherwise than in school, representing an increase of around ninety per cent over four years. More than half are aged between sixteen and twenty-five, while only around one in ten are of primary school age. The largest groups comprise young people whose primary identified need is Social, Emotional and Mental Health or Autism Spectrum Disorder. These statistics are more than simply descriptive. They reveal that EOTIS is no longer an unusual or rarely used mechanism. It has become an increasingly significant component of England’s SEND landscape, particularly for older children whose educational journeys have often been characterised by repeated disruption and placement instability.

The Department attributes this growth to several interconnected factors. Rising complexity of need undoubtedly plays a part, but the consultation places equal emphasis on failures elsewhere within the system. It identifies delayed identification, insufficient early intervention, inadequate mainstream support, repeated placement breakdown and inconsistent commissioning practices as contributing factors. Importantly, it accepts that many families pursue EOTIS only after exhausting every realistic opportunity to maintain their child’s education within school. This represents a notable departure from earlier policy narratives, which sometimes implied that education outside school reflected parental preference rather than educational necessity.

Understanding Specialist Provision Packages

Before considering the consultation’s proposals in detail, it is necessary to understand the role of Specialist Provision Packages (SPPs) within the Government’s wider SEND reform programme. Although the consultation focuses on Education Otherwise Than In School (EOTIS), many of its proposals cannot be understood in isolation because they depend upon reforms proposed elsewhere in the Department’s wider consultation, SEND Reform: Putting Children and Young People First.

As discussed when I looked through the first SEND reform consult, there is a major focus on the creation of SPPs. These are proposed to be nationally defined frameworks that bring together educational, therapeutic and pastoral support into a single coordinated programme. Each package would specify the provision required to meet the child’s identified needs, the professionals responsible for delivering that provision, the outcomes expected, and the arrangements for monitoring progress. Responsibility for coordinating delivery would rest with a named specialist school or further education provider, even where significant elements of the package are delivered elsewhere.

In practical terms, a Specialist Provision Package is intended to replace the current model in which Education, Health and Care Plans frequently specify individual therapies, interventions and placements separately. Instead, the package itself becomes the organising principle around which support is planned and delivered. The Government argues that this approach should reduce fragmentation, improve consistency and ensure that children receive coordinated support rather than a collection of disconnected services.

I have written, frequently, about how the introduction of SPPs quietly changes what an Education Health and Care Plan is. The issue with SPPs is that they offer an ‘off-the-peg’ form of provision, rather than a bespoke one. Whilst this clearly enables massive control over costs, it also fundamentally undermines the notion that a young person will receive precisely what they need through an EHCP.

Integrating EOTIS within Specialist Provision Packages

The consultation’s most worrying, and key, proposal is that Education Otherwise Than In School should no longer operate as a standalone statutory decision. Instead, it would become one mechanism through which a child’s Specialist Provision Package is delivered.  

The consult seems to argue that this approach will create greater coherence across the SEND system by ensuring that EOTIS is not considered in isolation but as part of a comprehensive programme of specialist educational support. It also reflects the Government’s wider ambition to move away from discussions centred on educational placement and instead focus on identifying the package of provision necessary to meet a child’s needs. Within that model, EOTIS becomes one potential delivery mechanism rather than a destination in its own right.

The issue with this seems to be, as more generally with SPPs, that this could well result in a dilution of the bespoke provision that is required. That is all the more dangerous and worrying when you consider that these are pupils who are not regularly attending a structured placement of a school, and so are potentially even more dependent on a bespoke provision to properly review, monitor and deliver provision.

Transferring Commissioning Responsibility from Local Authorities to Specialist Schools

This is undoubtedly the most significant operational reform. This proposal fundamentally alters where responsibility for planning, coordinating and overseeing EOTIS sits within the SEND system.

At present, responsibility for EOTIS sits with the local authority. Once a decision has been made under Section 61 Children and Families Act 2014 that education within a school would be inappropriate, the local authority becomes responsible for securing the provision specified within the child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. In practice, this involves identifying appropriate providers, commissioning specialist tuition and therapeutic services, coordinating delivery, monitoring quality, safeguarding the child and reviewing whether the provision remains suitable over time. I must recognise that some EOTIS packages deal with partial provision outside of school, and so there is a split between school and local authority, but in my practical experience most EOTIS packages represent all provision as an EOTIS provision.

The consultation proposes a markedly different model. While local authorities would continue to assess needs and determine eligibility for a Specialist Provision Package, responsibility for delivering that package would transfer to a named specialist school or further education provider, even where little or none of the education actually takes place on the school’s premises. The institution would remain responsible for coordinating and overseeing the entire package of provision. EOTIS would therefore cease to be commissioned directly by local authorities and instead become part of the educational offer of the named specialist setting. The consultation proposes that the child should remain on the school’s roll, despite much of their education taking place elsewhere. This creates an interesting legal and educational relationship. The school becomes responsible for outcomes, attendance monitoring, safeguarding and educational progress without necessarily providing the majority of the direct teaching itself. While similar arrangements already exist in some areas of alternative provision, extending this model to EOTIS on a national scale represents a substantial expansion of institutional responsibility.

The consultation argues that specialist schools possess the educational expertise necessary to oversee complex provision and are therefore better placed than local authorities to ensure that EOTIS remains ambitious, coherent and focused on educational outcomes. The Department also identifies inconsistency in local authority practice as one of the principal drivers for reform. Evidence gathered through Ofsted and Care Quality Commission inspections has repeatedly highlighted significant variation in how EOTIS is commissioned across England. The consultation suggests that placing responsibility with specialist schools could reduce this geographical inconsistency by embedding EOTIS within institutions whose primary expertise lies in education rather than local government administration.

The consultation is noticeably less detailed when discussing how schools will acquire the expertise held within local authority commissioning teams. Commissioning external providers requires knowledge of procurement, contract management, safeguarding compliance, financial oversight, insurance, quality assurance and regulatory requirements. These are highly specialised functions that extend well beyond educational leadership.

Many specialist schools already operate under considerable financial and workforce pressures. That is only going to increase if the main SEND reforms go ahead as proposed. This proposal adds even more responsibility for commissioning and monitoring external provision without providing detailed information about the additional funding, staffing or training that will accompany these responsibilities. It is therefore legitimate to ask whether the proposal represents genuine decentralisation of decision-making or simply decentralisation of responsibility.

The implications for safeguarding are equally significant. EOTIS frequently involves multiple providers operating across different locations. It would seem that the school would inherit all the responsibility involved with this.

The consultation identifies two possible governance models. Under the first, local authorities would continue to determine whether EOTIS forms part of a Specialist Provision Package, while specialist schools would assume responsibility for commissioning and managing the provision. Under the second, both the decision to use EOTIS and responsibility for commissioning it would transfer entirely to the named specialist school. Although the consultation seeks views on both approaches, the accompanying narrative suggests a clear preference for reducing direct local authority involvement.

I could see why anyone involved in specialist school management would be terrified by the prospects of this proposal.

Improving regulation and quality assurance of EOTIS providers

The consultation recognises that EOTIS arrangements can involve a wide range of providers, including specialist organisations, tutors, online education providers and other alternative settings.

The proposal explores whether clearer standards should be introduced to ensure that all providers delivering EOTIS meet expectations around educational quality, safeguarding, suitability of staff, monitoring of progress and support for children and young people with SEND.

The intention is to create greater consistency across different types of provision and ensure that children and young people receive education that is safe, effective and appropriate to their individual needs.

The proposal also recognises the importance of ensuring that providers understand their responsibilities when supporting children and young people with SEND. This includes adapting teaching approaches, recognising individual barriers to learning and working collaboratively with families, schools, local authorities and other professionals. By improving quality assurance arrangements, the proposal aims to provide greater confidence that EOTIS providers are delivering education that enables children and young people to make progress and achieve positive outcomes.

Improving support for pupils unable to attend school due to mental health difficulties

The consultation recognises that health-related absence can have a significant impact on educational progress, social development and wellbeing.

The proposal aims to improve collaboration between education settings, local authorities, health services and families so that children and young people receive appropriate educational support as quickly as possible. It highlights the importance of maintaining education during periods when attendance at school is not possible, while ensuring that support is flexible and responsive to changes in a child or young person’s health and circumstances.

The proposal also considers the importance of maintaining connection with education communities, recognising that prolonged absence can increase feelings of isolation and make returning to education more challenging. Where appropriate, arrangements should support a gradual transition back into school, college or another suitable educational environment. This may include planning, adjustments and coordinated support from relevant professionals.

The overall aim is to ensure that health needs do not result in children and young people missing out on education or becoming disconnected from learning opportunities. Some might argue that this quietly seeks to embed an expectation that EOTIS is only ever a short-term provision. Whilst for many this is agreeable, for some this may well be a worrying push to a destination that their young person will never cope with, and simply knowing that expectation exists could result in disengagement.

Online education

The sixth proposal focuses on the increasing use of online education as part of EOTIS arrangements. The consultation recognises that online learning can provide valuable flexibility for some children and young people, particularly where health needs, anxiety, disability or other barriers make attendance in a physical setting difficult.

However, the proposal also highlights the need for clear expectations around when online education is appropriate and how it should be delivered. Online learning should provide meaningful educational opportunities and should not result in children and young people becoming isolated or receiving a reduced educational offer. The proposal considers how online education should be monitored, how progress should be assessed and how children and young people should continue to receive appropriate pastoral support and opportunities for interaction.

It also explores the importance of ensuring that online education forms part of a wider support plan, rather than being viewed as a standalone solution.

Overall, this proposal aims to ensure that online education is used effectively, safely and appropriately, providing flexibility while maintaining quality, accountability and connection to the wider education system.

Appeals

This is where the consultation gets even more worrying (if that is possible). Other commentators have already highlighted this wording;

“There will no longer be appeal rights over the individual SEN and SEP set out in an EHCP, as these will form a central part of the specialist provision package eligibility criteria for an EHCP and will inform placement decisions taken by the local authority. Information about a child or young person’s SEN or special educational provision will be considered as part of appeals about Specialist Provision Packages or placements as appropriate, rather than being separate. Additionally, more detailed information on the specific SEN and SEP required will be included within a child or young person’s ISP. This means that parents and young people will not be able to appeal to the Tribunal specifically about whether a child or young person should receive EOTAS arrangements.”

This is deeply concerning because:

1. it seems to confirm that SPPs are intended to completely change how EHCPs work (as detailed above)
2. there is an intent to massively reduce the extent to which families can challenge a local authority’s decision making about the support and/or education that their child needs; and
3. specifically in terms of EOTIS, it seems the intention is to remove the ability to appeal for this altogether.

Those who have fought for years to secure this provision will know how troubling that is. Coupled with the obvious huge hesitations any school will have, given the burdens these proposals place on them, this one paragraph buried half-way through the consultation is probably the most concerning. It is not just a chilling effect, but a complete barrier to parents’ ability to seek specific provision that their young person needs.

Final thoughts

While the stated aim of the consultation is to improve the quality, consistency and accountability of EOTIS arrangements, there remains a fundamental concern that schools are going to be expected to sort this out, without sufficient detail about the staffing, specialist expertise, training, funding and resources required to make the proposed model workable.

A central theme within the consultation is the expectation that schools and colleges will play a much greater role in overseeing and coordinating EOTIS arrangements. The proposal that every child receiving EOTIS should be linked to a named school or college places these settings at the centre of planning, monitoring and managing education outside the traditional classroom environment. While greater oversight and accountability may be beneficial, the consultation provides limited evidence of how schools will be equipped to fulfil these expanded responsibilities, particularly when many settings are already experiencing significant challenges in meeting existing SEND demands.

There is a clear risk that the proposals create additional duties for schools without addressing the underlying capacity issues that affect the delivery of effective SEND support.

The consultation also raises significant concerns regarding the future ability of families to challenge decisions about the education provided through EOTIS. The proposal that there will no longer be appeal rights over the individual special educational needs and special educational provision set out within an EHCP represents a substantial shift in the balance between families and the education system. Currently, families can seek independent review through the SEND Tribunal where they believe the provision specified for their child does not adequately meet their needs. Removing this safeguard risks leaving families with fewer meaningful options when they disagree with the level or type of support being offered.

In this context, there is concern that families may increasingly find themselves having to either accept the EOTIS package determined through local authority and school processes or seek alternative arrangements independently. For some families, this may mean pursuing privately funded tuition, therapies, assessments or other forms of education outside the system. This creates a risk that access to suitable education becomes increasingly dependent on a family’s ability to fund or organise alternatives themselves, rather than being secured through a consistent and accountable public system.

As with the first SEND Reform consultation, this EOTIS consultation raises far more alarm bells than it offers reassurance.

How we can help

If your child requires Education Otherwise Than In School, or you are navigating an EHCP, a change to provision or pressure to move away from statutory arrangements, our specialist Education Law team can advise on your rights and the local authority’s duties. We regularly help families challenge decisions and secure the provision their children are entitled to.

Tel: 0333 202 7175

Email: education@hcbgroup.com