New model of delivering EOTAS packages must be accompanied by clarity on responsibilities, appropriate accountability measures, sufficient funding and capacity: LGA

Responding to the Department for Education’s SEND reform: education other than at school consultation, the LGA welcomed the Government’s ambition for more children and young people to be educated in their local mainstream settings “where this is appropriate, safe and properly supported”.

However, it warned that reforms to EOTAS should be seen in the context of wider reforms to the education and SEND systems and should “avoid creating any new expectations for children and young people and their parent-carers”.

Looking at the approach to commissioning and overseeing EOTAS arrangements, the LGA said it supports the development of a shared accountability model where the council retains statutory responsibility for commissioning and reviewing EOTAS arrangements, while a named school, alternative provision school, or specialist setting maintains an “active role” in oversight, educational planning and reintegration support.

The LGA said: “Councils, as leaders of place and with sufficient resources and appropriate powers, are best placed to ensure statutory duties are fulfilled, co-ordinate education, health and care provision, monitor quality across providers, maintain consistency of decision-making and ensure equitable access to provision.”

Also responding to the consultation, law firm Browne Jacobson said it did not support either model for overseeing EOTAS arrangements “as currently proposed”, but said it favoured the shared accountability model.

It warned: “The most significant omission from this consultation is any account of how EOTAS packages would be funded. Both models contemplate transferring substantial commissioning responsibilities to named schools or further education settings but neither explains where the funding comes from or what happens when a setting cannot deliver the package within available resources.”

The other model proposed by the DfE was one in which the local authority would not have a formal role in determining whether some or all of a child or young person's provision should be delivered otherwise than in a school or further education setting.

Instead, responsibility for the decision would sit with the named setting overseeing delivery of the Specialist Provision Package.

Browne Jacobson said: “We support a model in which the local authority retains a meaningful, enforceable role in determining whether EOTAS arrangements are appropriate, including a formal approval function at the point of the initial EOTAS decision.

“We would like the DfE to consider whether dedicated local authority Alternative Provision coordination teams could be funded as part of the reform package.”

Looking at the key safeguards needed to support “consistent, needs-led decisions” about whether EOTAS is the most appropriate way to meet a child or young person's needs, Browne Jacobson recommended the following:

• An independent element in the decision-making process, so that where a decision is made that EOTAS is the most appropriate form of provision, it should be approved by someone independent of the initial decision maker, such as a named professional, a multi-agency panel, or the local authority.
• Every EOTAS decision must be formally documented with written reasons, recording what alternatives were considered and why they were rejected. This creates an audit trail that protects both children and commissioning bodies.
• Where a child is unable to attend school because of health needs, an evidential requirement should apply: confirmation from a qualified health professional that the child cannot attend, with a requirement that the professional consult the school.
• EOTAS provision should be subject to frequent, regular review to ensure that it continues to meet the child's needs and that reintegration or transition planning remains appropriate and up to date.
• A clear prohibition on using EOTAS to fill gaps in specialist provision. EOTAS should not be used simply because a local authority cannot find a place for a child.

Responding to the same question, the LGA made the following suggestions:

• A requirement for evidence demonstrating why provision cannot reasonably be delivered within a school or further education setting;
• Consideration of all available support and placement options before EOTAS is agreed;
• Regular review of EOTAS arrangements;
• Multi-disciplinary assessment involving education, health and care professionals and national guidance to reduce variation between areas.

The full LGA response can be found here.