EOTAS vs EOTIS vs EHE: Understanding non-school based education

EHE is plainly very different to both EOTAS and EOTIS (my preference due to simplicity).  That is because the local authority bears no responsibility in its delivery, except in so far as it has an obligation to satisfy itself that the education being provided is efficient, suitable and full-time.  Nothing can be demanded of the local authority when EHE is being delivered, in terms of provision or assistance, although local authorities from time-to-time may step in and assist EHE being delivered.  The basic right to EHE is inherent to all parents, and the way the law operates in the area is in fact to withdraw that right if the local authority believes that the parents imparting EHE are not delivering a suitable education to their child (and it can produce a school attendance order under s437 Education Act 1996).  This used to be less stringently pursued before covid 19, but with it becoming more common, as well as tragic events such as what happened with Sara Sharif, local authorities tend to be taking their responsibilities more seriously.

EOTAS, being section 19 provision, is mainly only relevant for children of compulsory school age (although there is a discretionary power relating to 17-to-18-year-olds)it requires suitable and full-time education to be provided by the local authority. However,  it provides no concrete entitlement – not to any specific amount of hours of provision, manner of delivery of support or delivering professional.  Additionally, there is no statutory definition for “full-time” in a home education context.  The specifics can only be challenged in the High Court by way of judicial review, and it will come down to the whether the local authority can persuade the judge that its interpretation of its duty is discharged by whatever it has put in place. Often, parents might push hard for this provision and in the end what their child receives is underwhelming.  For this reason, I would usually recommend that parents view this kind of provision as basically a triage or stop-gap while they seek more substantial and concrete provision in an EHCP.

EOTIS, being section 61 provision, is relevant to any person with an EHCP, meaning it can apply to people from ages 0-25. It provides a concrete entitlement to what is detailed in section F of the plan, which can (and should) indeed include specification as to all of the elements outlined in the previous paragraph as uncertain. The precise provision can be directly challenged in the special educational needs and disability (SEND) tribunal, on a line-by-line basis.  

Section 61 EOTIS is basically, therefore, much more concrete than section 19 EOTAS, providing section F of the EHCP is properly specified and quantified as is legally required, and it is therefore valuable in my view to delineate them linguistically.

Conveniently, section 19 uses the wording “otherwise than at school”, whereas section 61 uses the wording “otherwise than in a school”, which provides the basis for the switch of A to I. I do accept from the pedants in the back that it may be more accurate to state EOTIAS. I also note that EOTISC is used by some, because of the fact that the wording includes a post-16 institution which generally means a college (hence the C), and also because it perhaps provides the slightest aide memoire that the relevant legislation is the Children and Families Act 2014. I would not begrudge anyone for using any variation. The key in my view is to ensure that everyone is aware that there is a significant difference between the two (and also EHE, which is very much in its own space).