Why putting a timer on online AP threatens vulnerable learners
The Department for Education has launched an important consultation on Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS).
EOTAS is when a local authority arranges a child’s special educational provision somewhere other than a school or college, because a school setting is not right for their needs. EOTAS differs from alternative provision and is delivered beyond a mainstream or special school – it is currently Local Authorities that arrange provision.
Several of the goals in the proposals make sense. With EOTAS enrolments rising 90% in four years to 16,000 pupils, ministers want to fix areas of the system that are unresponsive; ensure learners get earlier, high-quality support that is regularly reviewed; develop clear safeguarding standards; and ensure children remain on a school roll.
Indeed, that last change is significant; the consultation suggests that “every child receiving EOTAS would be connected to a named school or further education college that would be responsible for managing the EOTAS arrangements“.
This is significant because it not only maintains a connection to a wider education community but also gives schools the power to arrange support.
We welcome higher standards, better oversight, and registration with schools for students on EOTAS placements. Indeed, Academy21 has followed this model for some time and used it to build partnerships that work towards great outcomes. Ultimately, working with thousands of school leaders has taught us that schools are often best placed to determine the best path for young people.
But schools must not be shackled if being asked to take more control. And towards the end of the consultation document is a proposal that threatens to do just that – to expect schools to organise support but remove key tools they need to do that and at the same time undermine support for some of the country’s most complex learners.
Question 18: What is being proposed
In Question 18, the government asks whether placements delivered by Department-accredited online education providers should be limited by mandatory time limits.
This is placed under a section: “Using online education safely”. However, such a time limit would clearly run counter to keeping young people safe, exposing them to arbitrary end points in online provision that have re-engaged them, kept them seen, and given them valuable teacher-student relationships.
Based on our experience supporting hundreds of schools and thousands of vulnerable students, we find that putting a clock on a child’s education is a significant misstep. It replaces expert professional judgment about when to end a placement with central bureaucracy, casts unfair doubt on accredited online learning, and risks setting a dangerous precedent for all online provision across the sector.
The question is: who is better placed to determine the endpoint of a placement? It is schools. Schools are aware of changes in circumstances, can identify the best time to reintegrate, monitor and adjust a re-entry plan, and adapt to local needs and family issues.
Children suffering chronic pain may not suddenly become pain-free and able to access physical school at 12 weeks. Children with SEND may be ready to reintegrate at 10 weeks but may need online support again at week 14. Children with a medical condition may need online support for a further period after relapse. In all these cases, an arbitrary time limit on online teaching causes uncertainty and friction in the support they need.
The decision needs sensitivity and awareness of need, not a central directive.
The gateway risk: Why this matters to every school
While this consultation specifically targets local authorities and EOTAS packages under Section 19, the danger is that guidance established here may creep into decision-making elsewhere.
If the DfE embeds the principle that online learning is inherently temporary and subject to central time limits, local commissioners and decision-makers may start applying those same restrictions across all alternative provision and school-led placements.
This limits the powers those who are best placed to make decisions – parents and school leaders – have to do what is in a young person’s best interests. This is key because statutory guidance clearly sets out that local authorities must arrange suitable education for children with health needs, that is in a child’s best interests.
Accepting time limits in Question 18 opens the door to restrictions on flexible education and more appropriate education down the line. It will act, in many cases, contrary to a child’s best interests. And at Academy21 we have plenty of examples of where an extended stay online may be best.
It is also not good enough to allow ‘exceptional circumstances’ to be cited as a reason to extend beyond a time limit. Inevitably, this will lead to inconsistent application – what is exceptional in one place may not be judged as such elsewhere? This has the hallmarks of creating burdensome paperwork for schools to prove exceptionality, when they know an intervention online is right for that child.
Parity of esteem: The double standard on accredited online provision
The government spent years establishing the Online Education Accreditation Scheme (OEAS) to inspect and accredit online providers against strict standards for educational quality, safeguarding, and attendance. Providers like Academy21 have passed these rigorous DfE inspections.
So why is accredited online provision being treated differently from physical AP settings?
We do not put a mandatory, one-size-fits-all expiration date on physical special school placements or local authority inclusion units. Why, then, impose one on DfE-accredited online providers who already have to meet extensive criteria and checks, including an Ofsted visit?
Once a provider is accredited, online education deserves the same esteem as in-person settings. Imposing an arbitrary countdown clock casts an immediate, unwarranted shadow of doubt over online AP, signalling to families that it is a “last resort” to be tolerated only briefly rather than a high-quality, long-term solution when needed.
Complex needs do not follow linear timelines
Children accessing accredited online provision often face complex combinations of severe Emotionally Based School Non-Attendance (EBSNA), mental health crises, trauma, medical conditions, and neurodivergence.
Progress for these young people is rarely linear. Rebuilding trust, attendance, and academic confidence takes time. A mandatory limit forces children to move before they are ready, driving up anxiety, risking total placement breakdown, and destroying working relationships that took months to build.
The consultation repeatedly states that support should be needs-led, outcome-focused, and regularly reviewed. Imposing a fixed deadline directly contradicts the government’s own principles.
Robust review is the real safeguard, not a countdown clock
Opposing time limits is not an argument against accountability. Children in online AP should remain on a school admission register, and their progress should be reviewed regularly with a clear focus on outcomes and, where appropriate, gradual reintegration.
That is robust governance. But the primary test of a placement must always be whether it remains suitable and effective for the child – not how many weeks have passed on a calendar. If a pupil is thriving, attending, and achieving through an accredited online provider, ending that placement simply because a pre-set date has elapsed is a major setback for the child’s progress.
Reject time limits on question 18 before 18 September
We cannot let centrally imposed deadlines replace local professional discretion. Headteachers, SENCOs, and local commissioners (those who actually know the child) must retain the flexibility to decide what is best for each learner.
The consultation closes on 18 September 2026. We urge all school leaders, trust executives, SENCOs, local authorities, and families to submit a response.
When responding to the wider consultation, we strongly encourage you to reject time limits and select that “Placements should not be time limited” for all the reasons above.
Let’s ensure the new EOTAS framework keeps young people at the heart of every decision. Read the full DfE consultation and submit your response before 18 September 2026.
