Agenda item

Cllr John Howson, Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Young People’s Services, Kate Reynolds, Deputy Director of Education, and Joanna Goodey, Education Inclusion Manager, have been invited to present a report on the Draft Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS) Policy.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

Cllr John Howson, Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Young People’s Services, and Cllr Kate Gregory, Cabinet Member for SEND Improvement, were invited to present a report on the on the Draft Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS) Policy.   Stephen Chandler, Executive Director (People), Kate Reynolds, Deputy Director of Education, Alex Potts, Lead Officer: Tribunals, Resolutions and Compliance, and Joanna Goodey, Education Inclusion Manager, also attended and answered the Committee’s questions.

The Cabinet Member for SEND Improvement began by acknowledging the need to engage more with parents and carers before the policy was subsequently submitted to Cabinet.  Cllr Gregory explained that it had been hoped to defer the report once the level of dissatisfaction had been registered.

The Deputy Director of Education apologised for the length of time it had taken to develop the policy and the distress it had caused.  The Deputy Director confirmed that the intention was to work with the co-production team to look again at the draft policy as well as the accompanying guidance before it moved on.

The Education Inclusion Manager thanked parents and carers for their very valuable feedback and would review the content of the letter submitted by them to members of the Committee.  A meeting with the SEND Youth Forum was also announced, with the intention of working with them and other stakeholders to co-produce the information and guidance accompanying the future EOTAS policy.

The number of children and families receiving EOTAS had increased from 42 to 52, highlighting the need for a clear policy detailing responsibilities and processes. A workday was scheduled on 13 January 2025 to address personal budgets, safeguarding, coordination, monitoring, and training.

The Committee was assured that there was a strong commitment on the Council’s part to develop a policy that families currently receiving EOTAS were content with but one that was sustainable and appropriate for the future too.

Members of the Committee emphasised the importance of coproduction but also clarity and communication so that all stakeholders understood the constraints, legal and financial, under which the Council was operating. .

Members began by asking the representative of OxPCF a number of questions about their engagement with the policy drafting process. In relation to co-production at the beginning of the process OxPCF suggested they had participated in the process but there remained a lack of understanding about what co-production was. Oxfordshire was rightly regarded as very good at participation and engagement, which was very positive, but this was not co-production. OxPCF suggested that a decision had been made by the Council to not co-produce the policy which had left families frustrated. It was felt that the draft EOTAS policy featured lots of guidance, rather than legal policy, and that could have been easily co-produced.

Members inquired about the frequency of consultations with service providers and professionals supporting the 52 EOTAS families during the policy drafting process. Officers indicated that these providers and professionals were not specifically consulted initially. The primary aim was to draft a policy for the Council, with plans to involve the providers later when commissioning services. It was noted that if Scrutiny recommended involving providers in shaping the policy, the Council would consider this approach.

Officers updated members on Alternative Provision (AP) and EOTAS from the Department of Education's (DfE) national consultation. The update mentioned a national database and inspection regime for EOTAS providers. All alternative providers were expected to undergo local quality assurance and due diligence checks. The DfE considered the AP market complex and emphasised that local bodies should ensure thorough quality and insurance checks. Public bodies were already managing essential safeguards like due diligence and public liability insurance effectively.

Committee Members once again emphasised the desire for greater co-production and collaboration, and to learn rapidly from previous mistakes made in relation to the EOTAS policy. Officers and Cabinet Members were encouraged to read, and engage with the signatories of, the letter submitted by parents and young people in receipt of EOTAS packages. Cabinet was urged to ensure this item was a priority and that the Cabinet Member for SEND Improvement and officers had Cabinet’s support.

The Oxfordshire Way and adult social services were highlighted as examples of positive co-production work. Members emphasised that the adult social care sector in Oxfordshire had some of the most effective and highly-regarded co-production in the country and suggested that similar approaches should be used for children's services.

Officers and the Cabinet Member for SEND Improvement welcomed the constructive criticism of the Committee and expressed their desire to co-produce the guidance associated with the EOTAS policy with parents and young people. The Executive Director (People) mentioned that a member of the SEND Parent Action Group was now the co-chair of the council's co-production board. This was highlighted as a starting point for ensuring meaningful engagement with families in the co-production process.

The Committee AGREED recommendations under the following headings:

• That the Council should develop a new Alternative Provision policy and EOTAS policy written in conjunction with each other in a co-produced way.

• That the draft EOTAS policy should be re-developed using co-production and external experts and that this should be done swiftly and should be considered by the Committee before it is submitted to Cabinet.