When Home-to-School Transport Doesn’t Fit: The Reality of Section 19 EOTAS

By Eva Sheffield, SEND parent

Contents

Winning the right educational provision should not be the beginning of another battle. Yet for some families whose children receive alternative education out of school, that’s exactly what is happening.

An EOTAS consultation has just opened, and you can read about that here. But this article is about the legal contradiction with section 19 bespoke education packages for children too unwell to go to school. It means transport arrangements that make it possible to access them are being refused.

SEND parent Eva Sheffield examines the legal paradox at the heart of this growing problem, and asks whether disabled children are once again being left with rights that exist only on paper.

Provision on paper isn’t provision in practice by Eva Sheffield

Note: This article discusses provision out of school via s19 of the Education Act, and also mentions EOTAS via an EHCP in s61 of The Children and Families Act 2014. Read what the difference is here. While provision under section 19 is more accurately described as alternative education or education otherwise than at school under s19, for brevity, we are using the term s19 EOTAS, as many parents do.

There is a growing crisis in how local authorities are approaching transport for children receiving Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS), through section 19 of the Education Act 1996. This is for school-age children who would otherwise receive no suitable education because of illness, exclusion or another reason.

Many SEND families are already familiar with transport delays, last-minute decisions, and lengthy battles over support. But the issue here is not simply delay. It is that many LAs appear to be attempting to force profoundly disabled children into generic home-to-school transport frameworks that do not legally or practically apply to their circumstances.

I know this because I am living it.

My daughter is disabled. She is autistic with pathological demand avoidance (PDA), situational mutism, ADHD, sensory processing disorder, dyspraxia, emotionally based school avoidance, school trauma-related needs, and significant difficulties with transport and transitions. Multiple independent professionals, including a Consultant Child Psychiatrist, Educational Psychologist, Sensory Integration Occupational Therapist, Speech and Language Therapist, and Independent Social Worker, have all confirmed that her education must be highly bespoke, relational, flexible, low-demand, and responsive to her nervous system and sensory profile, and ensure her transport needs are highly individualised.

As a result of High Court proceedings concerning failures to provide education, her education is currently being delivered as alternative provision s19 EOTAS.

A transport policy that does not fit

The LA designed my daughter’s section 19 EOTAS package and retains direct responsibility for commissioning and overseeing it. Most of her provision takes place at home, but the package also includes Sensory Integration Occupational Therapy (SIOT) and other provision outside the home.

Having accepted s19 EOTAS, the LA is trying to fit this arrangement into an ordinary “home to school transport” framework, which does not reflect how her provision actually works.

The LA is refusing to provide the transport arrangements necessary to make this aspect of her provision accessible in practice. Instead, it has directed me to apply under the Bi-Borough “Home to School Travel Assistance policy for children aged 0-16”, which expressly excludes my child’s circumstances.

The policy states:

“This applies to the beginning and end of the school day only and does not include travel between institutions during the school day or extra-curricular activities or other commitments outside school hours. Transport will not be provided for children to attend medical appointments, for after school clubs or other activities.”

The local authority’s own proposed package envisages movement between different activities, institutions, provisions, and locations during the day. The policy they are insisting we apply under expressly excludes exactly those circumstances.

When s19 EOTAS is “school”—until transport is mentioned

The contradiction becomes even more striking when looking at the LA’s own correspondence.

I was told:

“Sharing the link again to the transport policy and application process – as advised previously, please use this process to source transport if needed. In instances of EOTAS, the alternative location education is being delivered is considered as ‘school’. The other eligibility criteria still apply, so please check these through also.
“No email request or professional report is going to act as a substitute for following this policy, though you are welcome to use reports to support your application. If you do not apply for travel assistance via the aforementioned route, then you will continue to remain responsible for ensuring (your child) can travel to and access the educational offer.”

However, when I pointed out that the Government’s February 2025 alternative provision statutory guidance refers to responsibility for transport “between schools” during placements, the position suddenly shifted.

For reference this national guidance states:

“throughout the placement, it should be clear which school has overall accountability and responsibility for oversight and safeguarding of the child, including when they are travelling between schools..”

and

“both the home school and the host school will need to consider travel and transport, setting out what support they will put in place to help a child attend the in-school unit.”

I pointed out that if s19 EOTAS provision is being treated as “school”, then the guidance applies on its own terms where provision is delivered across multiple locations. I was then told that this did not apply because my daughter’s circumstances were not a “school A to school B” arrangement.

The local authority has therefore simultaneously:

classified EOTAS provision as “school” when convenient;
denied the transport responsibilities arising from that classification; and
directed families towards a transport policy which expressly excludes travel between provisions during the day, and travel to medical or therapeutic appointments.

Provision that cannot be accessed is not provision

This has devastating real-world consequences. Provision that cannot be accessed is not provision in practice. Consequently, families are being left trapped in impossible situations:

expected to coordinate complex disability transport themselves;
blamed for “non-engagement” when provision cannot actually be accessed; and
forced into exhausting litigation simply to make already-agreed provision deliverable.

The legal position is also important when an LA retains responsibility for commissioning and arranging s19 provision. It is a statutory duty that cannot simply be passed elsewhere, including that provision is realistically accessible.

If educational provision cannot be physically or psychologically reached, it cannot be counted as “provided”.

The Department for Education’s Position

I sought advice from the Department for Education, and their SEND and Alternative Provision colleagues responded, explaining that:

The department does not use the term Section 19 EOTAS in its guidance. Instead, alternative provision arranged by LAs, whether it takes place in a school or in a non-school setting, is governed by a combination of:
Arranging Alternative Provision: A guide for local authorities and schools (2025).
Arranging education for children who cannot attend school (2023).
These documents set clear expectations regarding the suitability, commissioning, oversight and review of alternative provision, including provision delivered across multiple settings.
This includes ensuring that provision is not only available in principle, but accessible in practice.  Where provision is delivered across multiple locations within a single school day, there is no separate statutory framework governing transport or movement between providers.
Instead, responsibility rests with the local authority, as commissioner, to ensure that:
the package of provision forms a coherent and deliverable programme
the child can reasonably access all elements of that provision
practical barriers to attendance, including travel, timing and individual need, are appropriately taken into account.
Local authorities are responsible for ensuring that such provision is suitable and accessible in practice, including where it is delivered across multiple sites.

Significantly, the DfE recognised that the ordinary home-to-school transport framework does not provide a comprehensive answer where provision is delivered flexibly across multiple locations. Instead, responsibility remains with the local authority, as commissioner of the provision, to ensure that the package can actually be accessed.

This reflects a simple but important principle: provision that exists only on paper is not enough. If a child cannot safely, realistically, or consistently access the provision that has been arranged, serious questions arise as to whether that provision is truly being secured at all.

This is not an isolated case

I previously supported another family through SEND Tribunal proceedings involving very similar transport arguments, but in the EHCP section 61 EOTAS context. In that case, the same local authority also attempted to avoid responsibility through generic transport frameworks. Ultimately, the Tribunal amended Section F to include the bespoke transport arrangements sought.

How many more families are going through the same thing? How many families are being forced into tribunals, judicial reviews, and years of adversarial proceedings simply because LAs refuse to act lawfully?

Promoted

What happens next?

Despite this reality, the direction of travel from Government is towards granting LAs even greater powers and discretion, while families are still fighting simply to secure the most basic legal entitlements for disabled children.

Families facing similar situations should not assume that inaccessible provision is legally acceptable simply because an LA labels it “EOTAS” or directs them towards a generic transport policy.

Increasingly, parents are finding they must scrutinise transport policies carefully, challenge contradictions in council decision-making, seek specialist legal advice where possible, and ensure that transport arrangements are addressed explicitly within EOTAS discussions from the outset, rather than treated as an afterthought once provision has already been agreed.

Because securing provision on paper is only half the battle. If disabled children cannot physically or psychologically access what has been arranged for them, then the system has not solved the problem, it has simply relocated it onto exhausted families already carrying impossible levels of responsibility.

About the author

Eva Sheffield is a London-based Psychosexual and Relationship Therapist and Trauma Therapist. She works from a trauma-informed, neurodiversity-affirming and LGBTQI+ inclusive perspective, with a particular interest in ADHD, autism, PDA, complex trauma and relational safety.

As the parent of a neurodivergent child with complex SEND needs, Eva also writes about the realities of navigating the SEND system, disability rights, inclusive education and the impact of systemic failures on disabled children and families.

She is passionate about amplifying lived experience and advocating for humane, lawful and trauma-informed approaches across education, health and social care.

Disabled Children’s Rights are Under Attack.
We’re fighting, but we can’t do it alone: we need your help more than ever.
We’re volunteer-run, but costs are rising. To help us keep going, please consider a one-off or, if it’s possible, a regular donation.
Read more about being a regular donor here.
We use Zeffy to fundraise, which doesn’t charge us a fee, so 100% of your donation reaches us.

DONATE TO HELP
KEEP SNJ ONLINE!

Don’t miss a thing!

Don’t miss any posts from SNJ – simply add your email address below. You must click the link in the confirmation email you’ll receive to activate your free subscription.

You can also keep up with us by following our

WhatsApp Channel!

Want more? Be an SNJ regular donor!

SNJ is a non-profit and everyone who writes here does so voluntarily. We need your support to help us with costs by donating once or as a regular patron. Find out more here

About
Latest Posts

Follow me

Renata Watts

Co Director at Special Needs Jungle

Renata is co-director of Special Needs Jungle as well as being on the board of Hertfordshire’s Parent Carer Forum. She also sits on a variety of steering groups including the coordinated care of rare diseases (CONCORD) study funded by the National Institute for Health Research, community and public health strategies, delivering coordinated care and strategic planning for SEND. She also sits on various advisory committees for children’s charities.

Previously Renata has been at the forefront of successfully changing government policy so interventions are needs-led and no longer diagnosis-led, and creating the world’s first specialist nurse for undiagnosed children at Great Ormond Street Hospital.

She also helped establish and grow the first online support community for families of undiagnosed children and spearheaded the very first undiagnosed children’s awareness day, including producing information videos that were shown in parliament.

She is a regular speaker on TV and at events, is an RSA Fellow and the mother of three children with disabilities, two of whom have complex needs and one of whom also has complex medical needs.

Follow me