Re. EOTAS, I'm torn. I know some children absolutely need to be educated outside the school system. I know that some EOTAS packages provide a good education for young people. However, I read horror stories on Facebook of packages that consist of 1 hour of something like Mindjam and 2 hours of tutoring, or packages that take a year to put in place, then are dismantled 2 months later at annual review, or parents are told to pay for provision, get receipts and then the LA don't pay. If a parent was providing that level of 'education', they'd be given a SAO.
I also think that, whatever the motives, it can't be argued against that some yp are requiring EOTAS packages directly because of poor educational experiences, rather than their SEN themselves. If provision in schools and APs improved, there would be less EOTAS requirements.
The difficulty, as I see it, though, is that in order to make the changes that would result in a lower need for EOTAS packages, there needs to be substantial investment in education on both a ground floor level and through better education for staff. Secondary schools are too big and impersonal. There needs to be change in the school system. Unfortunately, I fear that the Govt. (and all Govts.) have a mindset of 'we need to save money, then we can reinvest it where it's needed most'. What they need to say is 'We need to spend a shed load of money and it's going to hurt, but in 10 years time we'll save all of it and more.'
If the school, and by extension the LA, had spent a few grand on DD2, they would have saved at least £250,000 on her education over the last few years.
If they had better systems in place, DD3 wouldn't have needed the last couple of years of special school.
I shudder to think what the true cost of failing DD1 is in the long term.
So I guess that overall, I think children do exist for whom no educational setting will do (looking at you Mr complex @inthequietofdawn's DS1!) but I think they are rarer than we see currently. I think that most children who require EOTAS are simply victims of a system that is badly organised and badly funded, run by people who are so invested in their model of 'education' that they refuse to see when it is failing a subset of children. It's so endemic that the failure is baked in and accepted as inevitable. 40% of children fail their GCSEs each year by design. How can that be right?
Support is seen as as temporary measure to get a child over a hump. The moment they respond to the support, it's taken away. Crazy!
I could go on. TLDR: I think that quite a lot of the consultation is saying the right thing, but based on the wrong premise and drawing the wrong conclusion.