More than a last resort: Arrangements and quality of EOTAS tuition in Wales

Executive Summary

What we did

This thematic report examines the arrangements for and quality of tuition services for pupils who are educated other than at school (EOTAS) across Wales.

If you’re new to EOTAS or tuition services, see FAQs on page 44.

We considered how well local authorities meet their statutory duties. We also looked at how effectively tuition services support pupils’ learning, well-being and progression. The report also shares effective practice, where identified.

Our evidence came from surveys and discussions with local authorities and visits to 14 tuition providers, including local authority services, schools, pupil referral units (PRUs) and commissioned providers. During visits, we spoke with leaders, tutors, pupils and parents or carers. We observed learning, reviewed pupils’ work and examined documentation such as individual development plans (IDPs), curriculum planning and transition arrangements. In total, we spoke with over 60 pupils.

What we found

Strategic leadership and oversight

Local authorities have a statutory role in ensuring that pupils who cannot attend school continue to receive suitable education. In the strongest authorities, leaders have a clear strategic vision for tuition services. They view tuition as a purposeful and, where appropriate, time-limited intervention that supports pupils to sustain or re-engage with learning and prepare for future pathways.

However, strategic leadership and governance are inconsistent across Wales. In too many authorities, arrangements lack clarity and coherence. This results in fragmented provision and uneven expectations for providers. Oversight of commissioned services is often particularly underdeveloped, particularly where provision is delivered online or in the community.

We found that national expectations for tuition provision within EOTAS were not sufficiently clear, particularly in relation to curriculum breadth and balance, which contributed to variability in learners’ experiences across Wales. Differences in local interpretation had led to inconsistencies in the range and depth of learning available to young people educated outside mainstream settings. We also found confusion regarding expectations for the number of hours of tuition to be provided, resulting in inconsistent practice across local authorities. As a result, entitlement was not applied consistently, and approaches to planning, delivery and quality assurance varied.

Quality of provision and curriculum

There is too much variation in the quality of tuition services. A minority of providers deliver high-quality teaching within a carefully planned curriculum. In these settings, learning is engaging and matched well to pupils’ needs. Pupils often make strong progress in confidence, well-being and academic learning.

In contrast, many pupils experience a narrow curriculum. They receive only a limited number of hours each week. Provision is frequently restricted to English and mathematics, with limited access to other areas of learning and experience (AoLE) or vocational pathways. As a result, pupils’ opportunities to gain qualifications and progress to positive destinations is limited.

The delivery of the Curriculum for Wales is inconsistent. While a few providers have adapted their curricula thoughtfully, others have yet to embed the principles, purposes and progression framework effectively.

We found that expectations for more able pupils were too low in several tuition services. In a minority of cases, teaching materials lacked sufficient challenge and did not consistently support higher-level thinking or progression. As a result, more able learners did not always receive work that matched their capabilities, limiting opportunities to extend their knowledge, skills and understanding.

Additional learning needs (ALN) and well-being

The needs of pupils accessing tuition services are becoming increasingly complex. Many pupils experience a combination of mental health difficulties, neurodevelopmental needs, trauma and/or a pattern of disrupted schooling.

In the strongest practice, providers use assessment information and IDPs effectively. They adopt trauma-informed approaches and work closely with other agencies to support pupils’ well-being. However, ALN arrangements remain variable. In some cases, identification of needs is delayed, and provision does not consistently reflect statutory expectations.

Tuition services are often expected to address needs beyond their original remit, for example in meeting complex ALN. This places pressure on staff capacity and resources and can affect the quality and sustainability of provision.

While local authorities in Wales have a legal duty to secure suitable education for pupils receiving Education Otherwise Than at School (EOTAS) up to the age of 16, there is no expectation that tuition services continue beyond that point. As a result, it is extremely rare for tuition provision to be maintained after 16 to support young people with ALN to achieve qualifications.

In practice, this creates a significant inequity within the system. Many pupils in special schools routinely remain in education until the age of 19, benefiting from structured post-16 programmes, specialist teaching, continued therapeutic input and supported pathways to accredited qualifications. However, young people with ALN who are unable to attend school and who rely on tuition services, do not experience the same continuity of entitlement. Those supported through EOTAS tuition frequently see their provision reduced substantially or ended abruptly at 16, limiting their access to qualifications and ongoing specialist support at a critical stage in their education.

Pupil voice and engagement

Where practice is strongest, pupils have meaningful opportunities to influence their learning. They help shape timetables, learning activities and future plans. This increases engagement and motivation.

In many services, however, pupil voice is limited. Pupils in online or community-based provision often report having little influence over what or how they learn. Opportunities to gather and act on pupils’ views are inconsistent. Where practice is strongest, pupils have meaningful opportunities to influence their learning. They help shape timetables, learning activities and future plans. This increases engagement, motivation and a stronger sense of ownership over their education