School Transport Inquiry : Desktop Research summary and conclusions

In order to understand the issues surrounding school transport for disabled children Contact conducted desktop research (between September-Nov 2016) looking into local authority school transport polices and post-16 transport policies.

We used a Ranking System and Criteria for each policy and scored out of 5 for each section.

This system took into account the different areas which parents would need to look at to gain all the information they need surrounding school transport for their children.

Locating Transport Policy

This section looked at if the transport policy/information was linked to the local offer, how easy to locate was the policy if not linked to local offer, was there a clear contents page and is the information accessible and up to date.

Eligibility for free school transport

This section looked at if the criteria and eligibility for receiving school transport was clear, well described and if it stated that the child would be individually assessed. Furthermore if a policy statement included any unlawful blanket statements (eg children without EHC plans/statements, children without physical disability, DLA mobility etc)their score would automatically be 0 for this section.

Applications section

Is clear about where to apply, describes how to apply and the application process with detail on what documentation will be needed to support the application and a link to or description of where the application form can be found.

Modes of Transport

Is there a list of modes of transport provided, detail about drivers having training and having DBS/CRB checks and how much mileage can be reimbursed.

Post 16 Policy

Is the policy up to date, does it contain clear criteria with modes of transport, describes how to apply and sets out any costs.

Appeals

Is the appeals process clear? Does it state where to appeal, the stages, how the appeals will be judged.

Regions

We looked into regions across England, 59 in total with

11 London policies

6 East of England

4 East Midlands

5 North East

5 Yorkshire

4 West Midlands

9 South West

5 South East

10 North West

Results:

51% (30) of these policies included unlawful blanket statements.

With most stating that children needed Education, Health and Care plan in order to be eligible for free school transport and some stating that children in receipt of the high rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) must use this to fund school transport. These statements are both unlawful and this is reflected in statutory guidance issued by the Department for Education (DfE).

On average local authorities scored 13.4 out of the total 30 points.

13.5% (8 local authorities- Manchester, Salford, Stoke on Trent, Bromley, Bury, Hackney, Croydon, Cambridgeshire) stated on either their website or travel policy document that parents who received a high rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) for their child would be expected to take their child to school themselves.

Cheshire West and Chester has no school transport policy doc or information on their website

5 (Stockport, Medway, North-East Lincolnshire Southampton and Cheshire East) did not contain unlawful statements but their policies/websites did not contain enough information to ascertain what their criteria actually was/ if they actually included a SEN criteria.

15 (Surrey, Islington, Wirral. Ealing, Plymouth, Essex, Northamptonshire, Calderdale, Bristol, Norfolk, Shropshire, Cumbria, Bournemouth, Leeds, Peterborough) stated that only children with a statement of SEN/EHCP are entitled to free transport.

On average the appeals section and the transport policy sections scored highest with an averages of 3 and 2.6 points

16-19 policy documents were on average better than standard policy documents. Standard policy documents scored 1.8, 1.5, 2.2 and 2.7 making the average score of all criteria 2.05 whereas 16-19 policy scored 2.4 on average.

Conclusions:

  • Transport policies should be linked to the local offer. This is a legal requirement under CFA s30 (2) (d).
  • The amount of unlawful blanket statements is extremely high. The statutory guidance is clear but could be stronger – a must rather than should.
  • Many local policies did not include contents pages, used small text with lots of paragraphs which were extremely difficult to read as were full of legislation jargon. Text should be bigger and broken down into smaller paragraphs so it is easier to read. The good policies that stood out were those that used flow-charts and colour to disseminate the information.
  • The whole process was extremely time consuming, time which most parents let alone those with disabled children do not have.
  • Some policies were not clearly labelled or not linked to transport sections leading to lots of trawling to even find the specific document – Local authorities should ensure their transport policies are clearly named ‘School Transport policy’ with a date.
  • Application processes overall should be clearer and include specific details about what documentation needs to be included, particularly evidence about walking difficulties. Where and how to apply were not included on many policies, this information is crucial and needs to be there (the same applies to the appeals process).
  • Many policies were out of date/ included out of date terminology such as CRB checks, policies should ensure that they are up to date.
  • Appeals process is extremely clear in some local policies and included easy to read flowcharts describing the process in stages.
  • Found that 16-19 policies were often much clearer and informative than school transport policies in general
  • Lots of policies lost points for not including information about driver’s training and criminal record checks.
  • It would be helpful to include some good practice departmental advice with examples e.g. like the 2007 guidance.

Page 1 of 3