The state of school transport
5. On 7 April 2004, our colleagues on the Transport
Select Committee published a report concluding that 'school transport
is in crisis'.[2] The word
'crisis' is often over-used, but there is clear evidence of large
increases in public expenditure associated with home to school
transport, particularly in the provision of transport for children
with special educational needs. Congestion around schools is rising
as more and more parents choose to take their children to school
by car, often dropping them off on the way to work. Existing school
transport legislation, which dates from 1944, is generally perceived
to be out of date and unsuited to the modern world. On this basis,
successive governments have been lobbied for a change in school
transport legislation and on 8 March 2004, Parliament was presented
with the draft School Transport Bill.
Legislation
6. The provision of home to school transport by local
authorities is currently governed by the Education Act 1996. The
1996 Act was a consolidation Act and the provisions relating to
school transport date back to the Education Act 1944. The Education
Act 2002 introduced new duties in relation to transport for post-16
students, requiring every Local Education Authority (LEA) to publish
a policy statement setting out its level of provision for 16 to
19 year olds, but aside from this measure, legislation has remained
unchanged since 1944.
7. The purpose of school transport legislation is
to ensure that every child of compulsory school age can get to
school. LEAs are required to consider whether transport is needed
in order to facilitate a pupil's attendance at school. If this
is the case, transport must be provided by the LEA free of charge.
Legislation is based on statutory 'walking distances'. Section
444 of the Education Act 1996 provides that a parent will be guilty
of an offence if their child fails to attend school regularly.
However, section 444(4) provides a defence if the parent can show
that the child lives beyond 'walking distance' of the school.
The statutory 'walking distances' were laid down in 1944 and are
two miles for children under eight years old and three miles for
older children. LEAs must provide transport without charge beyond
these limits. In addition, LEAs must provide free transport where
the walking route within these distances would be unsafe for a
child even if accompanied or where transport is required due to
a child's special educational needs.
8. Case law has determined that the statutory provision
of free transport extends only to a pupil's 'nearest suitable
school' as identified by the LEA, which may not be a parent's
preferred school. A Court of Appeal judgement in July 1994 decided
that transport did not have to be provided to any school other
than the one that the LEA deemed to be the 'nearest suitable'.
Other cases have found that LEAs do not have to provide assistance
with transport to single sex schools, or in Wales to English or
Welsh language schools, where these are preferred by parents,
but are not the school designated by the LEA for the area in which
the child lives.[3]
9. In addition to the statutory provision outlined
above, the Education Act 1996 gives LEAs wide discretionary powers
to provide free or subsidised travel to other pupils, for example
to pupils whose parents have chosen to send them to a school that
is not their nearest school, commonly on grounds of religious
belief, or by reducing the walking distances in their area to
offer more generous provision.
Costs
10. Expenditure on home to school transport in England,
including discretionary free and subsidised fares, has increased
above the rate of inflation over recent years. Between 2000-01
and 2002-03,
total expenditure on school transport increased by over 18%, from
£560 million to £662 million.[4]
The mounting cost of local authority school bus contracts has
been cited as a cause for this rise: in 2003 the average price
increase for contracts renewed on a like-for-like basis in English
counties was 11.5%. However, this figure masks the fact that contracts
are on average renewed on a three-yearly basis and compares favourably
with an increase of 16.4% in the cost of public bus contracts.[5]
11. The most common means by which LEAs ensure provision
of school transport is to contract-in buses and coaches from Public
Service Vehicle operators for services used exclusively or largely
by schoolchildren. Some authorities also own their own buses and
coaches for this purpose. Alternatively, an LEA may purchase season
tickets on behalf of children who then travel on scheduled public
transport services (buses or, more rarely, trains), at a price
agreed with the operator. Pupils may then use these services for
evening or weekend travel as well as the school run.
12. Although children living nearer to school than
the statutory limits are not generally entitled to free transport,
a proportion do travel by bus where a public service is available.
The Department for Transport's National Travel Survey (NTS) indicates
that in 2002, 23% of secondary age children (11-16)
used the 'local bus' to travel to and from school, compared with
9% on 'private bus' (i.e. contract services).[6]
This figure includes children travelling over the statutory distances
on season tickets provided by the LEA, but may also indicate substantial
use of public scheduled services at shorter distances. In many
cases, operators offer lower fares for children, although the
age limits and discounts applied to 'child fares' vary widely
and some children travelling slightly below the statutory distances
may incur very high costs. Local authorities do have the power
under the Transport Act 2000 to compensate operators for charging
concessionary fares to certain categories of passenger than they
would do commercially, but these are applied by only a small proportion
of authorities, mainly in the metropolitan areas.
13. Where contract services are provided, average
loads carried are normally high, but vehicle utilisation is often
poor. Unless school hours are staggered, only one loaded run may
be performed in each direction per school day, and the school
year is shorter than the average adult working year. Hence, costs
such as vehicle depreciation and management overheads have to
be borne by a small output measured in terms of bus-kilometres.
The average cost of statutory home to school transport per child
in 2001-02 was approximately £570.[7]
On a school year of 190 days this would correspond to about £3.00
per pupil per day, or about £1.50 per one-way trip. In contrast,
the average cost for all passenger trips on registered local bus
services in 2001-02 in England was 63 pence.[8]
14. A significant and increasing proportion of the
school transport budget is now spent on children with special
educational needs (SEN). In 2002, around half of total expenditure
on home to school transport (£254 million) was spent on pupils
travelling to special schools who often have severe medical or
emotional/behavioural needs. The average transport cost per special
needs pupil is about £3,775, or approximately £20 per
day.[9] LEAs are obligated
to provide transport for those children with special educational
needs where transport requirements are specified in their SEN
statement. When transport for those with special needs travelling
to 'mainstream' schools (i.e. schools which are not special schools
for pupils with SEN) is included, as much as 70% of the total
school transport budget could be spent on transport for pupils
with special educational needs.[10]
15. Mike Hirst, headteacher of Ravenscliffe special
school in Calderdale, told us that the increase in costs associated
with transporting pupils with special educational needs can in
part be ascribed to an increasing level of need:
"People need to recognise that the costs for
pupils with special needs are on the increase because the complexity
of need is becoming greater. It often surprises me that people
do not really have an appreciation of that. The more we try to
do for these students the more costly that becomes and I think
we are getting better at meeting their needs but there is a consequential
increase in cost."[11]
16. Local Education Authorities exhibit wide variation
in the amount they spend on school transport.[12]
Differences in spending naturally arise from geographical variations
(per capita local authority expenditure on school bus services
is inversely related to population density),[13]
the safety of walking routes to school and the proportion of pupils
with special educational needs attending mainstream and special
schools. The local transport market can be a major factor, as
rates for vehicle contracts vary widely.
17. Home to school transport costs are also influenced
by the use of discretionary powers. The Education Act 1996 (section
509(1)) places a duty on LEAs to provide transport to school for
pupils of compulsory school age where it is 'necessary' for them
to attend their nearest school. It also gives LEAs discretionary
powers to provide additional transport subsidies, for example
to denominational schools. In these cases, practice varies widely
and the authority may pay all or part of the pupil's travelling
costs and may take into account parental income in making its
decision. Evidence given to the Committee suggests that there
is a general trend towards the withdrawal of discretionary provision
with the aim of keeping costs under control. Martin Bradshaw,
Legal Adviser of the Catholic Education Service, told the Committee:
"At the moment it varies from free transport
available to more or less any child that wants it to no transport
whatsoever, and there is an increasing practice, more and more
local authorities are now withdrawing discretionary transport."[14]
Congestion
18. Over the past twenty years the proportion of
children travelling to school by car has almost doubled.[15]
The National Travel Survey 2002 shows that 41% of primary school
children and 24% of secondary school pupils are driven to school
each day, yet many of these journeys are under two miles.[16]
At 8.50 in the morning during term time, one in five cars on urban
roads is taking children to school and these trips often form
part of a longer journey, most often to the parent's place of
work.[17] In addition
to the statistics, many of our witnesses gave anecdotal evidence
that the increase in car use on the school run has reached critical
proportions and is a serious cause for concern in terms of its
detrimental impact on the environment and on children's health
and wellbeing. Local congestion around schools inconveniences
neighbouring residents and poses a serious road safety risk to
those children who do wish to walk or cycle.
19. A minority of children are eligible for statutory
free transport. A DfES/Confed survey published in February 2004
shows that around 700,000 pupils in England receive free home
to school transport every day. This represents around 10% of pupils
overall, although the proportion is higher in rural areas, and
includes around 75,000 attending special schools. In Wales, approximately
100,000 pupils (20% of the pupil population) receive free home
to school transport. This is a result of geography as well as
more generous provision by Welsh LEAs, which often adopt lower
walking distances than the statutory minima.[18]
Take-up by eligible pupils is close to universal, [19]
but the vast majority of pupils and parents are still responsible
for making their own home to school transport arrangements.
Campaign groups have persistently lobbied for a change
in the statutory walking distances, claiming that the legislation
does not reflect modern day lifestyles or safety concerns and
that it is unrealistic to expect today's parents to allow their
children to make a three-mile journey alone or to walk with them
to school. Equally, there are concerns that the existence of a
statutory limit is unfair to those living just short of the prescribed
distance. Whilst a family living three miles from school may be
eligible for free transport, their neighbours across the street
who live only 2.9 miles from school have no entitlement at all.
This view was expressed in the reports of the Social Exclusion
Unit, the Audit Commission, and the Local Government Association
on school transport and reflected in evidence given to the Committee.
Whatever our aspirations concerning children's
walking habits may be, the fact is that where transport is not
provided within the statutory walking distances, many pupils are
now being driven to school.
20. Even where school buses are available on the
route to school (either provided free of charge, charged for,
or as general public services), we heard evidence that many parents
still drive their children to school. Although journeys by bus
are statistically very safe and much less dangerous than travelling
by private car per occupant kilometre, high-profile accidents
involving school buses have damaged parental confidence. In addition,
our evidence suggests that travelling on a school bus is an unpleasant
experience for many children, due to poor pupil behaviour and
the low quality of the vehicles themselves. Kathryn James, Senior
Assistant Secretary, Professional Advice, NAHT told us:
"Parents are not going to allow their children
to use school buses if they are not guaranteed as far as possible
to be a safe form of transport. If you allow the facility to charge
that has got to be made attractive enough within a safe enough
environment for parents to consider that it is worth spending
the money rather than using their own cars to transport."[20]
The report on school transport issued by the Transport
Select Committee concludes that in many cases the journey to school
by bus leaves a lot to be desired. From our own evidence, we would
concur with this conclusion.
Although most journeys to school made by car are
below the statutory walking distance of three miles, the average
length of a child's journey to school has increased over the past
twenty years. The National Travel Survey shows that in the last
decade, the average length of the trip to school for children
aged 5 to 10 increased from 1.3 to 1.7 miles and for pupils aged
11 to 16 from 3.1 to 3.8 miles.[21]
Since 1991-93, there has been an increase of 8% in the number
of 'escort education trips' (journeys solely to take another person
to an educational institute) and a 50% increase in mileage.[22]
This increased mobility may reflect parents' choice of schools
some distance from home: a trend encouraged by successive governments'
policies promoting parental preference in school admissions and
diversity of educational provision. As Charles Clarke MP, Secretary
of State for Education and Skills, recognised when giving evidence
to the to Transport Select Committee, children who do not go to
their local school are less likely to walk or cycle and are more
likely to be driven to school.[23]
21. The increase in the average length of a journey
is compounded by the fact that some schools, notably faith schools,
can be said to have particularly large catchment areas. These
schools have historically been sited so as to draw pupils from
as wide an area as possible, increasing the average travelling
distances to that school.[24]
This phenomenon is not solely restricted to faith schools, as
Tim Davies, Chairman of the Association of Transport Co-ordinating
Officers, told us:
"It was the policy in the Seventies and Eighties
to create fairly large comprehensive schools which are now designated
community colleges and in some of our rural areas an individual
school may well serve 500 square miles of catchment area and 80%
of the children are possibly carried into those schools, say 800
out of 1,000 at one or two of our largest schools. In terms of
primary schools, whilst at one point there was a move towards
area schools that did get reversed and there has been some protection
of the smaller primary schools since then. I think what has happened
[…] is that even where children 20 or 30 years ago were allowed
to walk two miles to a village school from what is still a reasonable
catchment area for a village school, parents now take them by
car, so there has been a switch there. None of those children
have ever been entitled to assisted school transport. From the
transport statistics it is very apparent that it is the two to
three mile band of car journey distance where there has been the
biggest increase in the school run over the last 20 years."[25]
Advice given to the Committee by academics, local
government transport officers, parents, schools and other interested
parties has suggested that the increase in car use on the school
run will be a difficult trend to reverse. Recent research from
University College London shows that 68% of parents who drive
their children to school make the trip as part of a longer journey,
for example to their place of work.[26]
This represents a very convenient form of transport, and one that
is highly regarded in terms of personal safety, that parents will
not be easily motivated to discontinue. Even if children were
taken out of these cars, the journeys would probably still be
made with no reduction in the number of cars on the road. Congestion
might simply be moved away from the school gates to another location.
Historically, reductions in congestion or road use have been balanced
by the new road users attracted by the quieter conditions. The
difficulties local authorities will face in persuading parents
not to drive their children to school do not negate the value
of attempting to tackle car use on the school run, but the Government
must take account of the true scale of the challenge it faces.
The draft School Transport Bill
22. In recent years, pressure for change to school
transport legislation has come from many quarters. In December
1998, the Government established the School Travel Advisory Group
(STAG), which assembled representatives of parents, teachers,
governors, public transport operators, business, road safety,
child health and school transport experts and a range of local
authorities to lead the dissemination of best practice, raise
the profile of school travel issues, identify practical means
of influencing behaviour and develop a coherent approach to school
travel. The STAG 1998-99
Report identified an increase in car use and distances travelled
and called for better use of the resources devoted to statutory
school transport. It recommended that further work be undertaken
in the form of pilots, testing whether families not eligible for
free transport would be willing to pay for additional public services.
In November 2001, The Audit Commission published its report, Going
Places, which suggested that the Government should integrate
school transport into the wider transport agenda and into environment
and health policies, reviewing legislation and building on existing
regional initiatives. In February 2003, the Social Exclusion Unit
report Making the Connections was published, advocating
greater freedom for LEAs in the management of home to school transport
and the extension of choice for low-income families who cannot
afford transport to a school that is not their nearest. Most recently,
in September 2003, the Local Government Association carried out
an independent review of school transport identifying the major
problems facing LEAs. It too put the case for greater local flexibility.
These reports trace the emergence of a consistent lobby seeking
greater legislative freedom and a coherent and positive Government
policy on school transport.
23. In September 2003, the Government published Travelling
to School: an action plan and a companion document Travelling
to school: a good practice guide, proposing measures aimed
at encouraging children to walk, cycle or use public transport
to get to school. The health and environmental benefits of using
sustainable transport on the school run were highlighted and the
document launched the School Travel Plan scheme, an initiative
offering small capital grants to schools (£5,000 for primary
schools, £10,000 for secondary schools) for facilities such
as secure cycle sheds, lockers and bus bays. The action plan also
revealed that the Government was considering changing the law
to allow some LEAs to pilot new arrangements for school transport,
which could include charging for transport where it had previously
been provided free of charge. Two months later, the draft School
Transport Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech.
24. The draft School Transport Bill is a short Bill,
consisting of only six clauses. Its main provisions are to set
up a number of pilot schemes, covering up to twenty LEAs in England
and six in Wales, to trial new approaches to school transport
for all the pupils in their area and to allow pilot schemes
to impose a charge for transport where it has previously been
provided free of charge in accordance with the statutory walking
distances. In England, a category of 'protected children', equivalent
to those whose family income entitles them to free school meals,
will be exempted from charges; in Wales this minimum definition
also applies, but may be extended. Pilot schemes will not attract
additional funding; the Government argues that the resources currently
devoted to public transport could be better used. In the draft
Prospectus, a summary of the draft Bill's scope, proposals and
objectives, the Government states:
"The main purpose of school travel has always
been, and will continue to be, to enable pupils to attend school.
Wherever pupils live beyond the current statutory walking distances,
LEAs will have to continue to make arrangements for them to travel
to school. However, we want scheme areas to go well beyond this
minimum, and use the new legislation to support arrangements that
offer a range of good quality, cost effective alternatives to
the family car on the home to school journey."[27]
We are convinced that action is urgently needed
to improve home to school transport, which suffers from outdated
legislation, spiralling costs and a worrying trend towards the
use of individual private cars, presenting risks to the environment
and to children's health and wellbeing. We also note that asking
parents to express a preference as to which school their child
should attend becomes a redundant exercise if suitable transport
is not available to enable children to attend the chosen school.
We have therefore sought to scrutinise the draft Bill in order
to determine whether or not it presents an appropriate response
to the rapidly worsening situation.
1 School Travel Schemes - Draft Bill, Cm 6151, March
2004. Back
2
Transport Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2003-04, School
Transport, HC 318-I, paragraph 59. Back
3
ST 1 Back
4
Children on the Move-accessing excellence, Local Government
Association, p 7. Back
5
Local Authority Bus Contracts-Price, Expenditure and Competition
Survey 2003, Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers
(ATCO). Reproduced in ST 1, Annex J. Back
6
Department for Transport (2004) National Travel Survey: 2002 (NTS
2002), Transport Statistics Bulletin, April 2004, table
6.1. Back
7
ST 1, Annex B. Back
8
Department for Transport Statistics Bulletin SB(03)31 'A Bulletin
of Public Transport Statistics Great Britain : 2003 edition',
table 26. Back
9
ST 1, Annex B. Back
10
ST 1 Back
11
Q 363 Back
12
ST 1 Annex G and H. Back
13
ST 1 Annex I. Back
14
Q 242 Back
15
Travelling to School: an action plan, Department for Education
and Skills, September 2003, Foreword. Back
16
Department for Transport, National Travel Survey 2002, table 6.1.
The average journey length for pupils aged five to ten is 1.7
miles. Back
17
ibid, table 6.4. Back
18
Survey of all 22 authorities for the Welsh Assembly Government's
Education andLifelong Learning Committee, Local Transport Today,
3 June 2004. Back
19
ST 1 Back
20
Q 192 Back
21
Department for Transport, National Travel Survey, 2002, table
6.1. Back
22
ibid, table 4.2. The figures given for secondary school pupils
may be inflated in 2002 by under-recording of short walks. Back
23
HC 318-ii, Q 207. Back
24
Q 256 Back
25
Q 181 Back
26
Mackett, R L, Lucas L, Paskins J and Turbin J (2002) 'Children's
car use: the implications for health and sustainability', Proceedings
of the European Transport Conference, held in Cambridge, September
2002 (PTRC, London). Back
27
Paragraph 7. Back
