Select Committee on Education and Skills Third Report


4 Encouraging change

68. The increase in car use on the school run has built up over a long period of time. These long-standing habits will be hard to break. The structure of pilots aims to allow for experimentation with the hope of discovering effective schemes that will change patterns of behaviour. Clearly, it is impossible to judge the effectiveness of pilots until they have been in place for a number of years. As Patrick Coleman of the LGA said, "That is the trouble with an enabling Bill allowing for experimentation and innovation. You cannot say what is going to happen until you suck it and see".[84] However, our inquiry has identified a number of motivating factors that are likely to affect the success of school travel schemes, not all of which are fully taken into account by the draft Bill as it stands.

Pupils

Many of the journeys made from home to school by private car are of a distance of less than two miles and, as the Secretary of State has affirmed, a major part of the Government's school travel initiative is the encouragement of pupils to walk or cycle to school rather than being driven by their parents. The Committee is of the view that, in order for this to happen, pupils must be given positive incentives to change their behaviour. It should not simply be assumed, for example, that pupils will automatically start cycling just because bicycle sheds are provided. We would like to see more in the draft Bill's prospectus and in guidance to local authorities encouraging schemes which directly reward pupils for adopting sustainable and healthy forms of transport by walking and cycling (e.g. through discounts on local activities, tokens, etc.). Schools will clearly have an important role in this process and could also put measures into place which discourage car use, for example by applying charges for parking or working with LEAs to set up car-free zones around schools.

Our evidence suggests that participation rates for travel schemes are likely to be improved if the transport provided also caters for after-school or pre-school activities. Families will be unlikely to purchase bus passes if the only bus home leaves the school at the end of afternoon lessons and leaves pupils attending clubs or sporting activities or even visiting a friend after school stranded. This is an important consideration as Government policy aims to open up school facilities to local communities. The 'extended schools' initiative, set out in the Green Paper, Every Child Matters, will see schools expanding their facilities with activities such as breakfast clubs taking place outside traditional school hours. Government plans to promote the extended school day are a complicating factor when planning school transport provision. The Secretary of State should carefully consider the requirements for transport for the extended school day when assessing applications to run travel schemes.

Travel schemes will also need to take account of the provision necessitated by the flexible curriculum. The Government's support for the findings of the Tomlinson Interim Report suggests that pupils aged 14-19 will increasingly move between institutions in order to receive specialised instruction, often of a vocational nature.[85] Already, the increasing number of specialist schools are expected to share their expertise with other schools in the area. Without a commensurate enhancement of transport provision, these developments could be seriously jeopardised.

The Committee has received encouraging evidence on the potential to expand distance learning, made possible by new technology.[86] In the future, schools will increasingly be working with other institutions in their area, sharing expertise and allowing pupils to benefit from specialised teaching and facilities. This sharing does not necessarily mean that large numbers of students need to be bussed significant distances. Distance learning programmes could reduce the need for travel between educational institutions during the school day and we urge the Government to promote such programmes through the school travel schemes proposed in the draft Bill.

The draft Bill's prospectus states that travel schemes must 'consider the needs of all pupils in their area'.[87] However, it has little to say about the provision of transport for pupils post-16. Some students post-17 choose to drive themselves to school and the potential for these students to participate in school travel schemes would appear to be high. Particular difficulties affect this sector; for example, in some areas students over the age of eighteen are unable to share transport with school-age pupils due to regulations designed for child protection. We see little evidence that the specific issues surrounding post-16 provision have been seriously considered in the run-up to the draft Bill and urge the Government to carry out further work in this area.

Parents

In our discussions with parents the Committee has heard time and again that safety is the prime consideration in choosing the method by which their children will travel to school. The safety of the school bus was a particular concern. Although statistics suggest that travel by private car is a considerably less safe option than travel by bus, many parents expressed the fear that school buses are unsafe. Whatever the statistics, such a widespread perception will endanger the success of travel schemes using school buses. Dr Chris Howard, Headteacher, Lewis School, Pengam, whose daughter was involved in a road accident on a school bus, told us "what matters here is public opinion. My daughter will not travel by school bus again or will only very reluctantly do so."[88] We received repeated assurances from the Department for Transport and from local government that school buses are roadworthy and undergo regular checks for safety, but our evidence corroborates the conclusions of the Transport Select Committee and the Education and Lifelong Learning Committee of the Welsh Assembly that school buses are often among the oldest vehicles on the road and that their cosmetic appearance does little to inspire the confidence of parents. Conversely, yellow bus schemes have proved more popular with parents who are on occasion willing to pay a small charge for the use of new, clean and reliable vehicles. We agree with the recommendations of the Transport Select Committee that safety should form a prominent part of the Government's school transport initiatives.[89]

69. Poor pupil behaviour on buses was cited by parents as another major concern.[90] Not only can this endanger the safety of passengers as drivers are distracted or equipment vandalised, it also makes for an unpleasant experience for other pupils travelling on the bus. There is some confusion over who exactly is responsible for ensuring good pupil behaviour on school buses. Dr Chris Howard outlined the situation:

"The LEA contracts out the service on a dedicated bus or it may purchase places on a fare-paying vehicle within a travel plan but it is contracted out to a provider and the LEA then says safety is the provider's domain. The provider in practice is split between the driver, who may or may not report an incident, and the transport manager, and the transport manager, if he or she becomes aware of the incident, then has to decide what to do about it. Invariably they will contact the school not the education office because the school is seen to be the authoritative part of the system. When schools are told about misbehaviour they do react at school level but if it is persistent then the school has to say to itself, 'What then can I do about it?' and school headteachers will often say, 'It is not my responsibility now, it is the Education Department's,' but unless there is a secure chain of reporting into the Education Department then the appropriate authority, the LEA, may not know about the misbehaviour. In other words, the misbehaviour has to be chronic and persistent until the LEA is in a position where it is called upon to intervene and then what does it do. Within South Wales for example there are some LEAs who will say that a child is statutorily entitled to free transport to school in any eventuality and whatever he or she does on the way to school on a bus we cannot alter that, so misbehave on the bus one day, you still travel on the bus the next. Other authorities will try to remove the transport for a day or a week or even longer in the same way that they might exclude a pupil from school, but the legal ability to do that is unclear and if challenged they would be in some difficulty."[91]

The Government should take this opportunity to clarify the legal position of LEAs who wish to withdraw transport from pupils displaying persistent poor behaviour on buses.

The Government must issue guidance to LEAs setting out the extent of their responsibilities and powers in relation to pupil behaviour on buses. The provision of CCTV or escorts on school buses may be one way to improve behaviour. Escorts could be provided by schools or by the bus operator, but must have adequate training and a clear remit in terms of powers.

Concerns also emerge from the classification of 'safe walking routes'. At present, LEAs determine whether there is a 'safe walking route' to school for a child accompanied as necessary and must provide transport if no such route exists. But parents may not always agree with the LEA's assertion that a route is safe. The Committee heard of international examples, such as Denmark, where steps have been taken to codify the definition of a 'safe route'; an example cited by the Transport Select Committee in their report.[92] The Government should consider the viability of issuing national guidance as to what constitutes a 'safe walking route',[93] taking into account elements such as the existence of a continuous pavement, lighting or pedestrian crossings.

Whatever school travel schemes do to improve home to school transport provision in local authorities, it must be recognised that many parents will still find it more convenient or more cost-effective to drive their children to school. Research indicates that over 60% of home to school car trips form part of a longer trip, usually to the parent's place of work. This factor will be outside the control of most local school travel schemes, which will have to find innovative means of persuading parents that it is healthier for their children to walk or cycle relatively short distances to achieve significant mode transfer. When assessing scheme applications, the Secretary of State must take into account not only the scope of transport provision proposed, but also the ways in which the LEA will attempt to persuade parents that even if they continue to use their cars in the morning rush hour, it would be beneficial for their children to travel to school by a more healthy and sustainable mode of transport.

LEAs and schools

70. Evidence from some areas suggests that staggering school hours can result in significant efficiency savings as the same bus can be used more than once during the peak morning and afternoon period. This practice has been particularly successful on the Isle of Wight (although the Island presents a very specific geographic case) and evidence submitted to us by the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers claimed "major efficiency gains can only be made by co-ordination of school opening and closing hours as part of integrated approach to delivering school transport within a scheme".[94]

Local government representatives told us that the co-operation between different schools that would be required in order to achieve successful and effective staggering of school hours could only be guaranteed if local authorities were given discretionary powers to co-ordinate opening hours and to require schools to participate in organised programmes.[95] We appreciate that travel schemes based on the staggering of school hours could be endangered if a single school decided not to co-operate with a programme accepted by all the others in its area. However, schools should retain the power to set their own hours. Well-run schemes should be based on wide consultation with schools as well as other stakeholders and should have secured agreement about their proposals. If the evaluation of pilots shows that there are important gains to be made through staggering hours, a process by which co-operation and coordination can be further encouraged can then be considered.

Bus operators

71. As the report of the Transport Select Committee makes clear, both local government and bus operators have lobbied for greater flexibility in relation to school transport contracts.[96] The proposed deregulation would require changes to the Transport Act 1985, which the draft School Transport Bill amends by providing for the suspension of section 6 so that bus services taking paying children, provided under school travel schemes, do not have to be registered with the Traffic Commissioners. The DfT also intends to introduce a regulatory reform order which would amend section 90 of the 1985 Act to increase the maximum length of tendered services from five to eight years.

72. The deregulated framework in England outside London may make it difficult to fully integrate school and public transport services. For example, while local authorities have the power to introduce tendered public services or school services to supplement the existing network, the majority of bus services are provided commercially and are registered routes with timetables determined by the operators. These may be modified or withdrawn subject to notice of 56 days (eight weeks), a much shorter period than the school year.

73. Representatives of the LGA have also argued that current legislation on competition and the restriction of post-tender negotiations prevent local authorities from sitting down with operators and planning the provision of home to school transport in an integrated and efficient way. Mr Twigg told us that work was underway to integrate further changes to transport legislation into the final Bill and doubtless our colleagues on the Transport Select Committee will follow up their work to ensure that the Government has taken account of their recommendations in this area.

Although greater deregulation may aid school travel schemes we also note that greater regulation can result in an improved service. Our witnesses expressed admiration for the regulated bus network that currently exists in London, which is used by many pupils.[97] Low-price bus passes can be purchased and since January 2004, children up to the age of ten travel free of charge. The recently re-elected Mayor of London has further declared his intention to extend free travel to students up to the age of eighteen when travelling to and from their school or college. London's regulated bus network is a special case, due to the numbers involved, but we consider that other large cities could benefit from similar arrangements; we therefore urge the Government to examine a means of implementing such arrangements more easily in other areas.


84   Q 330 Back

85   Department for Education and Skills, The Interim Report of the Working Group on 14-19 Reform, February 2004. Back

86   Qq 130, 285 Back

87   Paragraph 3. Back

88   Q 196 Back

89   Conclusions and Recommendations 10 and 11. Back

90   Qq 192-99, 399. Back

91   Q 209 Back

92   ST 9  Back

93   Conclusions and Recommendations 5. Back

94   ST 19 Back

95   ST 19, Qq 349, 350. Back

96   Paragraphs 38-40. Back

97   Q 304 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 7 July 2004