Memorandum submitted by the National Association
of Head Teachers (ST 11)
1. The NAHT recognises that the bill's main
purpose is to enable LEAs to run pilot school travel schemes.
We would wish to emphasise the need for a detailed review of the
safety aspects of all of the pilot schemes.
2. The Association's position on home/school
transport safety was made clear in the letter of 19 November 2003,
sent from the General Secretary to DfES, Department of Transport,
Welsh Assembly Government and Northern Ireland Minister.
3. The intention of the draft bill, together
with "Travelling to School: an action plan", is to reduce
car use and encourage alternative means of travelling to school.
Whatever alternative options are explored, it is vital that the
safety of the children is paramount.
4. Parents need to ensure that their children
travel safely to school. Where this involves taking a public or
a school bus, parents rely on the bus company to ensure that their
children are taken safely to their destination. LEAs and bus contractors
have a duty of care to children travelling to school whether on
dedicated school buses or on public transport.
5. It is noted that the travel schemes are
intended to consider the needs of all pupils. To ensure this,
consideration must be given to pupils with special educational
needs, for example, as well as specific local circumstances.
6. Particular note will need to be given
to schools involved in both soft and hard federations. Although
the Association has no difficulty in supporting the staggering
of the school day, where this has the support of individual schools,
their governors, staff, parents and pupils, issues may arise when
a number of schools are involved in federations. Timetabling may
become difficult and there may well be restrictions on the mobility
and/or use of staff across the federated schools.
7. Where a school has become an extended
school this can impact on the availability and accessibility of
school transport. Safety of pupils is paramount and it is not
acceptable to assume that catering for the majority of pupils
is sufficient. If extended schools are to be successful within
the community, parents must be happy that their children can be
safe getting to school early in the morning or later in the evening.
There must therefore be means of transport available throughout
the whole of the extended day.
8. It should be noted that schools already
foster awareness in their pupils of safe and healthy ways to get
to and from school. Head teachers can and do endorse and support
LEA and community travel plans and commend them to pupils and
families. Head teachers can and do lend support to School Travel
Coordinators. The issues concerning the reduction of car use,
the benefits of using public transport, the environmental benefit
of reduced vehicle usage, and the physical and psychological benefits
of exercise are dealt with in PSHE lessons and tutor periods as
well as featuring in the school's programme of study.
9. It should be remembered that these measures
would not come without cost. Encouraging cycling to school, for
example, means that schools will need to provide the best possible
cycle storage facilities on site; good cloakroom facilities for
cyclists' and walkers' raincoats and outerwear. It is not always
the case currently that these are available.
10. When selecting the schemes for the pilot,
it is important to realise that not all solutions are universally
applicable. It is generally recognised that what is suitable in
urban areas may be totally inappropriate for rural localities.
However, it is also true that what may be successful in one rural
(or urban) area will not be transferable to another rural (or
urban) area. Even within what would appear to be similar situations
it is clear that "one size does not fit all". There
will need to be some degree of flexibility to suit local circumstances,
even within each scheme.
11. Where the objectives of the scheme talk
of "good quality . . . alternatives" (paragraph 7),
the Association would wish to see instead high quality provision.
Any reduction in the use of cars on the home to school journey
must not be at the expense of safety.
12. Mention is made of car sharing, supervised
walking buses etc. There will be child protection issues in these
areas that must be taken into account.
13. Unintended outcomes also need to be
borne in mind. It is true, for example, that cutting the number
of cars by reducing the school runs may well ease congestion.
This in turn can increase the speed that cars travel, particularly
in urban areas. This may result in increased danger to children
either walking or cycling to school.
14. It may well be that there will need
to be some traffic calming measures. These could include the imposition
of localised lower speed limits at the starting and ending of
the school day (again complicated by the extended day), the use
of speed humps, pinch points etc, enforced no waiting restrictions.
15. Although it is true that travelling
to school via public transport can be difficult and time-consuming
in rural areas, the difficulties are not confined to the rural
situations. Many urban areas have public transport links that
are not designed around school locations. This can result in pupils
having to use a number of different buses to access their school.
It would be very useful if some of the schemes in the pilot could
address this issue.
16. Reference is made (paragraph 10) to
LEAs using PLASC data to identify home to school travel patterns.
Built into any such planning arrangements will need to be a level
of flexibility that can cater rapidly for changing admission patterns.
17. Any plans to charge for school transport
that is currently free will need very careful handling. Charging
could become counter-productive, driving those parents whose children
lose their access to free transport to use their cars.
18. Where pupils are above the age of 16
but still in full-time education, lack of travel concessions can
sometimes be a disincentive to using public transport. Again,
it would be useful if this could be investigated in the pilot
schemes.
19. The use of dedicated school buses can
prove to be extremely valuable. However, the Association has a
number of concerns relating to the safety of pupils on school
buses:
— The need for safely anchored seat
belts;
— The abolition of the "three
to a seat" allowance for pupils of any age;
— The need for escorts on buses, to
be provided by the LEA or the bus company;
— Strategies for the removal of undisciplined
pupils from buses in extreme circumstances. It is recognised that
alternative measures would need to be implemented urgently, such
as using a taxi to continue the journey;
— Higher standards of vehicle maintenance—the
current standards have been in place for some decades and are
in serious need of review;
— The use of single-decker, highly
visible buses, similar to the USA model.
20. The increased diversity of secondary
schools is likely to lead to longer journeys as parents take up
the opportunity to choose a school other than their local neighbourhood
comprehensive. Such choice should not be discouraged by local
travel schemes. It is essential that all schools are catered for
within the schemes, otherwise it is possible that the choice of
school will be governed not by its suitability for the pupil but
by the accessibility via whatever means of transport are provided.
21. The pilot schemes will need to investigate
many different alternatives designed to promote less use of cars.
Encouraging parents to use public transport for home to school
journeys where these are charged for could well be enhanced by
providing family concessions for off-peak travel, for example.
22. Careful evaluation of the pilot schemes
will be of paramount importance. For LEAs to consider the transport
needs of all pupils rather than the 1 in 10 currently provided
for will be no easy task. To evaluate whether the schemes have
succeeded in doing this will be equally difficult and just as
important.
April 2004
| 
