Memorandum submitted by Jeremy Browne,
Carers First
I run the Young Carers Project for West Kent.
In August 2001 I had a referral: a boy of six wanted to join the
support group, and his mother asked if I could help him get the
free school transport she thought he was entitled to.
Charlie and Janet Walsh (as I'll call them)
live in south Tonbridge, and Charlie goes to school in north Tonbridge,
a journey of over two and a half miles.
The law obliges local education authorities
to "make such arrangements for the provision of transport
and otherwise as they consider necessary or as the Secretary of
State may direct . . .". The Department for Education and
Skills comments that "free transport is always necessary
for a pupil of compulsory school age (5-16) who attends the nearest
suitable school if it is beyond statutory walking distance. This
is two miles for pupils aged under eight and three miles for those
aged eight and over". The law also expects authorities to
make reasonable decisions: few reasonable people would expect
a six-year-old boy to walk four miles a day along busy main roads,
and surely none would expect him to walk any distance alone.
For Janet could no longer walk with Charlie
to and from the school bus stop, much less all the way to school.
In late summer 2001 she had become dependent on a wheelchair.
The nearest pick-up point for the school bus is at Tonbridge Station,
over three quarters of a mile away from the Walshes' house, at
the bottom of a steep hill.
Janet is a lone parent living on benefits: when
I first spoke to her, she was worried that she might not be able
to pay the school bus fares. When the new term started, she sent
Charlie to the bus stop by taxi when she could afford to, but
inevitably he missed days and even weeks at school.
Janet had already applied to Kent County Council
for free transport, and been turned down. From September to December
2001 she wrote three letters of appeal which apparently reached
KCC but were not acted on. A fourth letter landed on the right
desk: the appeal was heard in March and April 2002, then rejected—some
seven months after it was first made.
KCC says that Janet chose to send Charlie to
his current school even though a place was available at another
school nearer their house. Under the usual rules this would mean
Janet had lost any right to free school transport. Janet says
that she did indeed approach Charlie's school herself—but
only because no other place was offered. Surprisingly neither
side has any documentary evidence to support its position. In
any case the nearer school is also over two miles away, so if
Charlie had gone there, he should still have been entitled to
free transport.
Even if Janet did exercise parental choice—and
there seems to be no clear proof that she did—the point
is that she is disabled, and the usual rules cannot reasonably
be applied. She cannot take her son to school, cannot work for
a living, and cannot afford to pay for someone else to take him.
It's not Janet's fault, and it certainly isn't Charlie's: his
education should not suffer.
In November 2001 I saw a copy of KCC's Form
T1, the application form for free school transport. It's very
straightforward: it asks for names, addresses and dates, and the
only other question is whether the child goes to a denominational
school. The supporting notes say "If your child attends a
school chosen on denominational grounds, the County Council may
count this as your nearest appropriate school, and offer free
travel . . ." Which is as it should be.
Yet Form T1 makes no mention of disability.
In June 2001 I wrote to KCC (on behalf of another young carer)
enquiring about its policy on school transport, and the reply
was "On the question of the policy on free transport, there
is no specific policy regarding young carers nor families on benefit."
Which is not as it should be. Religion is a matter of choice,
but no-one chooses to be disabled. Until Kent County Council chooses
to make a policy, or until the Secretary of State directs it to
make one, Charlie and other young carers may have to pay in missed
schooling for their parents' disabilities.
Carers First
July 2002
| 
