Joined-up working
48. There are a number of areas related to school
travel where the work of several Government departments overlap.
For example, schemes to persuade children to walk to school involve
health and education as well as transport. We received evidence
suggesting that there is currently a lack of coordination between
these areas. The National Association of Head Teachers acknowledge
that:
There is a considerable amount of work to do
in developing stronger relationships between education, transport
and health authorities in all areas, including school travel.
This will undoubtedly assist the 'joined-up' working that is needed
in this area but it is also true that this will not happen overnight.[45]
49. When asked what could be done to improve the
transport network for young people Viv McKee of the National Youth
Agency emphasised this point, arguing that:
the changes in expectations of the offer to young
people both in terms of the 14 to 19 agenda and Aiming High which
expect young people to be able to access services at a number
of points at a number of times. Provision is not strategically
planned and delivered to make this happen.[46]
14-19 diplomas were highlighted as an example of
education policy which has significant transport implications
but where there has been only limited coordination and planning
between the Department for Children, Schools and Families and
the Department for Transport.
50. However, there was some recognition that Government
departments were trying to improve the way they work together
on cross-sector policy and initiatives. Tony Armstrong of Living
Streets told us that "There are increasing signs of good
practice in terms of the focus of the DCSF and DH jointly running
the obesity strategy and working closely with DfT on that. There
are very promising signs."[47]
Councillor Lawrence of the Local Government Association also suggested that proposed legislation
to strengthen Children's Trusts could help to promote more coordinated
approaches to school travel if the duty to co-operate was strengthened."[48]
51. The Department for Children, Schools and Families,
the Department of Health and the Department for Transport must
take a more pro-active, bolder approach in promoting joint working.
It is vital to a successful school travel strategy that departments
are able to work effectively with each other. Government departments
should ensure effective coordination between transport, education
and health interests when it comes to cross-sector work and policy.
52. We heard that co-ordination at a local level
could also be improved. Living Streets, claimed that the current
way of working allowed for too much duplication and "buck
passing" between school travel and health authorities,[49]
although they were aware that "one positive aspect of the
current working practices is that School Travel Planners have
become an active part of the healthy and sustainable schools programme."[50]
We heard that links between education and health authorities at
a local level were also being developed through work on the Healthy
Schools initiative.[51]
53. The Association of Transport Coordinating Officers
also told us that there is progress in encouraging joint working.
They said:
It is increasingly common for public and education
transport to be arranged within local authorities by an Integrated
Transport Unit, in order to achieve efficiencies in provision
and a consistent approach to standards and policies. The Local
Transport Plan process has also encouraged the closer integration
of education transport policies with overall transport policies,
and the Education & Inspections Act requirement for school
travel strategies has also encouraged further moves in this direction.[52]
Les Warneford of Stagecoach, one of the UK's largest
bus operators, also supported the use of Integrated Transport
Units, arguing that integrated units worked well in most areas,
noting that bus operators had good collaboration with such units.[53]
Local Authorities without Integrated Transport Units need to seriously
consider whether such an arrangement might be beneficial in their
area to bring together different aspects of Local Authority transport
planning.
54. One of the problems with encouraging more joined-up
working is establishing what the cross-sector benefits are and
how cross-sector initiatives should be funded. Councillor Lawrence
of the Local Government Association told us that differences in
funding structures between health, education and transport authorities
could make it difficult to identify funding that could be used
for joint schemes. He told us that, for example, in Primary Care
Trusts, it could be difficult to identify money spent on children
and young people specifically, while in education authorities
it was often possible to break spending down by age cohort. There
were also differences between local government and health authorities
in terms of whether money could be carried forward from one year
to the next.[54]
55. We recognise that differences in funding arrangements
can make joint work between transport, health and education difficult.
However, we urge Local Authorities operating within multi-agency
agreements to consider new ways of funding and running initiatives
to integrate the transport, health and education objectives for
school travel. The Government should support and promote innovative
work in this area. Success requires co-ordination both nationally
and locally.
Choice and planning
56. The school admissions process offers an element
of choice to parents and students, allowing them to select appropriate
provision and apply to their choice of school, which is not necessarily
the closest. A 2006 paper from the London School of Economics
Centre for Economic Performance noted that:
Choice in education is an issue that ranks high
on the political agendas of governments around the world and is
increasingly being pushed hard in the UK. While many regard choice
as a value per se, most proponents emphasise the improvement in
educational standards that could result.[55]
Underlying the arguments of supporters of the extension
of choice in education is the assumption that this will improve
educational attainment.
57. However, it can be more difficult to promote
sustainable modes of travel when pupils are not attending a local
school. TravelWatch North West claims that:
It is […] often difficult for operators
to serve schools where uncoordinated planning of housing and educational
"re-organisations" have resulted in relocations or concentrations
of sites in greenfield or dispersed locations. This is inevitable
as long as parental choice, the raison d'être of
the Act, replaces zoning.[56]
The Association of Train Operating Companies concluded
that:
There also remains a fundamental tension at national
level between transport policy and accessibility planning on the
one hand, which encourage a reduction in the need to travel and
the promotion of sustainable modes such as walking, cycling and
public transport; and on the other hand policies on education
and health which promote choice, flexibility and specialisation,
which lead directly to longer journeys and more dispersed patterns
of travel that can not be effectively catered for by sustainable
modes.[57]
58. Some of the evidence we heard suggested that
choice of school should be limited. Paul Osbourne of Sustrans
told us that there should perhaps be "some limited choice
of school near to where people live, but ultimately how are we
going to address sustainability unless schools do not generate
huge travel demand."[58]
However, other witnesses focused their comments on the need to
make travel one of the factors that parents considered when choosing
a school. Living Street suggest that "it is essential to
change the current thinking whereby parents consider simply which
school is "best" for their child without giving any
thought to how the daily journey is to be achieved".[59]
Figures from the Department for Children, Schools and Families
for 2008 secondary school entrants show that, although there are
regional variations, on average in England 82 per cent of families
received a place at their first choice school and 94 per cent
received a place at one of their top three choices.[60]
59. Allowing students and parents to access appropriate
education and training is important if young people are to achieve
their full potential. However, we recognise that longer journeys
to and from school can reduce the likelihood of pupils using sustainable
modes of transport. Planning should take into account the need
for communities to have access to local education facilities and
the need for schools and colleges to be accessible by foot, bike
and public transport. We urge the Government to work with local
authorities to ensure that information about travel and the benefits
of sustainable travel are included in the information provided
to parents and young people when choosing schools. There is a
tension between promoting choice of school and promoting sustainable
school travel. The Government has, to date, done little to address
the tension between choice and sustainability when it comes to
schools. The Government must be more open about these tensions
and address them explicitly in future policy making.
41 Q 282 [Mr Hudson] Back
42
Q 331 [Mr Gwenlan] Back
43
Q 270 [Mr Hudson} Back
44
Q 27 Back
45
Ev 126 [National Association of Head Teachers] Back
46
Q 302 Back
47
Q 250 [ Mr Armstrong] Back
48
Q 391 Back
49
Ev 125 [Living Streets] Back
50
Ev 124 Back
51
Ev 93 Back
52
Ev 121 Back
53
Q 210 Back
54
Q 390 Back
55
Stephen Gibbons, Stephen Machin and Olmo Silva "The educational
impact of parental choice and school competition", CentrePiece,
vol 11, issue 3 (2006), pp 6-9 Back
56
Ev 105 Back
57
Ev 122 [Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers] Back
58
Q 251 Back
59
Ev 124 Back
60
Department for Children, Schools and Families, Local Authority
level data on secondary school places and offers received by parents
on National Offer Day 2008, 11 March 2008 http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/STA/t000778/index.shtml Back
