Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Local Authority Home to School On-l ine Transport Policies: Accessibi l i ty and Accuracy
Authors SorchaMcCormackandProfessorLukeClements,
SchoolofLawLeedsUniversity
CarysHughesCerebra
Studentresearchers:VictoriaKelly,HarryChikassamba,MuhammadAimanBinZulkifli,
PanagiotaHadjiconstanti,WinonaKang,LisaNguyen,AmiePearce,FionaForde,AisteAkromaite,NavjhotDhanda,RachelParke,AmyPrewett.
CerebraLegalEntitlementsandProblem-Solving(LEaP)Home-SchoolTransportReport
BackgroundofCerebra&LEaP
In2014Cerebra,auniquecharitysetuptohelpimprovethelivesofchildrenwithneurologicalconditions,endowedaresearchChairinLawtosupportdisabledchildrenandtheirfamiliesexperiencingdifficultiesinaccessingtheirstatutoryentitlementstocareandsupportservices.TheprojectisnowbasedattheSchoolofLaw,LeedsUniversity1wheretheresearchprogrammeistitledtheLegalEntitlementsandProblem-Solving(LEaP)Project.
RequestsforadviceandsupportarereceivedandassessedbyCerebrastaff,andthosecasesthatmeetoureligibilitycriteriaarereferredtotheProjectTeamforconsideration.Welistentofamiliesandhelpthemgettheknowledgetheyneedtoaccesshealth,socialcareandothersupportservices.Weidentifythecommonlegalproblemsthatpreventfamiliesgettingaccesstoservicesandwedevelopinnovativewaysofsolvingthoseproblems.AkeyapproachtotacklingacommonlyoccurringproblemistocommissionaresearchprojectwhichbenefitsfromtheSchoolofLaw’sexcellentstudent‘probono’researchers.Weaimtoreachasmanyfamiliesaswecanbysharingoursolutionsaswidelyaspossible.
Aswellashelpingindividualfamilies,theProjectgeneratesvitalinformationforthewiderprogramme.Theresearchaimstoimproveourunderstandingofthedifficultiesfacedbyfamiliesinaccessingsupportservicesandlearninghowtheseproblemscanberesolvedeffectively.Theteamusestheresearchdata(whichisheldsecurelyandanonymised)tostudypracticalproblem-solvingtechniquesandidentifywhichapproachesworkbest,withaviewtorefiningthewayweprovideadviceanddisseminategoodpracticefindingsforthewiderpublicbenefit.
Onecommonlyoccurringproblemfamiliesencounterconcernsdifficultiesinobtainingsuitablelocalauthorityprovidedhometoschooltransport.Thisisaproblemthathasbeenhighlightedbyotherorganisations,2includingaspecific‘focusreport’in2017bythelocalgovernmentombudsman.3Nevertheless,soprevalentweretherequestsreceivedbytheCerebrabasedLEaPteam,thatitwasdecidedthatthistopicshouldbethesubjectofaspecific‘problemsolving’research.ThestudentresearchteamattheSchoolofLawLeedsUniversityhasundertakenthisproject.
1 Initially the research project was based at the Law School Cardiff under the direction of Cerebra Professor Luke Clements. The project moved, with Professor Clements to the School of Law Leeds University in 2016. 2 See for example Burns, J School transport cuts causing 'distress and upheaval (BBC 17 March 2017) and ‘'I can't afford disabled son's school taxi' (BBC 17 March 2017) and Contact-A-Family School transport inquiry (2017). 3 Local government ombudsman All on board? Navigating school transport issues (LGO 2017); summary contained in Annex 4.
3
CONTENTS
Executive Summary PAGE 4 Introduction PAGE 5 Summary of the law PAGE 7 Methodology Overview PAGE 9 The Research Findings PAGE 11 Conclusions & Recommendations PAGE 14
Annex 1: Survey PAGE 16
Annex 2: LEaP case studies PAGE 19
Annex 3: Summary of IPESEA findings PAGE 24
Annex 4: Summary of Local Government Ombudsman Report PAGE 27
Annex 5: Student reflections PAGE 29
Annex 6: Jargon Buster PAGE 34
4
Executive Summary
BetweenNovember2016andJanuary2017studentvolunteersattheSchoolofLawanalysedthewebsitesof71Englishlocalauthoritiestoassesstheaccuracyandaccessibilityoftheirinformationconcerningtherightofdisabledchildrentofree(localauthorityfunded)hometoschooltransport.
• Almosthalfofthesiteswereconsidereddifficulttounderstandand/ortonavigate(para4.07);
• Almosthalfofthesitesfailedtoincludementionofoneofthefourstatutorycategories4ofeligiblechildren(para4.09);
• AlmostoneintenofthesitesfailedtomentionthecategoryrelatingtochildrenwithSpecialEducationalNeeds(SEN),mobilityordisabilityproblemsandofthosethatdid,14%referredonlytothosewithSEN(henceexcludingchildrenwithadisabilityormobilityproblem)(para4.09);
• Fouroutoftensitesfailedtoprovideinformationastohowanapplicationcouldbemadeforsupportedschooltransport(para4.13);
• Almostfouroutoftensites‘failedmakeitclearthatchildrenwhocannotreasonablybeexpectedtowalktoschoolbecauseoftheirSEN,disabilityormobilityissuesareentitledtotransport’(para4.10);
• Inmanysitesreferencewasmadetonon-statutory(arguablyunlawful)localcriteriaincluding(para4.10):• ‘parentsareexpectedtodrivechildrenwhohaveatemporarymedicalconditionto
school…’• suchchildren‘willbeconsidered’andarenot‘entitled’;• ‘mobilityissuesmustbe‘significant,long-termandsevere’;• ‘thatpupilswithastatementofSEN/EHCplanmustmaketheirownarrangements
toschool’;• ‘pupilswithSENattendingmainstreamschoolarenotentitledtotransport’.• ‘anEHCPisrequiredtobeentitledtotransport’;• ‘certainlongtermdisabilities[willbeconsidered]’;• ‘firstly,parentsshouldlookforhelpfromfamilymembersandneighbours’;
• OverhalfofthepoliciesfailedtomakeclearthatchildrenwithSEN,disabilityormobility
problemswouldbeassessedonanindividualbasis(para4.11);• Overoneintensitesfailedtoincludeinformationonhowtoappealorcomplainabout
schooltransport.(para4.14);• Thelengthoflocalauthoritypoliciesvariedwidely,withtheshortestatjusttwopages
andthelongestat69.Overathirdwereinexcessof20pagesand(almost)halfofthesecontainednosummary(para4.05);
4 See para 2(a) above.
5
1.Introduction
Whyhometoschooltransport?
1.01 TheCerebraLegalEntitlementsandProblem-Solving(LEaP)Projecthelpsfamiliesofchildrenwithbrainconditionscopewiththelegalbarrierstheyface.Cerebra,auniquecharitysetuptohelpimprovethelivesofchildrenwithneurologicalconditions,providestechnicalsupportandfundingfortheLEAPresearchprogrammewhichisbasedattheSchoolofLaw,LeedsUniversity.Cerebrahasanin-houseresearchandadviceteam.Thisteamprovidessupporttofamiliesincludingadviceconcerningcommonlyoccurringlegalproblemstheyencounterinaccessinghealth,socialcareandsomeeducationneeds.WheretheCerebrain-houseresearchandadviceteamencounteraspecificproblemareathatmanyfamiliesareencounteringthroughoutEnglandand/orWales,itisreferredtotheLEAPprojecttoseeifmoredetailedresearchwillidentifythecauseofthedifficultyandpotentialsystemicremedies.
1.02 Accesstofree(localauthorityfunded)hometoschooltransportfordisabledchildrenisonesuchproblem:suchtransportisacrucialservicefordisabledchildrenandtheirfamilies.ReferralstotheCerebrain-houseadviceteamconcerningdifficultieswithschooltransporthavebeenoneofthemostcommonproblemsithasencountered,amountingin2015to17%ofallcases,risingto19%in2016.Discussionswithothercharitiesprovidingadvicefordisabledchildrenandtheirfamiliesindicatedthattheytoohadidentifiedthisissueasaparticularproblemarea.Preliminaryanalysisofthewebsitesofanumberoflocalauthoritiesrevealedthatmuchoftheinformationtheypresentedwasdifficulttounderstandand/orincompatiblewiththerelevantlegislation.Studentvolunteerswerethereforeaskedtoconductareviewofasampleoflocalauthorities’onlinetransportpoliciestoassesstheextentoftheproblem.
Lawandsocialcontext
1.03 LocalauthoritiesinEnglandhaveadutyundersection508(B)andSchedule35BoftheEducationAct1996toprovidetransportforchildren‘whocannotreasonablybeexpectedtowalktoschoolduetotheirspecialeducationalneeds,disabilityormobilityproblems’.Thestatutoryguidance5statesthatlocalauthoritiesneedtoconsiderwhetherachildcouldreasonablybeexpectedtowalkifaccompaniedand,ifso,whetherthechild’sparent(s)canreasonablybeexpectedtoaccompanythechild.Indeterminingeligibility,localauthoritiesarerequiredtoconsiderarangeoffactors,includingtheageofthechildandwhetheronewouldordinarilyexpectachildofthatagetobeaccompanied.
5 Department for Education, Home to school travel and transport guidance: statutory guidance for local authorities, July 2014
6
1.04 CasesreferredtotheLEaPProjecthaveconcernedarangeofdifficultiesthatfamiliesexperienceinobtainingsuitableschooltransport,including:• theunsuitabilityofanindividual’stransportarrangements(forexample,dueto
journeylength,stress,noiselevels,changesintheratioofescortstopupils,changesinthemodeoftransportetc.);
• therefusaltoprovidetransportforchildrenwithdisabilitiesorspecialeducationalneedswholivewithinthestatutorywalkingdistance6oftheirschool;
• inadequatedriverandescorttraining;• latearrivalatschoolasaresultofreconfiguredroutes;• afailuretoprovidetransporttoaschoolnamedinanindividual’sstatementof
specialeducationalneedsorEducation,HealthandCareplan;• thewithdrawaloftransportatshortnoticebytransportprovidersonthe
groundsofachild’schallengingbehaviour;• delaysinmakingalternativetransportarrangements.
1.05 ThemostcommonproblemreferredtotheLEaPProjecthasbeentherefusaltoprovidetransportforchildrenwithdisabilitiesorspecialeducationalneeds(SEN)wholivewithintherelevantstatutorywalkingdistance7fromtheirnearestsuitableschool.
1.06 Someofthewaysinwhichlocalauthoritieshavemisinterpretedtheirstatutoryduties(moreparticularlydescribedinAnnex2below)include:• imposinga‘blanketban’ontheprovisionoftransportforanychildwholives
withinwalkingdistanceoftheirnearestsuitableschool(regardlessoftheirabilitytowalktoschool-aloneoraccompanied);
• excludinganyreferenceintheirtransportpoliciestochildrenwhoareeligiblefortransportundertheEducationAct1996(i.e.becausetheycannotreasonablybeexpectedtowalktoschool,duetotheirspecialeducationalneeds,disabilityormobilityissues);
• providingtransportonadiscretionarybasis,ratherthanasastatutoryentitlement;
• providingincorrectinformationtoparentsofdisabledchildrenastotheirrights;• requiringparentswhohaveaccesstoavehicletodrivetheirchildrentoschool;• poorcommunicationissuesbetweenLA’sandparents;• expectingfamiliestousedisabilitybenefitstocovertransportcosts.
6 In England, the walking distance is 2 miles for children aged under 8 and 3 miles for children aged 8 and over. 7 These cases have been anonymised.
7
2.Summaryofthelaw
2.01 TheEducationAct1996istheprimarylegislationthatgovernshometoschooltransportdutiesinEngland.Section35Bidentifiesfourcategoriesofchildrenwhoareentitledtofreetransport,theyare:
• Childrenwholiveoutsidethe‘walkingdistance’;8• Childrenfromlowincomefamilies;• Childrenwhocannotreasonablybeexpectedtowalktoschoolbecauseofthe
natureoftheroute;and• Childrenwhocan’treasonablybeexpectedtowalktoschoolbecauseoftheir
specialeducationalneeds,disabilityormobilityproblems.
2.02 Itisthefourthcategorywithwhichthisreportismostconcerned:wherebecauseofachild’sspecialeducationalneed(SEN),disabilityormobilityproblemtheycannotreasonablybeexpectedtowalktoschool.9Although‘reasonable’isnotdefinedintheAct,guidancehasstressedthatallchildrenmustbeassessedonanindividualbasis10-whichmeansthatrigid‘blanket’policiesarenotpermitted.ExamplesencounteredbytheLEaPProjectofwhereitmaybeunreasonableforachildtobeexpectedtowalkunaccompaniedorotherwisemightincludewherethechildconcerned:
• experiencesphysicalpainorhasdifficultywalkinglongdistances;• hasbladderorbowelproblems;• isvulnerableorunabletounderstanddangers;• isunabletonegotiatetheroutetoschoolbecauseofbusy/difficultroutes;• hasunpredictablebehaviour
2.03 Whenconsideringthe‘reasonableness’ofthisexpectation,authoritiesareentitledto
considerwhetherthechildcouldwalktoschoolifaccompaniedbyaparent.Theguidancestatesthataparentisgenerallyexpectedtoaccompanytheirchildtoschool‘unlessthereisgoodreasonwhyitisnotreasonableforaparenttodoso’.11CircumstancesencounteredbytheLEaPProjectofwhereitmaybeunreasonableforaparenttoaccompanytheirchildtoschoolcaninclude:
• aparentmaybeunabletoensurethesafetyofachildwhohasunpredictableorchallengingbehaviour;
8 The walking distance is 2 miles for children under the age of 8 & 3 miles for children aged 8 and over see Section 444(5) of the Education Act 1996. 9 Other criteria such as must be of compulsory school age, be within the walking distance and attend the nearest qualifying school must be met. For further detail on Home to School Transport law please see Cerebra’s Guidance. 10 Department for Education, ‘New home to school transport & travel guidance’ [2014] part 4 11 Department for Education, Home to school travel and transport guidance: Statutory guidance for local authorities, July 2014, paragraphs 17 & 18.
8
• aparentmayhaveadisabilitywhichpreventshim/herfromwalkingachildtoschool;
• theparent’sjourneytoandfromschoolcouldtakeanunreasonableamountoftime;
• thechild’ssiblingsmayneedtobetakentodifferentschools;• thechild’ssiblingsmayhavetobeleftathomeunattendedbeforeandafter
schoolifaparenthastoaccompanythechildtoschool.
2.04 TheGuidancestatesinadditionthatanassessmentof‘reasonablenesswouldalsoconsider‘theageofthechildandwhetheronewouldordinarilyexpectachildofthatagetobeaccompanied’.12Forexampleifthechildis15,thequestiontobeaskedis‘woulditbereasonabletoexpectaparenttoaccompanytheir15yearoldchildwithoutadisabilitytoschool?Iftheanswerisno,thenitwouldbediscriminatorytoexpectaparenttoaccompanytheir15yearoldsimplybecausetheyhadadisability.
2.05 Ininterpretingthestatutoryprovisions,otherrelevantlegalconsiderationsinclude:• ‘Disability’asawideconcept,includinginadditiontophysicalimpairments,
mentalimpairmentsandillnesses;• Localauthoritypoliciescannotimposeadditional(ormoredemanding)
requirementsbeyondthosedetailedinthelegislation;• ItisnotaprerequisiteforachildtohaveaStatementofSENorEducation,Health
&CarePlan.• ParentsshouldnotberequiredtouseDLA(DisabilityLivingAllowance)topayfor
theschooltransportrequiredbythedisabledchild;• Evidencefromprofessionalsmaysupportatransportapplicationbutisnota
legalrequirement.
DetailedinformationontherightsofdisabledchildrentofreehometoschooltransportinEnglandisprovidedintheCerebra’sSchoolTransport:AGuideforParents.13
12 Department for Education, Home to school travel and transport guidance: Statutory guidance for local authorities, July 2014, paragraphs 17 & 18. 13 Cerebra School Transport: A guide to Parents in England (2016) at http://w3.cerebra.org.uk/help-and-information/guides-for-parents/school-transport-a-guide-for-parents-in-england/
9
3.Methodology-overview3.01 Theresearchstudyfocusedonchildrenofcompulsoryschoolage14withinEnglishlocal
authorities.Welshauthoritieswerenotanalysedduetotimeconstraintsandthedifferenceintheapplicablelaw.Authoritieswerechosenatrandom,selectedfromlistsdesignedtoprovideageographicalmixthatincludedUnitaryauthorities,CountyCouncils,MetropolitanandLondonboroughs.71authoritiesweresurveyedwhichrepresentsalmost47%ofthe152Englishauthoritieswithschooltransportresponsibilities.Thesamequestionnairewasappliedtoeachauthority.
3.02 Thequestionnairelargelyconsistedofaseriesofclosed-ended/quantitativequestions.Whererelevantthesequestionswerefollowedbyasupplementaryopen-format‘commentbox’enablingthestudentstoexpressanopinionandcapturequalitativedata.AcopyofthequestionnairecanbefoundinAnnex1.
3.03 TheLocalAuthoritywebsiteswereanalysedbetweenNovember2016andJanuary2017.Therewere12studentvolunteers,10ofwhomwereUndergraduateandtwoPostgraduatestudents.ThreestudentshadEnglishasasecondlanguage.Thestudentsworkedinthreegroupsthatwereeachrandomlyassignedsixwebsitestoreview.
3.04 Thestudentshadthreetrainingsessionsconcerninglocalauthoritylegaldutiestoprovideschooltransportaswellaskeyissuesthatshouldbeincludedinanypolicy.AsamplewebsitewasusedtofamiliarisethestudentswiththekeycriteriathatshouldbelocatedinaHome-schooltransportpolicy.Thepurposeofthisbasictrainingwastoequatetheirknowledgetothatofaparentratherthanalawyer.Thetrainingwasdonetoensureaconsistencyofapproachtotheuseofthequestionnaire–butithadtheinevitabledistortingeffectoffamiliarisingthestudentswiththelawandtherequiredinformationresources.Accordingly,itisreasonabletoassumethattheywouldhavehadmorelegalknowledgethanmanyfamilies:i.e.agreaterawarenessofwhatinformationauthoritiesshouldprovide(andtheformatinwhichitshouldbemadeavailable).
3.05 ThequestionnairewasinformedbyarangeofissuesthattheCerebraLEaPProjecthadencounteredconcerningschooltransportissuesovertheprevious2years.Inparticular,itwasdesignedtoobtainqualitativeandquantitativedataastowhethertheLApolicies:• wereeasilyaccessibleforparentcarers;• wereup-to-dateandaccuratelyreflectedthecurrentlaw• wereconcise,userfriendlyandeasy-to-understand;• explainedinsimpletermsthecorrectgroupsofchildrenentitledtofreehometo
schooltransport;• imposedadditional–non-statutory-eligibilitycriteria;
14 5-16 year olds.
10
• providedinformationastohowtoapplyfortransportsupportandhowtochallengearefusaltoprovidesuchsupport;
3.06 Thestudentswhocompletedthesurveyswerealsoaskedtowriteaone-paragraphreflectionpieceonhowtheyfoundtheexperienceofattemptingtoaccesstherelevantinformation.ThesecanbefoundinAnnex5.
3.07 Althoughthestudentswereallocatedatotalof71councilwebsitestoanalysetheoverallreportingsamplevariedforthefollowingreasons:• threewebsitewereconsideredtobecompletelyinaccessibleasatransport
policycouldnotbefound;• onewebsiterequiredanaccounttobecreatedbeforeaccesswasgrantedwhich
wasnotfeasibleinthisstudy;• fiveoftheremaining(67)websitesfailedtocontainanactualtransportpolicy-
merelyprovidingasummaryofthelawandentitlementstoschooltransport;• inafurtherfouroftheseremaining(67)websites’policiescouldnotbefoundby
‘clicking’onlinksandstudentshadtoresorttoGoogleortotheuseofsearchbartools.Forthepurposeofthesurvey,thisfailurewasscoredas11clicks(i.e.twicetheaverageforthesitesthatcouldbefoundbythestudentsusinglinks).
11
4.Theresearchfindings
Accessibility–identificationi.e.‘clicks’
4.01 Notwithstandingthewiderangeoffunctionsdischargedbylocalauthorities,categorisationstudiessuggestthatlargescalewebsitescan(andshould)haveanavigationstructurethatlimitsthenumberoflevelsthatsitevisitorshavetoworktheirwaythrough;15thatif‘usersareforcedtoclickthroughmorethanfourorfivelevels,theymaysimplygiveup’.16Studentswerenotinstructedontheintricaciesofwebsitehierarchicalnavigationsystems,orthevariousmechanismsthatcanbeusedtomakesitesaccessible(suchasdrop-downmenus,cascadingmenusandthelike)orinaccessiblelabyrinths.Thequestionnairesimplyposedaseriesofquestionsdesignedtoobtaintheirobjectiveandsubjectiveviewsonsiteaccessibility.
4.02 Thenumberof‘clicks’thatstudentshadtouseinordertoidentifythe‘hometoschooltransportpolicies’onlocalauthoritywebsiteswasonaverage5.5,17suggestingthatthemajorityofsiteswereinaccessibleonthebasisof‘InformationArchitecture’studies’.18(inaddition,infourothercasesthepolicieshadtobefoundusing‘Google’and/orthesearchbartools-seenoteatpara3.07above).
4.03 Infourcases19therelevantpoliciescouldnotbeaccessedatall.
Accessibility-policylength
4.04 Threesites20didnothaveanaccessiblehometoschoolonlinetransportpolicy,onecouldonlybeaccessedviaanaccountandfiveothersmerelycontainedsummariesratherthanafullpolicy.Thefollowingresultsarethereforebasedonasamplesizeof62.Thetotallengthofthesepoliciesamountedto1,187pages,rangingfrom2pagesto69.Theaveragelengthofthepoliciesanalysedwas19pages.
4.05 Theredoesnotappeartobeaconsensusonpolicylength,howeveritcouldbearguedthatapolicycouldbecondensedtonomorethan10pageswhich26%ofLA’smanagedinoursurvey.However,39%ofwebsiteshadpoliciesthatwere20pagesorlonger,including18%ofthosewhichwere30pagesormore,makingthetaskofaccessingbasiclegalrightsinformationmorearduous.Ifasummarythatdetailedthebasicprinciplesofthepolicywasavailable,thiscouldassistparentsonhowtofindoutmoreinformation.Although55%ofLAwebsitesofferedsuchasummary,unfortunately,45%reliedonthepolicyalone.
15 See for example Lou Rosenfeld and Peter Morville Information Architecture for the World Wide Web: Designing Large-scale Web Sites (O'Reilly Media 1998). 16 Peter Morville Information Architecture on the World Wide Web (1998) p35 17 n = 67: the variation being from 2 to 11. 18 Ibid. 19 N = 71: i.e. 4.2% of the sample. 20 N = 71 i.e. 4% of the sample.
12
4.06 Studentscommentedthatlongand‘drawnout’policiesmadeitdifficulttoidentifyrelevantinformation.Studentsalsoreferredtothetime-consumingandtediousnatureofreadingtheselongpoliciesandsuggestedthatparentsofdisabledchildrenmighthavedifficultyincommittingthesameamountoftimeandenergy,giventheircaringresponsibilities.
Accessibility–comprehensibility(samplesize62)
4.07 Thesurveyaskedstudentstoexaminethe‘user-friendliness’ofthepoliciesexamined.Thequantitativedatagatheredshowedthatalmosthalf(48%)ofpolicieswerenotconsideredtobeuserfriendly.
4.08 Thosethatwereviewedinapositivelightwerenotedasbeing‘straight-forward’with‘nolegaljargon’andwere‘brief’.Othercharacteristicsincludedtheuseofanindex,quicklinks,brochurestyleorQ&Aformat,andthosewithseparatesectionsforeachcategory.Similarthemesaroseintheremainingpoliciesthatwereconsiderednottobeuserfriendly,suchasbeing‘toolong’,‘toocomplex’,‘toomuchinformation’,toomuch‘legaljargon’andoverreferenceto‘statute’.Othercommentsmentionedconfusingintroductions,thedifficultyinfindinginformation,unnecessarilydrawingoncaselaw,theabsenceofstructure–i.e.nobulletpointsandun-invitinglongblackandwhitepdf.textwithconfusinglanguage.
Legalcontent–alllegalrightscovered(samplesize62)
4.09 Almosthalfofthewebsites(48%)omittedatleastoneofthefourcategoriesofeligiblechildrenandalmostoneinten(9%)failedtomentionthecategoryrelatingtochildrenwithSEN,mobilityordisabilityproblems.Ofthosethatdidmentionthiscategory,14%referredonlytochildrenwithSENhenceexcludingthosewholackedSENbuthadadisabilityormobilityproblem.
4.10 Underthequestion‘doesthepolicymakeitclearthatchildrenwhocannotreasonablybeexpectedtowalktoschoolbecauseoftheirSEN,disabilityormobilityissuesareentitledtotransport’itwasfoundthat39%ofpoliciesdidnotmakethisrightclear-withcommentsreferringtorestrictiveandorextracriteriaincluding:• ‘parentsareexpectedtodrivechildrenwhohaveatemporarymedicalcondition
toschool’‘;• suchchildren‘willbeconsidered’(ratherthanbeing‘‘entitled’);’• ‘mobilityissuesmustbe‘significant,long-termandsevere’;• ‘thatpupilswithastatementofSEN/EHCplanmustmaketheirown
arrangementstoschool’;• ‘pupilswithSENattendingmainstreamschoolarenotentitledtotransport’;• ‘anEHCPisrequiredtobeentitledtotransport’;• ‘certainlongtermdisabilities[willbeconsidered]’;
13
• ‘firstly,parentsshouldlookforhelpfromfamilymembersandneighbours’.
4.11 Moreover,despiteclearlegalrequirementsundersection508(B)andSchedule35BoftheEducationAct1996andpara16of‘theGuidance’,21inoverhalfoftheresearchsample(53%)itwasnotapparentthatchildrenwithSEN,disabilityormobilityproblemswouldbeassessedonanindividualbasis.ConsideringthefactthateligibilityfortransportofchildrenwithSEN,disabilityormobilityproblemsdependsontheindividualcircumstancesofthechildandparent,individualassessmentsareessential.
4.12 ThesefindingsconfirmtheconcernsidentifiedbytheLEaPProjectandotherbodies:22thatmanylocalauthoritiesarenotassessingeligibilitybasedonthelawandguidance.Instead,theirstaffappearstobeguidedbyincorrectinformationastoindividualrights;bypoliciesthatexcludereferencestotheSEN,mobilityanddisabilitycategory;byanexpectationthatparentswilldrivetheirchildrentoschool;andbythenotionthatsuchsupportismerely‘discretionary’.
Detailsofhowtoapplyandappeal(samplesize67)
4.13 40%ofwebsitesfailedtoprovideany(orsufficientand/orcomprehensible)detailsastohowanapplicationforfreeschooltransportcouldbemade.Thefactthatsomelocalauthoritieshadeasilyaccessibleapplicationformssuggeststhatthisisnotdifficultforlocalauthoritiestoprovide.Thisinturncallsintoquestionwhyfourouteverytenauthoritiesfailedtohavethisfacility.
4.14 Almostafifthofsites(18%)failedtoprovidedetailsofhowarefusalofschooltransportsupportcouldbechallenged,althoughofthosesitesthatdidcontainthisinformation,studentresearcherscommentedthatsomeappearedoutdated,withmanylocalauthoritiesrequiringappealstobesentbypost.
21 Department for Education, Home to school travel and transport guidance: Statutory guidance for local authorities, July 2014, paragraph 16. 22 As discussed in paras 1.04, 1,06 and in Annex 2, 3 & 4.
14
5.Conclusionsandrecommendations5.01 Theresearchhasidentifiedwidespreadandseriouslegalfailingsbylocalauthorities.
Itisnotunreasonabletosuggestthatthisis,attheveryleast,reckless:inthesensethatitisprobablycosteffectivenottoprovideclearandconciseinformationasthiswilldetersfamilies’fromaccessingtheirstatutoryentitlements.TheseparateevidenceprovidedbytheLEaPProject,othercharitiesandthelocalgovernmentombudsman,doesnotallaythistroublingpossibility.
5.02 Studentswereabletoidentifyseveralwebsitesthattheyconsideredtobesuccinctinsomeareas,butfailedtoidentifywebsitesthat‘tickedalltheboxes’.Somepoliciescontainedaccuratestatementsastothelaw,butwerehiddenwithinlengthyunfriendlydocuments;whereasothershadclearandconciseapplicationforms,butfailedtoidentifyallgroupsofeligiblechildren.This(andtheseveralexcellentguidesissuedbyorganisationssuchasCerebraandContact-a-Family)suggeststhatdevelopingauser-friendlyresourceisnotanoverlycomplexexercise.GiventhenumberofcomplaintsthathavebeenmadetotheLEaPProject,theconcernsofothercharitiesinvolvedinthisfield,thelocalgovernment2017reporttogetherwiththedifficultiesidentifiedbythisresearch,therewouldappeartobeaneedforcentralgovernmentaction.
5.03 Bywayofanexample:asaresultofareferral,LEaPmadeaformalcomplainttoanauthorityandinduecourseitconcededthatitspolicyanditsdecisionwerewronganditagreedtoprovidethenecessarytransport.Italsoagreedtochangetheinformationonitswebsitetoreflectthecorrectlegalposition.However,theprojectthenreceivedanotherreferralfromadifferentparentinthesamearea.Onceagain,theauthorityconcededitwasinerror.Despitethis,Cerebrareceivedafurtherreferralfromthesamearea,suggestingthatalthoughtheirwrittenpolicyhadchanged,theirfrontlinepracticeshadnot;thattheirformshadnotandthattheirstaffhadnotreceivedtrainingtochangethewaytheyimplementedthelaw.
5.04 Addressingtheproblemthereforerequiresactiontochangeentrenchedlocalorganisationalpracticesandcultures.DespitethetenacityandbesteffortsoftheCerebrahelp-line–andoftheothercharitiesconcernedaboutthisissue–ithasnotprovedpossibletobringabout‘acrosstheboard’organisationalchange.
Thenecessaryremedialaction
5.05 Theevidenceprovidedinthisreportstronglysuggeststhatmanylocalauthoritieshavefailedtodischargeadequatelytheirstatutorydutiesunderthe1996Act.TheSecretaryofStatewouldappeartobeunderapubliclawdutytohaveregardtothesefindingsandtoconsidertakingactiontoaddressthisfailure.Onematerialconsiderationwouldbetheexerciseofherdefaultpowers(forexampleundersection497oftheEducationAct1996).WhilethedecisionastowhatconstitutesappropriateremedialactionisfortheSecretaryofState,itwouldappearthatsome
15
formofremedialactionmustbeforthcoming.Revisedcentralgovernmentguidancewouldalsoappearessentialincluding,forexample:• Theprovisionofanaccessibletemplatestatement(tobeusedonalllocal
authoritywebsite)astotheentitlementsofchildrentofreehometoschooltransport;
• arequirementthatblanketstatementsandrestrictivecriteriaforchildrenwithSEN,mobilityordisabilityproblemsberemoved;
• arequirementthatthatallfourcategorieseligibleforfreeschooltransportshouldbedetailedcorrectlyinthepolicyandpolicysummary;
• arequirementthatpoliciesshouldavoidlegalisticlanguage,bewrittenineasytounderstandlanguage,haveanindexandclearhyperlinkedheadingstohelpnavigation;
• theprovisionofapplicationandappealforms;• arequirementofregularstafftrainingtoensureproperimplementationand
interpretationofthelawinpractice.
16
Annex1Survey
SchoolTransportSurvey
NameofGroup______________________________
NameofLocalAuthority________________________
Date_________________
Q1.Howmany‘clicks’didittaketofindtheschooltransportinformationfrom theLA’shomepage?
Q2. Howmanypageslongisthepolicy?
Q3.Isthereasummaryofthepolicy?(eitheronthewebpageorasaseparatedownloadabledocument)
Yes/No
Webpage/Pdf.
Q4.Istheinformationwrittenineasy-to-understandlanguage?23
Comments
23 Note the user-friendliness of the policy
17
Q.5Howmanyofthegroupsof‘eligible’childrendoesthepolicyinclude?
Childrenunabletowalkduetosafetyoftheroute
Childrenwhocannotreasonablybeexpectedtowalktoschoolbecauseoftheirspecialeducationalneeds,disabilityormobilityproblems
Childrenfromlow-incomefamilies
Childrenwholivebeyondthestatutorywalkingdistance
Q.6DoesthepolicymakeitclearthatchildrenwhocannotreasonablybeexpectedtowalktoschoolbecauseoftheirSEN,disabilityormobilityissuesareentitledtotransport?
Comments
Q.7DoesthepolicyrefertoallchildrenwithSEN,disabilitiesormobilityissues,orjusttothosewithstatements/EHCPs?
Comments
18
Q.8Doesthepolicymakeitclearthatchildrenshouldbeassessedonanindividualbasistoidentifytheirparticulartransportrequirements?
Comments
Q.9Isthereaclearexplanationhowparentscanapplyfortransport?
Yes/No
Comments
Q.10Isthereinformationonhowtoappeal/complain?
Yes/No
Comments
19
Annex2
LEaPCasestudies
Cerebra’sLegalEntitlementsandProblem-Solving(LEaP)Project
Cerebra’sLegalEntitlementsandProblem-Solving(LEaP)Projectfocusesoncaseswhichhavethepotentialtoaffectalargenumberoffamilies,withaviewtodisseminatingthelessonslearnedandmaximisingtheimpactofourresearch.SchooltransporthasbeenoneofthemostcommonproblemsreferredtotheLEaPProject.In2015,17%ofLEaPcasesrelatedtoschooltransport,risingto19%in2016.Thecaseworkhasshownthatsomeschooltransportpoliciesareincompatiblewiththerelevantlegislation,asaresultofwhichchildrenwithdisabilitiesorspecialeducationalneedsarebeingdeniedtheirstatutoryrighttotransportassistance.StudentsparticipatingintheCerebraSchoolTransportResearchProjectattheUniversityofLeedshavethereforebeenaskedtoconductareviewofsamplelocalauthorities’onlinetransportpoliciestoassesstheextentoftheproblem.BelowarecasestudiesbasedonreferralsreceivedbytheCerebraLEaPhelpline.
Casestudy1–MrsA,MrBandMrsC24
MrsA25contactedtheLEaPProjectforadviceabouther14yearoldson,X,whohasDown’ssyndromeandattendsaschoolwhichis2.7milesfromhishome.AlocalauthorityinEnglandhadrefusedtransportforXonthegroundsthathelivedwithinthestatutorywalkingdistancefromhisschool.Thecouncil’spolicystatedthattransportwasnotprovidedforchildrenwhohadspecialeducationalneeds(butnotastatement)unlesstherewere‘exceptionalandcompellingreasons’.Thepolicyalsostatedthatspecialeducationalneedstransportwouldonlybeprovidedatthecouncil’sdiscretionandwhere‘parentsdonothavethemeanstotransportorarrangeforotherstotransporttheirchildtoschool’.MrsAhadcompletedthefirststageoftheappealprocesswithoutsuccessandwasproceedingtothesecondstage.MrsAsuccessfullyappealedwithsupportfromtheLEaPProject.ThelocalauthorityreinstatedX’stransport,updatedtheinformationpublishedonitswebsiteandarrangedforaleadofficerfromthedisabilityteamtooverseefuturetransportdecisions.
MrB26,wholivedinthesamelocalauthorityareaasMrsA,contactedtheLEaPProjectatthesametimeabouthis15yearolddaughter,Y,whohasgloballearningdelayandautistictraits.MrBhadalreadyexhaustedthelocalauthority’stwo-stageappealprocess.ThecouncilhadrefusedtransportonthegroundsthatYlivedwithinthestatutorywalkingdistancefromherschool.ThecouncilacknowledgedthatYwasunabletowalkandneededtobetransportedtoschool,butstatedthat‘therearetwoparentswhocouldgetherto
25 Cerebra reference 2014/52 26 Cerebra reference 2014/51
20
school’andthatitwas‘reasonabletoexpectparentswhohaveacartotransporttheirchildtoschool’.Thecouncilalsostatedthattherewere‘numerousparentsin[thelocalauthorityarea]whoworkandhavetogettheirchildrentoschoolandworkofitselfisnotseenasanexceptionalcircumstancewherethecouncilshouldprovidetransportassistance’.Assuch,theystatedthattherewere‘noexceptionalreasonstodeviatefrompolicy’.WithsupportfromtheLEaPProject,MrBchallengedthelocalauthority’sdecisiontowithdrawtransport.ThelocalauthorityreinstatedY’stransportandMrBreceivedfeedbackfromotherfamiliesintheareathattheirrefusalshadbeenoverturned.
Unfortunately,severalmonthslater,LEaPreceivedasimilarreferralfromthesamelocalauthorityarea.MrsC27contactedtheprojectteamregardingherunsuccessfulapplicationfortransportforher11yearoldsonZ,whohasAspergersSyndromeandwhoseschoolis2.5milesfromhishome.Although,thelocalauthorityhadamendedtheirpolicytoreflectthiscategory,MrsC’sapplicationwasrefusedonthegroundsthat‘thedistancefromhometoschoolislessthanthestatutorywalkingdistanceof3miles’andshewas‘notinreceiptofaqualifyingbenefittobeeligibleforlowincometransport’.
Atthefirststageappeal,thepanelupheldtherefusaltoprovidetransportandstatedthatitwas‘deemedparentalpreference’tosendZtohisschool,despitethefactthatZ’sschoolhadbeennamedbythelocalauthorityinhisEducation,HealthandCareplanwithnoconditionsrelatingtotransport.MrsCproceededtoasecondstageappealwithsupportfromtheProjectTeam.MrsCreceivedaphonecallfromthetransportteamat4.30pmonthedaybeforethescheduledsecondstageappealhearingadvisingthatZwouldbegrantedtransport.
Inordertotryandensurethatthepolicychangeswereimplementedinpractice,theProjectTeamwrotetotheauthority’sMonitoringOfficer28toexpressitsconcernthattherevisedpolicywasnotbeingimplemented.TheMonitoringOfficerrepliedthattheauthority’slegalteamhadbeenworkingwiththetransportteam‘toreviewtheirpractice,soastoensureitslegality’.Todate,theLEaPProjecthasnotreceivedanysimilarreferralsfromotherparentsinthislocalauthorityarea.
Casestudy2–MrsBlack29
MrsBlackcontactedtheLEaPProjectinMarch2016regardinganunsuccessfulschooltransportapplicationherson,Joe.Joeisalmost12yearsoldandhaslearningdifficulties;helives2.2milesawayfromhissecondaryspecialschool.Joe’sEducation,HealthandCareplanconfirmsthathe’sunabletowalktoschoolindependentlybecauseofhislearningdifficulties.MrsBlackhasbeendiagnosedwithamedicalconditionthatmeanssheisunabletowalklongdistances.Thelocalauthoritydeniedtransportastheylived‘within3miles27 Cerebra reference 2015/42 28 (a council officer who has a statutory duty to ensure that the council is acting lawfully) 29 Cerebra reference 2016/21
21
walkingdistanceoftheschool’andinsteadinvitedhertoapplyfortransporton‘medicalgrounds’.
Thecouncil’s2016/17EducationTravelPolicydidnotrecognisethatchildrenwhocouldnotreasonablybeexpectedtowalktoschoolbecauseoftheirspecialeducationalneeds,disabilityormobilityproblemshadastatutoryentitlementtoschooltransport.Instead,thepolicystatedthat:
‘TheLAwillexerciseitsdiscretiontoprovidetransportassistancewhereachildisunabletowalktoschoolbecauseofamedicalconditionordisabilityandtheparentcandemonstratethattheywouldotherwisebeunabletogetthechildtoandfromschool...Inallcases,theLAwillconsidertheavailabilityofhelpfromimmediateandextendedfamilymembersandfromneighbours.TheavailabilityofhelpthroughaSchoolTravelPlanwillbeconsideredaswilltheuseofanydisabilitybenefitstohelpsecureattendance.Itisexpectedthattheparentwillhavemadeeveryreasonableefforttosecureotherhelp.TheLAmayseekconfirmationofthisfromtheparent,schoolorotheragencies.’
OnadvicefromtheProjectTeam,MrsBlackrequestedtransportonthebasisthatshecouldnotreasonablybeexpectedtoaccompanyJoe,givenhisageandherownill-health.TheProjectTeamalsohighlightedtheshortcomingsofthecouncil’stransportpolicy.TheauthorityacceptedthatJoewasnotabletowalktoschoolindependently,butrefusedtransportonthebasisthatMrsBlackhadnotprovidedanyevidencetosuggestthatshecouldnotbeexpectedtofulfilherparentalresponsibilitybyaccompanyingJoetoschool.MrsBlackwasinvitedtorequestan‘exceptionalcircumstances’reviewbyaSeniorOfficerPanel.WithsupportfromtheProjectTeam,MrsBlackaskedthepaneltoreassessherapplicationandconsidertheinconsistenciesinthepolicy.ThepaneldecidedthatJoewouldreceivediscretionarytransporttoschool(tobereviewedinlightofhermedicalcondition),onthegroundsofMrsBlack’sownmedicalcondition,untilshewas‘deemedphysicallyabletoescort[Joe]toschoolbyamedicalprofessional’.
TheProjectTeamcontactedthecouncil’sMonitoringOfficertoexpressconcernaboutthecouncil’srationaleforprovidingtransportanditsfailuretorespondtoconcernsaboutthepolicy.
Thecouncilagreedtoamenditstransportpolicysothatitreferredtoalleligiblechildren,includingthosewhocouldnotreasonablybeexpectedtowalktoschoolbecauseoftheirSEN,disabilityormobilityissues.However,inresponsetorepeatedrequestsforconfirmationofJoe’sstatutoryentitlementtotransport,thecouncilhasconfirmeditsbeliefthatheisnotaneligiblechildandthatitdoesnothaveastatutorydutytoprovidetransport.ThecouncilmaintainsthatJoe’stransportisprovidedonadiscretionarybasisonthegroundsthathismotherisunabletoaccompanyhimtoschoolbecauseofherownmedicalcondition.Thecouncilsaysthatithas‘consideredwhether[Joe]couldreasonablybeexpectedtowalkifaccompanied,andifso,whetherhismothercanreasonablybeexpected
22
toaccompanyhim.Thefactthatheis12yearsolddoesnotmeanthathismothercannot‘reasonablybeexpectedtoaccompany’him,especiallyinviewofhisneeds’(ouremphasis).
Thecouncilinthiscaseappearstoholdtwocontradictoryviews.Ontheonehand,theyarguethatJoeisnotentitledtotransportbyright,becauseMrsBlackcanreasonablybeexpectedtoaccompanyhim(eventhoughheisnearly12yearsold).YetthecouncilacceptsthatMrsBlackisphysicallyunabletoaccompanyJoebecauseofhermedicalconditionandhehasthereforebeengivendiscretionarytransport.Assuch,theProjectTeamaresupportingMrsBlacktomakeacomplainttotheLocalGovernmentOmbudsman.
IssuesarisingfromtheLEaPcases
AnumberofcommonthemeshaveemergedfromthecasesreferredtotheLEaPProject:
Failuretodischargestatutoryduties:InlightofthereferralsreceiveditisevidentthatsomelocalauthoritiesinEnglandarefailingtorecognisethatchildrenwhocannotreasonablybeexpectedtowalktoschoolbecauseoftheirspecialeducationalneeds,disabilityormobilityproblemsareentitledtofreehometoschooltransportundertheEducationAct1996.Insomecases,localauthoritiesappeartobetryingtoshifttheresponsibilityformakingsuitabletransportarrangementstoparentsofdisabledchildren
Discriminatorypolicies/practice:Itappearsthatsomelocalauthoritiesareexpectingparentstowalktheirdisabledchildrentoschool,evenwherethechildisbeyondtheageatwhichtypicalchildrenwouldceasetobeaccompanied.Thisinevitablymakesitverydifficultforparentstocontinueinfull-timeemploymentormeetothercommitments.
FailuretomakesystemicchangesWhilsttherehavebeensomesuccessfulreferralswherelocalauthoritieshaveeventuallyacceptedtheirdutytoprovidetransportthereappearstobeafailuretochangetheirpracticesasaresult.Sometimestheyfailtoimplementchangestopolicyandpracticeatanorganisationallevel(e.g.byretrainingstaff),leadingtorecurringproblems.Staffcontinuetoimplementincorrectpoliciesandproceduresbasedonanincorrectunderstandingoftheirlegalobligations.
IncorrectinformationConsideringtheincorrectinformationcontainedwithinsomelocalauthoritypolicies,parentsofdisabledchildrenaremisinformedastotheirchildren’sstatutoryrights,makingthemlesslikelytoapplyfortransportassistanceortochallengelocalauthorityrefusals.
PoorcommunicationSomelocalauthoritiesdealwithparents’correspondenceinapiecemealmanner.Asaresult,parentshavetomakerepeatedrequestsforinformation(e.g.foranamedcontact
23
officerorconfirmationofachild’sentitlement).Somelocalauthoritiesseemresistanttoresolvingissuesatanearlystage,andachild’sentitlementisonlyrecognisedattheeleventhhour,followingprotractedcorrespondenceandmultipleappeals.
IneffectivereviewmechanismsItwouldappearthatsomelocalauthoritieshaveineffectivereviewmechanisms.Despitehavingtwoorthreeopportunitiestoputthingsrightduringatransportappealprocesslocalauthoritiesarefailingtoproperlyconsiderevidenceputforwardbywell-informedparentsinsupportoftheirapplications.
ConcernsCasesreferredtotheLEaPProjecthaveraisedquestionsabouttheimpactoflocalauthoritypoliciesandpracticeonfamilieswhodonothaveaccesstoinformationand/orsupport.Similarly,thereareconcernsastothecapacityofauthoritiestoembedchangeatanorganisationallevel.
24
Annex 3
IPESEA findings Anoteofthanks…
AsaresultofdiscussionsconcerningourresearchprojectwithIPSEAitkindlyofferedusthefollowinginformationregardingreferralstheyhavereceivedfromparentsofdisabledchildrenregardinghometoschooltransport.ThisindicatesthatIPSEAhasreceivedsimilarqueriestothatoftheCerebrareferralsteam.WithIPSEA’sagreementwehaveincludedtheinformationtohighlightthecommonlyoccurringproblemsexperiencedbyparentsofdisabledchildreninattemptingtoaccesstheirstatutoryrights.
HometoschooltransportforchildrenwithSENDresearchsubmissionWithover300volunteers,andassistingnearly7000parentsandyoungpeopleannually,IPSEA(IndependentParentalSpecialEducationAdvice)30isrecognisedasoneoftheleadingorganisationsinspecialeducationalneedsanddisability(SEND)law.Establishedasaregisteredcharityin1983,IPSEAprovidesadviceandadvocacytoparentsofchildrenandyoungpeoplewithSEND.
IPSEAisanentirelyindependentorganisationfocussedonenablingeverychildwithspecialeducationalneedsandordisabilitiestoobtainthebesteducationpossible.WepromotetheinterestsofchildrenandyoungpeoplewithSENDbyworkingwiththegovernment,localauthorities(LAs),schoolsandinterestedthirdparties.IPSEAoffersvariousservicesfromtrainingtofreetelephoneadviceandTribunalsupportandrepresentation.ThisinformationhasbeenpreparedwithregardtotheevidencerecordedfrombeneficiariesofIPSEAservicesandwithinputfromIPSEA’sspecialistlegalteam.
Background
Forchildrenofstatutoryschoolage,thereare4groupsofeligiblechildrenwhicharedetailedinSchedule35BEducationAct1996.Inbrief,theyareasfollows:
1.Thosewholivebeyondstatutorywalkingdistance(under2milesforthosechildrenunder8and3milesforthoseovertheageof8)
30 Registered Charity No. 327691 Limited Company No. 2198066 IPSEA
25
2.ThosewhocannotreasonablybeexpectedtowalkbecauseofaSEN,mobilityordisabilityandlivewithinstatutorywalkingdistance
3.Childrenwholiveonwhatisconsideredanunsaferoute(typicallychildrenlivinginruralareas)
4.Childrenwhoseparentsareconsideredtobelowincomefamilies
IPSEA’spolicywork
ForthepurposeofIPSEA’sworkthefirsttwocategoriesaretheonesweareinterestedinandthisisfrequentlydemonstratedinourpolicywork.Transportisoneofthetop5issueswhichparentscontactIPSEAabout.Ouradvisorsaretrainedtoinformparentsconcerningthecorrectlegalpositionwithregardstotransportentitlementandgiveparentsnextstepadviceinordertoenforceentitlement.However,IPSEAencountersomeLAsmorefrequentlythatothersandsomeLAspersistentlygiveparentsincorrectinformationandinturndenyeligiblechildrentheirtransportentitlement.Providingadvicetoparentsofchildrenwithspecialeducationalneedshavewrittento16LAsinthepast18monthsregardingunlawfultransportpracticeandpolicies.
Thefollowing4issuesfrequentlyarise:
1.TheLAconflatestheSENcategoryofeligibilitywiththestatutorywalkingdistancecategoryIn7ofthe16ofpolicieslookedat,theLAstatedwithinthepolicythatchildrenwithSENwouldonlybeentitledtotransportiftheylivedbeyondthestatutorywalkingdistance.Thisisclearlyincorrectasthe4categoriesofeligibilityareseparateandmustnotbeconflated.
2.PolicieswhichrequirechildrenwithSENtobeinreceiptofastatementofSENoranEHCPlantoqualifyfortransportItisacommonmisconceptionthatchildrenwithSENareonlyentitledtotransportprovisioniftheyhaveastatementoraEHCPlan.TheSENframeworkisseparatefromthetransportframeworkandentitlementtotransportisnotdependantonentitlementundertheSENframework.Althoughwefoundevidenceofthisinonly5ifthe16policeslookedat,anecdotally,wefrequentlyencounterparentswhoareinformedofthismisconceptionverballybyLAs.
3.WidespreadconfusionoverthedutytoprovidetransportwhenachildisnotattendingtheirnearestsuitableschoolSchedule35BEA1996containsanexceptiontotransportonlybeingavailabletothechild’snearestsuitableschool.TheexceptionisthattheLAhasnotmadearrangementsforthechildtobecomearegisteredpupilataqualifyingschoolnearertohishome.Inotherwords,iftheLAhasnotsecuredaplaceforachildathisnearestschool,theLA(ifthechildiseligiblefortransport)willbeunderadutytomaketransportarrangementsforthechildtoattendaschoolfurtherawaythanthenearestschool.ForchildrenwhohavethebenefitofastatementofSENoraEHCPlanthereisafurther
26
exception,iftheyareeligiblefortransport,tobeingentitledtotransporttoaschoolfurtherawaythantheirnearestsuitableschool.
ThisisasaresultofDudleyMBCvShurvinton[2012]EWCA346.Thecourtsaidthattherewasaspecificprocesstobefollowedwherethelocalauthoritywasarguingthattherewasanearersuitableschool:(1)ThefirststageisfortheFirsttierTribunal(FTT)todeterminetherelativetransportcostsofthetwoschools,assumingtheauthoritywillhavetoprovidetransporttoboth.(2)IftheFTTdeterminesthatthecostsoftransporttoSchoolBisnotincompatiblewiththeefficientuseofresources,theFTTmustnameSchoolBandonlySchoolB,evenifSchoolAisalsodeemedsuitable.(3)IftheFTTdeterminesthatthecostoftransporttoSchoolBisincompatiblewiththeefficientuseofresourcesthentheFTTmaynameSchoolBaswellasSchoolAintheStatement,ontheconditionthattheparentspaythecostoftransporttoSchoolB.Theaboveanalysismustbeappliedbeforealocalauthoritycanlawfullyrelieveitselfofthedutytoprovidehometoschooltransport.Thisisthemostcommonmisconceptioninthepolicieswelookatandwaspresentin14ofthe16transportpolicycomplaints.
4.Accompaniment
ThecurrentstatutoryguidanceontransportisbeingusedfrequentlytodenychildrenwithSENtransportprovision.Thereisnoreferencetoaccompanimentanywhereinparagraphs2-5ofSchedule35BtotheEA1996.However,paragraphs17&18ofthestatutoryguidancedealwiththisasfollows:Indeterminingwhetherachildcannotreasonablybeexpectedtowalkforthepurposesof‘specialeducationalneeds,adisabilityormobilityproblemseligibility’or‘unsaferouteeligibility’,thelocalauthoritywillneedtoconsiderwhetherthechildcouldreasonablybeexpectedtowalkifaccompaniedand,ifso,whetherthechild’sparentcanreasonablybeexpectedtoaccompanythechild.Whenconsideringwhetherachild’sparentcanreasonablybeexpectedtoaccompanythechildonthejourneytoschoolarangeoffactorsmayneedtobetakenintoaccount,suchastheageofthechildandwhetheronewouldordinarilyexpectachildofthatagetobeaccompanied.18.Thegeneralexpectationisthatachildwillbeaccompaniedbyaparentwherenecessary,unlessthereisagoodreasonwhyitisnotreasonabletoexpecttheparenttodoso.
WefrequentlyencounterLAswhowronglyproceedonthebasisthatachildmustbeaccompaniedunlesstheparentcanproveotherwiseandinformparentsthatitistheirlegaldutytoaccompanyachildtoschool,usingthestatutoryguidancetojustifythisposition.Thisimposesahigherthresholdthanwhatiscontainedinlaw.StatutoryguidancecannotimposeastrictertestthanwhatiscontainedinlawandyetparentstellusthatthisiswhattheyaretoldbyLAs.
27
Annex 4
Summary Local Government Ombudsman (2017) Report31
A report from the Local Government Ombudsman
AlthoughissueswithSchoolTransportarefarfromanewphenomenon,2017sawincreasedattentionregardingLocalAuthorityhometoschooltransport32includingaContact-a-Family(CaF)schooltransportinquiry.33AswiththeCerebraLEaPhelpline,schoolTransporthasalsobeenoneofthemostcommontopicsencounteredbytheCaFhelpline
InMarch2017,theLocalGovernmentOmbundsman(or‘LGO’)publishedafocusreport’called‘Allonboard?Navigatingschooltransportissues:learninglessonsfromcomplaints’.34Inthisreporttheextentofschooltransportissuewasreflectedintheriseofcomplaintsfrom160receivedin2014/2015to261in2015/2016.ThepurposeofthereportwastohighlighttoCouncilsthecommonlyoccurringcomplaintsreceivedtohelpaddressthesereoccurringfailures.
Themostcommonthemeswithinthesecomplaintsincludedinadequatecommunicationwithparentsandfailuretoconsultparentsregardingpolicychanges.Mostnotablythough,complaintswerealsoreceivedregardingthelackofclearinformationavailabletoparentsandthefailureofLA’s‘toconsiderhealthandsafetyproblemsassociatedwiththeireducationalneedsanddisabilitywhenconsideringeligibilityfortransport’.
Thereporthelpfullydetailedthelegislationthatprescribeswhatgroupsofchildrenare‘eligible’forschooltransport.WithinthecategoryregardingSEN,mobilityanddisabilityproblems,thereportincludesthefactthatadisabilitymaybeatemporarymedicalcondition.ThereportalsoreferredtotheStatutoryGuidancethatLA’shaveadutytohaveregardto.Inparticular,theLGOcitedLA’sobligationtohavearobustappealsprocedure,whichshouldbepublishedalongsidethetransportpolicies.OurresearchhasshownthatnotallLAhaveabidedbythisdutyandarefailingtoprovideanadequateappealsprocedureforparentcarerswhoarenotsatisfiedwithLAtransportdecisions.
31 Local government ombudsman All on board? Navigating school transport issues (LGO 2017). 32 See for example Burns, J School transport cuts causing 'distress and upheaval (BBC 17 March 2017) and ‘'I can't afford disabled son's school taxi' (BBC 17 March 2017). 33 Contact-A-Family School transport inquiry (2017). 34 Local government ombudsman All on board? Navigating school transport issues (LGO 2017).
28
AlistofexpectationsofCouncilsweredetailedinthereportwhichincludedtheduty‘toprovideclearandaccurateinformationaboutschooltransportpoliciesandchangestothosepolicies’.ThisexpectationcoincideswiththeconcernsofthisresearchwhichhashighlightedtheinaccuracyandinaccessibilityofasubstantialproportionofLA’sonlinetransportpolicies.
OtherissuesemphasisedthroughoutthereportincludedLAfailuretoapplytransportguidancetobothapplicationsandappeals.TherearesectionsdedicatedtothosewithSEN,mobilityanddisabilityproblemswhichemphasisedthatsuchchildrenshouldnotbetreatedlessfavourably.ForchildrenwithadisabilityormobilityproblemtheLGOdetailedtheappropriatetestforeligibility,whichstated:
Eventhoughsomechildrenwithmobilityproblems,specialeducationalneedsoradisabilitylivewithinthestatutorywalkingdistance,thelawandstatutoryguidancesetsoutthreetestswhichcanmakethechild‘eligible’forfreeschooltransport:
‘1.Councilsmustconsiderifthechildhasmobilityorhealthandsafetyproblemsassociatedwiththeirspecialeducationalneedsordisability,whichmeansitisnotreasonableforthecounciltoexpectthechildtowalktoschool.Councilsshouldassesstheeligibilityforsuchchildrenonanindividualbasistoidentifytheirparticulartransportrequirements;
2.Ifso,councilsmustconsiderwhetheritisreasonabletoexpectthechildtowalktoschoolifaccompanied.Forexample,cananadultpreventthehealthandsafetyrisksposedbythechild’sspecialeducationalneedsanddisability?
3.Ifso,councilsmustconsiderifitisreasonabletoexpecttheadulttoaccompanythechildonthejourney,takingintoaccountarangeoffactorsincludingthechild’sageandwhetheronewouldnormallyexpectachildofthatagetobeaccompanied.’
ItwasalsostressedthatLA’sshould‘nothavepoliciesthatautomaticallyprecludethosefamilieswhoreceivethehigherrateofthemobilitycomponentofDisabilityLivingAllowance.TheDepartmentforEducationhassaidinParliamentthatbeinginreceiptofthisallowancedoesnotnecessarilyconfereligibilityforfreeschooltransportbutneitherdoesitprecludeitifthechildisaneligiblechild.’
TheLGO’sreportappearstohavecitedsomeofthekeyconcernsthisresearchprojecthasfound.However,theextentoftheissuesatbothpolicyandpracticelevelarenotnecessarilyfullyexploredinthisreport.Problemswithaccessibilityandaccuracyofpolicieswerenotfullyexplored.Nevertheless,thisreportisapositivesteptowardsaddressingthewidespreadinconsistenciesandinadequatepoliciesandpracticesofasubstantialproportionofLocalAuthorities.
29
Annex5
Studentreflections
Lisa‘FindingtheinformationoncertainwebsiteswasreallydifficultandsoIassumeaparentwithadisabledchildwouldfinditevenhardertofindallthenecessaryinformationneeded.Thepolicypagesonsomewebsitesweretoolongandtime-consumingtobeabletoreadthrougheverythingandunderstandwhatappliestotheirchild.Thiswouldprobablybeverystressfulfortheparenttryingtofindoutwhethertheirchildappliesforfreeschooltransport.Additionally,someofthelanguageusedinthepolicieswerequitehardtounderstandandthelegallanguageinvolvedseemstocloudrequirementsofeligibility.OverallIthinkthewebsiteswiththepoliciesneedtohaveaclearerviewoftheirinformation.’
Amy‘TheinformationthatIhavefoundwhenresearchingthecouncilwebsiteshasbeenvaried.Somewebsiteshavebeenveryeasytolocatethepolicywithjustthreeorfourclicks,whereasothercouncilwebsiteshavebeenmoredifficulttofindthepolicy,ornotlocatablewhatsoever.Obviouslythisisfromalawstudent’sperspective,thereforeifitwerefromaparent’sperspectiveitmaybeevenhardertotryandlocatethepolicy.Somepolicieshavebeenwritteninsimpleunderstandablelanguage,howeverotherpoliciesseemtoappearquiteconfusingandnotexplainingtherequirementsofwhatisneededtoobtainfreeschooltransport.
Forexample,IwasunabletofindapolicyforZCouncil’sandthewebsitewasveryunclearasitwasjustdirectingfromwebpagetowebpage,concludinginnorealinformativerequirements.However,ontheotherhand,XCountyCouncil’spolicywasveryeasytofind,itonlytookminimalclicksandthepolicywasnottoolongandwaswrittenverywellforsomeone,evenwithoutlegalknowledge,tounderstand.Overall,Iwouldconcludethatthepoliciesfromthecouncil’swebsitesarerelativelyeasytolocate,andmosttheinformationisquiteeasytounderstand.However,thisisfromalawstudentsperspective,Ifeelitwouldbedifferentfromaparentsperspective,theymightnotknowhowtoresearchthewebsiteproperly,orhavethetimeandthepatiencetodoso.’
Fiona‘ThroughoutconductingmyresearchfromthevariouswebsitesIfacedmanyissues.OnthemajorityofthewebsitesthatIlookedat,theinformationwasdifficulttolocate,whichforfamiliesthatneedthesupportmustfindextremelyfrustrating.Onawhole,oncetherequiredinformationwaslocated,Ifoundthatthesiteswereaccommodatingintermsoftheirexplanations(i.e.notoverlyusinglegaljargon).However,notalloftheinformationgivenbytheauthoritieswasentirelycorrect,theytendedtoinclude‘may’and‘if’alotratherthanexplicitlystatingthingswhichmakespredictingtheoutcomeverydifficult.
30
Furthermore,oftentheapplicationformsweretailoredtowardsthoseapplyingfromlowincomefamilies,withlittleornomentionofthoseapplyingwithadisability.Allthesitesdidincludecontactdetailsforenquiriesandhowonewouldappealiftheyneededtodoso.
OverallIhavefoundtheresearchusefulinseeinghowauthoritieshandlethepublicationofsuchrights.FromaperspectiveofalawstudentconductingresearchIfoundthatalloftheinformationwasthereifyouknewwheretolook,howeverIunderstand(fromaparent’sperspective)howtheprocessmaybeoffputtingasitwouldbetimeconsumingandanaddedstressonthefamily.Themajorityofthesitesprovidedtoomuchinformation,whichmakestherelevantinformationforparentshardtofind,thustheywouldallbenefitfrombeingmoreconcise.’
Nav‘Whiletheinformationregardingschooltransportwaseasytofindoneachwebsiteandwasinclear,easytounderstandlanguage,thelackofinformationoncertainwebsitestoentitlementoffreetransportandescortswasmildlydisappointing.While,ALAandBLAhadclearwebsiteswhichprovidedsufficientinformation,CLAandtheDLAwerecertainlymoredifficulttonavigatethrough.D’swebsitedoesnotevenallowaccesstothewebsiteuntilanaccountismadewhichmaybediscouragingforparents.Thelackofinformationanddiscrepanciesbetweeneachsitemayprohibitparentsfromclaimingsupportwherethey'reentitledandissomethingthatmostdefinitelyrequiresattentionfromParliament.’Amie‘Myresearchconcludedthatthecurrentinformationavailableforthoseseekingadditionalsupportforthetransportoftheirdisabledchildtoschoolisunsatisfactory.AfterlookingintothepoliciesofvariousCountycouncilsitisclearthatgreaterandclearerinformationmustbeprovidedtothosewhoneedit.AlthoughitisnotdifficulttofindthepoliciesontheCountycouncilwebsites,thepoliciesthemselvesareoftenverydetailedandoverlycomplex.Thepoliciesoftenincludedinformationonallthe‘eligible’groupshowevertherewasoftenalackofinformationaboutthosewithSENandstatements.Allthewebsitesprovideddetailsonhowtoapplyandappealbutonceagainthelanguagewasconfusingandtheprocesseselaboratewhichmayconfusethereaderorpossiblyconvincethemtonotbotherapplyingforthesupport’.Aiste‘Eachofthecouncilwebsitesresearchedmadetheirschooltransportationpolicyeasilyaccessibleand,amidoccasionallegaljargon,writtenineasy-to-understandlanguage.However,fromtheperspectiveofanSENapplicant,thematerialwasunhelpful.Theapplicationprocesswasrarelyreadilyavailableandoften,especiallyforSENapplicants,onlymentionedinvaguetermsleavingpotentialapplicantsconfusedastohowtheycouldactuallygoaboutclaimingtheirrights.Somecouncils’alludedtoanadditionalexaminationprocessspecificallyforSENapplicantswithoutgoingintodetail.Thisextendstotheappealprocessaswell.Whileeverypolicymadementionofitsexistence,theactualprocesstobegintheappealwasoftenmadeouttobetediousandinefficient(suchasrequiringthosewantingtoappealtowritebypost).Thereisnoreasonwhyeverycouncilcannotprovidealinktoanonlineapplicationandanonlineappealthatcanbesubmittedinstantlyinadditiontoaphonenumberofthecouncildepartmentallocatedtoschooltransportissues.This
31
informationshouldbeattheverybeginningofeachcouncil’swebpageandnotinthemiddleorendofaseparate,long-windedPDF.’
Rachael‘ThroughoutthistaskIhaveencounteredanumberofdifficultiesinfindingthenecessaryinformation.Ididnotseeasinglelocalauthoritysitethathadalltheinformationclearlyandeasilyavailable.Mostwebsiteswererelativelyeasytofindsomeformofpolicy,onlyrequiringthreeorfourclicks.Howeverwhenreachingwhatshouldhavebeentherelevantpagetherewerelongandcomplexpolicieswritteninchallengingtounderstandlegalterminology.SomewebsitesIcouldnotevenfindtheapplicationform.AsaparenttryingtofindthisinformationIwouldhavecertainlystruggledtomeettheneedsofmychild.’
Victoria&Winona‘Findingthepolicydocumentsthemselveswassimpleenoughinmostcasesasitwaslocatedundertheschoolsections.However,therewereinstanceswheneitherthepolicyeitherdidn'texistorwasunavailableatthetime.Thisisnotfairfortheparent,astheinformationshouldbereadilyprovided.Thepolicydocumentsthemselveswereverydauntingintermsoftheirformattingandthelanguage.Theywereoftenlongpdfs,withblackandwhitewritingandminimalheadings,insteadjustnumberingtheparagraphs.Forparentsthismakesthepoliciesuninviting,particularlywhenthereisnocontentspagesoallthedocumentmustberead.
Therewasaheavyfocusonlegislation,sectionsandlegaldefinitionsinmanyofthepolicies.Foraparentthatdoesnothavealegalbackground,thismakesthepolicyunnecessarilydifficulttounderstand.Insteadthereshouldbeplainlanguageusedsothattheycanunderstandwhatthechildisentitledto.Theinformationthatwasprovidedwasoftencomplicated,andsometimesinaccurate,meaningthatparentsarefacedwithunnecessaryhurdleswhentryingtoapplyforsomethingthattheirchildisentitledto,sothattheycanbenefit.Inmostinstances,theinformationonescorts,applicationsandcomplaintswasdetailedenoughthataparentcouldunderstand.Typicallycontactdetailswereprovidedgivingtheparenttheopportunitytogetfurtherinformation.’
Muhammad‘Inmyfirstterminthelawschool,IhavedecidedtojointheSchoolTransportResearchTeamandIhavenothingtoregretthatdecision,apartfromtheresultsIhavefound.Theteamhasonesimpleobjective,tocheckwhetherthelocalauthoritieshaveoutlinedtherightinformationvis-à-visschooltransportaidtotheirwebsites.Assimpleasitmaysound,thesurveycouldn’tbecompletedwithinashortperiodoftime.Somelocalauthoritiesprovidedabundleofdocumentsupto46pageslong,inblackandwhitefilledwithconfusinglegalterms,eventoalawstudent.Hence,ittooktimetoperusethedocuments.Somelocalauthoritiesprovidedinformationcorrectlyintheirpdfdocumentsenclosedontheweb,butmostofthemhadmisleadinginformation.
32
Luckyforme,duetomylegalknowledge,IcouldidentifywhichpartoftheinformationwasinaccordancewiththeEducationAct1996Schedule35Paragraph2andwhichoneisnot.Thecontradictorynatureoftheinformationonthewebandinthepdfdocumentsmustsurelyconfusetheparentswhodonothavelegalbackground,andthismightdiscouragethemfromrequestingassistance.Whatisthepurposetohaveadocumentthatisunreadableandincomprehensible?Yes,theparentsdohavearesponsibilitytounderstandtheActandtryattheirbesttodigesttheinformationprovided,butasimpler,moreinteractiveandengagingdocumentwouldbemuchbetter.Ihopethisresearchwillensurethatlocalauthoritiesrevisetheirexistinginformationandperhapsbemoresensitive.Ilookforwardtoseeingappropriateactiontakenbytheselocalauthorities.’
Harry‘BeingpartoftheDisabilityLawResearchProjecthasbeenoneofthemostfulfillingexperiencesofmylifebothasayoungresearcherandadvocateindisabilityrights.Theexperiencehasenergizedmypassionfordisabilityrightsadvocacyandresearch,andmytechnicalunderstandingaswellaspracticeondisabilitypolicyhasgenerallygrowntoanadvancedlevelfollowingmyinvolvementintheproject.
Thisexperiencecameupwithitsownchallengesbutthroughpersonalmotivation,teamworkandtimelysupportfromthesupervisors:SorchaandLuke,Iwasabletogothroughthechallengeswithmucheaseandcomposure.OneofthechallengesthatIcansingleoutishavinghadtoreadsomepolicieswithover55pagesandwritteninverytechnicalterms.Butthiswasworthit,consideringthatpartoftheresearchwastolookattheavailabilityofinformationandeaseofthepoliciesonschooltransportfordisabledchildrenintheUK.BeingaLawstudentmyself,andyethavingfacedsuchchallengesasthelengthandlanguageofsomeofthepolicies,Iwaschallengedtoviewmyselffromtheperspectiveofmanyparentsorguardiansofdisabledchildrenwhomight(orindeeddo)facechallengesinaccessingthemuchneededinformationonthecouncilwebsitesorinpolicydocuments.
Allinall,thishasbeenagreatexperienceandIhaveadvancedmyskillsinteamwork,timemanagementandtechnicalunderstandingofdisabilityrightspolicyandresearch.IwouldpersonallyencouragemorestudentsattheUniversityofLawtovolunteerincausesliketheDisabilityLawResearchProject.’
Panagiota‘Inthepastmonths,IhaveworkedtogetherwithotherstudentsoftheUniversityofLeedsfortheSchoolTransportProject.Wewereseparatedintoteamsandeachofusassignedspecificlocalauthoritieswebsites.Iwasexcitedtoparticipateinthisproject.Somewebsiteswerenotverywellorganisedandsometimesitwashardformetofindthepoliciesorthepolicieswereconfusinghavingunnecessaryormisleadinginformation.
IwasluckytocooperatewithLuke,Sorcha,HarryandMohamed.LukeandSorchaweregreatcompanionswhoenlightenedourmindsanddirectustotherightway.InmygroupwewerethreepeoplewhowerelivingindifferentareassowedecidedthatitwouldbebettertocompletethesurveyseachofusindependentlyandthencombinedalltheresultstogetherintoanewDataForm.Iwentthroughdifficultiesinfindingtheanswersforthesurveysasthemajorityofthelocalauthorities’websiteswerenotveryorganisedorthe
33
policieswereverylongandconfusing,maybenotcoveringallthebasiclawrequirements.Itriedtobemoreconcentrated,usemyanalyticalskillsandpaymoreattentiontothedetailsatthesametime.IwasquiteorganisedandIhadstudiedthenecessaryinformationgivenbyLukeandSorchaandfollowedthegiveninstructions.ThatishowImanagedtomeetmydutyandfinishedthesurveysontime.
Theprojectcontainsseveraltasks-readingtherelevantlaw,readinglocalauthoritiespolicies,navigatinginwebsites,collectingtheappropriatedatafromthepolicies,fillingtheminthesurveysandtransferringdatatothefinalDataForm.SomeofthesetaskswerechallengingandotherswerequiteeasyformeasIwasfamiliarwiththiskindofjobbefore.ThemostchallengingtaskwasthepolicyreadingwhenIhadtoselectanddefinetherightinformationinordertoanswerthequestionsinthesurveys.
34
Annex 6
Jargon Buster
‘Walkingdistance’ 2milesifunder8-tonearestqualifyingschool3milesifover8-tonearestqualifyingschool
‘LA’
ShorthandforLocalAuthority-thegovernmentalbodywitheducationalfunctionsandduties.Previouslyreferredtoas‘LEA’orlocaleducationauthorities.
‘SEN’ SpecialEducationalNeeds
‘StatementofSEN’ GiventoachildwhorequiresadditionalsupportfortheirSENoverandabovewhatcanbeprovidedbytheSchool(longanddetailedprocess)
‘EHCP’ ‘Education,Health&CarePlan’thatisthenewstatementofSENsince2014.Combinesthechildsneedsineducation,healthandcareinonedocument.
‘Compulsoryschoolage’ Isbetween5and16yearsold.
‘Qualifyingschool’ Thenearestsuitableeducationalestablishment(whichmaybenamedbytheLAonanEHCP)
‘LEaP’ Means-LegalEntitlementsandProblem-SolvingProject
‘IPSEA’ AcronymforIndependentParentalSpecialEducationAdvice.AcharitableindependentbodythatassistsparentsingettingtherighteducationfortheirchildrenwithSEN.