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.