To receive an update on the impact of the revised education transport policy which became effective from September 2015

The Committee received an update on the impact of the revised education transport policy which had become effective from September 2015.

The cabinet member - children and young people introduced the report.  He acknowledged that the policy had its critics, as reflected in the questions submitted by members of the public.  However, the key consideration was how to deliver a statutory service within financial constraints, noting that some £4.8m was spent on school transport annually, and there was pressure to achieve savings.

The Admissions and Transport Policy Manager (ATPM) then presented the key findings of a review of the impact of the revised policy as set out in the report. He considered that the projected annual saving of £250k would be achieved over 5 years as planned. 

In relation to post 16 Special Educational Needs (SEN) students he corrected the figure in paragraph 6c, confirming that the overall number of post 16 SEN students seeking transport via the council had dropped from 63 in September 2015 to 45 (rather than 26) in September 2016.  This reduction was largely a result of courses at Herefordshire College of Art and Holme Lacy College having finished.

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·        The Director of Children’s Wellbeing commented in relation to vacant school places that a balance had to be struck in seeking to ensure that the council could meet its statutory duty to provide sufficient school places.  This necessitated the provision of some surplus capacity.  A capital investment strategy was in place to ensure an appropriate level of provision.  Very few parents chose to send their children outside the County. The ATPM added that a number of high schools including Fairfield, John Kyrle, John Masefield, Weobley and Wigmore were oversubscribed and had agreed to increase their pupil admission number.

The Assistant Director added that the capital investment strategy took account of growth in both academies and maintained schools informing discussions of need with the Education Funding Agency.  Some schools and colleges were arranging their own transport where they found this cost effective.  An “extended rights” scheme was in place to which families facing financial hardship could apply.

·        Clarification was sought on the cost of out of county school transport.  There appeared to be an increase in transportation costs to children outside the County and east to the Malvern area.  Before the policy’s implementation there had been no cost to parents whose children went to Dyson Perrins School in the Malvern area.

·        The oversubscription at John Masefield suggested a lack of capacity, noting also the projected building of an extra 1,000 homes in Ledbury over the next 10 years.  There was currently insufficient capacity at Ledbury Primary School and half the children in the John Masefield catchment area were exported from Ledbury.  John Masefield school was itself subsidising pupil transport costs.  It was questioned whether turning schools into bus companies was the right course.

·        The decision to send a child to a faith school was more than just a lifestyle choice. 

·        The implications for families of setting aside monies to transport children were not clear.

·        In response to concerns expressed by the Committee arrangements had been agreed to ameliorate the introduction of the policy.  This meant that it was too early to identify trends and assess the full impact of the policy.

·        The cabinet member commented that it was unlikely that no Herefordshire parents would choose to send their children out of county.  The better the county’s schools performed, clearly the more parents would choose to send their children there.  He noted that the policy had provided for children part way through their school years in receipt of free school transport when the policy was introduced to continue to do so.  Further savings would therefore be generated as those pupils left the system.

·        The ATPM highlighted the answer to question 11 of the public questions as published.

·        There was no evidence as to the bearing the potential of incurring transport costs might be having on parental choice. 

·        There was the potential for financial pressures to lead people to choose their nearest school rather than their catchment school and this could have an adverse social impact over time on communities.  The impact of the school transport policy needed to be considered in the round not just as a financial matter.

·        In response to a question as to whether the annual cost to parents could be fixed for the time being, and not made subject to an annual increase, officers confirmed that the council continued to subsidise costs; the average annual cost of transporting a child was £850 and the average payment was £750. Council policy provided for charges to be increased in line with inflation.

·        Consideration needed to be given to the adverse consequences the policy might have for traffic congestion, air quality and the viability of bus companies.  These impacts needed to be balanced against the comparatively small saving the policy delivered.

In reply, the cabinet member commented that the annual saving being made on school transport was significant.

·        It was observed that if the policy were to be changed it would be incumbent on those proposing the change to identify where alternative savings could be made.

·        The passenger transport manager (PTM) commented that consideration was being given to how the public transport service could be made resilient and sustainable.

·        The policy had not had a devastating impact but there were clearly some complications for some families.

·        Clarification was sought on the role of the council in relation to school travel plans, what evidence there was for increased car use by parents transporting their children to school, and the position on the production of the sustainable modes of travel to school strategy.

The PTM commented that the strategy was expected to be published in the Spring.  It was also understood that many school travel plans had not been updated. A member expressed disappointment at this, noting that when the decision to implement the policy had been called-in by the Committee in January 2014 the importance of the strategy and meeting the council’s statutory duties in this regard had been highlighted.  It was proposed that the executive should produce a sustainable modes of travel to school strategy for consideration by the Committee by July and that schools should be encouraged to produce and update school transport plans.

·        A suggestion was made that as part of the process of inviting parents to express their school preference parents should be asked whether they were being influenced by transport costs.  The Director cautioned against this approach noting that parents had many reasons for their preference, that the council would need to ensure that there was no suggestion that by asking the question additional admissions criteria were being applied, there would be a cost to seeking and interpreting additional data and the Committee needed to be mindful of cost effectiveness and the need to take a strategic view of the policy.

·        Rural communities were used to exploring options in response to sparsity of services and consideration could usefully be given to alternatives to council transport provision.  The cabinet member confirmed that parents were co-ordinating transport arrangements for a large number of children.

·        A view was expressed that more data was required to enable the impact of the policy to be assessed.  The Chairman suggested that rather than another annual review further consideration might be given to the need for an update on the policy in two years’ time when further data on the impact of the policy would be available.

RESOLVED:  That the executive be requested to produce a sustainable modes of travel to school strategy for consideration by the Committee by July and that schools should be encouraged to produce and update school transport plans.

(The Committee resolved in relation to appendix 1 to the report that under section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during any discussion of appendix 1 if necessary on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Schedule 12(A) of the Act, as indicated below and it was considered that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information:   Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual.  However, the nature of the discussion meant that the public and press were at no point excluded from the meeting.)