To think the 3 mile rule for school transport is unfair and not fit for the current time?

[WellThatsMeScrewed]

My eldest does not get transport to her secondary school because we live 2.89 miles away from her secondary school. Supposedly she can walk this.

It would involve crossing 3 lots of dual carriageways, walking along a unlit busy road.

It’s just not fair.

The 3 mile rule is from some archaic time where there was hardly any traffic.

3 miles takes about an hour, that's not so bad. You can ask them to assess the route though, if they need to cross duel carriageways you can get the route designated unsafe and then they have to pay for transport.

The cost of school transport for some is extortionate. As i previously posted i have to pay for both of mine to get to school, totally £148 a month. The school is 5.5 miles away. There is one school half a mile closer that we would get a free bus pass for, but you have to attend the attached church for at least 2 years before to even have a chance of getting accepted.

Children in London have had free bus travel for about 15 years. So some never walk anywhere, even if they are not in a family with an SUV.

My view is that there should be a fixed charge, perhaps less or free for those on free school meals.

The OPs issue should be the kind of road, not the distance.

If more kids walked to school there would be less childhood obesity.

Not if the route to and from home takes them past Greggs/thé cheap chicken shop/Maccas 🤣

@WhileMyGuitarGentlyWeeps great user name 😁

But the OP hasn't said If a bus route is available so she may not need to walk it

That's true, but 1) a number of posters have suggested it is a reasonable walk to school 2) the 3 mile rule for a free school bus is presumably based on the idea that if it is under 3 miles then kids should walk

I literally said it was not relevant "in terms of legal entitlement". You found a potential relevance which had nothing to do with legal entitlement, but decided that you would contradict me anyway. Or did you just not bother to read my post properly, @Rainraindontgoaway?

Where do you get the idea that the route has been assessed as safe? OP didn't say so. The likelihood is that whoever refused transport never actually applied their mind to the safety issue, it's a mistake local authority school transport departments make fairly regularly.

The fact that the school was the parent's preference doesn't automatically disqualify it, if it is the nearest suitable school.

It may be that there are no spare places on it.

There's no debate to be had though really is there. Councils can't afford to provide free transport for every pupil, not without cutting other services that are arguably more important. Which services should be cut so that teens don't have to exert themselves with a walk or a cycle?

Three miles seems to be standard. If you live under three miles they can easily walk or cycle. If you're unhappy with that, you can take them yourself, pay for transport or get into a reciprocal arrangement with other parents.

It's galling if you're just inside the 3 miles, especially if your neighbours are getting it for free but I assume all of this was known when you applied?

It does have to be a safe route though so if you're telling the truth about the unsafe roads etc then that's worth raising.

Because the law says so?

You are sounding perilously like one of those SEN officers who make the lives of the parents and children with SEN utterly miserable.

The LA doesn't have to provide everything, but it does have to provide what the law requires it to provide. And it sounds very much in OP's case as if it is failing to do so because it hasn't taken into account the dangers involved in the walking route.

Oh, this is all news to me. Does anyone know how this works if you live in one council area, but your child attends school in another council area?

Anyone who I know who has sent children to school in a different LA has been their choice and therefore the parents responsibility to get kids to school.

@Quia What SEN Officer is that then?
Yep I do my difficult job to make lives of parents and children miserable…
Have you any idea what my role entails or are you too busy making sweeping statements?

What I actually do is follow the code of practice guidelines and carry the statutory processes for my caseload of children and offer advice & guidance to my schools and parents. And I do it bloody well so until you do my job then you really have no idea, so be a dear and feck off

As I said- if the route is unsafe she can appeal

This is exactly what I did decades ago. In the end the small group of seven children this rule affected got their own minibus door to door.

The walking along roads that were unlit, with no footpath and quarry lorries passing made the assessor put forward alternative transport suggestions.

It was cancelled by management three times before it was approved though.

The rules are still the same.

If the school is more than 3 miles from home by the shortest safe walking route (2 miles if the child is under 8), the LA must provide free transport to get the child to and from school unless the parents chose the school by putting it ahead of their nearest school in their preferences and it is not the nearest school. There are additional entitlements for families on low income and children with SEN, disabilities or mobility problems.

The fact that it is the parent's choice has nothing to do with it. The basic rule is that you don't get transport unless you satisfy the criteria (in most cases, either distance or disability) and it is the nearest suitable school. If you live near the border and you choose the nearest school but it is still over three miles away, your child won't be banned from transport just because you chose it rather than having it forced on you.

I don't think this is quite right. It's not just nearest school but if there is a school within safe walking distance. So there can be a closer out of catchment school but if you choose this you don't get free transport because you can get to the catchment school which is further away but safe to walk.

Same rules applies to students attending SN school, some of then utterly unable to use public transport.
It can be very tricky in some cases to get a bus or taxi as a specialised form of transport.

If it’s an unsafe walking route you’re eligible.

The term "nearest suitable school" does include safety of the route. Certainly if the nearer school can actually only be accessed on foot by a longer journey then it isn't the nearest suitable school.

Not necessarily. Many children attending special schools come within the category of children who aren't expected to walk because of their disability (which can include being unable to walk safely, e.g. because of a tendency to run off) and qualify for transport for that reason, even if the school is within the distance limits.

I sometimes cycle almost 2 hours to get to work...

I just wondered if there is only one route to OP's school. I ask because I found genuinely that some drivers are clueless about alternative routes available to other modes of transport. They truly don't recognise other options or paths, this is very common for bus/car-dependent people. Anyway, because we sent 4 DC to secondary schools out of transport yes we had to be creative about finding ways to get them there. "Choice" in secondary school, in rural areas, only exists if you can afford to pay for private transport, as a rule. There was a lot of car-pooling by other parents, I note, in same situation. Ask around in case anyone has same challenge as you, OP.