This is just turning into a fee paying v non fee paying school debate always a contentious issue on Mumsnet.
I think the OP is saying it's unfair that the council can't help her out (even a tiny weeny small bit, in form of transport cost not fees) when they are willing to help out others in a far bigger way who may have put less into the "system".
Take this example:
When I was at uni in my final year aged 21 I found out I needed glasses. I filed out a form to get a small amount put towards the cost of my glasses (think it was a voucher worth £30, cost of glasses and sight test was around £100) but my claim was rejected on the basis that I worked part time (during uni and holidays) and could afford to pay for them myself. As an aside I have worked in some capacity since I was 14.
At this exact same time, my then 18 year old sister (whom I love dearly I might add), who has never ever worked (well for longer than a week) and is a young mum (baby was 7 months old at time, so is on benefits etc) found a rabbit in the street. She decided she would keep him and took him to the vets to make sure he was healthy etc which was all paid for by the government.
Now for me this situation clearly demonstrates how the welfare state has become a little bit extreme. I am completely and utterly 100% happy for people who need it to receive help, and although I anticipate a flaming I do really mean that. I also understand that the majority of people who do have state help are not "well off" buying flat screen tv's etc and that living on benefits especially with children is very very difficult. But you need a balance, which is obviously very very hard to reach.
But come on... rejecting a claim of £30 for help with cost of glasses for a student who has been in the tax "system" for 7 years but then accepting a claim for an abandoned rabbit from a person who has never been in the tax "system" (actually accepting the rabbit full stop of a human is pretty mad!)
Anyway rant over, bring on the flames