Changes to travel arrangements for children with S.E.N. ...

[GossipWitch]

A friend and I went to our local autism drop in centre this week to find that a council official was there and was telling us about the proposed changes for our children and their transport to their special needs schools.

Just so that you understand what I'm writing about there is a link here.

The government are trying to put these measurements in place across the country, you just have to google it and find out for yourself.

I personally feel that this is discrimination against the disabled children and young people of this country and I don't think this is fair to us or our children at all.

This could also have a huge knock on effect to other organisations like the social services etc. Have a read through and tell me if you agree please.

There are parents who never expected to have to live hand to mouth who have had to give up work, having to use their child's DLA to pay the mortgage. Petrol for some is the difference of having food or not. My DS school is not even on a bus route.

Yes, squidworth, you are talking to one of them. That doesn't stop us having the responsibility of meeting certain child-related costs.

If your DS's school is not on a bus route, and it is his only suitable school (ie. named on a statement - there is case law surrounding this), and he cannot safely walk, then he will be eligible for free transport regardless of the mileage.

It really isn't that hard to understand

squidworth there are frequent studies to back this up as I'm sure most of us know. Parents of disabled children are much more likely to live in poverty. Any changes must not make very difficult lives worse....surely.

Lougle, sure, there will be a few families who are reassessed and found not to be needing transport but why should parents pay anything towards transport just because the local authority cannot or will not make adequate provision for these children at their local school like everyone else?

Because, Bakelite, as parents we all have the option (or at least 99.9% of us) to put our child in their local school. And if we don't, the law says that the LA must provide transport.

However, if a parent has chosen to put their child in another school for better (for them) facilities, and it is not the school that the LA designated, then we must accept that this choice will have consequences.

It is no different to a parent thinking that a particular school is better for their NT child.

If, however, the school is unsuitable for the child (ie. the school has rejected the child based on paperwork sent to them, or the LA agree or suggest that a special school is better for them) then the LA is still responsible for the transport.

And in any case, the LA isn't saying 'you get them there' or even 'you pay for it'. All they are saying is 'you contribute 6% of the cost'.

I live 10 minutes walk from an outstanding primary and 10 minutes the otherway to an outstanding secondary. one of those smug parents who could post code buy an outstanding education and never dreamt that my children would be unable to go. all the children in my DS special school are there because they are severe and complex. my DS statement could not be supported in any ms primary school. Lougle will the 6% charge also be for the cost for independent schools and residential schools. Surely the school of the statement is for the education that a child needs and deserves and the distance of a school should not influence a parent or are only the well off allowed to go schools that are not on their doorstep.

I am starting to feel like I am banging my head against a brick wall here, squidworth.

DD1 is in a special school. All the children there are there because they have complex needs which can't be met by a mainstream school.

As I have said before IF a Statement of Educational Need names a school, there is caselaw to show that it becomes 'the only suitable school' and therefore the LA is obliged to meet the transport needs if it is beyond statutory distance.

Additionally, if transport is essential for a child to get to school (ie. they are unable to walk to the school for any reason) then the LA is obliged to meet their transport needs regardless of distance.

What I was saying, is that IF a parent of a child with SEN who does not require a statement, CHOOSES to send them to a further afield school, which is NOT their closest school, AND their child is not in a category of need which requires the LA to provide transport, then I think it is reasonable for the LA to ask the parents for a contribution, which this particular LA are putting at a 6% contribution.

Having a child with SEN doesn't give parents a passport to choice without consequence, and nor should it.

If it were just a question of grabbing the 6% I'm not sure they'd bother. Getting the money out of everyone and assessing who is and is not liable will cost a fair bit to administer in itself.

I think their logic must be that there are a few families who really don't need Transport, but are claiming it on the basis that "I'm entitled and I'll grab everything I can get". The hope must be that if you don't need transport then even a small charge will discourage you from claiming. So though the 6% from the rest of us won't save them much, and there will probably be many cases where the full cost is still covered, they are hoping there will be enough cases where people suddenly find themselves able to take their kids to school after all to make it worth doing.

Oh, so you're ok Lougle!!!! The trouble is, decisions about which school is named on a statement are already being unduly - and in some cases, heavily - influenced by how much the transport might cost, rather than how suitable the school is for the pupil .

It's nothing to do with whether I'm ok, Bakelite.

As it happens, twice per week I have to bundle two of my children in the car and do an 18 mile round trip to get DD1 from school. I could choose not to let her do her afterschool club, but it is respite.

Do you think my LA should have to bring her home because I've chosen to allow her to do the one and only afterschool club she can access?

Its not the charge of £240 per year that's an issue either, that only applies to pre-school and post 16, it is the fact that a child with adhd/autism or other needs but can still walk and lives within 3 miles of their school or a child who lives in a residential unit in a different county as there isn't that type of unit in their own county, are not going to be able to get any access to any transport to get to school safely/on time or come home to see their parents often (13 wks out of 52) if the government do this. There are other places they can make these cuts, i.e. there own bloody office furniture, it is only £300.000 that they need to make, even if they could say OK how about we charge the parents £240 every year, to get their child to school and we'll do this for the children who are between the ages of 5 and 16 and live within 3 miles, that way they then have the choice, which would be a hell of a lot more reasonable.

Hi Justa

I don't know anything more than the information given in the link.

What I am saying, is that there is case law that says that a school becomes the 'nearest suitable school' once it is named in a Statement.

In that situation, the normal rules would apply. Ie. distance=less than 2 miles, parent's responsibility. Distance=more than 2 miles, LA responsibility.

However, we also know that the law says that if transport is essential to get a child to school, the LA must provide it irrespective of distance.

The LA in question has said on their FAQs that they anticipate that MOST children/young people who currently get assistance, will CONTINUE TO DO SO.

They have also made it clear that if a parent/carer has a disability, they will most likely need to provide transport also.

This is not a system change to stop people getting transport needed. It is a system change to weed out the situations where people are getting transport 'because they can' not 'because they need it'.

GossipWitch, how do you read this?

"Clarifying exceptions to minimum distances to include SEN children and young people with disabilities, where travel assistance is necessary to support their attendance at school.

This could mean that irrespective of the distance from school, a pupil may still be entitled to travel assistance if a disability restricts their independent mobility."

I read 'independent' mobility to encompass children with the need for guidance or supervision.

The changes will apply for children with asd adhd and other needs that although they can walk cant do it safely this is the issue we do not have an option other than send our child regardless of mobility benefits out there to walk themselves to school for up to 3 miles, worst case scenario:- you send your 11yr old asd son to walk to school by himself, as he is road wise, however he is not street wise, a gentleman approaches him introduces himself and then suggests that as they are friends now how about he comes back to his place and plays on the playstation with him. you can imagine how the rest of this scenario goes, and if your 11 yr old son does come home that evening your going to wonder why he's not been school if he's not a great communicator or doesn't realise who his real friends are, and thinks the playstaion man is his new best friend, your screwed you've then got to find a way of getting your son to school and staying in school and you've got to work this around your other children too, all because they cut transport to save money.

'Do you think my LA should have to bring her home because I've chosen to allow her to do the one and only afterschool club she can access?'

Errr...yes, actually I do.

If you worked, do you really think your boss would accept you breaking your day to do an 18 mile round trip just to pick your child up from school at 3.15, drop off your child at their childcare facility and whizz back to work? What ever happened to the concept of 'wrap-around childcare'? Is it ok for LA's to just say to parents, 'we won't transport your child to afterschool facilities, so you will have to leave work or whatever you were doing that day to be your child's taxi driver'?

Good luck to children with SN on the school buses to secondary school, by the way (of which my DD has experience). Throwing them to the lions would be kinder.

Well, Bakelite, it's one of the reasons I don't work. One of the reasons I won't be able to renew my Nursing registration next year. It's life.

My guess is that this is another of those reviews that are being made in anticipation of the Green Paper SEN changes. Ie, councils are trying to make savings now that they anticipate coming when the Green Paper comes in.

Interestingly (I was at a SEN schools meeting about something else the other day and this came up) Transport is one of the few things that is not anticipated to be removed from the LA budget, to the point where perhaps the largest surviving department in the LA will eventually be Transport commissioning. So they must think that Transport is here to stay. However, given the strong focus on Personal Budgets, I imagine kids with statements (or the post-green-paper equivalents) will be given x amount to spend on Transport and you can either get it from the LA or hire a taxi or whatever. Kids without statements - probably quite another story and I imagine you'd have to have a very strong case to get Transport funded in that case. So my guess is that it's the currently unstatemented kids who will bear the brunt of this.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree Lougle. Perhaps too, I am lucky to live in an area where childcare for disabled children is more visionary and so parents have come to expect a bit more equality.

For me this is quite simple, I do not use transport as I am in a position I don't need to but that is because we have paid our mortgage. A fiver towards transport is a coffee and a muffin when I meet my friends but there our other parents who a fiver is an evening meal, a sibling having a much needed dance lesson. 6 % to some people is nothing, 6% to someone who cannot pay the bills is huge.

I'd be in the latter category. DH earns £10k per year, I can't work due to DD1.

But I'm not unrealistic. The money has to come from somewhere.

It gets worse :( In our area, they plan to make all SN school cover ALL SN! they wont be allowed to be specialist school eg: some beter for physical disabilities, some better for speech and language and others for Autism. this wont be allowed and therefore parents will HAVE to take the SN nearest them, so therefore LA wont have to cover transport

justabout, you have hit the nail on the head. Cuts to disabled people are the easiest to make because our families have so little power to fight back.