Agenda Item 4 Committee: Lead Member for Children & Families

Date: 18 October 2010

Title of Report: Review of discretionary provision of home to school transport for pupils attending denominational schools

By: Director of Children’s Services

Purpose of Report: To provide an analysis of the consultation responses and further background information to support the Lead Member in considering the recommendations of this report.

Recommendation: The Lead Member is recommended to: a. Continue to operate the existing policies for current pupils until September

2011. b. Implement a new policy from September 2011 for current pupils and from

January 2011 for new starters. c. Continue to provide free transport to those children currently receiving it on

low income grounds who would not be eligible under the proposed new policy until they change school or move house whichever is the sooner.

d. Agree that this new policy should be as described in paragraphs 2.7 – 2.9 below and set out in Annex 2.

e. Delegate authority to the Directors of Children’s Services and Transport and Environment working with the faith communities to review all discretionary hired transport with a view to finding alternative arrangements for September 2012 which would not incur costs to the Council.

f. Note that the Director of Children’s Services will review all other discretionary aspects of the current Home to School Transport policy and will make further recommendations to the Lead Member with a view to new arrangements being implemented in September 2011.

1. Financial Appraisal 1.1 East Sussex County Council’s budget for home to school transport (HTST) for the 2010/11 financial year is £11,438,600 (not including the payment of £269,300 to the Transport and Environment Department through the service level agreement). Included in this budget figure is an Area Based Grant (ABG) allocation of £626,785. As part of the Coalition Government’s emergency budget announcements in May 2010 cuts have been made to the ABG within the current financial year. A reduction of 25% is required within the grant element of the HTST budget meaning that a saving of £192,000 must be achieved in 2010/11. A paper on proposals to achieve the grant cuts in 2010/11 was considered by the Cabinet on 5 July 2010.

1.2 The removal of the discretionary element of HTST for denominational schools was expected to achieve a saving of £192,005 in the 2010/11 financial year and £500,000 in the full financial year 2011/12. This saving would have gradually reduced to an estimated £450,000 (at 2010 prices) in 2013 when the 2008 policy would have been implemented for all year groups.

1.3 The hired coaches to St Paul’s Catholic College cost £182,590 in this academic year to operate. They are used by 174 pupils currently making an average yearly cost per pupil of £1049 per year. The income achieved from these routes under the current policy is £42,600 leaving a cost to the Council of £139,900 in this academic year. The proposal to charge all pupils in Years 7-10 the full vacant seat scheme cost, to allow Year 11s to travel free and continue with the current policy for 6th formers from September 2011 would bring an estimated income of £75,600 in the full academic year. The costs to the Council of

continuing to operate hired transport to St Paul’s until the end of the 2011/12 academic year are shown in the table below:

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Total

£47,663 £117,990 £58,995 £224,648

1.4 The costs of operating the hired transport to Rodmell CE School are £16,055 per annum. It is used by 9 pupils making an average yearly cost per pupil of £1783. There is no income currently derived from this route. Continuing to operate this route until September 2012 would lead to some income to the Council up to £4800 per year if all pupils continued to travel. The costs to the Council of continuing to operate the hired transport to Rodmell School until the end of the 2011/12 academic year are shown in the following table.

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Total

£5352 £7503 £3751 £16,606

1.5 The costs of offering free travel passes to Year 11s travelling on public transport from September 2011 to the end of the academic year (not including the costs in paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 above) are in the following table:

2011/12 2012/13 Total

£72,648 £36,324 £108,972

1.6 The costs of continuing to operate the current policy until the end of the summer term 2011 are:

2010/11 2011/12 Total

£137,451 £134,373 £271,824

1.7 The additional costs of continuing to provide transport to those children currently receiving it on low income grounds who would not be entitled under the proposed new policy are:

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Total

£1539 £4617 £2907 £9063

1.8 In summary the total costs to the Council of the recommendations in this report are:

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Total

£192,005 £337,131 £101,977 £631,113

1.9 The additional costs to the Council of the recommendations in this report will mean that the Director for Children’s Services will either need to find these additional savings from services to vulnerable children in the current and following 2 financial years, or the Council will need to consider prioritising this expenditure for use of any new or uncommitted revenue funds in these years.

2. Supporting information 2.1 A summary of the legal requirements on the council to provide HTST is shown in Annex 1. In addition to the statutory requirements local authorities have the discretion to provide support. In East Sussex, the major area of discretionary transport is for children attending denominational schools who would not meet the requirements for statutory entitlement.

2.2 The Council’s current policy for HTST to denominational schools was implemented from September 2008. The policy is shown in Annex 2. It applied to new entrants to denominational primary and secondary schools. Pupils who were on roll of a denominational school and receiving HTST through the previous policy retained their previous entitlement.

Currently pupils in Years 3-6 and Years 10-11 are covered by the previous policy and are provided with free HTST. Parents of pupils covered by the current policy make a financial contribution towards the cost of the HTST.

2.3 At the current time 1124 children are transported to denominational schools of which 435 make a contribution at half the current Vacant Seat Scheme charge, 30 purchase seats on hired coaches under the 6th Form vacant seat scheme and 11 purchase seats under the Vacant Seat Scheme. However, many will continue to be entitled to transport and 475 current pupils would be affected by the change to policy proposed in this paper.

2.4 In July 2010 the Lead Member agreed to consult on ceasing to provide the discretionary element of HTST to denominational schools for all pupils with effect from 1 January 2011. The consultation timescale and subsequent milestones are set out in Annex 3. Annex 3 also includes details of the groups consulted and the consultation approaches used.

2.5 An analysis of the responses to the consultation is attached in Annex 4.

2.6 There has been a full review of the current level of transport provision to church-aided schools and the availability or otherwise of public transport alternatives. The outcome of this review is attached in Annex 5. One of the most frequent responses to the consultation was that children may have to move school if their parents could not afford to transport them to their current church aided school. This would be something we would wish to avoid if possible and especially for children who are studying for their GCSEs. Whilst there are enough spaces in some of the Eastbourne and Hastings secondary schools (see Annex 5) there is much more pressure in other areas of the county which means for instance that Uckfield Community College has insufficient places to accommodate all of the pupils living in Uckfield and attending St Paul’s Catholic College. If children living in Uckfield were to seek to move from St Paul’s they would need to be placed at the nearest school with vacancies and would incur home to school transport costs to the Council.

2.7 In recognition of the consultation outcome that many people felt there was insufficient time for families to make any necessary adjustments if the proposals had been implemented from January 2011 it is recommended that the current policy continues to operate until September 2011 for existing pupils. At that point the new policy would be implemented for all as described below for all current pupils travelling. However, there are two recommended exceptions to this. The first is the recommendation that the 13 children currently receiving free transport on low income grounds but who would not be eligible under the new policy (because of distance or age) should continue to have free transport until they either move school or house whichever is the sooner. The second exception is that the new policy would be applicable to all new starters from January 2011.

2.8 From September 2011 (and from January 2011 for new starters) the new policy would remove discretionary transport to denominational schools for all children up to and including Year 10 unless they were eligible on low income grounds or have another statutory entitlement. Pupils in Year 11 in September 2011 would continue to receive free transport to the end of that academic year in order that their studies are not disrupted. From September 2012 there would be no discretionary transport for pupils of any year group.

2.9 The County Council would continue to operate hired transport to St Paul’s Catholic College and Rodmell CE Primary School and seats would be available to parents to purchase at the vacant seat scheme price (currently £600). This is because there is no reasonable public transport alternative at present. Pupils in Year 11 in September 2011 would travel free.

2.10 The costs of the hired coaches are significant and the Council is not in a position to continue to subsidise the travel of a few pupils at this level. The hired transport to St Paul’s Catholic College and Rodmell CE Primary School will be reviewed over the next year with a view to working in partnership with the Dioceses, schools and parents to find alternative transport arrangements that do not incur a continuing cost to the Council by September 2012.

2.11 An Equality Impact Assessment for this proposal has been completed, see Annex 6. Clearly the proposals will impact disproportionately on those from a Catholic and, to a lesser extent, Church of England faith background. However, it should also be noted that the current discretionary school transport policy provides those from these faith backgrounds with a financial benefit not available to other groups (this positive discrimination is lawful under the Equality Act 2006) and the proposals recommended would address this.

2.12 A review of the impact of this proposal on sustainable travel is attached as Annex 7.

2.13 The consultation proposals were discussed at the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee on 7 September 2010 and the minutes of this meeting are attached as Annex 8.

2.14 Copies of the letters in response to the consultation from schools, the Dioceses and organisations are attached as Annex 9. Copies of all other written submissions are available in the Members’ Room.

2.15 There is also a small number of other areas of discretionary transport policy involving a few children. It will be important for equality that these should also be reviewed and a further paper will be submitted to be Lead Member in time for implementation in September 2011.

3. Conclusion and Reason for Recommendations

3.1 Through its emergency budget the Coalition Government has made clear its intentions for Local Authorities to cut spending. The requirement to make significant savings to the HTST budget in response to the government cuts to ABG and because of the increasing pressure on the County Council budget can only be achieved through changes to discretionary areas of policy. However, the strong response to the consultation in relation to timing, potential disruption to pupils’ schooling, issues in relation hired transport and children from low income families has led to the revised recommendations in this paper. This will provide families with longer to make plans, ensure that studies are not disrupted for the current pupils in Key Stage 4 and ensure that there is transport available in areas where public transport is not operating.

MATT DUNKLEY Director of Children’s Services

Contact Officer: Jean Haigh, Head of Access and Disability Tel: 01273 482967 Local Members: All Background Documents: DfES Home to School Travel and Transport Guidance East Sussex Sustainable School Travel Strategy

Annex 1 Legislation The current laws governing the transport of children to the school give the Council: 1. A duty under Section 508B of the Education Act 1996 to provide free transport to ‘eligible’ children (as defined in Schedule 35B of the Act) to the nearest ‘qualifying’ school as the Council considers necessary for the purpose of facilitating the child’s attendance at school. A child is ‘eligible’ under this section if he falls within one of the following broad categories: a. he has special educational needs, disability or mobility problems such that he is unable to

walk to school;

b. he cannot reasonably be expected to walk because of the nature of the route to school;

c. he lives outside walking distance and no suitable alternative arrangements have been made for him;

d. (i) pupils who are aged 8 to 11 years are from low income families, and they go to their nearest qualifying school, and live more than two miles away; and

(ii) pupils who are aged 11 to 16 years old from a low income family, and they go to either: • any one of their three nearest qualifying schools, and the schools are between two

and six miles away from their home address • the nearest qualifying school preferred by their parents on the grounds of religion or

belief, and the school is between two and 15 miles away from their home address. The ‘qualifying’ school is:

• community, foundation or voluntary school; • community or foundation special school • non-maintained special school • pupil referral unit • maintained nursery school • academy

The nearest ‘qualifying’ school is the nearest one with places available that provides education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs he may have. ‘Walking distance’ is 2 miles for a child under 8 years, and 3 miles for a child who is 8 or over. 2. A discretion under Section 508C of the Education Act 1996 to make such transport arrangements for children who are not ‘eligible’ children, as the Council consider necessary. Included in this category are children whose parents wish them to attend a school which accords with their particular religion or belief. Any transport arrangements made under this section do not have to be provided free of charge. Section 509AD of Education Act 1996 places a duty on local authorities in fulfilling their duties and exercising their powers relating to travel, to have regard to, amongst other things, any wish of a parent for his child to be provided with education or training at a particular school on the grounds of the parent’s religion or belief. The concept of religion or belief includes a lack of religion or belief. Accordingly the Council is obliged to have regard to a parent’s wish that his child be educated in a non-denominational school because of the lack of religious belief just as much as it is obliged to take into account the parent’s wish for this child to be educated in a denominational school.

The proposed policy changes will not remove free transport entitlement to any ‘eligible’ children in category 1 above. The proposals are only concerned with those elements of the Council’s transport arrangements that are discretionary. The Council is under a duty under Section 508A of the Education Act 1996 to prepare each year and publish a sustainable modes of travel strategy and to promote the use of sustainable modes of travel to meet the school travel needs of the area. The Council complies with these duties. Consideration has, therefore, been given to the effect that any change to the discretionary transport policy will have in relation to the duty the local authority owed to promote sustainable travel under Section 508A. This is dealt within the report and in particular in Annex 7. Human Rights Legislation The Council needs also to be aware of its obligations under human rights legislation. In exercising their functions, local authorities will therefore need to respect parents’ religious and philosophical convictions as to the education to be provided for their children in so far as this is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training, and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure. It may be incompatible, for example, on grounds of excessive journey length, or where the journey may have a detrimental impact on the child’s education. Local authorities should also ensure that they do not discriminate contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). For example, where transport arrangements are made for pupils travelling to denominational schools to facilitate parents’ wishes for their child to attend on religious grounds, travel arrangements should also be made for pupils travelling to non-denominational schools, where attendance at those schools enables the children to be educated in accordance with their parents’ philosophical convictions, and vice versa. Equalities implications The Council in carrying out its functions is to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, and promote equality of opportunity in relation to race, disability, and gender. An Equalities Impact Assessment was completed and can be found in Annex 6. Government Guidance The Council, in the setting and operation of its policy on home to school transport, must have regard to the Guidance issued by the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills in 2007: This Guidance states that: a. The Council ‘must have regard to’ the wish of the parent for his child to be educated at a particular school where that wish is based on the parent’s religion or belief. This does not mean that the Council must comply with the parent’s wish and it is able to have regard to public expenditure before agreeing to comply with any request for discretionary support. b. The Guidance states that ‘the Secretary of State hopes that local authorities will continue to think it right not to disturb well established arrangements’ and ‘wherever possible, local authorities should ensure that transport arrangements support the religious or philosophical preference parents express’. Whilst the Council may share the Secretary of State’s hope, it is still able to conclude that it is impossible to retain the existing arrangements for discretionary transport because of the high costs. c. The Guidance makes the point that, historically, almost all local authorities have provided transport to faith schools. However, that is increasingly not the case now and does not mean that the policy cannot be changed at the Council’s discretion and in compliance with legislation.

d. The Guidance recommends that consultations on changes to local policies should last for ‘at least 28 working days during term time’. e. The guidance also identifies that ‘good practice suggests that any such changes should be phased in and come into effect as pupils start school’. Discussion It is clear that the Council has a discretion, and not an obligation, to provide the subsidised transport as per its existing policy. The Education Act 1996 does not provide that a person choosing a denomination school is entitled to free or subsidised transport, nor does the Secretary of State’s Guidance. It is generally accepted that it is unlawful for the County Council to fetter its discretion by agreeing or contracting to exercise a discretion in a particular way, without consideration of individual circumstances or to proceed on the basis of usual practice. The Council, whilst exercising its discretion in respect of providing transport by having regard to its adopted policy, will continue to exercise its discretion in exceptional cases through the Student Support and Transport Panel. The consultation timetable covered a period of just over 2 months (49 working days), of which 22 were school days. Although the period does not cover the recommended 28 school days it was as long as possible given the timescale required for the responses to be analysed and any decision to be made in sufficient time to inform parents of the outcome prior to the school holidays in December. In light of the need to achieve the savings required by the government cuts to grant to East Sussex within this financial year, any changes decided upon would have needed to be introduced from 1 January 2011. The timetable for the consultation took this into account. However this paper recommends that the proposed changes to policy are not implemented for existing pupils until September 2011 which gives families more time to make arrangements.

Annex 2

East Sussex policies for HTST to denominational schools Policy prior to September 2008 (This policy continues to apply to children currently in the following year groups: 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11) Free transport was given to the nearest denominational school where the distance between home and school is more than 2 miles (for children under age 8) or 3 miles (for children aged 8 or over). Policy for new entrants from September 2008 (This policy applies to all children in the following year groups and to new entrants to other year groups: reception, 1, 2, 7, 8, 9)

1. Secondary schools To qualify for assistance, the child must be a baptised member of the relevant denomination. Alternatively, the parents’ religion should be the same as the school where the child receives their religious education.

Additionally, the school has to be the nearest aided school of the relevant denomination to the child’s home. Confirmation that the child has been baptised or support from the parish priest/minister is also required.

The distance from home to school:

a. Low income families Children from low income families will be entitled to free transport if the school attended is more than two miles from home and the religious qualification are met.

b. Other families Children from other families will qualify for limited assistance if their school is more than three miles from home and the religious qualification is met. Parents will be required to contribute towards the cost of transport. The charge for 2010/11 is £50 per term, based on a six term year.

2. Primary schools Children attending primary schools for religious reasons cannot receive financial assistance, unless they are from a low income family. Children from low income families will be entitled to free transport if the school attended is more than two miles from home and the religious qualification is met.

Policy for new entrants from January 2011 and existing pupils from September 2011 Transport will not be provided to denominational schools unless the child qualifies through the low income families criterion or because it is their nearest qualifying school. Pupils in Year 11 in September 2011 who were entitled to free home to school transport in the previous academic year will continue to receive free transport to denominational schools. Low income families – Secondary aged children from low income families will be entitled to free transport if the school attended is more than two miles but no more than 15 miles from home and the religious qualification is met.

Children aged 8-11 from low income families will be entitled to free transport if they are attending their nearest school and it is more than 2 miles from home.

Annex 3 Timetable and milestones

Lead Member approval to consult 15 July 2010

Consultation starts 22 July 2010

Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee 7 September 2010

Consultation ends 30 September 2010

Lead Member consider consultation outcomes

18 October 2010

Deadline for secondary school applications for September 2011

31 October 2010

Notification to parents of outcome of consultation 15 November 2010

Policy changes implemented if agreed 1 January 2011

List of direct consultees

1. all parents of children resident in East Sussex currently receiving free or subsidised transport to denominational schools (including the parents of pupils due to join Year 7 at a denominational secondary school and those due to join a reception class at a denominational primary school in September 2010 and who are eligible under the current policy for subsidised transport)

2. all parents of children in Year 5 of denominational primary schools resident in East Sussex who would be due to enter secondary school in September 2011.

3. the Diocesan authorities

4. all headteachers and governing bodies of East Sussex maintained primary and secondary schools (including denominational schools)

5. all headteachers and governing bodies of denominational schools in neighbouring authorities where there are children resident in East Sussex attending currently

6. all East Sussex Members of Parliament

7. all East Sussex county councillors

8. neighbouring local authorities’ Directors of Children’s Services

9. members of the youth parliament Any pupil, parent or resident could submit their views. Consultation approaches

1. Consultation document and feedback form

2. East Sussex County Council website including on line feedback form, further information and background data

3. The East Sussex Schools’ Admissions Booklet for 2011/12 identified that the consultation was underway, specified the proposals and provided details of how to get further information

A meeting has also been held between the Lead Member for Children’s and Adult Services, the Director of Children’s Services, other senior officers and representatives from the

Dioceses of Chichester and Arundel and Brighton. The Lead Member for Learning and School Effectiveness attended meetings at St Thomas A Beckett Junior School and met with parents from St Richard’s Catholic College.

Annex 4 Responses to the consultation Analysis 1. There were 908 responses using the consultation form of which 393 were completed on-line. We received 415 letters and e-mails of which 26 came from schools, the Dioceses or other organisations. 8 came from residents of other neighbouring local authorities and have not been included in this analysis. There were also 2 petitions from St Richard’s Catholic College, Bexhill, one of which was signed by 844 pupils and the other had 368 signatories. 2. The table below shows the respondents using the consultation form:

423 (47%)

Parent/carer or a pupil living in East Sussex attending and receiving transport to a church aided school

266 (29%)

Parent/carer or pupil living in East Sussex attending but not receiving transport to a church aided school

7 (1%)

Parent/carer or pupil living in East Sussex attending and receiving transport to a school which is not church aided

49 (5%)

Parent/carer or pupil living in East Sussex attending but not receiving transport to a school which is not church aided

88 (10%)

A member of staff or governor of a church aided school

24 (3%)

A member of staff or a governor of a school which is not church aided

102 (11%)

Other

4. The proportion of responses to the questions in the consultation form were as follows: Thinking about the proposal to stop the provision of discretionary free and subsidised home to school transport to church aided schools, please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the following statements: strongly

agree agree neither

agree nor disagree

disagree strongly disagree

don't know

I think the County Council should make this change

92 (10%)

19 (2%)

23 (3%)

51 (6%)

691 (76%)

0 (0%)

The County Council should provide fair transport provision for all pupils

410 (45%)

274 (30%)

95 (10%)

41 (5%)

29 (3%)

8 (1%)

The County Council should make best use of the budget available to them

251 (28%)

371 (41%)

167 (18%)

14 (2%)

18 (2%)

20 (2%)

The County Council should continue to provide transport for secondary school aged children to church aided schools

702 (77%)

67 (7%)

20 (2%)

21 (2%)

72 (8%)

3 (0%)

The County Council should continue to provide transport for primary school aged children to church aided schools

568 (63%)

111 (12%)

65 (7%)

47 (5%)

71 (8%)

7 (1%)

Parents should be responsible for getting their children to church aided schools

88 (10%)

50 (6%)

151 (17%)

177 (19%)

379 (42%)

7 (1%)

It is not fair that the County Council only provides transport assistance to certain schools

185 (20%)

115 (13%)

167 (18%)

132 (15%)

232 (26%)

25 (3%)

5. 82% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the County Council should make this change. 75% agreed or strongly agreed that the County Council should provide fair transport provision for all pupils. 69% agreed or strongly agreed that the County Council should make best use of the budget available to them. 84% agreed or strongly agreed that the County Council should continue to provide transport for secondary aged children to church aided schools and 75% agreed or strongly agreed for primary aged children. 61% disagreed or strongly disagreed that parents should be responsible for getting their children to church aided schools. There was a much more even response to the statement that ‘it is not fair that the County Council only provides transport assistance to certain schools, however, more disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement (41%) than agreed or strongly agreed (33%). Maps included in this Annex show the majority results by District and Borough area (where postcodes were given by respondents using the consultation form). 6. The results of the consultation will be published in full on the Council website including the equalities monitoring of the respondents. 7. The consultation form included a space for comments and 617 (68%) respondents made use of this. Their comments have been analysed alongside the letters and e-mails that have been received. 8. The most frequently made comments are listed in the table below: The proposals are discriminatory or would affect Catholics more 31.3% Church aided schools are successful and high performing 28.1% Some children may need to move schools 26.7% The proposal would affect lower income families more 25.9% The proposal would break a longstanding agreement 23.8% Parents chose these schools in the expectation transport would be given 19.8% It would lead to more car journeys and congestion/increase accidents 19.6% The proposal would affect the viability of church aided schools 18.6% There is no public transport to some church aided schools 13.6% The Council should save in other areas 10.0% The consultation period was too short/poorly timed 8.7% Should not make the change mid way through the school year 8.5% There is no more local Catholic secondary school 7.7% The proposal would make minimal savings 6.0% Should not make the change in the middle of a child’s school life 5.1% The churches contribute to these schools and so they cost the Council less

3.5%

The consultation was biased 3.4% The Council should make this change 3.1% It would impact more on larger families 2.8%

9. One petition from St Richard’s Catholic College said “We the undersigned are very concerned for the future of our school. Please allow us to continue to have free/subsidised home to school transport. We do not want any pupils to have to leave our school because their parents/carers can no longer afford to send them. We also believe that Catholic children should have the right to free transport to attend their nearest Catholic school. We know that this was a right established in the 1944 Education Act. Please do not bring in these proposed transport cuts which seem to be against our school. Please listen to ‘our voice’ and was signed by 844 pupils. The second petition said ‘We the undersigned are opposed to ESCC withdrawing the transport funding which enables children to attend St Richard’s Catholic College in Bexhill’ and was signed by 368signatories. 10. The written correspondence (including the petitions) received is available for members to read in the Members’ Room at County Hall. The comments made on the consultation forms are also provided. The letters from the 26 schools, Dioceses and organisations are attached to this paper as Annex 9.

Commentary 11. Clearly the strength of feeling from the respondents is that the Council should not agree to these proposals. However, there was strong support for the Council providing fair transport for all pupils. Nevertheless the comments in the written correspondence and on the consultation forms were all, except for 3.1% who thought the Council should make this change, in opposition to the proposals. 12. There was a clear indication that many respondents felt that this proposal is discriminatory and would affect Catholics more. The greatest proportion of children receiving support with HTST attend Catholic schools (86%). The proposal is not discriminatory, however, for the reasons set out in paragraph 2.11 of the report. 13. The Consultation document made it clear that the Council ‘continues to recognise and support faith schools as providers of high educational standards and pastoral care for their pupils.’ Some parents made the point that their children need to travel if they are to attend a denominational school. This does not mean, however, that the Council is obligated to provide transport to these schools. 14. The Director for Children’s Services has acknowledged parents’ concerns about the possibility of needing to change their children’s schools and certainly wishes to minimise this, within the financial constraints. The recommendations of this report will go some way to addressing these parents’ worries and will allow them time to make more considered decisions. 15. Clearly an additional cost for HTST will impact on lower income families. There is statutory provision for free home to school transport to denominational schools for secondary aged pupils for low income families (entitled to free school meals or the maximum level of working tax credit). The current HTST policy for denominational schools already asks parents to make a £300 per year contribution to travel costs. There will be a number of families with low incomes but just above the statutory level. It is for this reason this paper recommends that the charge for the hired transport should be capped at well below actual cost to the Vacant Seat Scheme charge. The Vacant Seat Scheme also offers a 25% discount for siblings which will go someway to support larger families. 16. The issues of the longstanding agreement with the denominational schools is understandable but in the current climate it is necessary for the Council to review all areas of discretionary policy. Some respondents also felt that the 1944 Education Act made it a legal requirement for the Council to provide denominational transport. This is not the case and the Director of Law advises that any possibly relevant sections of this Act have since been repealed. 17. Parents of the current pupils chose the school in the expectation that the current discretionary policy for transport would continue and this is one of the main reasons for the recommendation to defer implementation of the new policy until September 2011. It is also acknowledged that making a change to the policy during an academic year is less than desirable, although there were sound reasons for the proposal. 18. The proposition that this proposal would lead to more car journeys, congestion and accidents is discussed in Annex 7. 19. The high regard parents clearly have for the denominational schools in the area would suggest that the recommended change to the HTST policy would be unlikely in reality to affect the viability of these over-subscribed and popular schools. 20. The lack of public transport to some church aided schools is discussed in paragraphs 2.9-2.10. This concern is also addressed through the recommendation to continue to provide

hired transport for the 2011/12 academic year and to seek alternative approaches in partnership with the Dioceses, schools and parents in order to remove the additional cost to the Council. 21. The Council needs to make savings across a wide range of areas and this proposal is just one of the approaches to this. The savings arising from this proposal make an important contribution to this and will protect some services for vulnerable children from further cuts. It is true that the Dioceses contribute 10% to capital works for voluntary aided schools and the schools often operate a discretionary fund to which parents and others contribute. This does not mean, however, that denominational schools cost less for the Council to revenue fund. All East Sussex schools have delegated budgets calculated according to a common funding formula. Denominational schools are no different in this. 22. Concerns about the consultation timing and length have been acknowledged and the recommendation is for a delayed start to the implementation of the new policy. 23. There was some perception that the consultation was biased. However, the changes to the proposals which have been made in light of the consultation responses would not support that assertion.

Annex 5 Analysis of home to school transport to church aided schools Analysis by school and method of travel (September 2010) School Public

Transport Hired Coach

Taxi/specialist Parental Mileage

Total

Annecy - 10 - - 10

Bennett 91 - - - 91

Bishop Bell 46 - 3 - 49

Cardinal Newman

45 - - - 45

Groombridge St Thomas

- - - 1 1

Guestling Bradshaw

30 - - - 30

Little Horsted 35 -- 6 - 41

Mark Cross - - 2 2

Our Lady of Lourdes

11 - 1 - 12

Rodmell - 9 - - 9

St Gregory’s 83 - 2 1 86

St John Meads - - - 1 1

St Joseph’s - - - 1 1

St Mary Magdelene

- - - 6 6

St Mary the Virgin

- - 6 1 7

St Mary’s - - - 2 2

St Pancras - - - 2 2

St Paul’s - 174 1 175

St Peter & St Paul

- - 2 - 2

St Philip’s 1 - - 5 6

St Richard’s 523 - - 4 527

St Thomas a Beckett Inf

2 - - - 2

St Thomas A Beckett Jun

7 - 1 7 15

St Thomas CE 1 - - - 1

St Wilfred’s - - - 1 1

875 194 21 35 1124

(78%) (17%) (2%) (3%)

Analysis by school and entitlement (September 2010)

School Free travel

Parental Contribution

Low income

6th form

VSS Statutory

Unsafe route

Other Total

Annecy 4 - - - 6 - - - 10

Bennett 37 48 6 - - - - - 91

Bishop Bell 6 26 12 - - - - 5 49

Cardinal Newman

24 15 6 - - - - - 45

Groombridge St Thomas

- - - - - 1 - - 1

Guestling Bradshaw

- - - - - 10 20 - 30

Little Horsted - - - - - 9 32 - 41

Mark Cross - - 2 - - - - - 2

Our Lady of Lourdes

10 - 2 - - - - - 12

Rodmell 6 - 1 - - - 2 - 9

St Gregory’s 37 44 3 - - - - 2 86

St John Meads

1 - - - - - - - 1

St Joseph’s 1 - - - - - - 1

St Mary Magdelene

6 - - - - - - - 6

St Mary the Virgin

- - - - - 7 - - 7

St Mary’s 2 - - - - - - - 2

St Pancras 2 - - - - - - 2

St Paul’s 55 79 5 32 3 - - 1 175

St Peter & St Paul

- - - - - - - 2 2

St Philip’s 6 - - - - - 6

St Richard’s 234 223 69 - - - - 1 527

St Thomas a Beckett Inf

- - 2 - - - - 2

St Thomas A Beckett Jun

10 - 4 - - - - 1 15

St Thomas CE

1 - - - - - - - 1

St Wilfred’s 1 - - - - - - - 1

443 435 112 32 9 27 54 12 1124

(39%) (39%) (10%) (3%) (1%) (2%) (5%) (1%)

Discussion Vacant Seat Scheme (VSS) 1. There are children participating in the VSS travelling to Annecy Primary School, Seaford from Peacehaven, Newhaven and Seaford. If the Lead Member agrees to the proposals in this paper this transport would no longer operate from July 2012. Public transport is available for route. Parents are informed when taking up a place in the VSS that the Council retains the right to remove the transport at any time. There are also 3 children using the VSS to St Paul’s Catholic College, Burgess Hill from the Heathfield and Uckfield area. Transport to St Paul’s is discussed below.

Low Income Families 2. There are 113 children benefitting from the provision of transport to low income families. There will also be further children in Years 10 and 11 who would be entitled to this support but who have not yet had cause to apply as they are currently receiving free transport under the previous denominational scheme.

3. The recommendation in this paper to continue to provide free transport for primary aged children who are currently in receipt of free transport to denominational schools on low income grounds would benefit 9 children.

4. The recommendation in this paper to continue to provide free transport for secondary aged pupils who are currently in receipt of free transport to denominational schools on low income grounds but who live more than 15 miles from the church school attended would benefit 4 children.

5. Members will also wish to be aware that there are areas of the county which are more than 15 miles from a Church of England or Catholic secondary school. Free transport to a church aided school will not be available to new applications from low income families living in these areas from September 2011, if the recommendation is agreed. The maps included in this Annex identify the areas ‘as the crow flies’ but there will be a wider area which is more than 15 miles from these schools by road.

Large families 6. There are 2 families of 4 children, 17 families of 3 children and 153 families of 2 children currently receiving transport support to denominational schools. Both of the 4 children families would continue to be eligible for free transport under these proposals. Six of the 3 children families would also continue to be entitled under these proposals. There are 8 families already making a contribution for 2 or 3 children and the remaining 3 families contribute towards the travel of one child.

7. There are 44 families with 2 children who would continue to receive free transport if these proposals are approved. A number of these families will benefit from the recommendation that Year 11s in September 2011 would continue to be transported free under the pre 2007 policy.

Statutory entitlement and unsafe routes 8. There are 81 primary children travelling to denominational schools whose transport is provided because this is their designated primary school to their home address but it is more than the statutory walking distance from home or the route is unsafe for walking. There will be no change to these children’s transport eligibility under the new proposals.

Hired Transport 9. The hired transport operating to Annecy Catholic Primary School, Seaford would cease to operate under these proposals as there is a public transport service for this journey.

10. There is one coach and one taxi/minibus operating to Little Horsted CE School. These routes will continue to operate under these proposals as they cater for children who have a statutory entitlement.

11. There is also hired transport running to Rodmell School each day. This coach would continue operate under these proposals until July 2012.

12. A further taxi/minibus operates to St Mary the Virgin School, Hartfield from the Hammerwood area. This would continue to operate as it conveys pupils with a statutory entitlement.

13. There are 5 coaches running to St Paul’s Catholic College in Burgess Hill. Coach 1 (47 pupils) runs from Eastbourne, through Seaford to Lewes and then onto Burgess Hill. Coach 2 (21 pupils) goes from the Lewes area. Coach 3 (41 pupils) goes from Heathfield to Uckfield and then on to the school. Coach 4 (37 pupils) goes from the Uckfield area. Coach 5 (28 pupils) goes from Newick, North Chailey, Uckfield, Wivelsfield, Chelwood Gate to Burgess Hill. This paper recommends that these coaches continue to operate for the 2011/12 academic year in order to allow more time for alternative solutions to be found which do not incur an additional cost to the Council. If the recommendations in this paper are agreed from September 2011 seats would be sold to pupils in Years 7-10 and 12-14 at the VSS price which is currently £600. Pupils in Year 11 in September 2011 would continue to travel free of charge.

Public transport 14. The vast majority of the children travelling to denominational schools already do so on public transport.

School Free travel

Parental Contribution

Low income

Statutory/unsafe Other Total

Bennett 37 48 6 - - 91

Bishop Bell 6 26 12 - 2 46

Cardinal Newman

24 15 6 - - 45

Guestling Bradshaw

- - - 30 - 30

Little Horsted - - - 35 - 35

Our Lady of Lourdes

9 - 2 - - 11

St Gregory’s 36 44 3 - - 83

St Philip’s 1 - - - - 1

St Richard’s 233 220 69 - 1 523

St Thomas a Beckett Inf

- - 2 - - 2

St Thomas A Beckett Jun

3 - 4 - - 7

St Thomas CE 1 1

350 353 104 65 3 875

15. The costs of travel by public transport vary depending on the journey.

a. Bennett Memorial School 91 children travel including 12 whom are provided with dual tickets (one for rail and one for bus), all on public transport routes. The average weekly price to parents would be £15.25, and range between £8 and £25.55. Some pupils would be able to significantly reduce their travel costs by walking between Tunbridge Wells town centre and the school (a distance of

approx. 1 mile) by choosing alternative bus services which offer cheaper ticket prices. Arriva charge up to £25.55 from Crowborough to Bennett Memorial School, where as Brighton & Hove Buses charge £8.00 between Crowborough and Tunbridge Wells town centre. b. Bishop Bell School, Eastbourne 46 children travel on public transport. The weekly price would be £7.50 for a Stagecoach Megarider or £13.50 for an East Sussex Freedom Ticket. c. Cardinal Newman School, Hove 45 children use public transport routes. The weekly price for these would be £9.75 for Route 116 or £15.35 for a rail pass. d. Guestling Bradshaw All children travelling to this school on council funded public transport have a statutory entitlement and this will continue. e. Our Lady of Lourdes 11 children use public transport and can use the Brighton and Hove Child Weekly Saver costing £8.00. f. St Gregory’s School, Tunbridge Wells 83 children travel on public transport routes. The weekly price to parents ranges between £9.50 for a Stagecoach Child Megarider Plus and £25.55. for an Arriva Weekly Scholar’s Ticket. g. St Philip’s 1 child uses public transport which would cost £13.50 per week for an East Sussex Freedom ticket. h. St Richard’s Catholic College, Bexhill 523 scholars including 181 who are provided with dual tickets (the vast majority being one for rail and one for local bus travel in Eastbourne), are on public transport routes. The weekly price ranges between £3.70 for a Child Rail Weekly Season Ticket to £16.00 for a rail and bus pass. i. St Thomas A Beckett Junior 7 children use public transport and this would cost £7.50 per week for a Stagecoach Megarider ticket. Public transport subsidies 16. There are 3 public service buses operating at school times from the Hastings area to St Richard’s Catholic College. They are supported through a subsidy from the Council’s Transport and Environment Department in the region of £14,000 per annum. There is no intention to discontinue these services as long as they are well used and do not require an increase in subsidy from the Council.

Spaces in non-denominational secondary schools 17. The table below shows the year groups in non-denominational secondary schools with no spaces in East Sussex (X in the table)and the number of children receiving home to school transport to denominational schools as of September 2010. There is clear pressure for places in some areas of the county for instance Uckfield and the wider Lewes area and in some year groups for instance Years 8 and 9. Where vacancies do exist in certain years groups often these are 5 or fewer spaces (indicated by >5 in the table). Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11

Children with HTST to denominational schools

137 151 134 198 207

Bexhill HS X X X

Cavendish >5 X X X >5

Chailey School X X >5 >5

Claverham X X X X X

Filsham Valley >5 >5

Heathfield >5 X >5 >5

Helenswood X X X >5 X

Peacehaven CS

X X

Priory School X X X X X

Ratton X X X >5 >5

Rye College X X >5 X >5

The Causeway X

The Grove >5 >5

Uckfield CC X X

Uplands CS X >5 X >5

William Parker >5 X X >5

Willingdon CS X X X X >5

Annex 6

Equality impact assessment summary report Date of assessment: 5 July 2010 Manager(s) name: Jean Haigh Role: Head of Access and Disability Strategy or policy, project or service, that was impact assessed: Home to School Transport to Denominational Schools Summary of findings: The proposed changes which are being considered in response to in year government cuts to grants to local authorities will address the unequal access to transport assistance for children from non Catholic and Church of England faith groups. Summary of recommendations and key points of action plan: We will work closely with church organisations/church schools to ensure that the proposals are explained in such a way as to not negatively affect community cohesion.

Groups that this strategy or policy will impact upon

Race Gender Sexual Orientation Age Disability Religion/B

elief Other All

+ _ + _ + - + - + _ + - + - + - x x x

Annex 7 Sustainable Transport 1. Section 508A of the Education Act 1996 (in force from 1 April 2007) places a general duty on local authorities to promote the use of sustainable travel and transport. The four elements of this duty are: • An assessment of the travel and transport needs of children and young people in the

authority’s area; • An audit of sustainable travel and transport infrastructure within the authority that may be

used when travelling to and from, or between, schools and institutions; • A strategy to develop the sustainable travel and transport infrastructure within the

authority so that the travel and transport needs of children and young people are better catered for; and

• The promotion of sustainable travel and transport modes on the journey to and from, and between, schools and institutions.

2. The key objectives within the East Sussex Sustainable School Travel Strategy February 2010 are:

1. Reduce the use of the car on the journey to school. 2. Increase the number of children using all forms of sustainable travel and transport on the journey to school. 3. Improve accessibility to schools by walking, cycling and public transport. 4. Increase travel choice and awareness and promote sustainable travel options. 5. Raise awareness of road safety issues. 6. Improve road sense for children and young people. 7. Reduce negative environmental impacts of travel.

3. The Council’s approach to discharging its duty and achieving these objectives includes: a. Travel planning advice for schools and colleges. 193/194 schools and colleges have

adopted a school travel plan which sets out the measures which the institution will take to encourage the use of sustainable travel by staff, pupils or students and visitors. This is an initiative that involves the Council working with school communities in the development of practical initiatives and measures that are specific to the school to help promote safer sustainable and healthier travel on the school journey. Children are encouraged to walk and cycle to school where it is safe to do so. Currently, over 20,000 children (approximately 43%) walk to and from school..

We also promote cycling to school and there is the potential to increase this; the School Census data suggests that less than 800 (1.7%) children use bicycles as their usual mode of travel to school.

b. The County Council supports primary schools to establish walking bus schemes where appropriate. These help to reduce the number of local car journeys to schools. There are currently 31 active walking bus routes in the county. Parent’s ‘Guides to Walking Buses’ are published on school websites and certificates are provided for those who join walking buses. Walking buses are good for children’s health because they provide a valuable source of exercise, and they encourage children to walk and talk with their friends on the journey to and from school. Successful walking bus schemes can help to reduce road congestion close to schools at peak times. Recent research also suggests that walking buses can help children improve their road safety skills and prepare them to travel independently.

c. All East Sussex schools are invited to take part in the national bi-annual Walk to School Week events in May and October, which encourages pupils and parents to walk to school as many times as possible during these special weeks. Parents of pupils that live considerable distances from school, are encouraged to park away from the school site and then walk the remainder of the way with their children. To help facilitate this, the ‘Park and Stride’ initiative helps schools to identify an area, such as a village hall car park, where parents can either safely leave their children with appointed volunteers who

then escort them to school similar to a walking bus, or parents can walk the short distance with their children to school.

d. During 2007/08, 4,818 children participated in ‘Footsteps’ Child Pedestrian training. Using trainers and parent volunteers to provide practical training at the roadside, the pupils learn important skills that will help them become safe, independent walkers when they grow older.

e. The County Council also provides School Crossing Patrols at schools in East Sussex, with 120 officers at 73 sites, that’s 91.4% of sites manned. They undertake a key role in helping children cross the road safely on the journey to and from school.

f. Cycle training is offered to all primary schools in the county, with 2500 pupils aged 9 and over trained annually. The majority of the training is carried out on roads near schools following practice sessions on the playground. This initiative is extremely important in raising the profile of cycling as a healthy and sustainable mode of travel, together with promoting safer cycling.

g. Bikeability is designed to give the next generation of cyclists the skills and confidence to ride their bikes on today’s roads. There are three Bikeability levels and children will be encouraged and inspired to achieve all three levels, recognising that there is always more to learn and to enjoy on a bike. East Sussex County Council has built on its existing cycle training scheme by piloting Bikeability courses at over 50 schools during 2010.

h. When schools develop travel plans engineering measures including road crossings, pavements and cycle routes are often requested. In order to achieve the best possible use of limited funding, it is necessary for each request to be assessed and prioritised.

i. School Keep Clear ‘Zig Zag Markings’ are located outside of the majority of schools in East Sussex. The purpose of these markings is to keep the areas outside of school entrances clear for children to cross safely.

4. However, local authorities are not required to make special transport provision for pupils attending schools by reason of parental choice, other than for those pupils of low income families for whom the Council has a statutory duty under the Education and Inspections Act 2006.

5. As at September 2010 1125 children were receiving free or subsidised transport under this discretionary policy. This represents 2% of the total mainstream school population. As the costs of running a car continue to rise and people become more aware of their impact on the environment, it is reasonable to assume that many pupils will continue to make use of the public transport services and hired coaches, where available. Where parents do choose to drive their children it is likely that, for environmental and cost reasons, many will not want to make the journey just for their own child/children and will share transport with friends and neighbours where possible.

6. All families of children in Year 6 who are considering school places at church aided secondary schools should be provided with travel and transport information at appropriate stage in the school application process to improve the understanding of the travel options available for their child. This could be through leaflets provided by the school or through school presentations to prospective parents. In addition the School Travel Plan Advisors in the Transport & Environment Department will prioritise the monitoring of travel plans with the affected schools, to assist the school in promoting alternatives to the car.

7. The Council’s commitment with work with partners to enable the long term retention of bus and coach services for denominational schools as far as possible will help to minimise the number of parents who chose to transport their children by car.

8. In conclusion, whilst it is not possible to quantify the full impact of the proposal, it is entirely valid to assume that the impact will be negligible in the wider context. The Council will continue to monitor the overall impact of transport between home and school and ensure that it responds quickly if there are adverse effects, particularly in relation to traffic congestion and casualty rates.

Annex 8 SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES MINUTES of a meeting of the Scrutiny Committee for Children’s Services held at County Hall, Lewes, on 7 September 2010 PRESENT Councillor Ensor (Chairman)

Councillors Field, Freebody, Kenward, Shing, St Pierre, Waite, Webb and Whetstone. Jeremy Alford (Health Representative) Councillor Jonathan Johnson (District/Borough representative) David Sanders (RC Diocese) Mike Wilson (C of E Diocese) Sam Gregory (Parent Governor) Kym Hearn (Parent Governor)

Chief Officer Becky Shaw, Chief Executive

Matt Dunkley, Director of Children’s Services

Scrutiny Lead Officer Gillian Mauger Also present Councillor Stroude, Lead Cabinet Member for Children and

Families Councillor Elkin, Lead Cabinet Member for Children’s Services Councillor Glazier, Lead Cabinet Member for Adult and Children's Services Debbie Adams, Children’s Centre Strategy Manager Jean Haigh, Head of Access and Disability

19. REVIEW OF DISCRETIONARY OF HOME TO SCHOOL TRANSPORT FOR PUPILS

ATTENDING A DENOMINATIONAL SCHOOL 19.1 The Committee considered a report by the Director of Children’s Services on the proposals for the Council to cease to assist with home to school transport to church aided schools. 19.2 The Director of Children's Services stated that this review was as a result of the need to make in-year cuts. Wide ranging consultation had been carried out, with consultation documents sent to everyone receiving denominational home to school transport and those parents of pupils who have just joined the final year of primary school Y6. Notices about the consultation had also been placed in local papers and libraries and notifications had been sent to all schools. As the consultation process had begun just before the start of the summer school holiday the time period for responding had been extended until 30 September. 19.3 The Director of Children's Services stated that representatives from the two dioceses had been invited to a meeting with himself and the Lead Member prior to a decision being made on this matter.

19.4 The Denominational representatives on the Committee highlighted the following points:

• The Dioceses recognised the financial situation that the County Council currently faced and agreed that it was only right that all areas of concessionary funding were being reviewed.

• A major concern was the suggested in-year implementation of this change to the

policy. This would mean that parents who have previously applied for schools expecting to receive support with transport to that school would be met with a change to it in the middle of the school year.

• The changes could have a significant impact on several families who were just above

the low income threshold, particularly those with two or more children. In extreme situations this could lead to pupils changing school mid year.

• Changes to the policy would hit some schools harder than others. There could be a

long term move away from sending pupils to catholic schools and this could have an adverse impact on some community schools.

• Many pupils travel to faith schools on subsided bus routes. If this no longer

happened there could be knock on effect in terms of the viability of these routes and could lead to the withdrawal of some subsided rural transport.

• The dioceses wished to work together with the department to manage how any

changes were taken forward. 19.5 Further points were raised by other Committee members:

• All parents had the right to express a preference for a particular school. For those pupils who attended a preferred school which was not a faith school it was down to the parents to bear the cost of transport to that school. This could be particularly high for families living in rural areas.

• Concerns were raised that a change in this policy could lead to vacant places in some

denominational schools. 19.6 RESOLVED that the comments made by members of the Committee be taken into account by the Lead Member when making a decision on discretionary home to school transport for pupils attending a denominational school

Annex 9 Copies of letters from schools, Diocese and other organisations – see attached PDF file