Agenda item

Cllr John Howson, Cabinet member for Education and Young People’s Services, Lisa Lyons, Director of  Children’s Services, Kate Reynolds, Deputy Director Education and Inclusion, and Stephen Good, Home to School Transport Programme Manager, have been invited to present a report on the proposed home to school transport policy and the post-16 policy statement that are currently the subject of public consultation.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

Cllr John Howson, Cabinet member for Children, Education and Young People’s Services, Lisa Lyons, Director of Children’s Services, Kate Reynolds, Deputy Director Education and Inclusion, Stephen Good, Home to School Transport Programme Manager, and Philip Earnshaw, Operational Manager - Contracted and Fleet Services, were invited to present a report on the proposed Home to School Transport policy and the post-16 policy statement that were currently the subject of public consultation.

Stephen Chandler, Executive Director of People and Transformation (Deputy Chief Executive), also attended for this item to support and answer any questions.

Cllr Haywood and Sylvia Buckingham, on behalf of OJHOSC, remained with the committee for this item as guests of the Chair.

The Cabinet member for Children, Education and Young People’s Services introduced the report, explaining that the consultation was live and covered revisions to the home to school transport policy and the post-16 travel policy. It was noted that the policies had not been consulted on since 2014. The consultation focused on six areas, including language updates, direct payments to parents, alternative provision, post-16 SEND transport charges, split villages, and the spare seat scheme.

The Home to School Transport Programme Manager provided additional details, mentioning that the consultation had received 492 responses so far and had been well-received in engagement events. They elaborated on the six areas of the consultation, including the refresh of policies, direct travel payments, alternative education provision, and the proposal to introduce post-16 contribution charges. The importance of gathering views and feedback from the consultation was emphasised.

In discussion with the Committee, the following issues were explored:

Members asked about the effectiveness of the engagement methods, including the use of social media and other engagement strategies, and requested details on their implementation and impact. The Home to School Transport Programme Manager responded that the consultation had received 492 responses so far, and the engagement events had been well received. It was mentioned that the Council had directly communicated with current service users and used various methods to promote the consultation. However, the Home to School Transport Programme Manager acknowledged the need to check the effectiveness of these methods and ensure wider distribution, including the use of social media platforms like Instagram.

Members agreed that the Committee should wait for the consultation results before discussing and debating the recommendations in detail, to avoid influencing the outcomes. However, the Committee was content to acknowledge and support the public consultation as recommended by the report.

Members raised a concern about the lack of flexibility in current transport arrangements, citing an example where a parent could drive their child to school for part of the week but not the entire week. Members asked whether individual transport plans could be allowed to cut costs. The Operational Manager acknowledged the rigidity in the current system and mentioned that there was ongoing work to explore more flexible options, such as personal transport budgets and mileage allowances. It was noted that other counties, like Somerset and Wiltshire, were being looked at for best practices in managing personal transport budgets. The Operational Manager agreed that the suggestion of part-week transport arrangements was a good point and would be taken into consideration.

Members requested an update on an initiative, from a previous administration, where special schools managed their own transport, which was setup following a Cabinet Advisory Group (CAG). Members inquired as to whether the initiative had been successful and what had come of the initiative and CAG. However, Officers were unaware of the previous initiative but would endeavour to find out what happened to it.

Members raised the issue of youth consultation for the home to school transport policy, specifically questioning why the Oxfordshire Parent Carer Forum (OxPCF), which did not have a remit for working with young people, was mentioned as conducting targeted events. Members also inquired about the specific Youth Parliaments involved and how they would be engaging in the consultation. The Home to School Transport Programme Manager clarified that OxPCF was involved in pushing the consultation message out to their network, rather than directly engaging with young people. The Home to School Transport Programme Manager mentioned that they had met with the SEND Youth Forum before Christmas 2024 to introduce the policy and consultation.

Members asked what would happen if a school and the council did not agree on the transport arrangements for a young person, and what the implications were for the young person caught in the middle of the disagreement. The Deputy Director of Education and Inclusion, along with the Home to School Transport Programme Manager, explained that while the child was on the school roll, the school was responsible for providing alternative provision. If the child was no longer on the school roll, the responsibility shifted to the local authority. The Council would liaise with the school to ensure the child's needs were met.

Members suggested that the policy should include a clear process for resolving such disagreements to ensure the young person was not adversely affected.

Members were curious about the methods being used to ensure a good response rate from parents and carers of children with special educational needs regarding the home to school transport consultation. They inquired whether any specific strategies were in place to engage with this group, whether social media was being utilised, and whether local parish councils had been involved, in improving consultation engagement.

The Deputy Director of Education and Inclusion, and Home to School Transport Programme Manager explained that all current users of the service were directly communicated with via email or letter. The survey included questions to identify respondents' roles, such as whether they were parents of children with SEND. Officers added that the majority of parents attending the consultation events were parents of children with EHCPs. Regarding social media, it was mentioned that the consultation message was being shared on various social media platforms, although the specific use of Instagram was not confirmed.

Members raised questions regarding the integration of the home-to-school transport system with public transportation and its digitalisation to enhance efficiency and equity. They proposed aligning the home-to-school transport routes with public transport systems, complemented by digitalisation, to improve coordination and operational efficiency. This approach aimed to address issues such as public transport providers being unaware of the number of student users, which had led to inconsistencies in service availability. Additionally, the significance of training bus drivers to adequately handle the specific needs of students, including those with special educational needs, was emphasised. Such training was essential to improve the safety and quality of the transport services provided to students.

Cllr Graham and Sylvia Buckingham left the meeting at this stage

Members queried the significant budget growth for home to school transport and questioned what had led to such significant increases. The discussion highlighted that the budget for home to school transport had grown significantly due to the increasing demand for services. The high expenses were attributed to the need for specialised transport for students with special educational needs and the overall complexity of managing and coordinating transport services across the county.

The item was concluded with agreement from Members that the results of the home to school transport consultation would be brought back to the committee for further discussion and analysis. This was expected to occur in the July meeting, as it would not be feasible to compile the results by the March meeting. The committee NOTED the progress made so far and emphasised the importance of ensuring wide distribution of the consultation to young people and other stakeholders.

The Committee AGREED to the following actions:

•         Officers would discover what happened to the Cabinet Advisory Group and initiative for special schools to manage their own transport and report their findings back to the Committee.

•         The Home to School Transport programme Manager committed to checking which specific Youth Parliaments were involved in the consultation and how they would be engaged.

•         The Council will engage with Parish Councils to encourage participation with the Home to School Transport consultation as part of the consultation process.