(UK) Commons committee warns SPED transport costs 'FINANCIALLY UNSUSTAINABLE'
The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has today published a report warning that home-to-school transport for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) is (well-worn SEND phrase alert) “financially unsustainable”.
The report highlights soaring costs, a lack of reliable national data, and major concerns about (another well-worn SEND phrase alert) the “cliff-edge” in support when children move into post-16 education. The Committee’s MPs have identified inconsistent practice among local authorities, as well as complex and confusing local eligibility rules. They’ve also recognised the impact on families’ finances, when transport shenanigans play havoc with parents’ ability to both work and get young people to and from school or college.
Because it’s by the Public Accounts Committee, the report focuses more on finances than families’ experiences. Local authorities now spend around three-quarters of their home-to-school transport budget on pupils with SEND—£2.6 billion [$3.5B]in 2024/25—with no sign of this spending slowing down.
MPs observe that local authorities have already implemented the most obvious cost-saving measures, such as planning the most efficient routes, expecting children to share transport where possible, and promoting independent travel training for young people. But these measures are being outpaced by both inflation and structural issues, such as the fact that some children need single-occupancy vehicles for safety reasons.
Heavy reliance on plans for SEND reform
The Department for Education comes in for some trenchant criticism from the committee, which isn’t at all convinced that the Government has a handle on the problem of escalating transport costs or a realistic plan for addressing it.
For its part, DfE is pinning all its hopes on its recently-published Schools White Paper SEND proposals, telling MPs this will be the “single biggest” lever to reduce home-to-school transport costs.
The idea is that, as children’s needs are identified earlier, and more children with SEND attend inclusive schools closer to home, fewer pupils will need distant specialist placements and associated transport. Perhaps.
But as MPs point out, the SEND reforms are at a very early stage and still under consultation. And even if they are successful (now there’s an ‘if’), savings will take years to materialise. The Committee wants the DfE to set out exactly when they expect transport savings to be realised, and how much these savings are realistically likely to be. . . .
Public Accounts Committee
Although local authorities report their overall spending, detailed transport data was only collected recently, and voluntarily, which produced incomplete results. The committee notes this limits the Government’s ability to assess value for money, monitor performance, understand unmet need, or measure the impact of reforms. . . .
The post-16 cliff edge
One of the strongest concerns in the report is what families describe as a “cliff edge” at the age of 16. MPs conclude that families of young people over 16 are the hardest hit by failings in the system, a conclusion that will come as a surprise to no-one who has been paying attention to this issue in recent years.
“Despite the weight of evidence that parents find the system hard to navigate, the Department appears unconcerned about the clarity of the offering for this age group.”
Public Accounts Committee
MPs on the committee heard that local authorities across the country have cut discretionary post-16 transport. In other words, if they aren’t legally required to do it, they won’t do it. As a result, young people are missing out on learning or not starting college courses because transport hasn’t been agreed, or else parents are having to give up their own jobs to transport their son or daughter to school or college. MPs pointed out the obvious fact that the lack of post-16 transport is contributing to young people joining the ranks of the NEET (not in education, employment or training). . . .
Comments