The Monitoring Offer submitted a report
informing the Commission that the Executive decision, taken by the
Assistant City Mayor for Children and Young People on 13 May 2025
relating to Post-16 SEND Transport, had been the subject of a
5-member call-in under the procedures at Rule 12 of Part 4D, City
Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules, of the Council’s
Constitution.
The Chair invited the proposer of the call-in,
Councillor Bonham, to present their reasons for the call-in. The
following points were raised:
- The proposed policy
did not offer adequate provision for Post 16 SEND school transport
assistance.
- Proposals would not
ensure that every young person could travel to their place of
education.
- A policy was needed
that did not lead to parents / carers having to their end
employment.
- Families could be
forced into poverty if paying for school transport.
- The following
statement was submitted:
The CYPE Commission notes
the changes in the SEND Post-16 Transport Proposed Policies since
consideration by the CYPE Commission on 25/02/2025.
We welcome that it is now
proposed that council funded bus or taxi can be considered in some
circumstances. But we note that the Equality Impact Assessment
estimates that only 4% (11 Young People) might be offered council
funded bus or taxi whereas 80% (167 Young People) travel by council
provided bus or taxi this year.
We are concerned that the
“demonstratable financial hardship” criteria for
consideration of council provided bus or taxi will leave some
parents or carers: in severe financial hardship; or unable to
source alternative transport; or compelled to give up employment
in order to transport young
people.
We are concerned that the
proposed policy will lead to some Young People not receiving
appropriate education and becoming NEET (Not in Education
Employment or Training)
The CYPE commission
therefore recommends that the following changes be made to the SEND
Post-16 Transport Proposed Policies:
Remove the wording of 5.10.
and replace with: -
5.10 “Limited
exceptional circumstances” will be considered on a
case-by-case basis. Applications for consideration could be made
for example in cases where: -
- A student or a
parent/career can evidence that the student’s needs are such
that the standard PTB offer will be insufficient and without
further support they could not attend their place of
education.
- Where despite the
support of the standard PTB it is not reasonably practical for
parents or carers to provide transport themselves or to source
suitable arrangements.
- Where immediate
family or family network members cannot consistently be available
to support the student with their journey or they do not have use
of a suitable vehicle or public transport route.
- Where a parent or
carer supporting the student with their journey is not reasonably
practical without adverse effects on their other caring
responsibilities.
- Where a parent or
carer supporting the student with their journey is not reasonably
practical whilst continuing in employment, or a reduction or
flexibility in hours of employment would cause financial hardship
as described.
- Other relevant
factors may exceptionally be considered.
- Financial
assessments would take account of the income, savings and essential
spending of the household and those with parental
responsibility.
Further verbal clarification was given as
follows:
The CYPE commission therefore
wishes:
·
For a recorded resolution that the Strategic Director will put
into operation, guidance and in communication to all impacted by
the changes and exampled where considerations could be made in
limited exceptional circumstances.
·
The first of these:
o
A student or a parent/career can evidence that the
student’s needs are such that the standard PTB offer will be
insufficient and without further support they could not attend
their place of education.
o
Secondly, situations where the circumstances mean that
practically and or financially, it is not possible for parents or
carers to make arrangements for
transport despite their best efforts.
o
Thirdly, where a parent or carer supporting the student with
their journey is not reasonably practical while continuing
employment, or a reduction or flexibility hours as following could
cause fractural hardship described. Each case should be decided
after a holistic assessment of the circumstances on a case by case basis.
·
Financial assessment should take into
account the income, savings and essential spending of the
household of those with parental responsibility.
The Chair invited the seconder of the call-in,
Councillor Dr Moore, to add to the proposer’s statement. The
following points were raised:
- Thanks were given for the
contributions of Parents / Carers and Councillor Bonham toward the
call-in process.
- Paragraph 6.7 of the proposed policy
referenced potential withdrawal of transport due to challenging
behaviour. Those with Social, Emotional, and Mental Health needs
(SEMH) were likely to exhibit such behavioural patterns –
This was clarified by the Director of Education to mean behaviour
beyond these circumstances. SEMH considerations would be addressed
in the Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP). Further clarification
could be provided in the practical guidance for school transport
assistance applications.
The Chair invited Assistant City Mayor for
Children and Young People, Councillor Pantling, to respond and the
following points were raised:
- Thanks were
reiterated to families and Officers for their efforts towards the
policy reviews.
- Matters had been
scrutinised thoroughly throughout the process.
- Significant effort
was invested in fulfilling the legal responsibilities to support
the young people in the city.
- The policy had been
designed to create the best outcomes possible for young people and
families within budget.
- All children would be
assessed individually to meet their needs.
The Chair invited the Strategic Director for
Social Care and Education, to respond and the following points were
raised:
- The scrutiny work and proposed
motion was welcomed.
- A recent
judicial review for Birmingham City Council had been held in mind
when considering changes to policy.
- A holistic approach would be taken
in school transport eligibility assessments, considering individual
circumstances.
Members of the Commission discussed the report
which highlighted the following points:
- Young People’s Council
Representative (YPCR) Mario advised that the YPCR’s are
available to represent and support the young people of
Leicester.
- Alternative support mechanisms in
place included; Independent Travel
Training, supporting families to access other benefits, use of the
disabled persons travel pass, the Motability Scheme and the
Connexions Information and Guidance Service. Bursaries were also
available from some colleges.
- Independent Travel Training had been
of noted benefit to those young people with sight impairments.
- School Transport Assistance
eligibility assessments were aligned with the free school meals
network. Those qualifying under this
criteria would not be required to supplement costs towards
school transport assistance.
- Young people assessed as having
complex SEND needs would continue to qualify for Post 16 SEND
School Transport Assistance.
- There was a strong offer of good
college courses within the Leicester City boundaries. Post 16 Young
people with complex SEND needs attending establishments outside of
the boundaries could qualify for school transport assistance under
new policy.
- The Connexions service provided assistance to those with EHCPs that did not
evidence complex SEND Needs.
- Further scrutiny to track the impact
of Travel Training was suggested.
- Young people with continued course
arrangements, transitioning from Year 12 to Year 13 would receive
continued transport assistance.
- A £300K investment into Travel
Training, funded from savings made, was dependent on the call-in
decision and would be expand the current offer. A Train the
Trainers programme would aid in furthering expertise.
- Bespoke Travel Training was tailored
towards needs and could be repeated.
- Best Travel Training practise could
be shared from highly successful venues, such as at Ellesmere
College.
- Data gathered on applications,
appeals and outcomes could come back to scrutiny.
- Regarding appeals, the Department
for Education (DfE) guidelines gave a 40 working day timeframe.
Where possible, timescales would be less.
- Appeals were likely to be handled by
senior staff. Heads of Service, Special Education Service,
Transport Manager, Connexions, and Senior SEND Staff would be involved.
- For families requiring additional
support, outside of the aforementioned
avenues, some colleges offered additional support, and
independent advice could be sought through the Special Educational
Needs and Disabilities Information Advice and Support Service
(SENDIASS).
- A quality impact assessment had
taken place, and mitigations had been put in.
- Regarding Personal Transport Budgets
(PTBs) there was a generous allowance when benchmarked against
other Local Authorities.
- It was rare for EHCP’s to
include a requirement for school transport assistance as an
educational outcome, however where this was the case, provision be
made.
- Moving forward, it was hoped that
self-assessment would come in and this would allow for evidence to
be gathered and measured.
- Appeal outcomes provided vital
information and reports could come
annually to scrutiny.
- Resourcing levels and digital ways
were sufficient to meet with the demands of the proposed
policy.
- For young people in education, there
could be a narrowing of choice, but educational needs would still
be met. Internships were an example of good alternatives.
- If upcoming data showed gaps in
provision, this would be monitored and developments to the offer
could come.
- Peaks in demand during the academic
year were anticipated, but this was a continuing sequence. Resource
monitoring and shifting would continue as before on pressure
points.
- Savings made on Post 16 SEND school
transport would feed into the increasing demand on statutory school
transport assistance.
- PTB shortfall figures given by
Homefield College (under jurisdiction of Leicestershire County
Council) were referenced by members and would be circulated.
- Regarding family financial
assessments, there would always be an element of intrusiveness.
This was unavoidable with the means testing but the aim was to
reduce this where possible.
- Due to the timing of the proposed
policy, placements for the upcoming academic year would already be
in place. This formed the reasoning for continued provision for
those transitioning from years 12-13. SENDIAS were available for
independent advice.
- Travel Training was a holistic offer
which considered mental, emotional and physical health.
- Supporting professionals had a
responsibility Key Stage 4 onwards to work towards Travel
Training.
- To qualify for assistance under
low-income criteria there would be a hardship test based on parents
/ carers income. Some post 18 students had EHCPs up to the age of
25 and this was accounted for within the proposed Post 16 SEND
School Transport policy.
- For those with fluctuating issues,
this should be stated on the eligibility application.
- Parents / Carers would be consulted
over any Travel Training issues arising.
- A significant number of other Local
Authorities had already ceased to offer, or reduced their Post 16
SEND School Transport provision.
- Those needing to apply under the
Exceptional Circumstances element of policy would need to highlight
circumstances at the point of application.
- University education was not covered
in EHCPs.
- A round of communications regarding
the application process would go out to families imminently.
- Where institutions located outside
of the City boundary were the closest establishment able to meet
the needs of the young person, this would need to be considered
within the holistic eligibility assessment and evident as an
educational outcome on the EHCP.
- The SEND system was due to be
reviewed very soon, and this could affect the situation more
widely.
- The Equality Impact Assessment was
transparent in that potential negative impacts on families and
young people had been recognised. Financial requirements had
lead to a
policy change requirement and mitigation strategies had been put
into place, such as increasing the Travel Training offer. The
proposed policy was lawful.
- Those without transport and having
parental responsibility should make this evident at the point of
transport application for assessment.
- Parents / carers had assumed
responsibility to resolve school transport issues where eligibility
for assistance was not met. For Post 16 young people, aid was
available from the supporting services where parents / carers did
not support.
- Forecasting had been achieved by
separating data on educational cohorts.
- There was a holistic approach to
travel training which was sensitive to the fluctuating motivation
of the young person.
- Benchmarking evidenced successful
outcomes for neighbouring authorities who had adopted similar Post
16 SEND school transport policies.
The Chair asked if the proposer wished to
withdraw the call-in.
Councillor Bonham moved that, following the
points raised during the meeting and the guidance adopting the
points made as per the earlier statement, the call-in be withdrawn.
This was seconded by Cllr Dr Moore and the call-in was
withdrawn.
RESOLVED:
1)
That the call-in be withdrawn.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
- For operational guides to inform on
the changes to policy and give more information on policy regarding
student behavioural matters as per the statement put forward by the
proposer.
- To review best practise on Travel
Training with an eye to successful venues such Ellesmere
College.
ACTIONS:
- Outcome specifics gathered on Travel
Training, applications, appeals and outcomes would come back to
scrutiny.
- PTB shortfall figures given by
Homefield College referenced by members would be circulated.
The meeting finished at 19:30.