Local Authorities involved in Rural Authorities Group

Transcription

1

2 Local Authorities involved in Rural Authorities Group Steering Group Members 1. Norfolk 2. Nottinghamshire 3. Lincolnshire 4. Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset 5. Cornwall Wider RA Group Members 6. Peterborough 7. Herefordshire 8. Hants 9. East Riding 10. South Gloucestershire 11. Cambridgeshire 12. Cumbria 13. Devon 14. Gloucestershire 15. Leicestershire 16. Halton Borough 17. Essex 18. East Sussex 19. Staffordshire 4. Dorset 20. West Sussex 21. Buckinghamshire 22. Hertfordshire 23. Northumberland 24. Wiltshire 25. Lancashire 26. Somerset 27. Cheshire 28. Shropshire 29. Suffolk 30. Derbyshire 31. North Lincolnshire 32. Northamptonshire 33. North Yorkshire 34. Worcestershire 35. Warwickshire

3 Contents Contents Volume 1 Page Foreword 2 Executive summary 4 Setting the scene 8 The project 11 Methodology 13 Analyses and findings 15 Working in partnership 16 Better options for providing transport support 16 Education Maintenance Allowances 17 Different models for LA transport support 20 Eligibility 22 Externalities 22 College transport support 24 Learning provision strategy and provision 27 What the students say transport partnerships 30 Students with special educational needs 31 The impact of HE students support changes 32 Validation workshop Q&As 33 What does the exercise tell us and how can we move forward? 37 Successes and failures 37 Conclusion 37 Recommendations 38 Contents Volume 2 [see separate booklet] Appendices Appendix Survey of Local Authorities 1 The Case Studies Cornwall 2 Cumbria 3 Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset 4 Herefordshire 5 Lincolnshire 6 Norfolk 7 A sample of students journeys 8 1

4 Foreword Local Authorities spend considerable time and effort trying to support young people in travelling from home to their 6 th form or college. Journeys can be both difficult and expensive for national and local government, parents, students, schools and colleges. It is time consuming and expensive even where there is public transport and it operates flexibly. It becomes a nightmare where provision is inadequate or prohibitively expensive in relation to young peoples needs and circumstances. In many rural areas, the problem is far worse; population is spread thinly relative to education and training provision and public transport facilities are poor. The local authorities with rural catchments were pleased that LSC agreed to help fund an exercise to consider these issues and develop good practice and recommendations for improvement. Our exercise explores a range of issues relating to the provision of transport services and support for young learners in rural areas. The authorities used the exercise to learn from one another. We also identified a number of external issues that go beyond what we can hope to influence locally. The challenge becomes ever more difficult as these externalities including transport costs, student numbers and funding for transport make it impossible to maintain, let alone improve existing transport services and costs. Many students spend a long time travelling and the nature of some of their journeys is not acceptable. National policy and funding for supporting learners travel to further education has been ignored for many years. The rural authorities now need help to provide better access to learning and other services for young people. We will be seeking help and support from Ministers, Government Departments and other agencies in addressing this. We are supportive of Government s wider access and new learning agendas. The Social Exclusion Unit made it clear that everyone should have access to a range of public and social services and amenities, irrespective of where they live and their level of income and deprivation. Education, employment, health, childcare, libraries, learning and social amenities are important to all. Transport provides access to these services for those who live in rural and semi-rural locations. As young people spend most of their time in learning it is natural that their transport support should be arranged around education and training. Not many appreciate that spending on transport for young learners underpins the local transport infrastructure, and helps to provide better services for the wider community. Whilst rural transport support systems are being reduced, new and valuable learning initiatives that depend upon them continue to grow. Of greatest concern to the Rural Authorities are the implications for transport services arising from the Strategy. This ambitious and attractive agenda has the potential to do much to raise participation and to improve young peoples choice and achievement. However, its success relies on developing coherent transport arrangements and investment in providing access to learning. Where it will not be practical to provide learning opportunities in rural areas, we must take young people to their courses. In many rural areas transport to learning is the only viable option. Given the planning time necessary to improve transport, we need to start now if we are to make effective arrangements. Any prolonged levels of uncertainty and lack of investment will severely limit the roll out of this important initiative. We are a long way from having a level playing field of accessible opportunities. Young people living in rural areas do not enjoy the same access to learning and other services that their peers have in the cities and urban conurbations. The ideal would be to provide them all with free transport services similar to those provided for young people in London. Failing this we need to provide a substantial improvement in local transport services and support in rural areas, if we are to reduce the numbers of young people not in education, employment or training. If we do nothing, rural transport support and services 2

5 Foreword will continue to decline and the costs of journeys for young people and their families will increase. At some point young people and their families will no longer be able to access services or to afford the costs associated with travel to learning. We have completed our study and the findings show a need for action. We wish to work with one another and national government to develop policy and funding to support efficient and effective transport support arrangements. Where possible we will adopt best and sustainable practice and redirect existing resources. There remains however a significant and growing deficit in resources that will not go away. To do nothing is not an option; the status quo cannot be preserved without significant additional support. I am grateful to the 30 Local Authories who have worked with steering group members from: Nottinghamshire, Norfolk, Lincolnshire, Cornwall, Dorset, and to our consultant and project team for their work on this exercise. I am confident that our project will have a significant impact on future transport provision and support for young learners and give them the choices they should enjoy in a modern 21 st century nation. Mark Hudson Chair of the Rural Transport Steering Group Head of Transport Nottinghamshire 3

6 Executive Summary A. Our use of research, surveys of authorities and students, and case studies provide a consistent set of issues and challenges for those responsible for arranging and funding rural transport support for young learners. B. On the face of it, weaknesses in rural transport for young learners are a particular issue for local authorities, schools and colleges. In practice, there is a more general problem, as spending on transport for learners underpins much public transport that serves rural communities. Access to services often depends on there being an effective transport infrastructure. Many rural communities need this in order to get to work, healthcare, social and other facilities. Effective transport arrangements support our general well being, economic and social development as well as providing access to learning. Whilst it makes sense to invest in transport services and support in respect of young learners, the costs and benefits that it provides must be judged in terms of the access that it provides to rural communities in respect of a wide range of opportunities, goods and services. C. Our study shows that the range and nature of transport provision available to young learners in rural areas is not adequate, equitable, stable or sustainable in many instances. The coverage and frequency of services are inadequate and services are inflexible relative to learning timetables. There are too many unnecessarily long journeys that use the cheapest modes of transport irrespective of the time taken and the circuitous routes involved. Many learners rely on changes of bus and multi-mode journeys including: walking, lifts to pick up points and public transport. Services are deteriorating and costs are rising. This is despite huge efforts by authorities and their staff to do their best for students. Current arrangements are D. E. F. not sustainable, given the rises in costs and reductions in the funding available locally. There are a number of externalities that make it impossible for authorities to maintain the same levels of service and support from a constant or falling budget, i.e: a) b) c) the costs of supporting transport are rising; rising participation; and some of the different sources of funding that help to pay for transport have fallen significantly and others are threatened at the next spending round: Rate Support Grants in shire counties, Learner Support Funds, Learning And Skills Council Transport Partnership Funds, Rural Bus Support Grants, etc. There has been a refocusing on funding learners via Education Maintenance Allowances, which is not consistent with providing well coordinated transport services and support across regions and sub regions. These pressures on transport services and support are encouraging a silent but substantial shift by young people in rural areas to cars. This adds to both congestion and pollution. There are few incentives or schemes in 6 th forms or colleges to encourage better use of cars via parking and other policies. Young learners in rural areas who do not have access to lifts or cars rely on poor public transport services, that are at best inflexible and unattractive and at worst, constrain choice and limit opportunities. Rural authorities support the government s education and transport policies for: a) raising the participation of young people in learning; 4

7 Executive Summary b) c) d) e) f) reducing numbers of young people not in employment, education and training; improving learning and giving an entitlement to individuals to choose between the 14 Diploma learning areas; raising the age for learning to 19; developing sustainable rural public transport; and managing congestion, pollution, road safety and accessibility. I. Responsibility for coordinating local transport services and support has been given to local authorities and their partners. The precise nature and standards of what is to be provided is ill defined and vague. The roles of authorities and their partners are uncoordinated and individual and sub regional priorities often take second place to institutional self interest. The various sources of funding support available are inadequate, fragmented and not used to best effect. This results in a post code lottery of varying quality transport provision. The results are frequently barely fit for purpose and are not responsive to learners needs. J. The location and availability of vocational training for young people is seriously deficient in many rural areas. No recognition of this exists in improving the transport support arrangements needed to provide the necessary access. This results in a lack of inclusion and choice, and limits the curriculum offer available to those living in rural areas. G. H. These policies depend on a properly managed and equitable transport support arrangements for young people. These services must be backed by national standards and funding to ensure effective coverage, flexibility, equity and access. Failure to recognise this will result in a further deterioration of services which will in turn frustrate and constrain progress towards government s objectives. There are currently differences in national transport policy and support by age groups, 11-16, 16-19, 14-19, and whether students are in compulsory or further education. These differences are enshrined in legislation, guidance and funding. Such arbitrary distinctions no longer reflect the reality of education policy or the need for coherent transport support for learners. Local authorities have not found these distinctions helpful in their planning and arrangements for children and young people. K. We have engaged young people throughout the exercise, both as individuals and in groups to discuss their views of the journeys and transport support on offer. We interviewed between 100 and 200 learners and went through their daily journeys and a range of other transport issues that impact on their lives and learning, see volume 2 annex 8. The local authorities in the case study areas took part in discussions with students from a range of learning institutions. Councillors and others have also consulted directly with students in several of the local authorities involved. Our survey of students shows that they do not like poor quality services and unnecessarily long and inflexible journeys and days. They felt isolated and reliant on others. It was not surprising that young people living in rural areas want to access a range of services and most have goals linked to driving and car ownership as their only real option. 5

8 Executive Summary L. M. Pamela Storey and Julia Brannen (Institute of Education) cited: high fares, poor publicity and limited public services in their work with cohorts of young people in Young people then, as now, see paying of full fares whilst they are learning as unjust. Now they cannot understand Government s support of older but not younger people through concessionary fares. These limitations affect where young people work and learn, and encourage a shift from relying on lifts to car ownership. The Country side agency found that transport was the single most important concern of people living in rural areas. The initiative, whilst attractive and ambitious, has important implications for transport. It is both a benefit, in getting people to adopt a more corporate view of transport needs across rural areas, and a challenge, in that there is no clear direction, responsibility or funding to provide essential transport services and support in rural areas. Further, decisions are not being made that would allow for the necessary lead times to enable proper planning and development of transport systems and support for young learners. O. P. There are significant differences in how urban and rural areas operate and the nature of the transport networks and support that they have to offer. Most urban areas offer a good and affordable network of regular services and provision. The Education Maintenance Allowances provides sufficient funding for most relatively disadvantaged young people to be able to afford to buy flexible passes to access urban transport to 6 th form or college, using a reasonable amount of their weekly allowance. Better off students rely on their families to support their transport costs. In rural areas, services are frequently inadequate in coverage, frequency, flexibility and journeys are often multi-mode, long and expensive. There is no differentiation in national grants to help authorities or students to meet these disproportionate costs. In rural areas, students ability to pay for transport is often reduced due to low wages. There are insufficient incentives, competition and too many risks for commercial bus operators and private train franchises to provide better networked services in the rural areas because operators costs are high and margins are low. N. Both learning and transport policies seem to be developed on the back of urban models that do not translate to rural settings. The use of a pilot in Wolverhampton for developing and rolling out provision in rural areas was seen by most as not appropriate. There is insufficient understanding of rural needs and circumstances at national level. Policies need rural proofing. The results of the recent Gateway application process appears to accentuate these difficulties by granting funding to a number of rural counties, but for largely urban constituencies. This will make it even more difficult for the rural districts to progress, learn and meet the entitlement. There are constraints in both the availability of transport services, and their responsiveness and use by students. Q. There are disincentives in the local authority funding system that make it financially advantageous for authorities to raise the costs of travel to students, reduce services and support and save funds. Further this starts a vicious circle that will only get worse over time. R. In the face of these difficulties, authorities have succeeded in providing transport support at as low a cost as they can manage. Unfortunately, quality, choice, flexibility and length of journeys have all suffered as a result. Most authorities are paying operators between 2-3 times what they charge students for transport to learning under their concessionary fare schemes. 6

9 Executive Summary S. T. Some excellent initiatives such as Independent Travel Training, moped schemes, community travel, and safety initiatives have been developed and are being rolled out in some areas. There is also a new more corporate approach to transport provision originating from some of the clusters. As this is not a sustainable or desirable state of affairs we believe that the time has come for local government to work with national government on a new set of standards and arrangements for transport provision that reflects government s own agenda. This would require a thorough review of transport policies and arrangements and the development of more appropriate options. Some possible regimes to consider are the London model of free transport for all young people up to age 19. Failing this some national concessions may be another way forward. In any event, we need clear national policy and prescription for, coverage and responsibilities, standards, partnership arrangements, eligibilities and funding. Local authorities would appear best placed to deliver any new arrangements and to continue to coordinate local transport services and support. 7

10 Setting the scene Introduction 1) This exercise looks at how young people who live in rural areas travel to learning. We are particularly interested in further education for young people of 16-19; the learning that currently follows compulsory education. However, government is rolling out a new phase of learning for those aged 14-19, and rural authorities are very interested in this and how it will work. Since our project began, The Secretary of State for Education and Skills has also proposed making education and training a must for young people up to 19. This changes the idea of when we start further education. In looking at the effectiveness of student transport for young people, we have not confined ourselves to the arbitrary age divides that separate different phases of learning, even though transport support is regulated and funded under these now outdated concepts. The report addresses learning issues in particular. However, the case for improved rural transport applies to all ages and access to a host of different goods and services. Rural Areas 2) Our study considers the provision of transport in areas that are remote from large urban areas or concentrations of population and services. These areas define themselves, both by being difficult to access by public transport, and more importantly by the lack services for those living locally. We use the term rural to cover these areas in the report. The Social Exclusion Unit s website states: Good transport links can help people to break out of social exclusion. The key to success is helping connect people to jobs, schools, training, health care and healthy, affordable food. But making such key places truly accessible means more than improving train and bus links; it also means improving local and national planning decisions, providing specialist support to help people get to work and improving design. 3) We need access to goods and services in order to live, learn and develop as members of society. The report is particularly concerned with education and training, also referred to as learning, for young people. 4) The Social Exclusion Unit s report, Bridging the Gap, noted that many young people cited the cost of transport to and from education and training as a barrier to participation. It found that for some young people, particularly those aged 16-18, travel costs represented the biggest single item of expenditure. 5) Young people need access to learning in order to equip themselves for life and work. They also need to access social, cultural, health and welfare services to fulfil their potential and avoid becoming disadvantaged and dependent. We hear much about the need to stop people from becoming NEET (not in employment, education and training) early in their lives. This a bad for them and for the communities and economies in which they live. They need access to learning and cost effective transport is essential for this. Public Transport Provision 6) In a perfect world, transport gets people from place to place, from where they live to where they work, learn, shop, socialise and access health and other services. Cities and towns are served by commercial networks of buses, trains, trams, cars, bikes and pavements. Lighting and bus stops enable people living in conurbations to move in the dark and shelter from the weather. Public transport services are frequent, reliable, affordable and above all available. You rarely hear of people in cities not going to places because they cannot afford to travel if they really need to. 7) In the real world and particularly in rural areas, after deregulation of buses and privatisation of trains, it is more difficult to 8

11 Setting the scene make journeys if you rely on public transport. Services have diminished and fares have risen as routes have become increasingly commercially focused. The profit motive and risk management do not produce or sustain services where there is limited potential for revenue. The larger bus and train operators are simply not interested in such routes. Small operators risk losing their shirts if they: invest up to 120k in a bus, pay a driver 8 an hour, buy fuel, pay maintenance and overheads but do not generate sufficient revenue to show a profit. 8) When deciding which routes to register operators look for viability and revenue streams that will sustain their investment and make them a reasonable return. No one is forced to provide bus services. Operators are there to make a profit for investors. The nature of such business is that you do not make large gains by running services. You can create a regular income stream that provides a reasonable ongoing return, providing that you: keep your passengers, generate revenue and contain your costs. 9) The commercial bus network has continued to shrink since 1985, which is placing additional burdens on local government revenue budgets. Tough decisions are being made on which services to support and where to plug gaps in services as budgets fail to keep up with rising costs. 10) Operators may be tempted to offer the cheapest possible service, particularly if working to a short term tender that is assessed purely on costs. They will work to a price, buy the cheapest bus and provide drivers and quality of service that are commensurate with the tender price. More enlightened operators, who are in business for the medium term look to build and grow a business. They will seek longer or openended contracts which provide sufficient and reliable revenue with which to build and grow an attractive service. A better service and more comfortable bus will be needed for this. Use of cars 11) One alternative to relying on public transport in rural areas is to learn to drive and to get a car or a motor bike. This lifts people out of isolation and opens new horizons in terms of travel and access to services; the car overcomes the constraints of getting to work, learning, social, commercial and leisure activities. The demise of rural transport is causing a massive shift to the car for many young people at 17. Cars are also used to give lifts to pick up points, such as bus stops or railway stations, from where public transport provides access to goods and services in cities and towns. Other transport provision 12) Subsidised, contract and community service buses are used to enhance the public transport network or to provide dedicated services for schools and colleges. In addition: taxis, private minibuses, demand related services, dial a ride and moped schemes provide a range of alternative or additional services. Walking and cycling are not commonly used to get from rural areas to towns. The distances tend to be too far, the roads are dangerous and pavements and lighting are often non existent. The Rural Local Authorities 13) Rural authority transport officers have started to work together on the challenges of arranging transport for learners in rural areas. Their statutory duties under the Section 509 of the Education Act 1996 and associated legislation gives them responsibility for providing transport support for secondary education and where appropriate for young people of in further education. They inherited both duties from the days when they had greater responsibility for secondary and further education, prior to the incorporation of colleges in ) In 2001 during the passage of the Education Bill that amended Section 509 of the 9

12 Setting the scene Education Act 1995, Ministers recommended and parliament agreed that the authorities were the best placed to lead on and coordinate transport arrangements for young people of Logic dictated that as authorities are responsible for most aspects of transport plans and policies, including arrangements for compulsory education, that it is better for them to take the lead in arranging transport for FE too. They coordinate these arrangements in partnership with local schools, colleges and others. 15) A range of initiatives, guidance and funding were provided to assist the authorities and their partners in creating and delivering policies. These would ensure that no young person is denied access to further education because of a lack of transport services or financial assistance to help with the costs of fares. Criteria and guidance were given to assist the authorities in deciding when and how to create arrangements by ways of transport policies. The Learning and Skills Council now assists the Secretary of State for Education and Skills with overseeing the national arrangements which govern the way in which the authorities provide transport support. The Rural Transport Exercise 16) The rural authorities meet on a regular basis to work together on transport issues. This exercise was conceived and developed to provide them with a better understanding of implications of transport for learning and to provide a basis for the rural authorities and government and other agencies to work together in the interests of improving access to education and training for young learners. 10

13 The Project 17) The project was devised by Norfolk and Lincolnshire Local Authorities working with Martin Camillin Associates Ltd, our consultants. Proposals were submitted to the Rural Local Authorities Transport Group for approval and sent as a bid for support from the Learning and Skills Council Learner Support Unit under its Transport Funding arrangements. This is a piece of work that the authorities needed for themselves and thought government would also find important. 18) When the bid was approved, a Steering Group was formed comprising: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Mark Hudson Nottinghamshire County Council, Chair; Mary Roche Norfolk County Council, Contract Manager; David Robinson & Denise Carr Lincolnshire County Council; Paul Harding Cornwall County Council; Andy Matthews Dorset County Council; Martin Camillin, Martin Camillin Associates Ltd, Consultant; and Teri Marshall Lincolnshire County Council, Secretary. 19) The project team included: Martin Camillin Project Manager, Jenny Pike, Researcher Lincolnshire CC, Dan Craven Norfolk CC and Connexions Service, and Teri Marshall. 20) A project plan was agreed and has been used to manage and progress the exercise. The parameters for the exercise are set out below. Aim and Objectives 21) Our plan was to identify the key issues facing rural authorities when developing and delivering transport support policies. We would collect and analyse information in order to understand the rural transport challenge, develop practical policy options and best practice for local authorities. We wanted to raise rural transport support issues at national level and to seek help in developing and managing future rural transport policies. 22) We agreed to focus on specific issues identified by the rural authorities in their recent discussions including: i) key features and issues arising from rural transport support policies, including lessons learned using post 16 partnership funding; ii) the effectiveness of partnership activities; iii) the range and nature of charges made to students and their impact on participation; iv) the impact of charges made to students with disabilities and learning difficulties; v) the benefits that flow from using independent travel training; vi) the relative merits of using demand responsive transport; vii) the increasing demands of responding to denominational issues; the implications, for rural transport policies for young people, arising from emerging issues such as the new legislation for transport support for students in compulsory education; and viii) the emerging implications following from the roll out of policy. 23) In addition to our plans for better understanding rural transport issues and developing responses, we were seeking to foster greater cooperation between the rural authorities in maintaining effective and sustainable policies. This exercise will help the authorities to take greater responsibility for local policy development. We will share our findings, analyses, policy options and recommendations widely to maximise the benefits of the exercise. 11

14 The Project Key Assumptions 24) The key assumptions on which the project was based are that: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Government, DfES and its delivery agent Learning and Skills Council wish to support increased participation in further education for young people; Improving travel arrangements and support for rural learners will improve young people s access to other services: health, social etc and help them with mobility and progression; the realities of the increasing costs of funding transport services and support in rural areas will continue to be shared between national and local government. That transport partnership funds will continue to be made available, particularly in rural areas where externalities have made it increasingly expensive to provide transport services and financial support; the role of coordinating local transport partnerships and policies will remain with local authorities; changes in learners transport needs in compulsory education and training, particularly relating to developments will be properly assessed and supported as part of the roll out of the new initiative; a degree of choice of institutions and denominational preferences will continue to be supported in further as well as compulsory education; and learners with disabilities and learning difficulties will continue to be supported so that they are not disadvantaged when compared with other learners. 12

15 Methodology Consultations 25) We explored a wide range of transport related issues facing rural authorities across England during , and emerging issues relating to the current Education and Inspections Bill 2006, and the Strategy. We invited all interested authorities to take part in the exercise. Approximately 30 Authorities pledged their support. 26) We interviewed and consulted with local authority officials and other stakeholders. We also used the Learning and Skills Council and The Association of Transport Coordinating Officers websites to involve those responsible for making transport policies and delivery arrangements. National meetings and consultations 27) We plan to finalise the report before consulting with national organisations and interests. We will then invite a dialogue with Ministers and: a) b) c) d) e) Research DfES, DfT, HMI; Learning and Skills Council Head Office; Social Exclusion Unit National Schools Council (Circles of Access) Association of Colleges; and The National Union of Students. 28) We obtained research reports from a variety of national and local sources collecting information and analysing it to inform the report. Rural Authority Group meetings 29) We met the Rural Authorities Group to consult on the exercise. DfES was represented at two meetings to discuss transport development. We held a workshop with local authorities to discuss, and validate the report before it was finalised. Case studies 30) The case studies were undertaken in March and April ) We undertook 6 case studies in areas which represented rural issues and coverage. We visited: Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Dorset, Herefordshire, Dorset, Cornwall and Cumbria. During the visits we interviewed: a) b) LA policy and transport staff; Local Learning and Skills Council officials; th c) Colleges and 6 form student support managers, some heads of school or college and others; d) e) f) g) h) i) staff working on the development of learning; over 100 students from rural areas in colleges and 6th form settings; bus operators; voluntary services providing scooter schemes etc; a special school; and Connexions PAs and disability specialists from Connexions and councils. Survey of authorities 32) We surveyed 30 rural authorities to gain information and map current policies, key issues and themes and future challenges, and used the results in the analyses in the report. 33) A proforma was developed to cover the range of questions and issues that would be used in the survey and case studies. The survey questions were designed to be used at different levels of detail in both the survey and case studies. The proformas were used flexibly with the different people interviewed during the case studies. Our objective was to build up a picture of each authority area by combining responses from 13

16 Methodology the different participants. We did come across different views and opinions based on different perspectives and understanding. We have sought to use these in a balanced way throughout the case study write ups and the report. Analyses 34) We conducted analyses of the information resulting from the research, consultations, survey and case studies to: Draft report and validation 35) Our work was written up to produce a draft report which was shared with the rural LAs and discussed in a validation workshop on 9 th May The views expressed by the Rural Authorities Transport Group are set out on page 32. Following this, the report was finalised, published and distributed. a) b) c) d) develop key findings; identify effective practice and policies; compare rural and urban authorities; and consider what would happen if we do nothing to improve policy and funding. 14

17 Analyses and Findings General 36) We are witnessing a silent retreat from the provision of transport provision and support in rural areas. The exercise has encountered: reductions in services, rising costs and a failure to support the level of subsidy and support for rural transport. In rural areas, transport provision for education and in particular further education underpins some of the local public transport infrastructure. Certainly, if home to school and college transport subsidies were to cease, or continue to be eroded as at present, a number of rural bus services would cease to exist and others would be at risk of being withdrawn. As well as having a negative impact on student participation in further education, this would: Creating new routes or additional services requires a commitment to capital investment that small operators cannot afford. Larger operators prefer routes that have been tried and tested and are effectively busy corridors linking large centres of population with conurbations containing, employment, learning or commercial centres. a) b) c) reduce the provision of public transport to rural communities, in particular for opportunities for older people the disadvantaged and those without cars, would be cut back with a number of unhelpful consequences; restrict access to a range of services including education, training, employment, shopping, health services, libraries, social, cultural and commercial activity. The Social Exclusion Unit identified access to services as critical to allowing the disadvantaged to play a fuller and more productive role in society; and force more people to use cars, increase traffic congestion and pollution. 37) Where routes are made less viable, the prospects of replacing them or making transport services more attractive and better used will diminish. New routes present a financial risk that operators are reluctant to consider without guarantees, subsidies or strong evidence, e.g. a new housing estate. 15

18 Analyses and Findings Working in partnership th 38) Some colleges and 6 forms are not taking their share of responsibility for transport support from home to school or college for young people and learners across regions or sub regions. Many of the local transport partnerships were not operating at a strategic level, but had, none the less, achieved some useful local benefits for learners. Some partnerships have been refocused on consortia activities. Their terms of reference in relation to wider transport issues are not well defined. The clusters have a more corporate focus. There is evidence of genuine collaboration and investment in sub regional learning provision in the case study areas following from activity that was not previously present. Better options for providing transport support 39) The current arrangements for devolving responsibility on local authorities without absolute responsibilities and criteria, and little by way of national standards and funding produces a less than satisfactory set of different arrangements for learners. Transport support varies markedly in coverage, costs and effectiveness from area to area. This is an under funded post code lottery for young learners. Provision is especially variable in rural areas, as distances are longer and transport more difficult to arrange, costs are higher and the provision of public transport services patchy and infrequent. 40) Ideally we could adopt the London model nationally, with free public transport for all young people. This would provide a level playing field of support in relation to the costs of getting to learning. However, young learners in rural areas would still be left to suffer: poor coverage and frequency of services, long journeys, loss of their leisure time and the inconvenience of travelling. Failing this, there must be a position somewhere between the current random transport provision and the ideal free and universal public transport, which would provide better access to learning for young people including those residing in rural locations. Changes to funding streams 41) In the late 1990s 84m of funding for discretionary support was transferred from the Local Authorities to Further Education Funding Council for use by colleges. More recently, the loss of large amounts of Learner Support Funds in colleges and authorities has constrained the amount of local discretionary 16

19 Analyses and Findings support that can be used locally to support students in greatest need and at risk of dropping out. The loss of these tried and tested funds have been a concern to all in the case studies and survey. Together with the failure of Learning and Skills Council Transport Support funds to keep up with inflation, this has limited the amount of cost effectively organised and discretionary transport support available. Sources of funding 42) The authorities are funded for transport from: a) b) c) Rate Support Grant; Council Tax; what remains of Learner Support Funds for their schools with 6 th Forms; d) Learning and Skills Council transport partnership funds provide for projects, piloting, research and new initiatives; and e) any share of other grants e.g. the remaining funding from the Rural Bus Subsidy provided by DfT. 43) This sounds like a lot of funding but in practice, most funding for this support comes from Rate Support Grant and Council Tax. The amount of funding is ultimately set by the Council when the local cabinet sets its budgets in relation to RSG and Council Tax. Now that Local Education Authorities have largely disappeared, Children s Services and or Passenger Transport Units are awarded budgets. In most of the bigger authorities, the policy for transport support policy and eligibility issues are arranged in Children s Services, and the transport service tendering, passes and charges are administered by the Passenger Transport Unit. In smaller authorities the work may be under a single department. 44) In recent years, Rate Support Grant (RSG) that central government gives to Shire Counties has been reduced or significant additional demands placed upon it. In managing their budgets, authorities have sought savings from wherever they can find them. As there is an element of discretion in the provision of transport support for further education, councils will reluctantly reduce their expenditure on it as part of their allocation process. However, most have little choice in managing their budgets. Pressures for funding for transport have to be considered alongside demands for funding other council services. Proposals for budget changes, i.e. reductions in the transport budget, are sometimes subject to consultation. Proposals meet with resistance from learners, parents, Connexions, colleges and schools. However, wider panels of Council Tax payers may prefer to cut the FE transport budget rather than to make cuts in other budgets and services. Education Maintenance Allowances 45) The rollout of Education Maintenance Allowances has confused transport support arrangements to some extent. Subject to the 2 and 3 mile (statutory walking distances) rules, transport is provided free, while pupils attend compulsory education, it is a shock to students when they face the costs of subsidised passes or commercial ticket prices at 16. In rural areas, they will be lucky if transport services run at all for part of their journey if it is not a well frequented route. Fortunate students may find public transport services or empty seats on school or dedicated bus services. Others will have to find other ways to travel if they are to get to school or college. 46) Students from homes that are less well off qualify at 16 for Education Maintenance weekly payments of 10, 20 or 30, depending on their family income. This, to some extent, levels the circumstances of 17

20 Analyses and Findings the less well and better off. The Education Maintenance Allowance is understandably welcomed by some because it provides an incentive to participate in learning, and naturally welcomed by young people as it provides an income stream. However, it is assessed and paid on a fairly broad brush basis and its purpose is not specified apart from: What can I spend my allowance on? It s entirely up to you. However we expect learners who get allowances to meet reasonable learning-related costs such as paying for books or transport. (Learning and Skills Council Financial Help for Young People March 2006.) 47) The DfES website states: Q. Is there an expectation that part of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) can be used by the student to pay for transport costs? A. Through Education Maintenance Allowances, the Government is providing new funding direct to young people to help them overcome financial barriers to staying in learning. The funding is in addition to other support. LEAs and the local Transport Partnership should not use Education Maintenance Allowances to substitute for any of their current or planned investment for transport support. Students can be expected to contribute a reasonable proportion of their Education Maintenance Allowances towards transport costs. LEAs may therefore take into account the amount of Education Maintenance Allowances a student receives when deciding the level of transport support that will be offered. It is not, however, reasonable to expect that students should use all of their Education Maintenance Allowances to cover transport costs, which would destroy the incentive to young people. 48) The introduction of Education Maintenance Allowances therefore changed the respective responsibility of the authorities and students in relation to who chooses and pays for transport. An element of purchasing power and choice is now with individual students. This is very different to the respective roles of the authority and pupils in compulsory education. Whilst the EMA puts more cash into some students hands, this is no substitute for a properly coordinated and funded set of county-wide transport services and support. 49) Efforts to define a reasonable contribution from the Education Maintenance Allowances included the suggestion, from Transport Consultants Steer Davis Gleave, that about 10 would be reasonable. It is unclear what is reasonable where a student receives only 10 a week, unless one interprets the contribution as reasonable at 1/3 of the Education Maintenance Allowances, i.e. 3.33p per week, or alternatively assumes that if the family is a bit better off, the student pays 3.33p and the parents the balance of the 10. These arrangements are neither clear or effective across rural areas. Modes of transport 50) The scene setting paras 3-6 explain the behaviours of large and small bus operators in relation to providing bus routes. Providing bus and train services is an entirely commercial undertaking with risks for operators if revenues are not sufficient to cover costs. Para 8 explains how councils will use subsidised services to try and fill gaps in transport provision. The results are patchy coverage and limited schedules in rural areas. Some places may have a single return journey each day with no flexibility for students and their course timetables. 51) The drift to reliance on cars and other types of transport are also outlined in paragraphs 11 and 36. We found a very high incidence of young people whose goal was to learn to drive and own a car ASAP. This was particularly so where there were poor alternatives by way 18

21 Analyses and Findings of affordable and available public transport. The opportunity costs of not having a car in respect of access to: learning, social, making multiple, flexible and out of learning time hours journeys and shopping and employment opportunities out weigh the costs of working and saving for lessons, cars, insurance and other running costs. One student, a seventeen year old girl, preferred to use the bus all term without a pass even though she was on Education Maintenance Allowances. Asked why, she said it was a choice between a bus pass and driving lessons; she preferred to have the lessons and stow away! Sadly there are currently no incentives or viable alternatives to aspiring to the car for many young learners in rural areas. use charging regimes to help to manage the migration from public transport to cars. Few people locally are taking responsibility for environmental issues. The more that the use of cars increases, the less viable becomes what remains of the public transport network. The transition from secondary to further education Going from secondary to further education 53) The survey and case studies paint a picture of rural authorities struggling to meet the transport needs of young people. Young people leave secondary education which is compulsory and confers on them an entitlement to free travel, if they are going more than 3 miles. When pupils move from compulsory to further education, research (Transport Support for Students in Further Education, Steer Davis Gleave) and consultations show that they pay little attention to how they will travel, and the costs and length of journeys, when selecting courses and institutions. Reality only strikes when they apply for transport support and undertake journeys. Little wonder that some enlightened Connexions staff recommend trial runs. Local Transport Partnerships 54) Under the Education Act 1996, the local authorities are required to publish and deliver a transport policies that get young people to learning. Ideally they would: 52) Interestingly enough, many learning establishments use access to car parking as a subtle selling point/recruitment tool. There are colleges in the case study areas where the staff, including the principal, are not allocated car parking spaces. Students have access to all places on a first come first served basis. There are few parking policies that prioritise spaces on those with long journeys, single mums or disabilities etc or th a) meet with their partners: school 6 forms, colleges, Connexions, transport operators; b) identify the demand for journeys, set eligibility criteria to manage who can be assisted; c) prioritise different types of needs and associated costs; 19