If you have been sitting in isolation with a power cut due to the snow, you are probably one of the few people who hasn't heard about the Katie Price debate taking place. However, most of us will have heard something about it and I am sure will have an opinion on the situation.
Just to bring those who have missed the story up to date - Katie Price is currently resident in the Celebrity Big Brother house along with Katie Hopkins. Katie Hopkins decided to say, in her usual no holds barred way, that Katie Price should not be allowing the state to pay for her son's transport to his school as she can afford to pay for it herself. This has brought about the usual social media storm.
Now the issue with social media is it contains lots of people with lots of opinions, but sadly not always with lots of accurate information. It also contains lots of quotes taken out of context and lots of "I heard that he/she....." comments. That's the recipe for a lot of nonsense. Ok before I start sounding too much like Cilla Black here, let's move on.
Katie Price has been mis-quoted as saying it costs £1000 a day to take her son to school. What she actually said is that if she used her private driver and employed a nurse for the same journey it would cost about £1000 a day. As any mum with a child with special needs knows, no Local Authority is going to pay anything like that - life would be so much easier for all of us if they had those sorts of funds available.
Educate yourself:
Those who are offering their opinions on the story (including myself) are using their Human Right to"Freedom of Expression" (Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression).
It is only fair, therefore, that Katie's son is allowed to use his Human Right to "a Right to Education" (Article 26 - Everyone has the right to education).
When a child has a Statement of Special Educational Needs (or an Education, Health and Care Plan), the nearest suitable provision is named. If applicable, the Local Authority then has a statutory duty to provide transport to and from the school in order for them to access the provision.
Parents do not "claim" for school transport, it is part of their Statement to enable the child to get to the school that can meet their needs.
Parents have very little, if any, say in who provides the transport and it is usually the cheapest firm that wins.
School Transport only takes the child to and from the school within school hours so breakfast and after school clubs are often not an option.
Harvey has a right to an education, he has a Statement of Special Educational Needs and unfortunately, the nearest school able to meet his needs is 50 miles from home, so transport to and from the school is also provided in order that he can actually get there. Who should be paying for this? Maybe that is where the real story is.
Why is there no suitable provision locally?
We have chatted about this at SNJ; all of us are parents, like Katie, with children with SEND.
I have three children who use school transport to access their school place. One travels almost 40 miles each way, the other 15 miles (the nearest school with a VI resource) and one just 5 miles (the nearest school with a Speech and Language resource) so the chances are financially, my children cost the tax payer more than Harvey does. However, most of my friends who live locally access the local school, which is just half a mile from me.
So the question we should all be asking just now isn't how much it costs a Local Authority to transport a child or whether Katie should be paying for it or not; it should be "Why are Local Authorities not providing more suitable provision locally?"
None of us want our children travelling such a long way to school. Many of our children travel further to school than many people do to work. However, when the nearest suitable provision is not within a few miles of home, then transport is our only option. Some people say "well I know it's a long way but you 'get' one of those Motability cars and you should use that". Oh how I wish I had a pound for every time I had that said to me (I could probably pay for all the home/school transport). Sadly, even with the best will in the world, that is not always an option. I have three children in three different school - all in different directions, it would not be possible for me to be in three places at the same time. Many of us have children with no SEND and we have to get them to the local school on time or face the wrath of the school, so once again taking our child with SEND to a different school 50 miles away at the same time isn't an option.
Some families choose residential over transport, not because they want to get rid of their kids but, because they know their child wouldn't cope well with such a long journey to and from school.
So why is provision so poor?
- Why is it that so many schools cannot meet our children's needs and in many circumstances, have no interest in attempting to even try?
- Why are parents discouraged from even applying for some schools by the staff there?
- Why are schools not doing more to learn how to meet the needs of all children?
- Why are Local Authorities not putting pressure on schools to raise their game?
In an ideal world, my children would go to school together, we would all jump into the Motability car at 8.30 or walk up to the school en masse, I would know the other mums at the school and my children would be able to meet up with their school friends after school or at the weekend. My children would share the same experiences, know the same people, the twins would possibly be in the same class for some subjects and they would be able to access after-school clubs with ease (rather than my having to turn one down because we cannot collect him at 4.15 when his brother arrives home - 15 miles away - at the same time). They would not be in schools over 50 miles apart and I would not be zooming up and down the motorway for annual reviews, school plays or parents evenings.
So before anyone attack parents, like Katie, who has taxpayer-funded transport provided to take their child to school, ask yourself why Harvey can only go to a school fifty miles away because there is nothing suitable any nearer.
- Accountability: the number one change you would like - March 7, 2016
- Life Skills – are children with VI missing out? - March 2, 2016
- Tests:Do you and your child find them testing? - February 3, 2016
Hah! It is NOT part of the statement if the LA tries to wriggle out of
it. I had to appeal for my son’s placement. The LA conceded the week
before. They initially provided transport, but then withdrew it (without
notifying me. The taxi firm let me know!). When I queried this they
said that they do not have to provide transport in the case of “parental
preference.” They had never said that they agreed the placement on the
basis of parental preference. I thought they had agreed that it was the
nearest placement that would meet my son’s needs. I took legal advice
and, after going through their laughable “transport appeal” procedures
(where effectively the same person was involved in the decision at all
three levels and when I contacted him for support, my local councillor
told me I should consider myself lucky to get the placement, never mind
transport), I had to take them to Judicial Review. I had hoped that this
would go to court and result in a ruling that would have a wider
implication for children up and down the country, but the LA conceded
the JR and made an agreement re the transport. Meanwhile I was having to
drive him to and from his placement on a weekly basis, which was
physically exhausting, left me in need of steroid injection into my
elbow, never mind the effect it had on my daughters, who spent 6
pointless hours in the car every weekend, 3 of them straight from school
on a Friday. I was so relieved on so many levels when we finally got it
sorted out. So, it is not as simple as, “the LA has to provide
transport.” Not in every case. They try to avoid it if at all possible.
Having said that, if I was worth £40million, I would pay for my son’s
placement and transport. Seriously I would. But since it is a legal
entitlement, I would probably be advised to let the LA pick up the tab
by my accountants and/or solicitors, I’m sure. And since it is an
entitlement for her son, not for herself, then HE is entitled to it.
Just because I would pay for it if I was in her position does not mean
that I think she necessarily should, Everyone has their own decision to
make about what to do in these circumstances.
But if the LA refuses to pay, people, and your child’s placement has NOT been agreed
under “parental preference”, take the LA to court. It is the child
making the claim and children are usually entitled to Legal Aid, so it
won’t cost you a fortune
My daughter is in the same county as Harvey, and like Harvey she also has to travel out of county for her school placement.
There should be more locally.
I want to pick up on the motability thing. My daughter doesn’t get a mobility car, her school is over 20 miles away and I don’t drive, this means I miss out on all the things that happen at school because I can’t get there, and yes she has a taxi funded by the council.
Katie Price is only adhering to the statement. I wish ignorant people would do their homework before citicising a parent of a child with special needs.
Well Said Deb’s…..But an important point to make here is that the entitlement of state funded transport relates to Harvey and Harvey alone. This would be the case for any child in his circumstances so the financial status of a parent is a total irrelevance.
Great post and you know I agree with you on all of this. Discussion should not be about Katie and her millions, but about local provision for SEND children.
well said, ignore the celeb issue, this is about the distict lack of local provision for children with SEND. For over 3 decades local authorities have failed to invest wisely in developing good local provision at the detriment to our children.We all know the cost of out of authority placements is eye watering let alone the transport costs. This neglectful behaviour needs challenging as a cost benefit analysis would always highlight the huge savings that would be made by developing good local provision and ouir children accessing support and using local facilties. Not really rocket science is it .
Brilliant article, thanks. Living in Guernsey, we have a huge issue over specialist placements. There is a minibus to and from the local special schools and some children with SEN have taxis provided. Not a huge problem as the island is only 7 mile by 5. For us though a specialist placement means residential; and transport means flights as well as taxis. Understandably the authorities are only willing to agree specialist placements in the most extreme circumstances but they don’t seem to grasp that they need to provide services over and above what would be available in an average sized market town in UK to avoid sending children away.
As both my husband and I are English born we have been asked why we don’t consider moving back to England to get our child’s needs met. We could then afford to pay for him to attend day school! So much for the rights of our son. He was born here and lived here throughout his childhood and will have full local status as an adult, he wouldn’t be going back anywhere.
Alas some Guernsey children go residential school in England and never do return home, as the long term care that they need is not available here.