When a taxi driver abandoned blind student Thomas* in a town centre, police were forced to rescue him and take him to college.
Thomas, who was 19 at the time, has a learning disability so is unable to use a cane to navigate streets on his own.
College principals say such negligence isn’t uncommon – other incidents include cab drivers leaving disabled students in cars as they go shopping.
And it’s part of a wider issue of poor council transport provision which means some students have college places but can’t get to lessons.
Josie Grainger-Francova, principal of RSBC Dorton College where Thomas attends, said Bromley London Borough Council finally accepted the taxi incident was a safety breach when she confronted them.
She said: “It was an external safeguarding issue because it was not the first time he’d been left on his own.
“We are responsible for what happens to that student when we deliver them to the taxi. It is then the taxi firm’s responsibility to keep that young person safe and I feel that’s not always happening.”
A Natspec survey of 66 specialist colleges found four in 10 believed council-arranged transport was unsafe.
Meanwhile, 59 per cent said fewer learners had transport this year because provision was so poor, and 65 per cent said transport issues had resulted in delayed starts to students’ education – with the East of England and North West worst affected.
FE Week heard of a college in Birmingham where 70 of its vulnerable students suffered a delayed start to their education in September due to issues arranging transport.
The Natspec poll also uncovered safety concerns including “inappropriate groupings” and “overly crowded conditions” in shared buses.
Delays and dropouts
RSBC Dorton College, a small specialist institution in Orpington, Kent, for visually impaired learners, has 26 students who live across 11 local authority areas. They attend two days a week to develop independence skills, then three days at partnership FE colleges closer to their homes.
Grainger-Francova said one of her students initially lost their place at a partnership college because the council hadn’t confirmed transport with the family, causing the college to get involved.
“I went to the CEO of the local authority, and the next day, transport was in place and we got the student back into the partner college,” she said.
“In the last few years, we’ve had students who haven’t come to us for weeks, if not months, because their transport was not in place, despite having their placement funded.”
In Birmingham, Queen Alexandra College serves 408 learners from 17 local authorities, most of which are in the West Midlands.
Deputy principal Jan Gormley told FE Week that 17 per cent of them suffered a delayed start this academic year, with some families still in limbo now. Two students have dropped out due to transport issues.
Birmingham City Council, which fell into bankruptcy last year, asked families in spring to contribute more for SEND transport, raising fees on parents by one-third to £1,028, while reducing routine taxi provision.
The council also pays 45p per mile to families as part of its personal transport budget, excluding the first three miles of each journey. Its 2024/25 transport policy states “payments may be withheld if the student is not attending school/college regularly and feedback may be sought from the establishment”.
Families forking out
FE Week spoke to parents about delays to their applications for travel assistance.
Charlotte* said her 17-year-old autistic daughter started at Portland College in Mansfield, Notts, one week late and only got taxi provision two weeks ago – almost three months after the start of the academic year.
She applied for transport assistance online in June but Charlotte said Derbyshire County Council took three months to change the name of her daughter’s college in her education, health and care (EHC) plan after her initial college choice rejected her.
She added: “I’m losing hundreds of pounds because it took them so long. I’ve had to use my own annual leave.
“[I pay] £151 a month in council tax for a two-bedroom house, I would expect a better level of service. The provision is diabolical.”
Derbyshire County Council said: “We acknowledge we had some issues providing transport for some students at the start of this academic year, for which we have apologised to the families involved.
“Almost all students have now been allocated transport, but for a few cases we are still endeavouring to source appropriate transport for them. We are in touch with these families and keeping them updated and would like to again offer our apologies.”
The council approved 76 per cent of the 572 transport assistance applications this year.
While Derbyshire has not changed its policy, it has forecasted a £1.6 million overspend in FE high-needs spending.
‘Disregard for students?’
Though councils are not legally obligated to provide transport to over-16s, Department for Education statutory guidance issued in April noted local authorities should “pay particular attention” to SEND learners as they are “significantly less likely” to participate in education, employment or training.
Mark Dale, principal of Portland College which supports over 200 SEND learners across five local authority areas, said young people were already falling through the cracks – one has dropped out since September and seven suffered delayed starts.
He said: “There is a danger they will be effectively blocked from taking up an education placement.”
But he did not believe councils are intentionally causing delays, and said it was a “rational response to the situation they find themselves in”.
Gormley disagreed, and said: “[Local authorities] understand enough to commission the provision so perhaps it’s a disregard for students’ wellbeing and their safety and their equal access to the provision that they’ve commissioned.”
Nottingham City Council and Birmingham City Council were approached for comment.
Clare Howard, chief executive of Natspec, said the answer was beefed up statutory regulation.
She added: “We recognise that local authorities are in a very difficult financial position, and anything that is not a statutory service is vulnerable to cuts. That is why we would like to see transport for 16-25 year olds with an EHCP given parity with [transport] provided for children of compulsory school age, and brought into the same statutory framework.
“We’d also like to see decisions about transport support being made – at least in principle – at the same time as a provider is named in an EHCP.
“There is little point in identifying the provider best able to meet a young person’s needs if the means by which to access that provision is denied them.”
*Names have been changed to protect identities
Your thoughts