19. School travel plans are locally negotiated action plans to encourage safer and more sustainable journeys to school. They can address the need for safer routes to school, new or better road crossings, local speed restrictions, dedicated cycle ways, secure cycle storage and sufficient locker space. Between April 2001 and April 2004 the DfT provided 57 bursaries (worth up to £30,000 per school) to local authorities to enable them to employ staff to work with schools to develop school travel plans and a further 17 for them to employ staff to work with schools and workplaces. There will be around three and a half thousand school travel plans in place in England by the end of March 2004.[26] In addition, the DfES is making available small capital grants available to schools who have approved travel plans, £5,000 for a typical primary school and £10,000 for a typical secondary school.[27]

20. The DfT has commissioned research from SUSTRANS, Transport 2000 and others which has shown that schools which carry out properly thought-through travel plans can reduce the number of children coming to school by car by 20%.[28]

Walking and cycling

21. The experience of the National Walk to School Campaign shows that children like to walk to school and can be encouraged to do so.[29] Some schools have introduced "walking buses" where children are collected from along a pre-arranged route at an agreed time and escorted to school by volunteers, usually parents.[30] Similarly cycling can be increased with well targeted support. Provision of cycle parking in Surrey led to an increase from 620 to 1,103 children cycling at the schools involved.[31] A 10-fold increase in cycling to school resulted from the provision of cycle storage facilities at a school in Norwich.[32] The DfT's cycling projects fund provides support for small scale schemes such as cycle racks and lockers and local authorities can be awarded capital funding through the Local Transport Planning process to make infrastructure changes, such as pedestrian crossings and cycle paths, identified in school travel plans.

22. While "hard" measures such as cycle paths are supported, projects based on promotion or on training are not, although they may reduce the accident rate.[33] In York, for example, child cycle casualties have fallen by a quarter since cycle training was introduced in 1993.[34] Despite its success, such training does not qualify for LTP funding. Surrey County Council pointed out that Annual LTP Progress Reports measure "outputs" rather than "outcomes". Local Transport Plan (LTP) funding should not be restricted to "hard" measures; local authorities should be able to use it for training and other "soft" measures if they wish.

School attitudes

23. School travel plans are not universally supported. Mr Tony Neal, former President of the Secondary Heads Association (SHA), told us that his association felt that they were essentially a bureaucratic solution to the problems of local transport at a time when schools were moving away from the business of bureaucracy and focusing on their core business of teaching and learning.[35] In contrast, Mr David Hart, General Secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) took a contrary view, and maintained that schools could not complain about traffic congestion and other problems without admitting that local authorities have to work with schools and operators. His members were persuaded of the value of school travel plans.

"I think school travel plans actually could, and I think they will, work. There are some good examples from the Department's guidance which says: yes, by working together we can help solve the problem…. South Yorkshire, Wrexham and other local authorities have come up with solutions in the main as a result of having school travel plans." [36]

24. Cheshire County Council pointed out that school travel plans could help ensure better transport.

"Schools appear to need an incentive to understand their role in influencing the overall cost of education transport (which has an indirect effect on school funding) e.g. by staggering hours, assisting with behavioural control, using the "yellow buses" off peak. It is important that if improved bus services are produced, the schools affected play their part in delivering improvements to safety, behaviour and sustainable travel." [37]

We took evidence from Cllr Mrs Clack, an executive member for transport at Surrey County Council, who explained to us of an initiative by schools in her area known as the Golden Boot Challenge.

"It is an annual challenge initiated by us as part of our safe routes scheme. It is about getting young people to change the way they get to school. They score points when they use alternatives to the car and the class with the most points wins the golden boot trophy."[38]

We would urge the Department for Education and Skills to encourage schools' involvement in schemes such as the golden boot challenge.

25. We were disappointed by the attitude of the Secondary Heads Association toward school travel plans. We appreciate that many schools feel burdened by the need to respond to countless initiatives, but schools have responsibilities for their pupils' wider education. We do not think it is inevitable that school travel plans will conflict with the national curriculum. We support the work that the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Transport are doing to persuade schools to take travel plans seriously. We hope our colleagues in the Education and Skills Committee will explore the effects of such plans on school resources further.

27   ST 11 Back

28   Q 93 Back

29   ST 10 Back

30   Travelling to School: an action plan Back

31   Q 39 Back

32   ST 11 Back

33   ST 02 Back

34   Travelling to school: an action plan Back

35   Q 50 Back

36   Q 50 Back

37   ST 13 Back

38   Q 16 Back