Special needs' £7.9m taxi bill

Herald Series: Judith Stickings Judith Stickings

OXFORDSHIRE’S multi-million pound bill for taxis to take special needs children to school is to be scrutinised by county council bosses seeking budget cuts.

Oxfordshire County Council will examine whether savings can be made from the bill, which was £7.9m in the last financial year.

The total rose by more than £900,000 to £7.9m in 2012 to 2013, with one school reportedly ferrying 89 pupils in 89 different taxis.

The cash mostly goes on transporting 1,700 children with special needs each year, at a cost of £27.4m from April 2008.

The council confirmed the spending will not escape consideration in its search for £61m savings but said it was too early to give details.

Last year’s bill includes £55,368 on 22 pupils at Chipping Norton School and £229,532 for 66 students at Abingdon and Witney College.

Concerns were last night raised about the impact of cuts on children with special needs.

One parent Gillian Stickings, from Risinghurst, Oxford, urged the county council not to cut the funding which helps her daughter Judith, 10.

She said: “It has been a huge lifesaver.”

Jan Sunman, chairman of Oxfordshire Family Support Network, which supports families of people with learning disabilities, said: “The council will still have to provide transport for the children with special education needs, how they will provide that will have to be looked at.

“It is very costly. Perhaps they may have to change whether they take individual children or use minibuses.

“The big issue will be if we start to have minibuses touring around. We don’t want children being kept on a minibus for some time.”

Already the council — spending £895m this year — has told staff all but seven of 44 children’s centres could close to save cash.
This came after the Conservative-run authority was told it needed to save an extra £61m by 2018 on top of £201m cuts already made or committed to.
Labour group leader Liz Brighouse said: “I have always been a bit concerned about the number of taxis we use to take children to school — it is not co-ordinated, it is all individual taxis from home to school.
“We need to be very careful because it could impact very badly on children.”
Liberal Democrat group leader Zoe Patrick said a briefing by council officers revealed 89 children were getting 89 taxis to one school.
Minibuses should be considered, she said, adding: “It is our duty to look at this and make sure there isn’t duplication.”
Council spokesman Paul Smith said: “The council will be exploring this area to see if savings can potentially be made in the same way that it is looking through all of its budgets.”
More than 90 per cent of journeys are for special needs children, he said, at schools with “relevant specialisms to cater for individual needs”.
He said the council uses its own vehicles when possible but taxis are needed for those who live “quite some distance” from the school.
Mr Smith said: “These may also sometimes be at different times. It is not possible to have a permanent timetable using a vast fleet of vehicles that would cater for all of these children on the wide range of very individual routes needed to get them to where they need to be.”
Special needs children get free transport if the school is more than three miles away for those aged eight and over.
For the under-eights that drops to two miles away, or if they cannot walk, or it is not safe for them to do so.

CASE STUDY: 'Cuts would cause stress and unhappiness'

CEREBRAL palsy sufferer Judith Stickings, 10, from Risinghurst, is taken to the John Watson Special School near Wheatley by taxi.
Her mother Gillian, 40, said the taxi service provided both respite care and financial help for the family.
She said: “It makes a huge difference. We have quite a low income and it would mean time and money and stress taking her in rush-hour traffic.”
She said helping Judith in and out of a car was hard work and the help was valuable.
The Downside Road resident also said her daughter shared the taxi with three other pupils. She added: “It is an efficient service.”
Mrs Stickings said the school had written to parents last week to inform them of the threat of cuts to the service.
But she said scrapping the service would lead to more traffic near the school which she said has a small car park.
She added: “It will make people stressed and unhappy.”

 

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:29am Mon 4 Nov 13

alu355 says...

Works out at £4650 per child per year. A good earner for the taxi companies.
Works out at £4650 per child per year. A good earner for the taxi companies. alu355
  • Score: -123

1:50pm Mon 4 Nov 13

bart-on simpson says...

"...a briefing by council officers revealed 89 children were getting 89 taxis to one school."

Go on OM, do a bit of digging and name the school and the distribution of the firms contributing the 89 taxis.

As Alu says, that's over £400K.
"...a briefing by council officers revealed 89 children were getting 89 taxis to one school." Go on OM, do a bit of digging and name the school and the distribution of the firms contributing the 89 taxis. As Alu says, that's over £400K. bart-on simpson
  • Score: 3

4:03pm Mon 4 Nov 13

colinharry says...

“It makes a huge difference. We have quite a low income and it would mean time and money and stress taking her in rush-hour traffic.”


Oh dear........join the REAL world,just because your child is disabled doesnt mean you cant do as all the other parents do.....try using the Motorbility car you get for such trips.....jeeeeez thats where the council tax is going eh.....joke!!!
“It makes a huge difference. We have quite a low income and it would mean time and money and stress taking her in rush-hour traffic.” Oh dear........join the REAL world,just because your child is disabled doesnt mean you cant do as all the other parents do.....try using the Motorbility car you get for such trips.....jeeeeez thats where the council tax is going eh.....joke!!! colinharry
  • Score: -175

6:08pm Mon 4 Nov 13

Witneyscout1 says...

It's not just the transport it is teaching skills to special needs children to use in later life, ie waiting, sitting safely, proper use of safety belts and being safe on transport? Come on occ look at the bigger picture !
It's not just the transport it is teaching skills to special needs children to use in later life, ie waiting, sitting safely, proper use of safety belts and being safe on transport? Come on occ look at the bigger picture ! Witneyscout1
  • Score: 1

7:30pm Mon 4 Nov 13

kikirem says...

There are no doubt some new approaches that could be undertaken to reduce the overall cost to the OCC. However, as a parent of a child who uses the service I cannot stress how unfair it would be (to all parents in a similar position) to have to incur the cost of providing safe transport for my child to get to school. The reference by a previous reader above to Mobility allowance shows how poorly informed he is about the lack of support parents of children with 'severe' medical conditions receive.

Every child has the right to an education and in most cases children with an SEN statement are only able to access the services they receive through schools (which act as the facilitator).

I think most parents of children with 'severe medical needs' would rather have their children attend a school within close proximity to their home. However, there are not enough schools and some are over 10km away. No parent should be expected to travel that distance four times a-day in order for their child to attend school (which is a legal right).

The OCC needs to look at the bigger picture and that is reduce the expenditure on those wasted costs that result from poor organisation by the local authority. This includes the use of service contracts (consultancy contracts) to employee OCC staff at over-inflated rates ( a cost that is never disclosed).

It is also worth noting that there are not enough places at schools for abled-bodied children and as a result the OCC incurs 'huge' costs in transporting these children to school. There does not seem to be any discussion on this cost or pressure on parents of these children to incur the financial burden, why? I would these parents to argue that their children have a legal right to attend school too. Also, the fact that the nearest schools are over-subscribed should not mean that they should suffer a financial burden due to poor management by the OCC.
There are no doubt some new approaches that could be undertaken to reduce the overall cost to the OCC. However, as a parent of a child who uses the service I cannot stress how unfair it would be (to all parents in a similar position) to have to incur the cost of providing safe transport for my child to get to school. The reference by a previous reader above to Mobility allowance shows how poorly informed he is about the lack of support parents of children with 'severe' medical conditions receive. Every child has the right to an education and in most cases children with an SEN statement are only able to access the services they receive through schools (which act as the facilitator). I think most parents of children with 'severe medical needs' would rather have their children attend a school within close proximity to their home. However, there are not enough schools and some are over 10km away. No parent should be expected to travel that distance four times a-day in order for their child to attend school (which is a legal right). The OCC needs to look at the bigger picture and that is reduce the expenditure on those wasted costs that result from poor organisation by the local authority. This includes the use of service contracts (consultancy contracts) to employee OCC staff at over-inflated rates ( a cost that is never disclosed). It is also worth noting that there are not enough places at schools for abled-bodied children and as a result the OCC incurs 'huge' costs in transporting these children to school. There does not seem to be any discussion on this cost or pressure on parents of these children to incur the financial burden, why? I would these parents to argue that their children have a legal right to attend school too. Also, the fact that the nearest schools are over-subscribed should not mean that they should suffer a financial burden due to poor management by the OCC. kikirem
  • Score: 8

10:11pm Mon 4 Nov 13

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe says...

There are no doubt some new approaches that could be undertaken to reduce the overall cost to the OCC. However, as a parent of a child who uses the service I cannot stress how unfair it would be (to all parents in a similar position) to have to incur the cost of providing safe transport for my child to get to school. The reference by a previous reader above to Mobility allowance shows how poorly informed he is about the lack of support parents of children with 'severe' medical conditions receive.


But you do think it is fair for everybody else to incur a cost in getting YOUR child to school ?
There are no doubt some new approaches that could be undertaken to reduce the overall cost to the OCC. However, as a parent of a child who uses the service I cannot stress how unfair it would be (to all parents in a similar position) to have to incur the cost of providing safe transport for my child to get to school. The reference by a previous reader above to Mobility allowance shows how poorly informed he is about the lack of support parents of children with 'severe' medical conditions receive. But you do think it is fair for everybody else to incur a cost in getting YOUR child to school ? Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
  • Score: -58

10:54pm Mon 4 Nov 13

kikirem says...

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
There are no doubt some new approaches that could be undertaken to reduce the overall cost to the OCC. However, as a parent of a child who uses the service I cannot stress how unfair it would be (to all parents in a similar position) to have to incur the cost of providing safe transport for my child to get to school. The reference by a previous reader above to Mobility allowance shows how poorly informed he is about the lack of support parents of children with 'severe' medical conditions receive.


But you do think it is fair for everybody else to incur a cost in getting YOUR child to school ?
Sadly, your prejudice has has arisen out of a news story that touches upon a national problem. Poor school provisions for ALL children with the end result being a lot of children have to travel a great distance to attend a school.

It is also sad to see that you personalise your response without offering any alternative solution. By the nature of your one-line comment you would have all children with severe medical conditions deprived of any rights, including medical assistance as that comes out of taxes.

Honestly, I would rather be in a position to get my child to school without the backlash for individuals like yourself.
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: There are no doubt some new approaches that could be undertaken to reduce the overall cost to the OCC. However, as a parent of a child who uses the service I cannot stress how unfair it would be (to all parents in a similar position) to have to incur the cost of providing safe transport for my child to get to school. The reference by a previous reader above to Mobility allowance shows how poorly informed he is about the lack of support parents of children with 'severe' medical conditions receive. But you do think it is fair for everybody else to incur a cost in getting YOUR child to school ?[/p][/quote]Sadly, your prejudice has has arisen out of a news story that touches upon a national problem. Poor school provisions for ALL children with the end result being a lot of children have to travel a great distance to attend a school. It is also sad to see that you personalise your response without offering any alternative solution. By the nature of your one-line comment you would have all children with severe medical conditions deprived of any rights, including medical assistance as that comes out of taxes. Honestly, I would rather be in a position to get my child to school without the backlash for individuals like yourself. kikirem
  • Score: 6

1:32am Tue 5 Nov 13

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe says...

I am certainly not prejudice. I simply asked you a question 'do YOU think it is fair for everybody else to incur a cost getting YOUR child to school ?

I didn't offer an alternative because I don't have one and would personally not comment on an issue I do not fully understand. The story offers one side, albeit limited, now I am interested to hear your views as to why this 'service' should remain in place, the causing 'stress and unhappiness' argument is you must admit a bit lame as I would imagine thousands of parents everyday feel some levels of 'stress and unhappiness' in the rush to get the kids to school.
I am certainly not prejudice. I simply asked you a question 'do YOU think it is fair for everybody else to incur a cost getting YOUR child to school ? I didn't offer an alternative because I don't have one and would personally not comment on an issue I do not fully understand. The story offers one side, albeit limited, now I am interested to hear your views as to why this 'service' should remain in place, the causing 'stress and unhappiness' argument is you must admit a bit lame as I would imagine thousands of parents everyday feel some levels of 'stress and unhappiness' in the rush to get the kids to school. Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
  • Score: -60

8:26am Tue 5 Nov 13

kikirem says...

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
I am certainly not prejudice. I simply asked you a question 'do YOU think it is fair for everybody else to incur a cost getting YOUR child to school ?

I didn't offer an alternative because I don't have one and would personally not comment on an issue I do not fully understand. The story offers one side, albeit limited, now I am interested to hear your views as to why this 'service' should remain in place, the causing 'stress and unhappiness' argument is you must admit a bit lame as I would imagine thousands of parents everyday feel some levels of 'stress and unhappiness' in the rush to get the kids to school.
Exactly, the story only refers to transport provided to SEN and not abled bodied children and or other transport services 'sponsored' by OCC.

To enlighten you on the reason why the provision should not be scraped please note the following:

1. many children with 'severe medical conditions' are not able to travel to school without a second adult escorting them. The provision of specialised transport services ensures the child can attend school safely.

2. as previously mentioned, the location of SEN schools are not ideally placed and few standard schools have the facilities to support statutory statements. The distance children with 'severe medical conditions' have to travel is excessive.

3. The story does not high-light the number of children in Oxfordshire who have a statutory statement and this may be a reason why the cost of higher than other counties. Baring in mind that the JR children's hospital is one of a few hospitals outside London that provide all services for children the natural consequence is that Oxfordshire may have a greater number of children with severe medical conditions. You may be right to argue that Health picks up the tab, but that is for Mr Cameron to determine - ironically he should have a strong understanding of most SEN children's parents dilemma.

4. I would agree with many readers that there are some serious mis-management issues here, but that is down to poor co-ordination by the OCC not parents.

5. You may have taken a very narrow view of the 'stress and unhappiness' argument - for parents I agree that it is not a strong point. However, for the children themselves who are dependent on set-routines for a quality of life it is extremely important.

6. If you (or the newspaper) wish to pick up on some issues then consider the abuse of blue-badge parking permits (and the number issued), the excessive salaries paid by the OCC to its consultants / outside contracted staff, poor negotiating skills to lower prices charges by taxis, The abuse of bus-lanes by taxis without passengers.

No child or parent utilising this service chose to be in this position. I truly believe that if you were to be responsible for a child with a severe medical condition (just for a week) you would fight to maintain a level of service in order to give the child a better quality of life.
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: I am certainly not prejudice. I simply asked you a question 'do YOU think it is fair for everybody else to incur a cost getting YOUR child to school ? I didn't offer an alternative because I don't have one and would personally not comment on an issue I do not fully understand. The story offers one side, albeit limited, now I am interested to hear your views as to why this 'service' should remain in place, the causing 'stress and unhappiness' argument is you must admit a bit lame as I would imagine thousands of parents everyday feel some levels of 'stress and unhappiness' in the rush to get the kids to school.[/p][/quote]Exactly, the story only refers to transport provided to SEN and not abled bodied children and or other transport services 'sponsored' by OCC. To enlighten you on the reason why the provision should not be scraped please note the following: 1. many children with 'severe medical conditions' are not able to travel to school without a second adult escorting them. The provision of specialised transport services ensures the child can attend school safely. 2. as previously mentioned, the location of SEN schools are not ideally placed and few standard schools have the facilities to support statutory statements. The distance children with 'severe medical conditions' have to travel is excessive. 3. The story does not high-light the number of children in Oxfordshire who have a statutory statement and this may be a reason why the cost of higher than other counties. Baring in mind that the JR children's hospital is one of a few hospitals outside London that provide all services for children the natural consequence is that Oxfordshire may have a greater number of children with severe medical conditions. You may be right to argue that Health picks up the tab, but that is for Mr Cameron to determine - ironically he should have a strong understanding of most SEN children's parents dilemma. 4. I would agree with many readers that there are some serious mis-management issues here, but that is down to poor co-ordination by the OCC not parents. 5. You may have taken a very narrow view of the 'stress and unhappiness' argument - for parents I agree that it is not a strong point. However, for the children themselves who are dependent on set-routines for a quality of life it is extremely important. 6. If you (or the newspaper) wish to pick up on some issues then consider the abuse of blue-badge parking permits (and the number issued), the excessive salaries paid by the OCC to its consultants / outside contracted staff, poor negotiating skills to lower prices charges by taxis, The abuse of bus-lanes by taxis without passengers. No child or parent utilising this service chose to be in this position. I truly believe that if you were to be responsible for a child with a severe medical condition (just for a week) you would fight to maintain a level of service in order to give the child a better quality of life. kikirem
  • Score: 8

8:48am Tue 5 Nov 13

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe says...

That wasn't so difficult was it. Perhaps if you weren't so quick to jump on people for questioning or having different views to you and resorting to name calling people might be willing to actually stop and listen to your argument. Now you have explained it from a parents perspective I am much more likely to come down on the side of parents and not the Councils. Thank you for answering me.
That wasn't so difficult was it. Perhaps if you weren't so quick to jump on people for questioning or having different views to you and resorting to name calling people might be willing to actually stop and listen to your argument. Now you have explained it from a parents perspective I am much more likely to come down on the side of parents and not the Councils. Thank you for answering me. Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
  • Score: -59

8:49am Tue 5 Nov 13

kikirem says...

Please can the newspaper confirm whether the cost quoted is actually the money paid to taxi companies or does it include the OCC's administration costs to manage the taxis companies and the cost of OCC's own integrated transport services used to transport children to school?
Please can the newspaper confirm whether the cost quoted is actually the money paid to taxi companies or does it include the OCC's administration costs to manage the taxis companies and the cost of OCC's own integrated transport services used to transport children to school? kikirem
  • Score: 12

8:52am Tue 5 Nov 13

alu355 says...

Having 89 cars around Oxford's roads carrying 89 children is crazy for so many reasons

- Waste of money
- Waste of fuel
- Waste of human resources (the drivers)
- No social interaction for the children
- Congests our roads
- More likelihood of accidents

What is really needed in Oxford is a proper school bus network which I'm sure many parents would be happy to pay for
Having 89 cars around Oxford's roads carrying 89 children is crazy for so many reasons - Waste of money - Waste of fuel - Waste of human resources (the drivers) - No social interaction for the children - Congests our roads - More likelihood of accidents What is really needed in Oxford is a proper school bus network which I'm sure many parents would be happy to pay for alu355
  • Score: -83

8:56am Tue 5 Nov 13

kikirem says...

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
That wasn't so difficult was it. Perhaps if you weren't so quick to jump on people for questioning or having different views to you and resorting to name calling people might be willing to actually stop and listen to your argument. Now you have explained it from a parents perspective I am much more likely to come down on the side of parents and not the Councils. Thank you for answering me.
Taking a patronising tone does not assist. You should consider your own words and have thought things through before being so 'being so quick to jump on people' yourself. I would add that you did not question the cost but simply stressed an uninformed opinion - that parents should take care of the transport. I do concede, however, that the newspaper article should be more informative as opposed to potentially causing a division between people with different perspectives on 'sensitive' issues. But then again that is journalism.
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: That wasn't so difficult was it. Perhaps if you weren't so quick to jump on people for questioning or having different views to you and resorting to name calling people might be willing to actually stop and listen to your argument. Now you have explained it from a parents perspective I am much more likely to come down on the side of parents and not the Councils. Thank you for answering me.[/p][/quote]Taking a patronising tone does not assist. You should consider your own words and have thought things through before being so 'being so quick to jump on people' yourself. I would add that you did not question the cost but simply stressed an uninformed opinion - that parents should take care of the transport. I do concede, however, that the newspaper article should be more informative as opposed to potentially causing a division between people with different perspectives on 'sensitive' issues. But then again that is journalism. kikirem
  • Score: 6

4:45pm Tue 5 Nov 13

Witneyscout1 says...

So to take this away would be another kick for us parents with special needs children how we would ALL long to have normal children but that's not the way of the world we don't all plan our lives like this and certainly don't look to make money from them ,yes savings could be made I've worked for a private hire company that done this work and believe me when it costs £60to take someone from witney to Banbury each way twice a week to do their young offenders community service THIS is where money should be saved and the many other jobs like this that we done day in day out
So to take this away would be another kick for us parents with special needs children how we would ALL long to have normal children but that's not the way of the world we don't all plan our lives like this and certainly don't look to make money from them ,yes savings could be made I've worked for a private hire company that done this work and believe me when it costs £60to take someone from witney to Banbury each way twice a week to do their young offenders community service THIS is where money should be saved and the many other jobs like this that we done day in day out Witneyscout1
  • Score: 5

5:35pm Tue 5 Nov 13

colinharry says...

Your BRAND NEW 63 plate FREE motorbility car is provided for YOU to take your child to school and other trips NOT to use for going to work while the taxpayer pays for your child to be chauffer driven to school.....and dont tell me you havent got a brand new motorbility car (else the £50 pw that can be claimed )
Your BRAND NEW 63 plate FREE motorbility car is provided for YOU to take your child to school and other trips NOT to use for going to work while the taxpayer pays for your child to be chauffer driven to school.....and dont tell me you havent got a brand new motorbility car (else the £50 pw that can be claimed ) colinharry
  • Score: -215

5:39pm Tue 5 Nov 13

colinharry says...

As for Judith Stickings....her daughters school is less than 4 miles away.......jeeeeez some people.
As for Judith Stickings....her daughters school is less than 4 miles away.......jeeeeez some people. colinharry
  • Score: -205

5:48pm Tue 5 Nov 13

kikirem says...

colinharry wrote:
Your BRAND NEW 63 plate FREE motorbility car is provided for YOU to take your child to school and other trips NOT to use for going to work while the taxpayer pays for your child to be chauffer driven to school.....and dont tell me you havent got a brand new motorbility car (else the £50 pw that can be claimed )
You obviously feel aggrieved by the service being provided.

Mobility allowance is paid to those with the higher level of disability - usually those dependent on wheelchairs, internal hoists, ramps and other equipment. It is not a payment made in order to get a 'free car'.

Motorbility on the other hand is a privately run business that demands large one-off payments and continuous monthly instalments, which permit the indivdual to select a vehicle from a limited (and usually impractical) selection.

Even if someone has their own transport, nurses and escorts that have to travel with children are not permitted to accompany children in personally owned vehicles.

The next thing you will be stating is that those in receipt of fuel tax ought to by wood to burn at home or those in receipt of job seekers allowance ought to use the money to by paper and stamps to apply for jobs. Those with free bus passes should only use a selected route etc etc.

Mobility allowance (national payment) is paid in order to give individuals some independence when they have a restricted life. In many ways it saves the OCC from paying out more money.
[quote][p][bold]colinharry[/bold] wrote: Your BRAND NEW 63 plate FREE motorbility car is provided for YOU to take your child to school and other trips NOT to use for going to work while the taxpayer pays for your child to be chauffer driven to school.....and dont tell me you havent got a brand new motorbility car (else the £50 pw that can be claimed )[/p][/quote]You obviously feel aggrieved by the service being provided. Mobility allowance is paid to those with the higher level of disability - usually those dependent on wheelchairs, internal hoists, ramps and other equipment. It is not a payment made in order to get a 'free car'. Motorbility on the other hand is a privately run business that demands large one-off payments and continuous monthly instalments, which permit the indivdual to select a vehicle from a limited (and usually impractical) selection. Even if someone has their own transport, nurses and escorts that have to travel with children are not permitted to accompany children in personally owned vehicles. The next thing you will be stating is that those in receipt of fuel tax ought to by wood to burn at home or those in receipt of job seekers allowance ought to use the money to by paper and stamps to apply for jobs. Those with free bus passes should only use a selected route etc etc. Mobility allowance (national payment) is paid in order to give individuals some independence when they have a restricted life. In many ways it saves the OCC from paying out more money. kikirem
  • Score: 9

5:52pm Tue 5 Nov 13

kikirem says...

colinharry wrote:
As for Judith Stickings....her daughters school is less than 4 miles away.......jeeeeez some people.
maybe you should run for election given your strong prejudices. 4 miles or 14 miles is an excessive distance for a child with medical needs.

As stated by another reader no one chose to be in this situation and things are not made any better when no alternatives for schooling and accessing services are provided.
[quote][p][bold]colinharry[/bold] wrote: As for Judith Stickings....her daughters school is less than 4 miles away.......jeeeeez some people.[/p][/quote]maybe you should run for election given your strong prejudices. 4 miles or 14 miles is an excessive distance for a child with medical needs. As stated by another reader no one chose to be in this situation and things are not made any better when no alternatives for schooling and accessing services are provided. kikirem
  • Score: 8

5:58pm Tue 5 Nov 13

Witneyscout1 says...

I take it your children are "normal " can walk to school , do things for themselves and on there own bet youcan leave will normal baby sisters / family when you go out at weekend not ours we have to pay specially trained people to sit that's if you can find them so we don't get time away or to do things on our own even doing a weekly shop can't be done as a family we also have normal children that miss out on normal family life mobility car a side transport to school really IS part of these children's learning
I take it your children are "normal " can walk to school , do things for themselves and on there own bet youcan leave will normal baby sisters / family when you go out at weekend not ours we have to pay specially trained people to sit that's if you can find them so we don't get time away or to do things on our own even doing a weekly shop can't be done as a family we also have normal children that miss out on normal family life mobility car a side transport to school really IS part of these children's learning Witneyscout1
  • Score: 5

12:57pm Wed 6 Nov 13

bart-on simpson says...

A really odd policy, guaranteed to be really wasteful, unsociable and ghettoising

With a car behind them, could the parent be subsidised to take her daughter to school and back?
A really odd policy, guaranteed to be really wasteful, unsociable and ghettoising With a car behind them, could the parent be subsidised to take her daughter to school and back? bart-on simpson
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree