School and SEND taxi transport becomes a political battleground – but drivers bear the brunt
- Perry Richardson
- 2 hours ago
- 3 min read
School transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) has become one of the most politically charged issues facing local authorities. What began as a routine council service has turned into a headline topic, with spiralling costs, public scrutiny, and government data gaps fuelling national debate. Yet, amid the noise, taxi drivers and small transport operators delivering these essential journeys are often unfairly caught in the crossfire.
Every year, councils in England spend hundreds of millions of pounds ensuring children can get to school safely. For pupils with additional needs, that often means tailored transport using taxis or minibuses. The requirement is statutory: local authorities must provide free home-to-school travel for eligible children. But how they do it, and how much it costs, has become a growing source of political and financial tension.
Reports of rising budgets, with some councils warning of big increases, have led to criticism from both opposition politicians and national newspapers. Coverage has frequently focused on the high per-pupil costs of certain journeys, particularly where specialist vehicles or individual taxis are used. Such headlines often portray the system as inefficient or open to misuse. What is less often discussed is that these costs reflect genuine logistical and safeguarding challenges, not profiteering or poor planning.
In rural areas, the lack of public transport options leaves councils little choice but to rely on taxis. In urban settings, rising demand for SEND places means more pupils are travelling further to reach specialist schools. These journeys can involve complex scheduling, long distances, and trained drivers who understand the specific needs of their passengers. All of this expertise carries a cost.
Taxi operators contracted for school runs are subject to strict licensing, vetting, and safeguarding checks. Many drivers take on the work for its reliability rather than profit, often earning modest rates after accounting for fuel, insurance, and time spent waiting between jobs. Yet, when local papers publish details of council contracts, drivers can find themselves accused of overcharging or taking advantage of public funds simply for providing the service they are licensed to provide.
The Department for Education’s decision to begin collecting voluntary data on home-to-school transport spending earlier this year shows just how fragmented the national picture has become. Without consistent reporting, it has been easy for the issue to be politicised. Councils under pressure to balance budgets point to government funding shortfalls. Ministers cite local inefficiencies. The result is a cycle of blame that rarely acknowledges the people on the front line of the service.
Some industry voices argue that the portrayal of taxi firms as a financial burden undermines the profession’s role in community service. For many families, these drivers are a daily lifeline, offering stability and support to children who might otherwise struggle to access education. The political focus on cost, risks overshadowing that human element.
As the DfE works to build a clearer understanding of national spending, the tone of the discussion may need to change. Until there is a balanced view that recognises both fiscal responsibility and the realities of local delivery, the debate over SEND transport will remain heated.
For now, councils face mounting pressure to deliver the same vital service with shrinking budgets. Taxi drivers, meanwhile, continue to carry the responsibility of getting some of the country’s most vulnerable children to school safely — often without the credit or fairness they deserve in the public conversation.
