Memorandum submitted by the Secondary
Heads Association (SHA) (ST 3)
1. The Secondary Heads Association (SHA)
represents over 11,000 members of leadership teams in maintained
and independent schools and colleges throughout the UK. School
transport is clearly of interest to our members as it bears upon
the individual well-being and education of their students, at
the institutional level, and out of concern for the education
system as a whole.
2. SHA welcomes the promotion of walking
and cycling to boost young people's fitness, and public transport
to reduce the amount of congestion and pollution.
3. SHA shares widely held concerns about
the poor diets and exercise habits of children, and the consequent
obesity and lack of fitness.
4. SHA recognises the adverse effects on
schools of increasing car use for home to school travel. Congestion
and pollution at the beginning and end of the school day are serious
problems for many schools: increasing traffic densities in and
around schools compromises pupil safety; young people do not have
enough exercise to remain healthy.
5. SHA is concerned that in some areas the
(often double) journeys made in cars by parents delivering their
children to school are a significant proportion of the total number
of journeys made during the morning rush hour, adding to general
congestion and pollution.
6. SHA members are concerned for the safety
of their students, and that they should have convenient access
to the education that they or their parents have chosen without
the poor travelling experience many now have on a twice-daily
basis.
7. Whilst many of these issues are raised
in the Government's strategy for home to school transport, it
is disappointing that the current bill addresses only a very limited
range of them, essentially only in the area of the "school
bus".
8. That the current bill allows for some
local authorities to pilot alternative ways of organising home
to school transport is welcome in that it may produce successful
schemes that can be used more widely.
9. As an enabling bill the present bill
appears to be appropriate, and to create sufficient powers for
such trials to take place. SHA trusts that schemes will not be
approved that significantly worsen provision for any young people.
10. However, SHA would welcome a clearer
statement that this is not intended to create a more relaxed regulatory
framework generally, and that a limited number of schemes will
be approved and fully evaluated before any such general change
is made.
11. Charging for home to school travel will
disadvantage many pupils. As the law requires attendance at school
it behoves government to enable that. If a means test based on
free school meals is used, as has been suggested, many who cannot
afford to pay will be ineligible simply because they do not choose,
for whatever reason, to apply for free school meals. Many families
just above this threshold would also find this a considerable
financial burden. The costs of travelling to and from school would
become prohibitive for many families in urban and rural areas.
And such costs may become a very significant factor in school
choice, so that children whose families cannot afford to pay for
travel have to attend the school nearest to where they live, putting
them at a further disadvantage compared to their more affluent
contemporaries.
12. SHA therefore remains opposed to charging
for home to school transport, and trusts that this aspect of any
schemes trialled will be fully examined independently of the authority
in question so that before charging can become permanent it is
absolutely clear that there is a strong benefit, that no groups
are disadvantaged by the change, and that there is no drop in
attendance.
13. SHA welcomes the reference in the DfES
consultation document to travel to denominational schools—it
is clearly of concern to our members in such schools that students
are able to travel to school easily from their often large catchment
areas. Such considerations also apply to other schools with large
catchment areas, though, notably many rural schools and some specialist
schools.
14. It is important that any schemes are
demonstrably fair to young people attending all types of institution,
at least all those funded by the state. Some of our members in
schools less closely associated with LEAs (voluntary, foundation,
academies) have concerns that local authorities may devise schemes
that favour those attending their "own" institutions.
This also applies to sixth form colleges, which seem not to be
covered by the proposals at all, apart from a reference to taking
account of post-16 provision.
15. Even in this limited area the opportunity
has not been taken to tackle a number of particular weaknesses.
SHA would like to see a clear expectation that there will be moves
to proper supervision of young people on contract buses, a more
stringent definition of roadworthiness for such buses, the provision
of seatbelts, and the abolition of three younger children being
carried in two seats.
16. At present many journeys on school buses
are unpleasant and some are unsafe.
17. All schools promote good behaviour by
their pupils on their journey to and from school. However, most
school buses are, in effect, unsupervised. Most such buses run
with only one adult, the driver, on board, presumably to save
costs. The driver is not in a position to manage the behaviour
of the occupants as well as control the bus. Training drivers
to deal with large numbers of young people, who may be excited
and boisterous on occasion, would be helpful, but providing a
supervising adult on board would be likely to be more effective.
18. School buses should be equipped with
safety belts and not over-loaded. Contracts are at present typically
let by local authority officers who have tight budgets within
which to work and who do not have to experience the journeys they
plan. This has led to a cost-cutting approach with often old and
poorly maintained vehicles being used, and there are instances
of children travelling without being seated appropriately, still
less belted.
19. There is a need to plan transport provision
to meet the needs of young people attending a variety of schools
and colleges, and the needs of the wider public.
20. Matching bus services to school and
pupil needs would be helpful. Private bus companies involved in
such contracts at present usually see their other work as more
important, and more profitable, and are very reluctant to change
schedules to accommodate even planned changes to a school timetable.
21. Staggered school opening hours may help
alleviate some of the peak demands made on services at present.
However, as neighbouring schools and colleges collaborate more
and more on curriculum delivery, it is necessary for them to have
a common day and timetable structure.
22. Further, only a small degree of variation
is in practice acceptable to the child or parent. Attempts to
start the school day outside a quite narrow window would be resisted
strongly by families who expect their child to go to school at
about the time parents leave for work.
23. SHA particularly welcomes the possibility
of more flexible transport services to allow for pupils to arrive
at school for breakfast clubs and stay after school for extra
curricular activities. Such activities are a better way of avoiding
all travelling at the same time. Some schools and many colleges
already operate within a much less clearly defined day. Students
who rely on free school transport are often disadvantaged at present
because of the lack of flexibility.
24. The flexibility mentioned above may
mean making more use of public transport as distinct from the
school bus.
25. SHA members have concerns about the
protection of children using public transport, especially on winter
evenings. This may be of particular concern in London and other
large cities.
26. In rural areas there is often insufficient
public transport, and in all areas it may not be arranged to suit
the needs of young people on the way to and from school or college.
27. Although we may aim to create a more
flexible day the majority of children will still tend to travel
at the same time, and they sometimes overwhelm public transport
services and become a nuisance to other passengers. As passengers
are little supervised on most public transport, young children
may also put themselves into unsafe situations.
28. As far as possible transport arrangements
should not distort the choice parents and young people make, as
for example when different arrangement pertain in different sectors.
April 2004
| 
