Memorandum submitted by the National Secular
Society (ST 16)
SCHOOL TRANSPORT—REMOVING DISCRIMINATION
According to School Travel Schemes—Draft
Bill and Prospectus the stated objective is to "aim to
cut car use on the home to school journey". "Beyond
that they [LEAs] must focus on local priorities and may improve
provision for one or more of" a list of activities headed,
predictably, by "pupils travelling to denominational schools".
The list makes no mention, however, of pupils travelling to the
schools now specialising in particular subjects.
WHAT WE
ARE SEEKING
We are very concerned about a glaring discrimination
that is enshrined in present school transport policy, and one
which is causing increasing resentment. This message is a request
for you to use your influence to change this policy so that school
transport subsidies are allocated in a much fairer way than they
are now. For the reasons detailed below we believe that a material
reduction in the denominational subsidy or even a withdrawal of
denominational transport could be justified. We do not want, of
course, any of our proposals to impact adversely on pupils with
limited mobility.
A third of all schools in this country are run
by religious interests, and they are distributed unevenly so that
in some areas the only local schools are religious ones. In some
counties there are more CofE primary schools than all the remaining
schools (including RC ones) put together. The proportion of religious
schools is set to rise with the (formerly City) Academy programme.
A survey of nearly 30,000 school children showed
58% defined themselves as either atheist or agnostic. Assuming
the parents are of like mind this must mean that many children
are in effect forced to attend religious schools when they/their
parents do not want them to do so. Until now, these non-religious
parents have been denied equivalent transport subsidies to send
their children to more distant community schools where they wish
to do so and the local school is a religious one.
Given denominational transport is likely to
continue, we have been campaigning for this injustice to be reversed.
A PROMISING SIGN
FROM THE
GOVERNMENT
According to our advice from leading Human Rights
chambers, Matrix, such discrimination is illegal under the Human
Rights Act. We have made representations to the Government and
there is some evidence in Paragraph 22 of the Prospectus
that they now accept the need to recognise those adhering "to
a particular faith or philosophy" (ie including the non-religious)
and may be seeking to right this injustice in the forthcoming
Bill.
Oddly though, Paragraph 22 ends with the phrase
"LEAs should ensure that transport arrangements support the
denominational or linguistic preference their parents have expressed.
To be consistent and HRA compliant, "philosophical preference"
must be added to the end of para 22—we assume this to be
an oversight, but hope that members will ensure this is corrected.
HUGE COSTS
The cost of school transport subsidies is huge.
Norfolk, for example, spends £16 million per year on school
transport, sufficient to pay the salaries of over 10% of its secondary
teachers. Highly subsidised denominational transport raises serious
questions about the equity of spending such large amounts—and
incurring avoidable environmental damage—given that appropriate
(albeit not denominational) schooling will be available much nearer
their homes. According to a recent ad hoc study by the DfES, the
marginal transport subsidy per pupil for school transport is generally
in the order of £600 per pupil per annum, which raises questions
of equity over the relative treatment of pupils (except of course
for pupils who need assistance with mobility). Typically a quarter
of the pupils receiving subsidised transport are doing so for
denominational reasons, but in the North East and much of Lancashire,
the majority of subsidised school transport is denominational,
and the cost is further exacerbated by high distances.
COUNTIES ARE
DROPPING DENOMINATIONAL
TRANSPORT SUBSIDIES
Some counties, for example Essex and Northamptonshire,
have already come to the conclusion that the denominational subsidy
is disproportionate and are materially reducing or eliminating
it. Perhaps the Government's emphasis on denominational schools
noted above is a reaction to the growing number of authorities
who are cutting or eliminating denominational transport subsidies
in the knowledge that they are not required to provide them.
ANOTHER PROMISING
SIGN AT
LEA LEVEL
One member of the National Secular Society who
has suffered from discrimination in this respect lives in Lancashire.
We have also put pressure on Lancashire County Council whose policy
is currently discriminatory in that it refused to refund travel
expenses to one of our non-believing members for travel to a distant
community school that would have been subsidised if the same transport
had been for denominational purposes. They have belatedly made
a refund, following intense media pressure generated by the Society.
This included BBC Radio 4's Learning Curve on 10 February
2004 (transcript available on request) and the Observer
on 4 April 2004 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk—news/story/0,6903,1185391,00.html
as well as regional television and radio programmes and press
articles.
We hope you will actively encourage LEAs to
change their denominational transport regulations to be even-handed
(as the HRA requires) in giving non-religious families equivalent
travel arrangements. LEAs are not obliged to offer free or subsidised
transport to non-believers, but neither are they obligated (contrary
to popular misconception) to do so for believers.
FAITH SCHOOLS:
THOSE GOING
ON DENOMINATIONAL
GROUNDS GO
FREE, BUT
OTHER NEIGHBOURING
CHILDREN PAY
TO GO
TO THE
SAME SCHOOL
The absurdity of this and the financial discrimination
on religious grounds is described in the following major article
that the Education Guardian ran at our suggestion.
We ask you to challenge the Government to use
its forthcoming bill to stamp out this shameful religious discrimination
which is against the spirit and probably the letter of the HRA.
Main http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk—news/story/0,3604,1057265,00.html
Education Gdn http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,5500,1056999,00.html
We ask that you call for the DfES to require
that this blatant religious discrimination to be discontinued,
and for you to discourage any LEAs with which you have contact
from such discriminatory policies.
CHILDREN GOING
TO SPECIALISED
SCHOOLS
We believe that it is more deserving to subsidise
transport for children going to specialised schools on educational
grounds, yet this seems conspicuously absent from the prospectus.
We hope members will seek to redress this omission. We recognise
that broadening the number of recipients of subsidised transport
may well mean that the average amount payable per pupil is likely
to drop.
April 2004
| 
