Memorandum submitted by the Catholic Education
Sector (ST 10)
The Catholic education sector has considerable
reservations and concerns relating to the proposed Bill and in
particular the disproportionate effect which it may have on the
continuing provision of a Catholic education to children whose
parents have exercised their right to have their children educated
in accordance with their religious beliefs. It is of particular
concern that no Catholic child should be denied the opportunity
of a Catholic education solely because his or her parents are
unable to afford the transport costs involved in choosing such
education.
PREAMBLE
It has been recognised since the debate on the
1944 Education Act that voluntary aided schools will in many instances
have a natural catchment area of much larger size than community
schools. This is reflected in the provisions of Section 55 of
the Education Act 1944. It was further stated during such debate
that the whole purpose of Section 55 is to enable children belonging
to a particular denomination to be able to attend a school of
that denomination. The right of parents to choose the nature of
the education received by their children has been incorporated
in numerous provisions.
S. 76 of the Education Act 1944 (as replicated
in Section 9 of the Education Act 1996) provides that:
In exercising or performing all their respective
powers and duties under the Education Acts, the Secretary of State,
local education authorities and the funding authorities shall
have regard to the general principle that pupils are to be educated
in accordance with the wishes of their parents, so far as that
is compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and
training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure.
The UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child
states:
Principle 7: The child is entitled to receive
education, which shall be free and compulsory, at least in the
elementary stages. He shall be given an education which will promote
his general culture and enable him, on a basis of equal opportunity,
to develop his abilities, his individual judgement, and his sense
of moral and social responsibility, and to become a useful member
of society.
The best interests of the child shall be the
guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance;
that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents.
The European Convention of Human Rights as incorporated
in The Human Rights Act 1998 states:
FIRST PROTOCOL
Article 2
No person shall be denied the right to education.
In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation
to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right
of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity
with their own religious and philosophical convictions
These instruments outline the concept that parents
are foremost educators of their children and that the state should
be a facilitator to ensure that all children as far as practicable
can be educated in accordance with their parents' religious and
philosophical convictions. R A Butler stated in the House of Commons
debate on section 55 of the 1944 Act.
"[Section 55] is all for the purposes of
enabling children to attend schools which are suited to the beliefs
and desires of their parents. I can give a definite undertaking
about that" (Hansard House of Commons: 9 May 1944
Col 1753)
The concerns and reservations of the Catholic
sector are that the proposed Bill places at risk the whole concept
of parents being in a position to educate their children according
to their beliefs and wishes and may need to substitute financial
considerations and constraints for fundamental beliefs and convictions.
Such concerns relate to the overall concept of the proposed Bill
and fall into three substantive categories
PRINCIPLE
At a time when choice is an increasing aspect
of education with a greater number of specialist schools being
established the underlying effect of the proposed legislation
is effectively to diminish choice to parents whose rights are
enshrined in specific primary legislation.
The effect of the proposed legislation will
in many cases be to deny precisely the much heralded freedom of
choice or the rights mentioned above to families who are unable
to afford the transport costs involved in sending their children
to their school of choice. Whilst the Explanatory Notes (paragraph
13) state that "Pupils from low income families may not be
charged for travel arrangements made under the scheme. . ."
no such statement is included in the draft Bill itself and no
guidance is given as to the nature and extent of such assistance.
Large families, those in receipt of free school meals, those in
receipt of state benefits and, of more concern, those with incomes
just above that which would entitle them to state benefit could
all be greatly disadvantaged by such schemes.
Example
Essex County Council has recently announced
details of its proposed charging arrangements for the provision
of home to school transport. The charge will be £100 per
child per term with a "cap" of two children per family
being chargeable. However this relates only to children of compulsory
school age with the result that a family of three children in
secondary school would be charged for two children only until
the eldest entered the 6th form whereupon the family would be
charged for all three children. This may well act as a severe
disincentive for a child to stay on at school in the 6th form
with a view to continuing education at university which will challenge
the Government targets for children participating in further and
higher education. In addition in this example Essex has also decided
to change the school year to a six term year and it is not clear
whether this means 6 x £100 per child per year or not.
The concern does not relate solely to those
families which will be unable to afford the cost of transport
to and from the school of their choice but also in relation to
those who are able to afford or provide private transport to and
from school. It is one of the avowed objects of the draft Bill
to reduce pollution and the environmentally damaging effects of
the daily "school run". A direct foreseeable consequence
of the draft Bill will be to actually increase the use of private
vehicles to take children to and from school where the removal
of free transport and its replacement by chargeable transport
result in it being cheaper for the children to be driven to school
rather than use the provided group transport.
WORDING OF
THE DRAFT
BILL
It is of concern that the wording of the draft
Bill itself does not appear to reflect the principles annunciate
in the accompanying draft Prospectus.
Paragraph 3 of the draft Prospectus states that
LEAs applying to run a school travel scheme are ". . . to
consider the needs of all pupils in their area. They must
produce local travel schemes . . . underpinned by a comprehensive
and coherent strategy which identifies and meets the travel needs
of all pupils. . .".
Paragraph 8 of the draft Prospectus states that
all such schemes "must focus on local priorities and may
improve provision for one or more of pupils travelling to denominational
schools . . .". The draft Prospectus further states that
paragraph 21 "any charges must be affordable and pitched
at a level that does not produce an increase in car journeys to
school. Our legislation will protect children from low income
families who attend their nearest suitable school but LEAs must
ensure that their charging policies comply with the European convention
on human rights".
Paragraph 22 of the draft Prospectus states
that the charging provisions must ensure that if pupils from low
income families whose parents adhere to a particular philosophy,
and who have expressed a preference for a particular school as
a result of religious beliefs, are treated differently from other
pupils from low income families the different treatment does not
amount to discrimination and, provided that it is economical and
practicable to arrange for them to attend the school of their
parents' choice, LEAs should ensure that transport arrangements
to support the denominational preference their parents have expressed
are in place. However, clause 3 of the proposed Bill provides
that any school transport scheme should include arrangements,
in relation to any child who is a registered pupil at a school,
for his transport to and from school if the school is not within
walking distance and no suitable arrangement had been made
enabling him to become a registered pupil at a school nearer to
his home the accompanying notes, in an intent to clarify the
effect of clause 3, state that LEAs are required to make arrangements
for any child who is a registered pupil at a school beyond walking
distance from his home "unless suitable arrangements have
been made . . . for the child to become a pupil at a school nearer
the child's home."
The wording of clause 3 of the draft Bill therefore
will permit an LEA to advise parents of children who attend a
Catholic school, which is outside the statutory walking distance,
but not the nearest school, to the child's home, that "suitable
arrangements" can be made for them to attend the nearest
school so that if they choose to register at the more distant
denominational school, the LEA does not have to include them in
the transport scheme itself.
Concerns that the drafting of the proposed Bill
does not address the issues identified in the Prospectus and explanatory
notes are reinforced in the Regulatory Assessment when it states
"increasing numbers of families exercise `parental preference'
and do not send their children to the nearest suitable school.
LEAs do not usually help these families with travel costs so many
of these children are driven to school because there is no available
public transport or existing services are too expensive. Lack
of support for children of parents exercising parental preference
effectively means that parents from low income families are less
able to exercise choice" the wording of clause 3 of the proposed
Bill as drafted would enable LEAs to effectively prevent parents
from low income families from exercising choice in the example
given above by providing "suitable arrangements" for
attendance at the nearest school to home.
ISSUES SPECIFIC
TO CATHOLIC
EDUCATION
As stated in the preamble many Voluntary Aided
schools have a catchment area which is much larger than is the
case with Community schools and there are numerous examples of
Catholic schools being specifically sited, after discussion and
agreement with the LEA, at a location designed to serve the widest
possible area, examples include St Anselm's in Canterbury and
St Mary's in Chesterfield. The existence of such arrangements
has been recognised for example in DfES Circular 21/1994, paragraph
29 which states "many LEAs exercise the discretion afforded
by Section 55 to provide free transport or assistance with fares
for pupils or students who attend the nearest school or college
of their parents religious denomination, even though they could
have attended a non-denominational institution nearer home".
Paragraph 31 of such Circular states "the Secretary of State
hopes that LEAs will continue to think it right not to disturb
well established arrangements of the kind referred to in paragraph
29, some of which have been associated with a local agreement
or understanding about the siting of denominational schools. He
continues to attach importance to the preservation of the opportunity
to choose a school or college in accordance with religious convictions".
Typically, a Catholic Voluntary Aided school
was situated in its present location, with the agreement of the
LEA at a time it was established, to draw from a wider than average
catchment area based on parish boundaries. Changes in demographic
patterns have impacted on these historical catchment areas in
different ways but inevitably "a local" area for a Catholic
school will generally be larger than that for a Community school.
It is to be noted that schools with higher percentages
of minority ethnic pupils tend to be located in deprived urban
areas with higher percentages of pupils eligible for free school
meals. 11% of Catholic secondary schools have over 40% of their
pupils from ethnic minorities as opposed to 10.2% of other maintained
secondary schools. In the 11% of Catholic secondary schools referred
to, 26.3% of the pupils attending such schools are eligible for
free school meals. The diversity of the pupil population in Catholic
schools, in terms of racial and social mix, working in an atmosphere
of mutual respect, empathy and religious understanding provides
a strong foundation for Catholic schools to contribute to Community
Cohesion in the areas in which they are situated. However, the
proposed Bill puts in jeopardy the ability of all low income families
to send their children to Catholic schools.
There is already evidence to indicate that the
anticipated imposition of school transport charging is having
a detrimental effect on applications for admissions to Catholic
schools. Whilst detailed figures will not be available until the
commencement of the next school year in September, there is evidence,
for example from St Benedict's in Colchester, whose parents are
aware of Essex County Council's policy to charge for home to school
transport, that there has been a reduction in the number of applications
for 2004-05 intake at 11+ by approximately 30%: a most significant
development. It is to be noted that St Benedict's in Colchester
is a school whose location was, by agreement with the LEA, specifically
established to serve the widest possible rural area and is likely,
to be detrimentally effected by the imposition of charges for
home to school transport.
Parents in low income Catholic families, particularly
if financial assistance is given to families eligible to either
free school meals or state benefit, whose income is marginally
higher than the financial limits for such assistance, could similarly
be obliged to consider withdrawing their children from Catholic
schools on the grounds of cost alone thus depriving certain families
of the right to education their children in accordance with their
religious beliefs.
CONCLUSION
— The provisions of the draft Bill
strike at the very heart of the Catholic school sector which is
a substantial and integral part of the education system, serving
approximately 10% of the population, and which has been valued
and appreciated by successive governments;
— as a direct result of the draft Bill
many parents will be obliged to make fundamental choices concerning
the nature of their children's education not on the basis of their
religious convictions and beliefs but on the basis of financial
necessity;
— in large urban conurbations Catholic
schools provide excellent caring education to a wide diversity
of ethnic groups and economically disadvantaged families. Catholic
schools are frequently chosen as preferred schools by parents
in such areas precisely because of the nature of the education
provided. In the absence of any firm proposals in the draft Bill
for financial assistance in meeting the cost of such transport,
many families will be denied any freedom of choice in the education
of their children;
— in the event that some financial
assistance is to be made available then if this is limited to
children in receipt of free school meals or families in receipt
of Income Support then a decision by parents to choose a Catholic
education for their children would result in severe financial
hardship for many families whose income is just sufficient to
disqualify them from such benefits. The only alternatives put
forward, of setting arbitrary financial limits or some from of
means testing are unacceptable and divisive in the context of
education. The effect of such financial constraints is likely
to place the viability of some Catholic schools in some areas
in jeopardy, thereby depriving many committed Catholic families
of access to high quality effective education in accordance with
their wishes;
— in the more affluent suburban areas
families with more than one child attending school are more likely
to determine that it would be more cost effective and cheaper,
in purely financial terms, for their children to be driven to
school rather than use the transport provided. This would result
in precisely the opposite effect from one of the principal stated
aims of the Bill;
— in rural areas, particularly where
Catholic schools, with the agreement of the LEA, have been specifically
sited to have the widest possible catchment area, the effect of
a chargeable school transport scheme could be detrimental. There
is already anecdotal evidence that applications for places in
one such area are reducing, this could lead to falling rolls,
declining standards and an increasing lack of viability of such
schools;
— the provision in the draft Bill that
transport arrangements must be provided for a child to attend
a school beyond walking distance from home unless suitable
arrangements have been made for the child to attend a school nearer
to home, could lead to substantial anomalies which could affect
the child's future. By way of example a Catholic child could be
denied access to a Catholic school, because transport arrangements
need not be made for him as the nearest Catholic school is not
the nearest school to his home. In order to receive the benefit
of school transport he could be required to attend the nearest
school which might not be in keeping with his parents' wishes.
For the reasons stated above the Catholic education
sector has deep and serious concerns and reservations about the
effect and consequences of the draft Bill and would welcome the
opportunity in due course to address the Select Committee in more
detail concerning same
19 April 2004
| 
