Memorandum submitted by The National Union
of Teachers (ST 22)
The NUT welcomes the opportunity to provide
initial comments to the Education and Skills Select Committee
on the draft School Transport Bill and would wish the following
points to be given careful consideration. Further, more detailed,
comments will be submitted during the public consultation period.
1. The NUT accepts that there is a pressing
need to reduce the congestion and pollution caused by the school
run. The NUT accepts that it is sensible to open a debate into
the relevance of existing school transport legislation, which
assumes that it is reasonable to for pupils to walk three miles
to school (two miles for under 8s), accompanied if necessary by
their parents. Because of work commitments, very few parents,
including of course NUT members, can spend up to two hours per
day walking their children to and from school.
2. The NUT also accepts that any new school
scheme should be based on an assessment of the travel needs of
all pupils in a scheme area, from nursery to 18. The NUT accepts
that it is worth examining whether there is scope for making joint
arrangements with independent schools which will benefit both
sets of pupils but only on the basis that the LEA does not effectively
provide a state travel subsidy to the independent sector.
3. The NUT believes that LEAs must be given
additional funds to pilot travel schemes. LEAs will need to spend
money on planning and on new infrastructure and equipment. They
may be able to raise revenue by selling spare capacity on school
buses but many initiatives which LEAs may wish to encourage, such
as `walking buses' or more cycling, will not generate income and
will cost money. The fact that LEAs will have to produce an annual
report for the DfES, analysing the effect that schemes have had
in reducing car use on the school run, also needs to be taken
into account. Whilst such reports are essential in terms of evaluating
the success of school travel schemes, they also represent a financial
burden on LEAs. The NUT would, therefore, urge that additional
funding for approved schemes be provided.
4. The NUT is concerned that, whilst LEAs
are instructed to consult school governors, parents, prospective
parents and transport operators before making a formal application,
no mention is made of consultation with teaching staff or teaching
unions. It is stated in paragraph 12 of the draft Prospectus that
schools must be committed to local travel schemes and able to
provide practical help in scheme design and in communicating scheme
strategies to pupils and parents. The most effective way to ensure
that schools are committed to their local scheme is to involve
the school workforce in its design.
5. The NUT has concerns about the wider
use of staggered school opening hours advocated as a way of making
better use of school buses. It is of paramount importance that
teaching and other school staff, as well as parents, are consulted
on any such proposals. Imposing even a slightly different start
or finish time could cause major problems in schools. It is essential
that the working day of teachers is not increased as a result
of any proposals to stagger school opening times, or to extend
the school day. Extending the school day could also have safety
implications for pupils if they end up having to walk to school,
or walk home, in the dark.
6. The NUT notes that one of the priorities
on which school travel schemes are invited to focus is improved
provision for pupils travelling to denominational schools. Denominational
schools tend to admit children from a wide area and lead to local
children of a different faith being denied places and having to
travel further, often by car, to obtain a school place. It is
important to recognise, therefore, that Government policies on
choice and diversity in the education system cause parents to
send their children to voluntary aided schools, grammar schools,
specialist schools or academies rather than their local school.
Such policies contribute to the very congestion that the Government
is seeking to tackle through these proposals as well as leading
to inequalities for children whose parents cannot afford to send
them large distances to school. In addition, the draft bill was
published before the recent out of court settlement by Lancashire
County Council to refund a parent for his atheist daughter's travel
costs to a non-denominational school which was further away than
the local faith school. This settlement therefore places non-believers
on the same basis as believers, in terms of access to schools,
and may threaten the Government's proposals to support improved
provision for pupils travelling to faith schools only.
7. The NUT would wish to see an enhanced
focus on transport safety issues on the part of any scheme. This
would include focusing on issues such as escorts on buses, seatbelts,
age of vehicles, regular safety checks, anti-bullying measures,
etc. Parents will only move their children from car to bus if
it is safe, as well as convenient and affordable.
8. The NUT opposes the proposal to remove
automatic free transport for pupils travelling more than three
miles (or two for those under eight) and introduce a means-tested
scheme. The removal of free transport and an introduction of means-tested
subsidies is likely to increase car use. The NUT would wish to
extend free school travel in some cases where the journey is less
than 3/2 miles. For example, where there is little or no local
public transport or particularly treacherous road conditions which
might force parents/carers to resort to using the car for the
school run. The introduction of some form of means testing could
also prove to be costly to administer in terms of time and money.
9. The NUT shares the Government's concerns
about the position of low income families, with incomes that fall
just above the free school meal eligibility level, who live just
under three miles (or two miles for under 8s) from their "nearest
suitable school". Bus fares undoubtedly cause financial strain
for such families, particularly where there are several children.
29 April 2004
| 
