Memorandum submitted by Dr Ian Scoones,
Secretary, Buckinghamshire Parents for Comprehensive Education
(BPCE) (ST 29)
— Home to School Transport and Selection
in Buckinghamshire
SUMMARY
BPCE believe that selection contributes to increased
traffic congestion during the school run, compounding problems
of road safety and pollution. It also has serious financial consequences
for the provision of education in Buckinghamshire—to the
detriment of the most vulnerable children in the authority.
INTRODUCTION
1. Buckinghamshire Parents for Comprehensive
Education is a non-party political campaign group seeking to replace
Buckinghamshire's selective secondary education system with a
fair and equitable comprehensive system. Our recent activities
include the submission of memoranda to the Education and Skills
Select Committee's Inquiry into Diversity of Provision and its
Inquiry into Secondary School Admissions. We have also submitted
a report to the recent OFSTED inspection of Buckinghamshire LEA.
In March 2004, at a public meeting addressed by Tony Benn, we
launched an informal petition calling for the abolition of selection
in Buckinghamshire.
HOME TO
SCHOOL TRANSPORT
AND SELECTION
IN BUCKINGHAMSHIRE
2. In 2002-03 the LEA spent £13.2 million
on transport, of which £6.7 million was spent on home-to-secondary
school transport. Half of this cost (£3.35 million) could
be directly attributed to the selective system.[14]
3. In 2003-04 the LEA budgeted to spend
£15.5 million on transport. The cost of bussing pupils to
grammar schools was set to be £4.6 million—up £1.25
million on the previous year.[15]
4. According to Buckinghamshire CC Environmental
Scrutiny Committee, the cost of home to school transport is set
to rise to £20 million in 2005—double what it was in
2000.[16]
5. As the recent Ofsted inspection of Buckinghamshire
LEA has shown, transport costs are high in the county because
"the selective school system and the rural nature of much
of the county".[17]
6. BPCE accept that the rural nature of
the county contributes to these high costs, but we believe that
the bulk of the cost is incurred because of the selective system.
7. The Levacic Report, commissioned by Buckinghamshire's
Upper (secondary modern) Schools argues that: "A selective
school system is likely to require more travelling by pupils between
home and school. Buckinghamshire has the highest home to school
secondary costs of all Statistical Neighbour LEAs (£220 per
pupil compared to the SN average of £116). The LEA spends
£3.5 million more on secondary home to school transport for
the number of secondary pupils it serves than the Statistical
Neighbour average.[18]
8. In the last year BPCE has been monitoring
the mounting financial crisis that affects Buckinghamshire schools
as it has been reported in the local press. We believe that this
crisis has been exacerbated by the high cost of home to school
transport associated with selection.
9. The crisis has culminated recently with
the revelation that classroom help for some special needs children
could be cut in half as the County Council tries to manage a £500,000
overspend in its SEN budget. John Beckerleg, the strategic manager
for children and young people, has stated that "the council
needs to have views about priorities and needs to hold council
tax to a reasonable level". He goes on to claim that "new
government funding rules for next year would limit what the council
could put into special needs".[19]
10. BPCE agree with John Beckerleg that
the Council needs to have a view about priorities; but we believe
that the committee should be aware that in Buckinghamshire it
is a political priority to protect selection rather than safeguard
the SEN budget.
11. As Peter Downes, the schools finance
expert and consultant, has recently commented in a report commissioned
by the Buckinghamshire Schools Forum:
What Buckinghamshire actually spends on its education
service is a political decision made by the County Council. In
Buckinghamshire the Council spends less on schools than the government
expects, by a margin of some £2.5 million (just over 1%).
Conversely it spends more on fulfilling its statutory functions
by £6 million and this is largely explained by the very high
cost of transporting children to schools, (mainly because of the
selective system of secondary education in Buckinghamshire).
Furthermore:
The Council receives grant from central government
and this is based on an assumed council tax income. Buckinghamshire
sets its council tax at a lower rate than the most of the other
South East authorities with which it is normally compared. The
Buckinghamshire Band D figure is currently £26 below the
average for the group of counties with which it is normally compared.
If this had been added to the Council Tax this year, it would
have increased the charge by 50p per week and added £5.4
million to the money available for expenditure on education.[20]
12. Buckinghamshire County Council has made
the political decision to spend less than it could and should
do on education in order to keep its council tax bill down. Meanwhile,
it spends more than it needs to on home to school transport in
order to operate its selective system. In the current financial
climate, faced with a squeeze on its resources, the County Council
would rather threaten to cut SEN spending than increase its council
tax or direct resources away from financing the selective system.
13. BPCE believe that this is clearly a
political calculation made by the County Council in the belief
that it can blame the government for cutting the SEN budget, while
it can keep its council tax bill down and achieve apparently respectable
educational outcomes by spending more than it need to on the transport
costs associated with selection. We strongly concur with the Upper
Schools Forum that this confirms the view that pupils with additional
needs are being disadvantaged in this LEA.[21]
14. It is not only SEN pupils that are disadvantaged
by the amount of money the LEA is prepared to spend on home to
school transport in order to safeguard selection. As we argued
in our submission to the committee's Inquiry into Secondary School
Admissions, it is the county's upper schools that are worst affected
by the strain put on resources by selection.[22]
15. This view is lent support by the findings
of the recent OFSTED inspection of the LEA, which found that under-investment
in specialist facilities in upper schools means that "the
LEA faces a considerable amount of work to make premises more
suitable . . . [I]t will take 11 years to meet all of these requirements
at current levels of funding".[23]
RECOMMENDATIONS
16. As we reported in our submission to
the committee's Inquiry into Secondary School Admissions, the
LEA has consulted on changes to admissions procedures (now in
place for 2005 transfer to secondary schools) designed to reduce
the costs of home to school transport.[24]
17. The LEA also hopes that its proposed
changes will maximise the opportunity for more children to attend
a preferred school, set schools at the heart of their communities
with local schools being available for local children, and to
reduce journey times for children to enable them to have more
time for other activities.[25]
18. We support the LEA's proposal to set
schools at the heart of their communities, and agree that it must
reduce its transport bill. Unfortunately, we see no evidence that
the proposed changes will bring this about. Transport costs will
not be cut substantially because grammar school catchment areas
remain too large. Schools will not be at the heart of their communities
so long as communities are split by selection.
19. The only way the LEA can meet its objectives
of reducing its transport bill and setting schools at the heart
of their communities is to end selection.
20. We believe the government should act
to end selection in Buckinghamshire and introduce a fair and equitable
comprehensive system which would, as far as possible given Buckinghamshire's
rural context, enable children to walk or cycle to their local
school.
April 2004
14 Letter from Cllr Marion Clayton and Cllr Rodney
Royston (transportation), Buckinghamshire Examiner, 15
May, 2003. Back
15
County Cllr Clare Martens (Lab), verbal report to BPCE Committee,
June, 2003. Back
16
Buckinghamshire Free Press, 30 May, 2003. Back
17
Jillian Munday HMI, Buckinghamshire Local Education Authority
Inspection Report, February 2004, p 13. Back
18
Professor Rosalind Levacic et al, The Penalty Costs of Upper
School Funding: Towards Greater Fairness in the Secondary Sector,
2002, p 14. Back
19
Buckinghamshire Free Press, 14 November, 2003, p 12. Back
20
Peter Downes, Report to Buckinghamshire Schools Forum, October
2003. Back
21
Letter to David Bell, Chief Inspector of Schools, OFSTED, sent
by Jenny Wainwright, For Buckinghamshire Upper Schools Forum,
17 November, 2003. Back
22
Memorandum submitted by Dr Ian Scoones, Secretary, Buckinghamshire
Parents for Comprehensive Education (BPCE), August, 2003, paragraphs
41-52. Back
23
Munday, p 16. Back
24
Scoones, paragraphs 53-65. Back
25
Getting a School Place From September 2005: Consultation about
Proposed Changes to School Admissions and Secondary School Catchment
Areas, June, 2003, p 3. Back
| 
