Select Committee on Education and Skills Memoranda


SCHOOL TRANSPORT BILL

WRITTEN EVIDENCE TO THE EDUCATION AND SKILLS SELECT COMMITTEE FROM THE NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS

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.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 20 May 2004