County head teacher hits out at changes to school transport policy

Hereford Times: Pupils such as these, from Brimfield and Orleton, may have to reconsider where they go to secondary school. Pupils such as these, from Brimfield and Orleton, may have to reconsider where they go to secondary school.

A COUNTY head teacher has hit out after Herefordshire Council’s cabinet pushed through changes to its school transport policy yesterday.

Cabinet last week approved its original decision to impose a set of major changes to the county’s school transport policy, despite having been asked to reconsider many aspects of it by a scrutiny committee.

That means that from September, children will only be provided with free transport to their nearest schools and not catchment school as previously.

Parents who continue to choose transport to a school which is not the nearest will be charged £720 and that will be the same fee for post-16 Special Educational Needs students (SEN).

But Andrew Shaw, head teacher at Wigmore High School believes cabinet has made a “crass error of judgement”.

“There will be children who attend, would be attending, have siblings at and had their hearts set on, a certain school which may now be in question,” he said.

“Ethically and morally those parents who now find themselves in a position where they have to effectively pay for their child's education have been badly let down.

“We have several examples where children whose parents can't afford to pay to go to their catchment school will be shipped out of county, along with their funding, and in some cases to schools in special measures, in another authority – taking them away from an outstanding Herefordshire school.

“Trading on the belief that parents will want the best for their children and therefore have to pay is a wholeheartedly questionable approach for the LA Officers and cabinet to take."

He added that depending on schools to "fix" the issue is "simply wrong".

“This whole process has shown the council failings, a lack of listening, ineptitude beyond belief and a real lack of understanding.

“This level of ignorance divides communities and I believe that the good schools in Herefordshire will of course rise to the challenge as best they can to protect our children and our most vulnerable. Something which Herefordshire council continues to fail to do.”

However, Jo Davidson, director for people’s wellbeing at Herefordshire Council, said that officers had been monitoring parental preference “very carefully” with no evidence of significant reduction of numbers at schools.

The scrutiny committee had specifically asked cabinet to “delete” its decision regarding post-16 SEN transport and replace it with a means and need tested “formula” to provide free or subsidised transport.

That recommendation was rejected by the cabinet member due it its “complex and bureaucratic process” – increasing costs.

It was what Councillor Terry James, leader of Herefordshire Liberal Democrats, described as a “very sad day”.

“Ultimately we will see greater cost because we will see one or two schools closing and will have to pick up additional costs. It is just short-sightedness,” he added.

Comments (3)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:11pm Fri 24 Jan 14

jb7821 says...

I spoke to someone on the council ahead of yesterday's meeting, to reinforce my concerns.

I was told that it would be too difficult to produce a better analysis of the financial impact this proposal will have, and that the council has to be seen to be making savings. I was told that if the council reduces its transport provision to the statutory minimum then - regardless of the actual effect this has - the council can't be accused of not cutting everything that it can. They have to be seen to be doing something.

i.e. Forget the effect on the members of the public they are supposed to represent - as long as the council covers its back then then council members can hide behind the "living in times of austerity" excuse.

Is this really the best that our democratic system can do...
I spoke to someone on the council ahead of yesterday's meeting, to reinforce my concerns. I was told that it would be too difficult to produce a better analysis of the financial impact this proposal will have, and that the council has to be seen to be making savings. I was told that if the council reduces its transport provision to the statutory minimum then - regardless of the actual effect this has - the council can't be accused of not cutting everything that it can. They have to be seen to be doing something. i.e. Forget the effect on the members of the public they are supposed to represent - as long as the council covers its back then then council members can hide behind the "living in times of austerity" excuse. Is this really the best that our democratic system can do... jb7821

4:42pm Fri 24 Jan 14

M M says...

They can find £925 a day to employ two people .a savings there?
They can find £925 a day to employ two people .a savings there? M M

9:21pm Sat 25 Jan 14

JollyJesterTwo says...

And £9million to upgrade leisure facilities! Has the cabinet been watching what goes on in other countries when the government fails the people, such as the Ukraine? People will only take so much before they break.
And £9million to upgrade leisure facilities! Has the cabinet been watching what goes on in other countries when the government fails the people, such as the Ukraine? People will only take so much before they break. JollyJesterTwo

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree