Free school transport

Someone had a dig at me recently about the fact my three youngest children all get free transport to school.

We moved into a street with a primary school literally in the street and a secondary school 15 minutes, safe, walk away.

The eldest 3 kids went to those schools.

The next two went to the primary school, but now get bussed 40 minutes away to a different secondary. The local one was left with damage so long it became non-cost effective to fix, so all the kids are bussed to a bigger school further away. At some point they'll have to build a high school as the school site has new houses and the site of an old factory has houses - all planned before the school closure and now the bigger school is bursting at the seams with pupils.

Youngest DD is taken in a taxi to school 45 minutes away as it's the nearest school that can deal with her physical disabilities.
No child in a wheelchair can attend the local primary. This will be rectified in 2029 when the school is rebuilt apparently.

The parent chose to live there

As pp said, we all pay for children to have a state education. I see little difference in ensuring that they can actually get there.

Transport to school is hardly a luxury.

I completely agree in scenarios like this

But why should all taxpayers pay for your children? Not all tax payers have children. What is wrong with a person paying for their own children?

Yes children need to be educated. They also need to be fed, clothed, entertained, transported to the doctors every c etc. Should everyone else pay for that too? Getting a child to school is just part of the overall cost of raising a child, all of which should be thought about when deciding how many children you can afford to have.

My son's got transport to school because of their learning disabilities. It wasn't obvious to anyone looking on that they had disabilities, so maybe it's something like that.

In my opinion, it is about living your life within your means and not expecting other people to pay fir you/your children

They didn't choose to live on a road that doesn't have pavements. The LA chose that it's cheaper to provide transport than provide equal facilities to your area.

Why are “taxpayers paying” and parents getting it “free”? Surely if parents are tax payers, they are not paying any less than anyone else?

I live in the US and for all its flaws, rampant capitalism and obsession with personal responsibility, it’s interesting how no one seems to dispute the right to “free” school buses. In our state, it’s just accepted that children need to be educated, and if that’s going to happen at a public school, transport should be provided.

To encourage people to use them for a start. If people can't afford them then they obviously won't use them and there will still be lots more cars on the roads near schools at those times.

It isn't about the parents, it's about the children and what would benefit them as well as society.

Children are entitled to free education. They can't access it if there isn't appropriate transport. Where do you draw the line on who is or isn't entitled? as that's not really clear from your posts @Morley19

My kids got free transport to secondary school because we were living in an area with no pavements. There was a walking route through fields and woods but it was not safe due to the fact that it would have been dark for much of the year while they were walking.

OP, local authorities have a statutory responsibility to ensure children can get to school. There is an expectation that secondary school children get themselves to school and primary school children are accompanied by their parents.

I spent 6 months arguing my case with our LA. They kept on telling me that they only provided transport for children with disabilities. They caved in when I quoted the law from the government website - which I'm sure they knew all along.

That way of thinking……if I have 1 or 3 or 5 children then other tax payers should pay to get them to school represents one of the hundreds of things that are wrong with this country, in my opinion.

It is the same principle that should apply to everything in life…. have what you can afford.

have as many children as you want but, if you can’t afford to pay the cost of raising them, don’t expect others to pay for you

Everyone will have different opinions on what the would/would rather not pay for but this thread is specifically talking about school buses.

I have already said a few times that I can see the practical benefits of using buses rather than lots of cars but I don’t see why that translates into the buses should be free?

obviously the no 5 was just an example. But you are missing the point. The point isn’t whether there should be a bus for 1,2,3,4,5….. children. The point is ‘why do you expect other people to pay for it for you?’

I can think of far many more things I'd rather not pay for. Children getting to school wouldn't even make my top 50 list.

I've already explained why including that it would also be beneficial to the areas near schools with having less cars on the road, less traffic and less pollution which is all beneficial for the children.

Most people don't have 5 children but if they did, yes, would be a bit odd saying school bus for you and you but not you child 3, 4 and 5.

Because I don’t think people, whether they are parents or not, should have to pay to get other people’s children to school.

I agree with all the practical points about efficiency of using buses but don’t understand why people think they should get it for free.

You mention every child should get free bus passes. So if people have, for example, 5 children, you think it is for the rest of the taxpayers to pay to get them to school? Why? Why is it not the parents’ responsibility?

If public buses aren't available, it will be the most efficient way for the children to get to school. Makes sense to me that it's free so every child has the option.

Even with public buses, children have to go to school so I'm not against children getting free bus passes for school.

Why are you so against it?

Am asking purely out of curiosity, not to be argumentative, why do you think they should be free?

If you are talking about me I don’t live in London

Are you talking about me or pp? If me, I haven't complained about it at all.

I think school buses are a great idea, especially when public buses aren't available and it should absolutely be free. I agree it's far more efficient than everyone driving.

Its sort of ironic for a poster who would appear to be in London, where U16s get free buses complain about children in other parts of the country getting free transport...

There isn't a public bus service connecting all the villages in our school catchment zone with the school. So yes, there is a school bus. A lot more efficient than them all be driven by a parent.

But why should the bus passes be free?

Paying for a bus passes for a child would still alleviate the problems you mention

I can see an argument for at least free bus passes etc to encourage people to use buses when possible rather than cars which would help reduce how crazy it can get with traffic and parking around schools at pick up/drop off times and make it safer for the children.

Yes I agree with that. But I don’t agree with people thinking they are entitled to it, just because they live a certain distance away etc Which I appreciate you weren’t implying, sorry I skim read your message.

it is topical as I was reading a chain on FB earlier where someone was complaining about the cost of bus passes and how expensive it was because they had 4 children, stating that parents should not have to pay for transport to get children to school. That is what I disagree with.