Free school transport

[Sheldonsheher]

Curious someone from my daughter’s class gets free school bus to and from school. They live 1.5 miles down a country road so not that far buy not safe to walk. Does this really qualify you for council transport. I mean if you choose to live somewhere unsuitable for a child to walk should you not have to drive them yourself. Everyone else including myself have to do the school run every day and surely this is something the parents should be responsible for when they choose where they are going to live.

My kids get a taxi paid for them to and from school every day, so a lot more cost per kid than a bus. I probably make you furious @Sheldonsheher. But we live rural and it isn’t even a safe walking route to a good point for a bus to collect them so they have to be collected from our house in a taxi. As it should be. Unless you want to empty rural areas of children and families?

(My kids did walk when we lived elsewhere, so I haven’t done it their whole school career. Only high school).

The local authority have a duty to offer a school to all children over compulsory school age.

They're fulfilling their legal obligation to this child by ensuring they can access school because the local authority have also not made the walking route safe.

It's absolutely none of your business to be honest, but if you want, you could petition the local authority to ensure there is a safe, well lit walking route.

I can imagine they won't take much notice though as planning, purchasing land, removing trees and foliage, having a wildlife assessment, hiring and construction are timely and expensive processes which would ultimately cost the tax payer more whereas a school lifetime for a single child would not cost as much.

It would be better if the UK followed the US practice of big yellow school buses taking children to school/home.

Examples of better practice exist and the UK remains blind/oblivious to them. Is it arrogance or stupidity?

Where I live you only get free school transport under 3 miles if the child has a disability which affects their ability to walk to school safely.

You wouldn't want to have to deal with a disability and all the shit that goes with that so no need to be jealous of a child.

All the kids in our village have free school transport (until 6th form then the seat has to be paid for), which is just as well because there is literally no other way to get them there on time if the other child is in primary school.

Thanks for all comments. I was mainly posting because I just didn’t realise free Transport was a thing. I assumed you were responsible for getting kids to school. Unless it was in the country taking kids from village to another high school from a designated pick up point/ or disabled children to specialist schools. Not free taxis from your door etc.

I was also taking about specific scenarios as where I live is on the edge of a buildup developed area but there are a few more pretend rural properties down county lanes with no pavements. These are not farmers this is a middle class lifestyle choice living a bit rural through choice and only a mile or two distance. So was genuinely surprised that this means you get tax payer funded free transport.

They have a duty to offer schooling, they don't have a duty to get the children.

And it is every tax taxpayers business

Schools are provided because it is the law that all children of school age are entitled to a suitable education. It is then the parents' legal responsibility to provide - either by attending school or home schooling.

It isn't the law that government has to provide free transport for all children - only in specific cases.

Where does it stop? Do you think we should pay the cost of travel for parents' getting their children to doctors/dentists appointments (again I know there are specific circumstances where this does, and shouldn't apply).

I just think this country has gone to far towards an 'entitled' attitude.

'too' not 'to' - I hate typos!😂

Its hardly a whats the country coming to thing, its been the case for decades that transport is provided over a certain distance if its the nearest suitable school.

There are schools in rural areas with less than 5 pupils... are they a "waste" too? The argument fir them its too far for the children to travel to an alternative school.

If you had read the thread you would see that I am not talking about all cases. I specifically say there are exceptions. But many people on this thread opened the discussion up to say that free transport should be provided to all children, or that just because they choose live a certain distance away from a school all other tax payers should pay the cost of getting their children to school.

In my opinion it is part of what this country is coming to. We have far too many people with an 'entitled' attitudes instead of taking responsibility for themselves

Free transport for eligible children was introduced under the Education Act 1996, so 30 years ago.

The cost is staggering but unless the way school places are organised changes, it will continue.

DD1(with SN) used to go to college 20 miles away. She had taxi transport with 2 other students. DDs 2&3 (with SN) also go to a school 10 miles away and have taxi transport. They can't go by minibus because there aren't enough students that go to that school from their area. So they get door to door transport. In bigger towns they do group pupils and have a pick up point.

My LA is actually building a new special school for SEMH, probably because they spend huge amounts on independent schools because of a lack of provision, and then they have to pay for transport too. It makes much more sense to build schools that are suitable.

Rarely, transport is given outside of the prescribed criteria. An example would be a pupil who lived relatively close but for social reasons had high absence because the parent was unable to cope with getting them to school on time, so just didn't. Providing transport ensured the child got an education and that's hopefully a child who will go on to be a productive adult.

I always try to remember that whenever Governments spend money it's because the cost of not doing so is higher in the long term.

Hence what t said about 'exceptions.'

As an aside I think sentence 'I always try to remember that whenever Governments spend money it's because the cost of not doing so is higher in the long term' is beyond misguided in the age of current governments, who throw around left, right and centre.

So in your opinion who shouldn't be allowed Free School Transport? You keep talking about exceptions, but not explained exactly who should and shouldn't.

This has been the case for as long as I can remember. I get more annoyed about the parents at our local school who don't put their children on the free school bus as they just add to the parking chaos around the school.
At our school it's not just very rural children that qualify. There is a huge 'village' with no facilities, sandwiched between 2 very major roads. It is about 1.5 miles to school but there is absolutely no safe walking route, so there's a coach.

The exceptions would be too long to list but some have been quoted on here eg SNs etc.

There are people on here that think every child should have free transport at teh cost to the taxpayer. I disagree with that

In your opinion do you think all children should get free transport? If you have children do you think other people should pay to get them to school?

When village schools were closed in the past, presumably the council worked out that it would be cheaper to provide transport than to keep the school open. Our village school was closed in the middle of the last century, and the kids from this village all picked up by minibus and taken to a school just over 3 miles away.

I was a secondary in the late 70's early 80's and we had free transport then, so it's been going on for a lot longer than 30 years.

Same - early to mid 80s for me and I had a bus pass.

got me out of Games early too coz there was only one bus out home so I couldn’t stay. Shame.

Free school transport came in with 1944 Education Act. As both Conservative and Labour governments have maintained it subsequently, it's fair to assume that both reckon it's a sensible use of taxpayers' money.

I don't have any problem with free school transport for qualifying children.

But I do think, for environmental reasons, it would be better to have transport for all instead - not free but subsidised to no more than the cost of petrol if parents were doing it themselves. There could be walking buses in areas with lots of children living a mile or less from their school and actual buses for longer distances. The taxis and minbuses for more rural children and specialist schools would need to remain but most could pay the subsidised rate instead of them being free. That would help fund subsidised transport for all instead of free transport for a few. In cases where parents needed the transport and couldn't afford even the subsidised cost, it could operate like free school meals and they wouldn't need to pay.

Both my 2 were bussed to the Academy 7 miles away and at primary all out lying areas got free school bus as not safe to walk. This will totally blow your mind in Scotland all children under 22 get free bus travel

Well, you're wrong.

Under section 508B of the Education Act 1996 councils must make free transport arrangements for eligible children.

Because the law says that children have to go to school. It’s a state decision not a parental one.