Cost of post 16 school transport. Is it legal?

[VivaLeBeaver]

I live in a rural area and the nearest secondary schools are nearly ten miles away.

School buses pick up the village kids but in sixth form there's a charge of £400 a year for this. The argument was always that kids don't have to stay on after Year 11 so if they choose to then they must pay for the bus.

My argument is that now it is compulsory to continue some form of education or training then there is no difference in whether you're in sixth form or Year 11.

Is it worth challenging this cost? The cost is currently subsidised and the council are thinking of removing the subsidy so God knows how much it will cost then.

round here we have 6th form colleges that do not even get the same beneficial VAT treatment that schools get
DDs college are around £300,000 out of pocket every year because of it.

Its deeply galling that in London - where the politicians live - kids travel free on the regulated buses

but in the rest of the country we are left with the utter shambles of deregulated buses and killer fares

it is utterly offensive that Stagecoach are allowed to cut all of the bus services to several villages, part way through the academic year, leaving kids stranded
and face no penalties

it is insane that four bus companies run between Southampton and Winchester - but each pass is only valid on one of them

it is outrageous that bus companies are allowed to stop a route short of its destination for a month, let passenger numbers drop and then cancel it due to lack of demand

but nobody in the Westminster bubble gives a shit because their kids get oyster cards from TfL

No point in challenging it. My eldest is 34yrs and it came in as a new ruling a couple of years before he started in 6th form. Like you he was in his catchment area school but needed a bus from the village.
They are above the legal school leaving age and so they can do it.

Mehitabel6, but how can they be above the legal school leaving age when the govt have made it compulsory that they stay in education or training until 18?

I wonder what would happen if a parent pulled the DC out of 6th form and said they couldn't afford the bus charge to school/college and there was no further training available in a small village?

London has privatised transport too, and there are several private companies under TfL, as well as all the different forms of transport (buses tram, train, DLR, bus, overground, boat, cable car). So the level of integration has always been different, and so policies apply across the network which means across London.

But the fare structure, and other policy, is a local government issue like everywhere else.

Just as Sheffield once had enviably low fares, Londoners are still benefitting from the actions of Red Ken who set the fares concessions.

If you want change in your area, you need councillors who will lobby/pressure/subsidise until you get it.

Horsemad - prh has already explained - it is NOT compulsory to remain in school or college. The school leaving age has NOT gone up.

What would happen if a child left college as they couldn't afford the transport - they would be expected to get an apprenticeship (these are paid - peanuts admittedly but should cover fares). If they don't - nothing would happen.

My dc go by train to school and we have a slightly different problem. Once they turn 16 they are expected to pay full fare, so even though they are still in year 11 and compulsorarily in school, they still have to pay full fare, which is for a whole year if like my dc they are September babies. The irony is that once they are in 6th form they can get a 1/3 off travel in Herts. We have campaigned to get this opened up to the year 11s as well but they wont. Even with the 1/3 off the council is doing its best to save money. We have a flexitime ticket which is much cheaper, but because the way the council fund it we are expected to pay for the more expensive ticket with a 1/3 off. The council buy the other 1/3 so they are spending more money than they have to.

nothing would happen if they left school in those circumstances because technically they don't need to 'GO' anywhere to still be in education or training. my son was being home educated for the last year we were in england - a 16-18 year old would be deemed able to a) stay in a house alone and b) learn autonomously or by correspondence course or c) get a job which had a training element.

presumably the only thing the stay in education or training till 18 rule actually means is that they can't apply for unemployment benefits? so a non academic young person who wants to work, get an aprenticeship etc but can't find one is totally dependent on their parent/s regardless of income or indeed whether the parents are even willing to feed and clothe the child let alone support them in continuing education etc.

would have messed me up as i left home at 17 under the estrangement system (which worked in their favour economically because it's a lot cheaper and simpler to give a 16 or 17 year old some income support and housing benefit for a room in a shared house than it is to find and fund them a place in care- i wonder if this still exists or what happens to teens 16 or over in abusive or otherwise untenable homes?

Good point Horsemad-my sons were before that. I bet they won't go back to free transport!

I think titchy has it right.

edith
An Oyster Card works on all parts of the London transport network.

Here in Southampton, each company has its own system and does not recognise the others.
One road, four bus companies, four different fare systems.

Local councils outside London have no remit for, or right to, regulate fares and discretionary bus passes.
ONLY London is allowed to take a whole network view of transport.

The most disgusting part about it all is that at age 16 opportunities are already only for the well heeled.

I wonder why people are thinking it IS compulsory then?
Can't remember how our school phrased it.

www.gov.uk/know-when-you-can-leave-school

Titchy, I get what you're saying, about it not being compulsory, but realistically how do the govt expect teens who live in rural areas with limited job opportunities to be able to find jobs/training?
Therefore, most will stay on in 6th form or college: but again, if rural there is a £400 bus fare to get to school/college.

It's crazy and it's unfair. Parents are being penalised by ensuring their DC try and better their chances by staying in education.

And, if DC applying to agricultural college get free transport that is discriminatory, imo.

Oh I agree it's not fair at all.

Just worked out dd will cost us £20 a week.

I have heard that in my LA, they do not pay for transport to the grammar schools because the local secondary moderns are deemed capable of educating all children. The free school near my mum takes all ability children too so people are having to pay from 11 onwards if their chidren attend the nearest state grammar schools and, therefore, have been selected to attend these schools. They appear to have got around the travel issue by deeming that all schools take all pupil whilst maintaining a selective system. This must cause financial problems to some families. They then wonder why there are hardly any fsm children in the grammar schools!

I currently pay £525 a year for my each of my two dc to go to school. Our local tory council stopped anybody qualifying for free transport in our area and also stopped subsidising the fares.

The prices have understandably gone up and the tickets are now only valid for to and from school and not evenings and weekends, which until then had at least theoretically made the £400 more acceptable.

It actually costs me less than half as much per mile to travel to work by train.

Just for clarity, this was set up by the previous government, not the current one.

The rules are that young people affected must:

• continue in full time education or training, or
• take up an apprenticeship, or
• enter a full time occupation and take part in sufficient relevant training or education

Many LAs have never provided free transport for sixth formers. Some have but there has never been a legal requirement for them to do so.

They then wonder why there are hardly any fsm children in the grammar schools

FSM children have additional entitlements to free transport. Post 11 they are entitled to free transport to any school that is more than 2 miles and less than 6 miles from home provided there are no more than 2 schools nearer home than their chosen school. So, provided the grammar school is less than 6 miles from home and is one of their 3 nearest schools, they are entitled to free transport. Also, if the parents of an FSM child want their child to attend a faith school, they can get free transport to the nearest school of the relevant faith provided it is between 2 and 15 miles from home.

Our local tory council stopped anybody qualifying for free transport in our area

That simply isn't possible. In the past many LAs were providing free transport to pupils who were not legally entitled to it but most (possibly all) LAs of all political colours have stopped doing so. Indeed, most stopped doing so years ago. However, an LA cannot decide to stop free transport completely. If a child is entitled to free transport by law the LA must provide it. Even if the LA managed to provide everyone with a place at their nearest school there would still be SEN and FSM children, and children with disabilities or mobility problems who would be entitled to free transport.

"ONLY London is allowed to take a whole network view of transport."

I'm not sure this is correct. Newcastle has an integrated system, and student concessions. And I'm sure there must be other places too.

It might not be a role councils have by right, but there's nothing to stop them sorting it out by negotiation.

I don't think it is fair, but since they have been doing it for 20 yrs I can't see it changing.

but there's nothing to stop them sorting it out by negotiation.
yes there is - competition law that stops councils undercutting commercial services

Southampton Citybus got fined HUGE amounts for setting the bus to meet the ferry and thus reducing the taxi companies income
the bus company then got privatised and fragmented

Hampshire County Council cannot persuade Stagecoach to run services to small villages - and an outright subsidy would be illegal

DS1 will have to pay over £200 per term from September. I've known it was coming though.

I find it odd that his affluent grandparents have free bus travel, but he has to pay for the school bus.

Where I live they stopped funding buses on the ground of faith a few years ago, and are now muttering about grammar schools. They will get away with it because we have grammars, secondary moderns and comprehensives here.

TBH I'm just glad there is a school bus at all as there is no easy public transport to my DCs school.

There's free travel on the buses in London but they are not always the easiest or most direct route and if your child needs to use the tube they have to pay. When I went to grammar school in the 70s I got fee train travel outside London because we lived more than 3 miles away. The children who lived two stops on and who were 2.95 miles away used to cycle to school to save the fares. I wouldn't let a child of mine cycle to school across London.

OTH I think education is a privilege and it is free. Is it really unreasonable to expect parents to pay their children's fares to school if they are not in receipt of benefits? Not sure to be honest. If there's a closer school which isn't as high up the league tables should one really have fares paid to the better school further away.

I think I'd rather see FSM children given the choices as a step towards equality of opportunity than this to be blanket entitlement if I'm honest.

Hope people see what I mean here.

given they've stopped payments to help young people stay in education post 16 and are demanding from now on they be in education or training of some form then really free transport is needed. kids who aren't academic/staying in their schools are either having to travel to FE colleges further away or to very low paid apprenticeships, jobs with training elements etc as they don't qualify for minimum wage legislation.

there's now a gap where low income families whose children previously got EMP (is that what it was called?) which would have covered buses, equipment needed, possibly their lunch at college etc need to find that money out of the air in a time of tax credit reductions, freezes to child benefit, falling wages in real terms etc.

not sure how they're supposed to manage that.