Following the letter last week from the Isle of Wight’s clergy to councillor David Pugh over plans to scrap discretionary concessionary bus fares to faith schools, Cllr Pugh yesterday sent the following response. He forward to VB to share with our readers. Ed
Consultation on the discretionary provision of transport for faith schools
From Council Leader, David Pugh to The Ven Caroline Baston (and others), Archdeacon of the Isle of Wight
Thank you for the letter, dated 9th May 2011, signed by yourself and other clergy and Christian representatives on the Island, regarding the above. I note the concerns of both you and your colleagues at the proposal to withdraw the discretionary provision of home-to-school transport for faith schools.
Firstly, I should reiterate and confirm the support of the Isle of Wight Council, under my leadership, for the role that faith education plays in contributing to our education system and our efforts to improve attainment. We consider that a pluralistic and diverse education system is essential for the Island, and we have sought to reflect this at both primary and secondary level by the approach we have taken in recent years. Faith schools form a key element of this plurality and diversity, offering choice to Island parents – and indeed now for the first time throughout the statutory education age range. We consider that our stance has been demonstrated in a number of ways – such as supporting the establishment of Christ the King College and the more recent decision to allocate over £7m of our capital funding to build a new voluntary aided primary school in Ventnor. The local authority has worked in close partnership with both dioceses to bring these projects, among others, forward. Our strong support for faith education remains unchanged – despite suggestions to the contrary.
It is clear from legislation that the Council is not obliged to offer free travel to faith schools (except in certain prescribed circumstances) and that the Council can exercise its discretion as to whether such free travel is provided. The fact that the Council has exercised such a discretion in the past does not mean that it should always do so, particularly as circumstances, priorities and available resources change over time. Furthermore, you may well be aware that discretionary transport for faith schools is being reviewed by a number of local authorities, and in many cases has already been removed or significantly reduced. This has been reviewed in these other areas for many of the same reasons that I am outlining in this letter.
The decision to review the discretionary element of home-to-school transport for faith schools on the Isle of Wight was not taken lightly. It was made in the context of the Isle of Wight Council needing to achieve savings of approximately £17m in the current financial year, and an expected further £8m in 2012/13 – with additional financial challenges to follow, not least due to significant reductions in government funding. This situation has caused the local authority to review all spending, particularly in discretionary areas (such as this) where we have greater flexibility to make local decisions.
We have therefore determined to look at the sustainability of continuing to provide discretionary transport to faith schools, particularly where our costs are continuing to increase and the funding from central government is significantly reducing. With the closure of the 13 middle schools on the Island this summer there will inevitably be an increase in the number of pupils (Year 7 and Year 8 who were previously in middle schools) travelling to
the new secondary schools, with additional cost. At the same time there will be a reduction in the cost of transporting Year 5 and Year 6 pupils who will now attend their local primary schools. However, overall there will be an increased requirement for approximately 6-8 additional buses increasing the cost of the school lift. Last year’s school lift cost the Council £2.2m and it is estimated that this will increase to £2.5m. The school lift is a legal requirement on local authorities in order to meet our statutory obligations. With our overall resources going down significantly and the potential cost of home-to-school transport (including faith) going up significantly as a result of the adjustments described above, we consider that it is now an appropriate time to fully review whether this discretion can be sustained for the new age range.
As you know, parents tend to choose a school for their children based on a range of factors, with religion / belief being only one of those factors. Ethos, reputation, location, facilities, curriculum, extra curricular activities, convenience and accessibility are other factors that often apply. A number of parents on the Island opt not for their most local (and catchment area) school, but make a pro-active alternative choice to send their children to a school in other location, taking into account a range of factors such as those outlined above. In exercising such an alternative choice (or strictly speaking a “preference”, as part of the application process) the vast majority of these parents forgo either the opportunity to walk their children to a nearby school, or their entitlement to receive free transport in the circumstances of their catchment area school being that bit further away. In making such an alternative choice, these parents are placing upon themselves the requirement to get their children to and from those schools, entirely at their own cost (other than when certain circumstances apply).
It is therefore considered wholly inequitable that when parents choose a secondary school based on their holding of a particular religion or belief they are given a unique entitlement to free transport which is not made available to parents when choosing a school based on other factors. It also potentially distorts the exercising of a genuine choice being made between schools due to the clear financial incentivisation to send to one particular school over another.
If parents make a school choice on religious grounds, based on holding a particular set of beliefs that are aligned to a particular school’s religious character, it is surely not equitable that they are entitled to positive discrimination (and selective financial benefit) in exercising that choice when other parents who make education choices based on not having a set of beliefs in line with that particular school’s character are effectively discriminated against (in comparison). In summary, it cannot be at all equitable to have a narrow entitlement to free transport for a particular set of parents based on a choice made due to their religion / belief when other parents are not entitled to similar (or any) such support for choices made due to alternative religion / beliefs and / or other factors. One of the key arguments for implementing the council’s proposed changes is that in future all parents would be treated broadly equitably, irrespective of what choice they make, and for what reasons – and regardless of their religion or belief or lack of it. This would clearly be a fairer and more equitable transport policy, and would be seen to be so as well, in the interests of the parents of all pupils.
I reject the suggestion made in your letter that the Council would be denying parents the means to exercise the choice of a faith education. Parents would still be fully able, through the admissions process, to exercise the choice of a faith education. However they would need to be aware, unless they are entitled to free transport by qualifying under the means test (for low incomes), that in making such a choice they would need to meet the cost themselves – just like parents in the vast majority of other circumstances do.
We recognise that some parents may have taken the availability of discretionary transport for faith schools into account when choosing Christ the King College for their children. It is because of this that we are not proposing to bring this into being until September 2012 at the earliest, and furthermore we are consulting on a range of options, with varying degrees of phased timescales for implementation, as set out below:
- For all subsidised faith school transport to cease from September 2012.
- For all subsidised faith school transport to cease from September 2012 for new entrants, but to continue for existing recipients until they reach the end of compulsory education.
- For all subsidised faith school transport to cease from September 2012 for new entrants, but to continue for existing recipients until they reach the end of their current key stage.
We recognise that the second and third options would, to varying degrees, mitigate the impact in relation to existing pupils, and no doubt the representations to the consultation will indicate views on these options taking this into account.
I note the points made in your letter about the potential impact on family finances and the affordability of parents funding home-to-school transport themselves. This concern is partly addressed by the statutory requirement to provide free transport to the nearest school preferred by reason of a parent’s religion or belief
pupils who are entitled to free school meals or whose family are in receipt of their maximum level of Working Tax Credit, where that school is between 2 and 15 miles. For other households, this will be a matter of financial prioritisation, just like it is for other households who exercise an alternative school choice, for other reasons.
I recognise that there may be a desire amongst some parents for continued transport provision to be funded in other ways; or at least for alternative, affordable and accessible provision be put in place. The local authority is open to receiving suggestions from the diocesan authorities, local churches, schools and parents themselves as to how continued discretionary provision could be alternatively financed; however in order to deliver the savings required this would have to be at no ongoing cost to the Isle of Wight Council. We recognise that there would be benefits of combining the delivery of continued / alternative provision with the statutory service, and therefore if alternative funding was available, we could look at how this could work in practice. We are also opening up a dialogue with Southern Vectis to discuss what alternative provision could be put in place.
Furthermore, we are conscious that in introducing these changes, we do not wish to simply reverse the unfairness. One area that has already been highlighted in responses is that children from certain parts of the Island – such as Freshwater and Ventnor – already receive an entitlement to free transport to Newport secondary schools (to Carisbrooke and Medina respectively). Concern has been raised that under the proposed changes, a child would, for example, be entitled to free transport to Carisbrooke High (Carisbrooke College) but not to Christ the King College, despite it being on the same road. It has been suggested to us that in the circumstances where a child is entitled to free transport to Newport for a community secondary school (as their catchment area school) then that entitlement should be transferable for the provision of free transport to Christ the King College, as another Newport school. We will give consideration to this particular suggestion, and I know that councillors from these respective areas have raised this as an issue, and will continue to do so, in advance of the final decision being made.
I hope that this detailed response is helpful in outlining the Council’s position and responding to some of the concerns which have been raised. I have written at some length in order to address a range of points that have been made about this matter (not just from you and your colleagues) over recent weeks. I should also advise you that I am releasing a copy of this letter to the local media. I would not normally circulate such correspondence to the press, but I consider it is necessary on this occasion due to the original letter having been provided to a number of outlets.
I appreciate that you are your colleagues are unlikely to be in agreement with a number of the points I have made, but I hope you will understand why the Council has taken this stance. I would like to reassure you that no final decision has been made, and we will consider the responses to the consultation in detail before proceeding to a final decision as to how to implement the proposed changes.
For the record, the local authority also rejects the suggestion made by some campaigners that the consultation is flawed or unlawful. These claims have been made in a series of communications to us directly and through the media, and we will be responding to these claims in separate correspondence. The consultation will continue for the period as agreed and set out.
I would be happy to meet with you and your colleagues to discuss this matter further, if you consider that this would be helpful.
Yours sincerely
Councillor David Pugh
Leader of the Isle of Wight Council
