School transpor sutiability / appeal

broke_mum_of_three

My child comes home on the school bus with just the driver and sometimes would be the last to be dropped off, you have to have an element of trust as not everyone is a child abuser.
If you cant get over the issue of trust then you would be better taking the child to school yourself for your own piece of mind.
If a bus isnt available I know that you do get paid petrol allowance, but I wouldnt be begruding my time to take my own children to school as at the end of the day they are my responsibility.

silvercar

A child is allocated a school by the LEA according to the preferences made by the parents in application and the admission criteria for each school. The parent is then told of the school allocated. There is no option to say "I'm rejecting this one due to issues with transport, give me another school."

If you don't want the school place you have 3 options:

1. You can apply for a place at a different school. If the school has no places (remember you have missed the application deadline so this is likely.) your applicaton would be rejected . You could then appeal for the place, your success would be determined by the admission policy of the school place you are appealing.

2. You can decide to send to a private school.

3. You can home educate or delay sending to school until the child turns 5.

There is no option to say "I'm rejecting this one due to issues with transport, give me another school."

If you are unhappy with the transport provision, you can talk to the council, you can talk to your councillor, MP, local press etc but what you can't do is demand another school.

Paparika

Can i ask..

How far away in distance is the school from your home?

kissmeimposh

Becles wrote: »

I think you are over reacting to be honest. The council wouldn't put themselves at risk by sending a potential child molestor to collect your child. I would be happy to send my children in a council provided taxi.

The Council or the molester him/her-self may not know that they are prone to a crime until the opportunity arises. You say you would be happy to send your children, but this isn't a question of that; here we are talking about sending one small child alone and not with siblings.

Becles wrote: »

You should count your blessings that you actually have been provided with some form of transport.

That comment, with respect, is ignorant of the fact and the law that in this case it is a legal duty of the Council to provide adequate and suitable transport - it is not a question of good fortune and blessings have absolutely nothing to do with this. It is quite literally a right.

Becles wrote: »

My 11 year old has just started secondary school. He's been in Catholic feeder school since the nursery class when he was 3, and naturally he wanted to move to the Catholic secondary school with his mates and the lesson structures he is used to. However he can only get on the LEA provided school bus if he and one of his parents are both bapitised into the Catholic church. As he didn't fit this criteria, it means he has to get two public buses (one from our village into the nearest town, walk across town and catch another bus to the city where school is) all by himself

I cannot believe the real reasons are as you describe, and if they are then I would urge you to take legal advice to help determine if you and your child are victims of discrimination.

kissmeimposh

Paparika wrote: »

Can i ask..

How far away in distance is the school from your home?

Approximately 5 miles, far too far to walk, and well over the minimum distance yielding an obligation on the Council to provide transport to the allocated school.

kissmeimposh

silvercar wrote: »

There is no option to say "I'm rejecting this one due to issues with transport, give me another school."

This is not something we are contemplating, so I do not know why you raise this issue. The Council allocated this particular school and did not give us any other choice. This school was not even on our list of preferred schools to begin with, and it is farther than any school we would have preferred. They are obligated to provide suitable transport or to pay the expense of that.

bestpud

I think the biggest problem you have here is defining (or getting the council to define) the words 'suitable' and 'adequate'.

That is the crux of it, as I see it!

I would start with looking at what they normally and/or deem suitable. If they ordinarily provide an escort, then I guess you could question why they are not in your case. If it is needed for six children, then it should also be needed for one, as I see it.

If they don't provide them for all others then you need to start looking wider and arguing there is a good reason why most councils do.

bestpud

kissmeimposh wrote: »

This is not something we are contemplating, so I do not know why you raise this issue. The Council allocated this particular school and did not give us any other choice. This school was not even on our list of preferred schools to begin with, and it is farther than any school we would have preferred. They are obligated to provide suitable transport or to pay the expense of that.

Is your catchment school oversubscribed?

I can't understand why you are having to go so far, and not through choice? Is there actually closer schools?

It is 5.5 miles to dd's school but it was our choice to send her there, hence no transport provided. The catchment school is only about 1.5 miles.

Would you have been provided with transport for your preferred schools?

kissmeimposh

bestpud wrote: »

I think the biggest problem you have here is defining (or getting the council to define) the words 'suitable' and 'adequate'.

That is the crux of it, as I see it!

I would start with looking at what they normally and/or deem suitable.

The law says the Council MUST take age into account. I've queried their normal procedure and recieved contradictory information from them. Also it may well be that their normal procedure, even if their explanation was consistent, might be wrong - or unduly influenced by a desire to save money at the risk of some parents and pupils. So what they think is reasonable may not be reasonable and thus far I have invited but not recieved any reasonable explanation or alternative from them. In the end, they seem to genuinely not care.

bestpud

kissmeimposh wrote: »

The law says the Council MUST take age into account. I've queried their normal procedure and recieved contradictory information from them. Also it may well be that their normal procedure, even if their explanation was consistent, might be wrong - or unduly influenced by a desire to save money at the risk of some parents and pupils. So what they think is reasonable may not be reasonable and thus far I have invited but not recieved any reasonable explanation or alternative from them. In the end, they seem to genuinely not care.

Hmm, I would say age is a BIG factor in this too.

Have you tried your MP? Or even the local paper?

I'm not usually on to go for the press but in this case, I think they need forcing (or embarrassing) into answering your concerns!