School transport post 16 in 2013

Own_My_Own

silvercar wrote: »

Will the existing schools have to keep pupils on? SOme pupils will be better suited to GNVQs and the like, if a particular school doesn't offer them, can they direct the pupil to study elsewhere? Many schools round here are setting certain standards to allow pupils to take 3/4 A levels - generally requiring at least 5 B gcse grades, if pupils don't meet this they are directed to NVQs and the like.

If their grades are good enough, I can't see how they can refuse them.
But just because their grades are ok , doesn't mean they want to be there.

Any what if nobody can take them. Surely as a pupil of a school they cannot be expelled because the school doesn't want them.

If education ends at 18, how do you make someone leave school at 16 who doesn't want to.

Really there will be no more 6th form. It will be years 13 and 14, with the option of the pupil moving to another form of education if they wish to.

*debbie*

It is sooo unclear, all this 'which year group is affected by the changes' malarky. My DS is in year 11 and has been informed that it is his year group that is first affected, with them needing to be in full time education until 17 years. Like the OP, we will need to cough up for his transport, he will be going to the 'local school' - over 7 miles away - and the cost is over £400 a year. We will really struggle to find that, and as our income is now £33k he doesn't fit into the EMA funding bracket.

I can really understand having to pay for it if you chose to send your child to a different school to tha catchment one, or when they no longer legally have to be at school, but this is just taking the p*ss.

How about Martin taking a look at it? It has been brought up in the HOuses of Parliament but nothing has been decided.

securityguy

Sorry, but you're all somewhat mis-informed. For example "with them needing to be in full time education until 17 years" is complete nonsense.

The policy change is that everyone will need to remain in some form of education or training until they are seventeen (starting 2013) or eighteen (starting 2015) . That includes a wide variety of options, most of them not based in schools, most of them part time.

Given the way in which school gate rumour and head teachers' pronouncements both tend to be wrong, let's do this with official sources. The original proposals state:

But continuing in learning until 18 does not mean staying on at school. Young people will be able to choose one of the following routes2:
●● full-time education, such as school, college or home education;
●● work-based learning, such as an Apprenticeship; or
●● part-time training, alongside working or volunteering for over 20 hours a week.

However, elements of enforcement have been postponed. See Hansard for July last year.

You can read a summary of the difference between what some of you are concerned about, and reality, here.

fluffnutter

TheBees wrote: »

My question is..... Why should i have to pay for a bus pass from september if the government says she must remain in education.

Um, because she's your kid and you want the best for her, including an education?

Jeez, what a depressing attitude. Always something for nothing with some people, isn't it? Why should I pay for this? Why should I pay for that? Stop bloody moaning.

silvercar

There are plenty of options other than the official school bus:

walking, cycling, getting lifts, rotas of parents, learning to drive, public buses.

Half way through the lower sixth, there were enough students that had passed their test that my son was often getting lifts making paying for the school bus pass uneconomic.

Seanymph

*debbie* wrote: »

and as our income is now £33k he doesn't fit into the EMA funding bracket.

(

There is no EMA any longer as far as I'm aware - there are only bursaries now.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/family/2011/03/ema-replacement-fund-unveiled-to-help-poorest-school-kids

TheBees

Well that caused a discussion! Thank you for all your POV's, I think my original point has been misinterpreted! Of course I am going to pay for her transport costs as there is currently no alternative, because she wants to stay on at the school she has attended since year 7 and take her A Levels. My concern is for parents who might not be able to afford what is a sizeable expense. Looking at some of the replies;

- She is in the first cohort that has to stay on, thanks for the web link, see quote from it below!!

"In England, if you’re currently in year 11 you must stay in education or training until the end of the academic year when you turn 17."

She currently has to get the bus to her "local" school as it is over 5 miles away, cycling/walking is out of the question due to safety, lift sharing is a non starter as we both go to work earlier and finish later than school hours and she can't learn to drive until she is 17. When she goes to 6th Form, she will have to catch a public bus to get to school which is what the £300 bus pass is for.

My original point is why if it has been free since she was in year 7 and now the Government want her to stay in education (which we do too) can they not continue providing transport for another year? She is staying at the same school and not going a different one all of which are further distance to travel.

As for using the Child Benefit - It was not intended for bus fares.

Anyway, I look forward to reading any further responses but I feel that this is just another expense that we have to shoulder to keep government statistics on NEETS down!!

TheBees

I think *debbie* is on the same wavelength and understands what I am getting at!:T

*debbie* wrote: »

I can really understand having to pay for it if you chose to send your child to a different school to tha catchment one, or when they no longer legally have to be at school, but this is just taking the p*ss.

How about Martin taking a look at it? It has been brought up in the HOuses of Parliament but nothing has been decided.

rochja

Just dealing with transport logistics. The option that does become available at age 16 is a provisional moped licence. On a personal note, having ridden a moped, if I really hated someone enough I would probably buy them a moped in the hope they would finish themselves off on it. Those small wheels get distracted by everything and you get sucked into the side of anything bigger than a Fiat 500, but it is a possible choice. I would like to pose a question though. Does anybody know if a young person decided to do some part time course alongside volunteering woulf the parents receive CB? Volunteering can be a very effective way of getting into a field of work you want