Nice People Thread No. 15, a Cyber Summer

SingleSue

LydiaJ wrote: »

Getting the local authority to pay is harder than it used to be. If it's your *nearest* school (or the nearest school that your authority has designated to serve your address, and the shortest safe *walking* route is longer than *3 miles*, then you should get help with transport. If you qualify on low income grounds, then this is a bit more flexible - it can be any one of your nearest three schools, and the walking distance only has to be further than 2 miles. There is nothing in the policy about what happens if your nearest school is full, and the school that has a space for you is far enough away to qualify for assistance. At least, that's the policy here. Other counties may differ.

Presumably if the policy thinks it's OK for children to walk 2.9 miles to school (if the parents can't affor to pay for transport) then it should take them about the same amount of time to walk 2.9 miles in the country as in a town? I wonder how many children actually do walk 2.9 miles to school these days? It would be interesting to find some statistics.

DD obviously does not qualify, which is fine, because it was our choice for her to go to a school further away, and we knew how much the bus would cost when we chose it. The fastest driving route to her school is about 11 miles, and takes 20 minutes if there's no traffic or more like 30-35 minutes in rush hour. She goes on a school bus that only runs once in each direction at the beginning and end of the school day, in term time only. Registration is at 8:30. She catches a bus at 7:34 that goes round our area picking up before driving to the town where her school is, where it drops children at one other school before it goes to hers. It gets her to school for 8:15 on a good day, and just in time for registration if the traffic is bad.

The school bus is much more expensive than an ordinary bus, and if she has after school activities then I have to go and pick her up. Yesterday, out of interest, I looked up how early she would have to leave to get to school by public transport if the school bus was not available. The shortest route would involve 2 buses with a 20 minute wait between them and a 10 minute walk at the school end, and she would have to leave at 6:45 and get there at 8:10. However, she could catch a later bus, at 6:55, and do a *30 mile* journey via a town a lot further away, and get there at 8:22. I think we'll stick with the school bus!

When Josh was perm excluded from his primary school, it was the LEA in discussion with local schools who decided which school he eventually returned to. The next nearest already had youngest and they felt it would be too much to take Josh on too, the next 3 said no outright and it was the one furthest away and the last school in the town who agreed to take him on, it was not our choice.

Walking distance to the school was well over the 3 mile mark, he was a known differing need student who was not able to walk on his own due to his disabilities and of course, by that point, we were a low income family.

They refused free school transport and it was up to me to get two children to two different schools, 5 miles apart at the same time. I appealed it, both schools appealed it, the outreach service appealed it but it was still refused.

LydiaJ

SingleSue wrote: »

Walking distance to the school was well over the 3 mile mark, he was a known differing need student who was not able to walk on his own due to his disabilities and of course, by that point, we were a low income family.

They refused free school transport and it was up to me to get two children to two different schools, 5 miles apart at the same time. I appealed it, both schools appealed it, the outreach service appealed it but it was still refused.

That's appalling! :eek::eek::eek:

SingleSue

It certainly meant a very stressful time at a point in my life when I really didn't need it.

Thankfully the head master of youngest's school came up with a plan which not only solved the problem of getting two children to two different schools at the same time but also the problem of actually getting youngest out of the car and into the school....he organised for him to arrive 30 minutes earlier than all the other children and leave 30 minutes earlier at the end of the day.

The result was a less stressed me, a less stressed and anxious youngest who actually willingly went into school and didn't have meltdowns at the end of the day, less stressed school staff and an on time arrival for Josh at his school.

I loved that headmaster....:rotfl:

It was so successful in reducing the stress for youngest that they rolled it out for other children with autism who were finding the crowds of those arriving and leaving too much for them to deal with and found it worked equally well with them too, thus reducing the stress for all the staff and the disruption for the other students.

LydiaJ

SingleSue wrote: »

It certainly meant a very stressful time at a point in my life when I really didn't need it.

Thankfully the head master of youngest's school came up with a plan which not only solved the problem of getting two children to two different schools at the same time but also the problem of actually getting youngest out of the car and into the school....he organised for him to arrive 30 minutes earlier than all the other children and leave 30 minutes earlier at the end of the day.

The result was a less stressed me, a less stressed and anxious youngest who actually willingly went into school and didn't have meltdowns at the end of the day, less stressed school staff and an on time arrival for Josh at his school.

I loved that headmaster....:rotfl:

It was so successful in reducing the stress for youngest that they rolled it out for other children with autism who were finding the crowds of those arriving and leaving too much for them to deal with and found it worked equally well with them too, thus reducing the stress for all the staff and the disruption for the other students.

Perfect! What a brilliant solution. The world needs more people who can find creative ways round problems like that.

vivatifosi

SingleSue wrote: »

The issue there is that there are some parents who are invested in their children's education but unfortunately no matter how hard they try to find the money, are unable to actually afford the school commute.

I would have loved for the boys to have gone to a different high school but there was no way my budget would stretch to what would have been a termly bill of £300 or £400 (at least) on top of everything else, my finances were cut to the bone as it was with no spare pennies to pay the additional transport costs.

Not having children, I am no expert on education. I can't help wondering though, if a way of equalizing opportunity for bright kids from poorer areas would be to open grammar schools in the most deprived areas and factor in not only the brightness of the child, but also factors such as whether free school meals are qualified.

The counter argument I guess is that it could cause other local schools to flounder.

Up early this morning as was due to book something in the US at midnight their time, only to find that the window didn't open as promised.

Doozergirl

vivatifosi wrote: »

Not having children, I am no expert on education. I can't help wondering though, if a way of equalizing opportunity for bright kids from poorer areas would be to open grammar schools in the most deprived areas and factor in not only the brightness of the child, but also factors such as whether free school meals are qualified.

The counter argument I guess is that it could cause other local schools to flounder.

Up early this morning as was due to book something in the US at midnight their time, only to find that the window didn't open as promised.

The Birmingham grammar schools allocate 20% of places to 'Pupil Premium' children, that being children entitled to free school meals at some point in primary school. They do that by offering to the top 20% of PP scores. It means the required score is about 10% lower for some of those children.

At least three of the schools are located in slap bang in deprived areas, but being a city, they're all accessible.

SingleSue

We could have accessed scholarships, some of them full for fee paying schools in Ipswich, the only issue there was again transport from here (£500 per term per child I think at the time, might have been more but memory fades, know it made me wince!) the additional costs as standard not covered by the scholarship and whether they would have taken Josh and youngest on with their statements.

I very almost did it for youngest because of his maths skills but at the time he appeared to be doing well in the state sector and was being well supported. Josh was a more difficult one because of his perm exclusion, I was too embarrassed to even ask!

ivyleaf

Sue What a clever head to think of that :T

silvercar

SingleSue wrote: »

The issue there is that there are some parents who are invested in their children's education but unfortunately no matter how hard they try to find the money, are unable to actually afford the school commute.

I would have loved for the boys to have gone to a different high school but there was no way my budget would stretch to what would have been a termly bill of £300 or £400 (at least) on top of everything else, my finances were cut to the bone as it was with no spare pennies to pay the additional transport costs.

The government did try to address this, by offering free transport to any of the 3 nearest schools that are over 3 miles away for low income families but only the nearest school for those not on a low income.

Within the London boundary, every child is entitled to a free bus pass and also free tubes for under 16s.

vivatifosi wrote: »

Not having children, I am no expert on education. I can't help wondering though, if a way of equalizing opportunity for bright kids from poorer areas would be to open grammar schools in the most deprived areas and factor in not only the brightness of the child, but also factors such as whether free school meals are qualified.

The counter argument I guess is that it could cause other local schools to flounder.

Bussing kids to the existing grammar schools is cheaper than opening new schools.

Every grammar school that takes away pupils from a local school, effectively deprives the local schools of the most academic children.

DS1 left school 8 years ago. At that time it was a top performing straight grammar school that made some real effort to developing the children into adults. Since then the head has changed and it has become even more exam focused and offers (anecdotally) very little other than academic success.

LydiaJ

Doozergirl wrote: »

The Birmingham grammar schools allocate 20% of places to 'Pupil Premium' children, that being children entitled to free school meals at some point in primary school. They do that by offering to the top 20% of PP scores. It means the required score is about 10% lower for some of those children.

At least three of the schools are located in slap bang in deprived areas, but being a city, they're all accessible.

In Gloucestshire all (or possibly only most) of the GS offer places to all pupil premium children who qualify for a (b) letter according to my previous post, regardless of rank.

silvercar wrote: »

Bussing kids to the existing grammar schools is cheaper than opening new schools.

In counties that have them, yes. But many counties don't. There are children who commute from Bristol to Gloucester because that's where the closest state grammars are. The 4 unitary authorities that were created from the break-up of the late and unlamented county of Avon haven't had any at all for at least 40 years.

silvercar wrote: »

Every grammar school that takes away pupils from a local school, effectively deprives the local schools of the most academic children..

Yes. This is the big problem. How do you provide what the bright children need without condemning the rest to pits of low aspiration? Very difficult.