Tuesday, June 28, 2011

DCC cuts support for School Transport

Context....DCC will no longer guarantee a place on the free school bus to Purbeck School, in direct contravention of the undertaking they gave when the abolished our 2 secondary schools in 1974. The six formers will now have to find £400 each to get to this poorly performing instution. swanage families are being effectively taxed for having children! In addition all children (and from next year that means 11yr olds too) will have to produce a pass or be refused travel. fine for most kids most of the time but we all know how chaotic some kids and families can be. and we all forget to put stuff in our bags...how mny kids will be roaming swanage every morning when that rule is enforced...but if you live in Whareham where you don't have to pay £400 for the privilide you can just stroll in to scholl as usual. DCC just doesn't give a **** about Swanage kids or any kids come to that. Swanage can become a retirement and second home haven for all they care.



Posted by Anonymous to swanageview at 27/6/11 10:55 PM

60 comments:

Anonymous said...

I find it ironic that a blog statement which relates to local school education is littered with so many spelling mistakes.

Please justify the phrase “this poorly performing institution” when describing The Purbeck School. The last Ofsted report there rated the school as ‘Good’.

Anonymous said...

Sixth formers have had to pay for a long time although the amount has been increased. I too was puzzled by the phrase "poorly performing" which seems to reflect a common enough attitude that the grass is always greener somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

"DCC will no longer guarantee a place on the free school bus to Purbeck School"

I think that you may find a touch of hyperbole in that comment as well. It'd be nice to know where this information comes from.

As for forgetting their bus pass, well, oh dear!

Anonymous said...

Legislation does not require LEA's to provide free home to school transport for "post 16" transport i.e those who wish to attend school and college after the age of 16. There is a requirement however for LEA's to make reasonable provision to remove the barriers for those in the 16 - 19 age group to remain in full-time education. £400 over an academic year of say 190 days is just over £2 per day. Bearing in mind these students wouldn't qualify for half-fare travel on the W&D service bus it is not an excessively high charge; and there are concessions available to families in receipt of Working Tax credits. Not ideal I know but I'm afraid it's a result of the fiscal problems the country faces.

As far as students needing to carry their bus pass, isn't that sensible? Don't think SWT would let me travel on my trains if I forgot my season ticket.

Anonymous said...

"Please justify the phrase “this poorly performing institution” when describing The Purbeck School. The last Ofsted report there rated the school as ‘Good’."

In the last league tables for Dorset schools the Purbeck was second from bottom for GCSEs, second from bottom for Value Added score and second from bottom for A level results. A different school was below them in each category. They were also below the national average.

Anonymous said...

Looking at one years results is largely pointless.

2009 results were above average, Ofsted gave them a good in '09 - did they just have a good year in '09? Or have they just had a bad year in '10?

Anonymous said...

Legislation does not require LEA's .....no it doesn't, but that's not the point. We were assured in 1974 that all our children would not be disadvantaged by the abolition of our seconary schools. Now they are. Any families looking at moving here will have an extra incentive NOT to come. Will the last family left please turn out the lights....

Anonymous said...

Can't the blighters WALK???

Anonymous said...

Oive got it!!

Have them blighters board in Wareham Monday to Thursday. They can pitch up to that middle school with sleeping bags. That'll give Swanage a break from these terrers. We didn't live ere to put up with them little bas......send 'em down the mines to quarry stone loik we did

Anonymous said...

So what if families with young children do not come here. We continue to attract the retired in large numbers and they ensure the place does not become depopulated. I have to say I get sick of the implied ageism behind the assertion that we need more younger people to live here.

The Postman said...

So imagine a town full of elderly/retired people...now who runs the businesses? who works at the health centre? who works at the schools? who is left to work anywhere? The town collapses.

Anonymous said...

You might be surprised at the low proportion of professionals who work in Swanage also live here.

David furmage said...

Easy answer to this , how about swanage railway lay on a school train to Wareham and back for kids in ? Could it be done:) I for one if I was still a child would love to travel by steam train.

Thou how about sod sending kids to school in protest and wait for those officers to come round and tell them why my kids dont go to school. Pay for the fairs to school and I shall send my kids to school:) easy.

Anonymous said...

'Easy answer to this , how about swanage railway lay on a school train to Wareham and back for kids in ? Could it be done:) I for one if I was still a child would love to travel by steam train.

Thou how about sod sending kids to school in protest and wait for those officers to come round and tell them why my kids dont go to school. Pay for the fairs to school and I shall send my kids to school:) easy.'

The idea of a pupil rail link to Worgret has been discussed before, but there appears to be little interest in pursuing this. Only road transport has been considered.

Your second paragraph is not clear but seems to imply something about paying you the fare money as a means to stop the truancy officer turning up at your door. Did it occur to you that YOU have a responsibility to get them to school, and not ours to pay you the 'fair'??? By all means put pressure on your elected leaders to provide free transport, but don't await a pot of money to deliver your kids to school. Easy?

David Furmage said...

Fair point I agree , thou we could make all pupils pay for their schools meals instead of getting free school meals like some do. Don't expect pot full of cash to fall into your hands to pay for dinners.

Anyway is this a ploy to get pupils to stay in swanage and go to the free school instead? Just a thought:)

Anonymous said...

Anyway is this a ploy to get pupils to stay in swanage and go to the free school instead? Just a thought:)

I doubt it. Like every local authority in England Dorset are having to save shed loads of money, or in this case generate more money. They don't have a legislative need to provide this transport for free so we should get over that (and school dinners is a completely different thing. DCC also has a huge bill for all the Olympics works going on and I excpect in some small way the rest of the services are being cut to help pay that bill.

The rail link is an interesting idea but somehow I don't believe that Swanage Railway would do it any cheaper than a bus - it costs a lot more to get a train on the go than a bus. And furthermore it's quite a hike from Wareham station to the school especially in the bad weather.

I imagine Dorset transport bosses have considered all the options.

Anonymous said...

I expect that they'll consider putting in a stop at Worgret then our young fatties can get a 1/4 mile flat walk to school.

Anonymous said...

What advantage is there in using the train?

David Furmage said...

Less traffic on the road!

Anonymous said...

So that will be three less double deck buses on the road. Does the railway still have a maximum track speed of 25mph? I'm afraid in this case the bus is the clear winner. Don't forget that buses are already running to take the the scholars who are entitled to free transport to school. And the ones over 16 whose parents don't quibble about the £400 transport cost to allow their little darlings to continue to attend free education.

What's it going to be like when we start debating the merits of paying £9K a year to let them go to Uni? And with four who will be going at the same time (ish) that's £36K a year I will have to fork out - plus living costs. Better see if I can get an evening and weekend job. Or buy a ticket for the Euro millions.

Anonymous said...

http://www.dorsetforyou.com/schooltransportchanges

Apologies if this link has already been provided. This link will take you to the Dorset for You website and the details about changes to school transport.

'Advice and information on school transport. Our home to school transport policy has changed for the 2011-12 academic year.

On 1 June, the county council's Cabinet approved proposals which will mean increased charges for concessionary passes and fewer seats available on school buses.

The home-to-school transport policy has been revised as part of a whole authority passenger transport project to create longer term partnerships and deliver better value for money'
(DCC) website

Anonymous said...

More news about reduced seats on Purbeck School buses and increased cost of fair from £250 - £400 per year.

http://news.dorsetforyou.com/2011/06/don%E2%80%99t-forget-to-apply-for-your-child%E2%80%99s-concessionary-school-bus-pass/

Parents have until 1 July to apply for their child’s 2011-12 concessionary school bus pass.

In the face of soaring transport costs and the need to make savings, Dorset County Council has changed its rules on home-to-school transport.

The changes mainly affect the council’s concessionary scheme – where parents whose children are not entitled to free transport can buy spare seats on contracted coaches.

Anonymous said...

Apologies, forgot to post website and telepnone number for more details.


Information can be found at www.dorsetforyou.com/schooltransportchanges or by calling 01305 221060

Anonymous said...

As all Councils have to make huge cuts and this equates to £3 a week, is it so bad?

Think how much petrol/diesel has gone up.

Apart from the usual cries of - they should cut their own wages/expenses -would you do their job? - just where else could these savings be made?

Anonymous said...

"just where else could these savings be made?"

Council employees (especially lawyers) and pensions??

Anonymous said...

Which service provided by these employees do you think should be cut or are you indulging in the comforting fantasy that the conservatives who run county hall employ armies of people with nothing to do, just for the sheer joy of spending public money?

Anonymous said...

Leaving the Council with no legal advice would be amusing!

I wonder why that when this Countries biggest employer gives reasonable pensions that the minority moan like hell and instead of having some aspiration, they want to drag the majority into relative poverty.

Anonymous said...

I wonder why that when this Countries biggest employer gives reasonable pensions that the minority moan like hell and instead of having some aspiration, they want to drag the majority into relative poverty

?????

Anonymous said...

Why the confusion?

Anonymous said...

I wonder why that when this Countries biggest employer gives reasonable pensions that the minority moan like hell and instead of having some aspiration, they want to drag the majority into relative poverty

So let me get ts right, you think the public sector should work less be less talented, have jobs "for life" and make the rest pay for their gold plated pensions.? WOW how arogant if that your view.

Anonymous said...

"gold plated pensions"

A phrase with a lovely ring to it but for the vast majority of public employees for from the truth. Why don't you look at the facts instead of the slogans?

We have a campaign going on along the lines that since the private sector's employees have in effect been mugged and robbed of pension rights justice somehow demands that public sector employees are similarly robbed.

Anonymous said...

Well said 9.41.

Not so sure about 8.37 tho'

"So let me get ts right, you think the public sector should work less be less talented, have jobs "for life" and make the rest pay for their gold plated pensions.? WOW how arogant if that your view."

I'm amazed that you can think that that is what I'm thinking!

Just by thinking that the public sector gives jobs for life shows how little you understand the real world - let alone me!

Anonymous said...

Well most people dont want to pay even more taxes just so that every small village and town can have secondary schools or pay for children to travel on buses to where the schools are placed. Lets get back to parents owning the responsibility for their childrens education ie live nearer to the schools or pay for transport. And by the way Swanage will survive, because it is an attractive place where people will always want to live.

Anonymous said...

Of course nobody actually wants to pay tax, that is such a truism it is not worth stating. The obvious implication of the above post is that public services should only be provided in the cheapest way even if that forces those with children of school years t olive in large towns. No doubt this could be extended to other services. Don't expect a fire engine to turn up if you set the chip pan on fire in the country. "Ambulance sir? heart attack? oh dear its more than the regulation distance kindly make your own way to the district hospital." When you are feeling better you can take your own rubbish to the tip and pick up your mail while you are in town.

Anonymous said...

"Of course nobody actually wants to pay tax, that is such a truism it is not worth stating".

Sadly that's a cliche, not a truism.

Those of us who want decent services are more than willing to pay taxes.

What we want, is that they are spent efficiently.

Anonymous said...

Again we are looking at a hall of cliche mirrors. Of course we do not want them delivered inefficiently, however, for years the public sector has had to find "efficiency savings" which is simply a polite wrapper for a cuts policy. How do you suggest efficiency be measured and do you think this should be applied to the private sector which in many cases hides its oligopolies and de facto cartels behind a smokescreen of competition?

Anonymous said...

'Did it occur to you that YOU have a responsibility to get them to school, and not ours to pay you the 'fair'??? By all means put pressure on your elected leaders to provide free transport, but don't await a pot of money to deliver your kids to school. Easy?'

Did it occur to you that it was not the decision of parents in the 1970's to reorganise the education system to 3 tier and site the secondary school 11 miles away from Swanage. Yes it is the responsibility of the parent to ensure their child receives an education, but not every parent has access to a car, and bus charges are expensive. It is not clear whether the reduced seats will be across the board or be for the top end of the school.

Dave F is right. It is DCC's responsibility to enable every child up to the age of 16 free, safe travel to school. It is the rights of a child to receive an education and the parents responsibility to make sure their child gets to school.

Thank you to whoever posted this discussion.

Anonymous said...

"for years the public sector has had to find "efficiency savings"

WRONG, only under the Cons and skint Labs are there "efficiency savings".

"a smokescreen of competition?"

See above.

No choice in the early '70's - couldn't agree more, and all that means is that we are - slowly - developing as a society.

"It is the rights of a child to receive an education and the parents responsibility to make sure their child gets to school".

First bit right - although they only have one right! - second bit, sorry, wrong, Adults have the right to educate their kids themselves.

Y'see, without the right facts, we're all ignorant!

Anonymous said...

Adults have the right to educate their kids themselves.

Yes they do. You are right.

Anonymous said...

WRONG, only under the Cons and skint Labs are there "efficiency savings".

Who else have we had since 1979? Even when labour were pushing health spending up to levels comparable with other civilised countries prior to the banks going bust there were efficiency savings.

Anonymous said...

Ooh, we've got a Young Person here!

"Who else have we had since 1979?"

Try 1906 - I stand to be corrected. Apart from the early '70's when we had the Lib/Lab pact I think we've been Con/Lab all the time - mainly Con.

I wonder if there's a message there?

Anonymous said...

When I said "for years" I was not thinking in terms of 106 of them.

Anonymous said...

Just by thinking that the public sector gives jobs for life shows how little you understand the real world - let alone me!

I worked in the public sector for best part of 15 yrs my partner (later in life ) for about the same please dont lecture me/us on that subject I can recant many many tales of lazziness workshy sick ridden people who could not would not be sacked shorter hrs than the private sector 2 people doing one persons work the list goes on and on.

And dont argue with me ONS say its 7.8% better of than the private sector PLus the pension scheme.

Anonymous said...

It is hardly news that private sector employees get screwed by their employers. Why anyone advocates extending this to the pubic sector mystifies me. Oh yes, that old one about competition from the Germans/Americans/Chinese/Japanese etc. Takes me back to when pay negotiators in this country were fed the line that pay had to be kept down because productivity was high in Germany and their German opposite numbers were told wages had to be kept down because the English were happy to work for peanuts.

Anonymous said...

8.54am - how long ago was it you really worked in the public sector; some dates might assist this debate. The "Public Sector" - and this covers a huge swathe of employment from local authorities, civil servants, Police, NHS, etc, etc- does have a reputation as you describe. Quite wrongly I believe and certainly not relevant to 2011. The vast, vast majority are hard-working staff having to maintain services under really difficult cicumstances. If staff are ineffective they should be performance managed - given training and support and if that doesn't work there are now mechanisms to manage them out of the organisations. Although I agree that there will be places where some are on a gravy-train.
It would be interesting to know if you think that the large contingent of often highly paid agancy or consultancy staff are hard working or not - technically they are from the private sector.
It is disappointing to read this almost bigoted attitude that public sector bods are useless, lazy incompetents.
As it happens I have a great deal of respect for the public sector. And I have worked with them, for them and against them for the past 25 years and continue to do so.

Anonymous said...

"And dont argue with me ONS say its 7.8% better of than the private sector"

Its a shame you don't look behind the headlines and ask yourself what figures like this are actually telling us. They are certainly not telling us that a job of equivalent skill and responsibility in the public sector pays 7.8% more than in the private sector. What the statistic shows is that there are lots of low skilled badly paid jobs in the latter, for example all those cleaning jobs in health and education establishments that were shifted to private firms by Thatcher so costs for sick pay, holidays, pensions etc could be whittled down.

Anonymous said...

Um.....rings bell......rolls eyes.....

School transport????????? Hellooooo!!

Anonymous said...

To be honest Im not going to get into an argument over public sector pay and conditions, most people know how cushy that life can be, since my posting yesterday I have heard of two instances that confirm what i said about more pay and incompetance, but hey those with the good jobs just peer through rose tinted glasses.

Anonymous said...

Tow more instances! Wow! If you base your argument on anecdotal evidence like that you can prove just about anything.

Anonymous said...

Tow more instances! Wow! If you base your argument on anecdotal evidence like that you can prove just about anything

arogant person! the two instances are instances that my partner has ties to and involment in. Please get your facts correct before making spurrious statements/

Anonymous said...

To enlighten us why don't you share with us all what the two instances are. No names but a broad description of what and why. After all if you cannot provide details these may justly be viewed as spurious comment.

Anonymous said...

Guys and Gals, I think you're missing the point!

S/he said that S/he didn't want to get into an argument and then went on to say something contentious.

Think about the garden path.

Anonymous said...

Guys and Gals, I think you're missing the point!

S/he said that S/he didn't want to get into an argument and then went on to say something contentious.

Think about the garden path.

Anonymous said...

What is arrogant about pointing out that examples may demonstrate a point but they prove nothing at all? You are the one who should come up with some facts. All we have is your opinion that a few people are underemployed.

Anonymous said...

To enlighten us why don't you share with us all what the two instances are. No names but a broad description of what and why. After all if you cannot provide details these may justly be viewed as spurious comment.

No I wont I knew this would be your next move ie trying to find out the facts of the examples.
What I am aware of is the following, between myself and imediate familly there is some 35yrs plus of working for the public sector some 45 yrs plus private sector and at least a weekly contact of working with the two I stand by my comments and the basic point of public sector workers have had it easier over the last few years, and are now comp[laining because the think they should be exempt from this mess.

If you think that the public sector have is even equal in terms and conditions to the private sector, you are delusional or just argumentive.

Anonymous said...

This is a strangely static discussion. In fact incomes in the public and private sectors do not move in a precise coordination. Research by an organization called Income Data Services some years ago showed that the public sector tends to be held down for some years and then jump back to an approximate parity. We have had several years of pressure on the private sector as we have gone through the banking crisis and until a year ago a government that tried to keep up economic activity by borrowing and spending. That gave their employees a temporary boost. In common with most other countries with a large financial industry we now have a sovereign debt problem and surprise, surprise, the propaganda machine turns its guns on earnings in the state sector. All you have to do is look at what you are being told in the media and ask yourself why you are being told it.

Anonymous said...

Came on here to look at DCC cuts support for school transport - what happened to this thread?

Anonymous said...

There have been a number of threads on here in which there have been interventions by what I can only describe as right wing fruitcakes. The most egregious example was when we were treated to someone rubbishing climate change just before a conference on it. This was when US energy companies were funding propagandists to use grass-roots media such as blogs, to get their "skeptic" message over so it was not hard to work out why we had the intervention.

Who knows why, in this thread, someone chose to post the "fact" that over 30 or so years they had come across a couple of people in public employment who, so far as they were aware, did not have much work to do. The circumstantial evidence points in a particular direction but draw your own conclusions

Anonymous said...

Having worked in both the public and private sector I can say with certainty that the public sector is the softer option. Fewer enforced targets, no sackings (though many deserved) and generally good pay for hours worked and responsibilities held in the private sector. BUT - lets not begrudge those who have the private sector jobs and lets understand their moans and groans because they may know nothing else. We all have the choice about what work we do and where. By the way what about the self employed? Now thats a really tough life these days it seems to me....

Anonymous said...

So how do we set about improving the situation in the private sector?

I have to say that I find this all a little odd as a friend is leaving nursing because the pay and conditions are so poor, and are being made worse by her Trust which needs to cut spending.