Faith school bus subsidy to end

[yorkie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11569232

East Sussex faith school bus subsidy to end
Subsidies for more than 1,350 pupils in East Sussex who travel to church schools are to be axed from September, the county council has said.
The council has estimated that it will save £500,000 a year if it cuts the funding.

Good news I think, and it should happen all over the country. If people want their kids to go to faith schools they should not get taxpayers to pay for it. There is no benefit to taxpayers in sending pupils to faith schools so why should we pay? It's wrong that we were ever paying in the first place IMO.

 

[YorkshireBear]

in my old school we used to get takenthe mik out of by the locals who went to the faith school in sheffield. they thought they were better than us. So because of that i agree. bias but i have my reasons

 

[NSEFAN]

If this subsidy is only for faith schools, then its good that it's being scrapped. Religious or not, the schools shouldn't get benefits simply for being one or the other.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Methinks its about time we abolished faith schools... Good to hear though

 

[ainsworth74]

Methinks its about time we abolished faith schools.

I don't think we should abolish them, but I also think that they shouldn't be subsidised by the state or local authority. If there is enough demand they will stay open on their own otherwise why should they be funded when there are other schools available that do fine for most of the population?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I don't think we should abolish them, but I also think that they shouldn't be subsidised by the state or local authority. If there is enough demand they will stay open on their own otherwise why should they be funded when there are other schools available that do fine for most of the population?

I just don't agree with the concept of one faith-only schools, I don't think about the money side...

If you are going to have Islamic schools and RC-only schools, then I demand an Athiest's school for my goodself.

 

[Wolfie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11569232

Good news I think, and it should happen all over the country. If people want their kids to go to faith schools they should not get taxpayers to pay for it. There is no benefit to taxpayers in sending pupils to faith schools so why should we pay? It's wrong that we were ever paying in the first place IMO.

I am not going to argue the meritrs of faith schools (not quite the normal subject matter of a transport forum!) but would note that there is of course a quid pro quo for local authorities providing free transport for pupils to attend.

In faith schools the parent religion most often provides the land the schools are built on and also a proportion (variable up to 100%) of the cost of any capital work. This itself saves the local authority money.

If such savings measures as withdrawing free transport mean that faith schools close due to lack of attendance it is unlikely that the local authority will be able to retain either the land or the buildings without substantial expenditure. Gven that most religions are charities that, by law, are obliged to maximise returns from assets not deployed in their core activities, the land and/or school buildings will be sold to the highest bidders.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I forgot to add that the local authority will, of course, also remain legally responsible for providing school places for the potentially displaced children. New school buildings required???

 

[YorkshireBear]

I just don't agree with the concept of one faith-only schools, I don't think about the money side...

If you are going to have Islamic schools and RC-only schools, then I demand an Athiest's school for my goodself.

Agreed

 

[stut]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11569232

Good news I think, and it should happen all over the country. If people want their kids to go to faith schools they should not get taxpayers to pay for it. There is no benefit to taxpayers in sending pupils to faith schools so why should we pay? It's wrong that we were ever paying in the first place IMO.

I agree in principle, but don't think it's quite that clear cut.

In the cities, it's clear that faith schools generally exist to educate pupils within a certain faith. I, personally, believe that education and religion should be separated, the latter being an entirely private matter.

However, head out to small towns and villages and it's a different story. Many schools there are voluntary aided, purely because of their history - they were founded by the local church and have retained that status. These are termed as 'faith schools', but in reality, education and religion are well separated, and, given the wide catchment areas, the issue of preference towards practising anglicans is something of a moot point.

And these are exactly the schools that need transport the most. Pupils come from outlying houses and villages, from a radius of several miles, in areas where bus services are scant and expensive. The impact of withdrawing the service? Well, local taxi companies will make a killing if it's a well-off area. If it isn't, you'll start to see more and more pupils travelling silly distances into larger towns. More congestion, too.

Like many of the cuts we're seeing, it seems at best partially thought through. Or rather, the impact on those who benefit most from it is considered least.

 

[WatcherZero]

Was a faith school in GM that had its bus service withdrawn recently too, the thinking was it was needed when it opened with no nearby bus routes but now the pupils could use normal bus routes and they shouldnt be funding it.

 

[Greenback]

I am not going to argue the meritrs of faith schools (not quite the normal subject matter of a transport forum!) but would note that there is of course a quid pro quo for local authorities providing free transport for pupils to attend.

In faith schools the parent religion most often provides the land the schools are built on and also a proportion (variable up to 100%) of the cost of any capital work. This itself saves the local authority money.

If such savings measures as withdrawing free transport mean that faith schools close due to lack of attendance it is unlikely that the local authority will be able to retain either the land or the buildings without substantial expenditure. Gven that most religions are charities that, by law, are obliged to maximise returns from assets not deployed in their core activities, the land and/or school buildings will be sold to the highest bidders.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I forgot to add that the local authority will, of course, also remain legally responsible for providing school places for the potentially displaced children. New school buildings required???

I do not agree with this argument. I think that a state education should be provided for all, and that if parents wish to send their children to a private or faith school, they should not receive any subsidy to do so.

As for more school buildings being needed, in this area many shcools are not full, and some are facing mergers and closures. Ironically, this means extra expense for the local authority.

I agree in principle, but don't think it's quite that clear cut.

In the cities, it's clear that faith schools generally exist to educate pupils within a certain faith. I, personally, believe that education and religion should be separated, the latter being an entirely private matter.

However, head out to small towns and villages and it's a different story. Many schools there are voluntary aided, purely because of their history - they were founded by the local church and have retained that status. These are termed as 'faith schools', but in reality, education and religion are well separated, and, given the wide catchment areas, the issue of preference towards practising anglicans is something of a moot point.

And these are exactly the schools that need transport the most. Pupils come from outlying houses and villages, from a radius of several miles, in areas where bus services are scant and expensive. The impact of withdrawing the service? Well, local taxi companies will make a killing if it's a well-off area. If it isn't, you'll start to see more and more pupils travelling silly distances into larger towns. More congestion, too.

Like many of the cuts we're seeing, it seems at best partially thought through. Or rather, the impact on those who benefit most from it is considered least.

You make a good point about rural schools that were originally founded by the church. I am not knowledgeable about the faith school definitions, but it seems to me that id these schools are still regarded as faith schools despite being 'open to all', then the defintion needs to be addressed!

A good starting point would be to class any school that advertises itself as providing education within a particular religion, and states that all staff must be practising members of that religion, then it is a faith school. These sorts of schools should not be part of the state system at all, and should exist purely ona commercial basis, receiving no subsidies from the taxpayer!

 

[Oswyntail]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11569232

Good news I think, and it should happen all over the country. If people want their kids to go to faith schools they should not get taxpayers to pay for it. There is no benefit to taxpayers in sending pupils to faith schools so why should we pay? It's wrong that we were ever paying in the first place IMO.

I suspect that, if the subsidy is not being withdrawn for non-faith schools, there could be a legal challenge as it is pure discrimination on grounds of religion! And, on overall figures, there does seem to be a benefit to the taxpayer, as the standards in faith schools seem to be higher than the norm (if you believe league tables). And faith schools are required to be open to all, though they are allowed to prioritise on the basis of faith if there is greater demand for places than they can satisfy - generally, children who are not of the particular faith can opt-out of the faith-based elements of the school day.

 

[Greenback]

I suspect that, if the subsidy is not being withdrawn for non-faith schools, there could be a legal challenge as it is pure discrimination on grounds of religion! And, on overall figures, there does seem to be a benefit to the taxpayer, as the standards in faith schools seem to be higher than the norm (if you believe league tables). And faith schools are required to be open to all, though they are allowed to prioritise on the basis of faith if there is greater demand for places than they can satisfy - generally, children who are not of the particular faith can opt-out of the faith-based elements of the school day.

Not necessarily. Any successful action based upon discrimination would have to prove that it was aprticular religion being discriminate dagainst, not all religion. It would also only be possible if only non religious children were allowed to attend schools with subsidised transport. At the moment, I think (IANAL) there is abetter case for discrimination against atheists!

As for the legislation about fiath schools, they may in theory be open to all, but how does that actually work in practice? How many parents even consider sending their children to a faith school of a different faith to themselves? How easy is it for the shcool to declare it is full if they want to? Will parents be worried about discrimination if their offspring choose to opt out?

 

[Oswyntail]

Yes, the trouble with defining this is that, as I said, faith schools tend to be the most successful in the area, so parents tend to want to get in - hence the widely publicised sudden "conversions" and the failure to get a place of those not willing to "convert". However, it is never in a school's interest to declare itself full if it isn't, because of funding allocations.
IMHO, (as with everything else) I believe the country should be looking at faith schools and seeing why they are successful before simply trying to shut them down. It could be because they are in a position to select the best pupils or staff, but that is a chicken-and-egg situation. On the other hand, if it is because of an approach to education, or children, or communities, then we should be doing all we can to bottle that approach and get it round to all schools, rather than turning faith schools into popularist demons.

 

[Greenback]

I'm not advocating shutting them down, I just don't think they should be subsidised!

There are faith schools in my area that are not the most successful schools, even by the league tables. They blatantly advertise for staff to be of the same religion as the school. I don't object to their right to employ people of their own particular faith, but I do object to them being subsidised to do so!

 

[ivanhoe]

I'm not advocating shutting them down, I just don't think they should be subsidised!

There are faith schools in my area that are not the most successful schools, even by the league tables. They blatantly advertise for staff to be of the same religion as the school. I don't object to their right to employ people of their own particular faith, but I do object to them being subsidised to do so!

Faith Schools are not subsidised. Are you a representative of the British Humanist Society by chance?

 

[Greenback]

Faith Schools are not subsidised. Are you a representative of the British Humanist Society by chance?

No, I'v enever even heard of it! I was, however, startled to find out that councils subsidise transport for pupils to get to these schools, and that is the subsidy I object to, even if they are not financed directly!

 

[scotsman]

The subsidy should only end if the faith schools are to end. Hopefully both - they're devisive things.

 

[Greenback]

I think they have a right to exist, provided there is a demand for them and they receive no public money.

 

[robertclark125]

I suspect that, if the subsidy is not being withdrawn for non-faith schools, there could be a legal challenge as it is pure discrimination on grounds of religion! And, on overall figures, there does seem to be a benefit to the taxpayer, as the standards in faith schools seem to be higher than the norm (if you believe league tables). And faith schools are required to be open to all, though they are allowed to prioritise on the basis of faith if there is greater demand for places than they can satisfy - generally, children who are not of the particular faith can opt-out of the faith-based elements of the school day.

Fair enough. But I would say this. There is such a thing as parental choice. Yet, in a case in the late 1990s, highlighted by the BBC Watchdog programme, a catholic schoolgirl, who attended a non catholic primary, at the choice of her parents, was denied a place in a non catholic secondary. The local authority, I think this was in Preston, adopted a catholics last attitude to parental choice. Surely that's discrimination?

On the transport point, here in Cardenden, there is a RC primary school, St Ninains. The bus that brings the kids to it, is provided by Stagecoach Fife, using an Optare solo, and picks up kids in Kinglassie, as well as all parts of Cardenden.

Yet, there are also two non denominational primary schools, Cardenden and Denend, in cardenden, and Kinglassie Primary. In the case of Denend, Stagecoach Fife runs a bus to it, serving most areas, using a MAN 18.220 from Cowdenbeath. If we were to ditch catholic education in Cardenden, then there is spare capacity at Denend, Kinglassie, and Cardenden, to take all displaced pupils. Secondly, and more importatnly from a money point of view, you'd only need to subsidise one school bus, as opposed to two, and also the staff displaced would surely obtain other teaching jobs, as there are claims of a teachers shortage. The latter point isn't really for debate here though.

But the transport cost savings would be looked at no doubt.

 

[Heinz57]

Its good news IMO,

Faith school or not it shouldn't be coming from the tax payers money. It should be done the same as at my old school, the parents of those who cought the school bus paid X amount at the beggining of the academic year and that coverd it.

 

[Tom B]

Here in Donny they provided free buses for those who went to faith schools whereas others had to pay - in some cases very high fares. The argument was that they had to provide free transport for those who lived >3 miles away from the school and chose that school because of their faith. Those who lived >3 miles away from their school but chose that school because it was a good school had to pay for the privilege!

 

[Oswyntail]

Ah Donny! Everyone's role model for sensible local government

 

[WatcherZero]

The faith schools have won a victory in Wigan defering the loss of the free bus passes until next year, the paper reports that the Arch Diocese of Liverpool is lobbying heavily for the inclusion of a clause in the education act due later this year for councils to be forced to provide bus passes for children of faith schools.

 

[Tom B]

The faith schools have won a victory in Wigan defering the loss of the free bus passes until next year, the paper reports that the Arch Diocese of Liverpool is lobbying heavily for the inclusion of a clause in the education act due later this year for councils to be forced to provide bus passes for children of faith schools.

Oh dear. So children can travel a long distance free of charge if it's because of a religion, but if they travel a long distance to go to a non-religious good school they should pay?

 

[Greenback]

If it's parental choice to send their children to a school that is not the nearest, whether it be because it's a good school or on religious grounds, they should foot the bill for transport themselves.

A free state education is a right, anything else is a privilege that other taxpayers should not have to contribute to.

 

[OMGitsDAVE]

We have religious schools in Hartlepool, and they do not get any extra support.
If you live 3+ miles away from the school, you get a bus pass allowing you on public services. If not, its up to you.