DIOCESE OF

CHICHESTER

Board of Education Director: Mike Wilson

Mr Peter A.D. Griffiths Cabinet Member for Education and Schools and Lead Member for Children’s Services West Wing, County Hall Chichester West Sussex PO19 1RQ

6 April 2011

Dear Peter,

Home to School Transport to Voluntary Aided Schools in West Sussex :

Response of the

This response is being submitted to you on behalf of the Diocesan Board of Education for the Chichester Diocese. In addition to this formal response to the consultation leaflet issued earlier this term, I shall be making a statement to the CYPS Select Committee at its meeting on 20 April when it will be considering the deferred report on this matter. I look forward to a subsequent meeting with you, Mary Reynolds and perhaps some of our most affected headteachers and our bishops at which we will be able to discuss these issues further in the light of consultation outcomes.

The Board of Education is opposed to any change in the present arrangements, given the major phased reduction in County Council support for denominational transport over the past 2 to 3 years. It believes that the County Council should continue to provide free transport to voluntary aided church schools. The arrangements that have applied to aided schools and parents exercising their preference for a church school placement have generally worked well. They have certainly enhanced the levels of 'choice and diversity' for children across West Sussex in accordance with central and local government policy.

The Board is fully aware of the extremely difficult financial position in which the County Council has been placed by the unprecedented reductions in central government support grants for 2011/12 and subsequent years. However, it is also most concerned that parents who have opted for a voluntary aided school on the basis of previously published admissions information, could now find themselves in financial difficulty were the current proposal to be approved.

Diocesan Church House, 211 New Church Road, Hove, East Sussex BN3 4ED Telephone: 01273 425687 • Fax: 01273 421041 • Email: [email protected] The Chichester Diocesan Fund and Board of Finance (Incorporated) Charity No 243134 A Company Limited by Guarantee Registered No 133558 Diocesan Secretary: Angela Sibson OBE

The Chichester Diocese is particularly concerned about the impact upon parental preference of the timing of the consultation exercise. The proposals, and the uncertainty they have created for parents and children alike, will impinge upon the outcomes of both last and next year’s admissions rounds. The lead in time to the suggested implementation date of 1 September 2011 is very tight and far less generous than the phased approach previously adopted by the County Council.

The Diocesan Board of Education would wish to reaffirm a number of points that I hope will be helpful to you as you consider the potential impact of the budget reduction already agreed in principle prior to consultation:

1 The proven partnership arrangements between church schools and their local authorities - a reduction in current transport provision would inevitably cut across the agreement between the state and the churches which has worked so well since the introduction of the enduring ‘dual system’ under the Education Act 1944. It would weaken the partnership between the County Council and the churches at a time when some secular voices are even doubting the churches’ right to contribute, as they have done for far longer than the state, to the education of children and young people. In West Sussex our partnership is still strong and, like you, we would not wish to see it damaged by actions taken by the County Council, however reluctantly, on the basis of perceived financial necessity. The still relevant guidance on Home to School Travel and Transport issued in 2007/08 emphasised that the Secretary of State ‘hopes that local authorities will not disturb well-established arrangements for denominational transport, particularly where they are associated with local agreements or understandings about the siting of denominational schools’. The coalition government is as committed as the previous government to the role of church schools in serving varied local communities and in enhancing the range of provision available to children and their families. We await with interest therefore the outcomes of its review into the role of transport in assisting parental ‘choice’ within an increasingly diverse education system. We are grateful to you, in the light of the above, for the key commitment you have given to ensure that officers work with the dioceses, church schools and transport operators to maintain current contract services wherever they continue to be required.

2 Diversity of school provision - church schools are rightly seen by the coalition government as a major element in the range of educational provision available to pupils and their parents. In the case of schools, generally very high quality educational provision is available in most parts of the county to families of faith, different faiths and none. If church school placements are to continue to be a viable option for less well off families, including those who might have to fund transport costs for a number of siblings, the continued provision of the present, albeit reduced, level of discretionary home to school transport is most important.

3 Inclusive practice - the Church of England, both nationally and locally, is committed to an inclusive approach to pupil admissions that does not allow for covert socio-economic selection. The Board of Education is quite clear that it does not wish our schools to become the preserve, as is often wrongly assumed to be the case, of the ‘aspiring middle class’. Our schools are very keen to serve children from their local community and not simply those from church families. Ironically, if this proposal were to be approved it would increase the likelihood of ‘ability to pay for transport’ becoming an unintended de facto criterion for attendance at some voluntary aided schools. We would very much regret this

4 Economic considerations – the Board of Education has a particular concern for families in the income band just above that applicable to those who will still be eligible for statutory free transport on the basis of the relevant criteria at any particular time, such as registered entitlement to free school meals or working tax credit. We therefore ask the County Council to give special attention to this issue and to our concern about those parents having to cope with removed support when they have a number of children attending church schools. Even if the present proposals were to proceed, some provision should continue to be made to protect not only educational continuity for affected children but also the economic wellbeing of their families. Children having to change school because of the non–affordability of newly imposed transport costs would be an unacceptable consequence that really must be avoided. That is why we are grateful to you for agreement to the dioceses’ request that current Year 10 pupils are protected from any approved changes. It is also why we are requesting that this protection be extended at least to Year 9 pupils who hope to be able to remain in their present Church of England secondary school next September and to commence their already selected GCSE courses as planned.

5 Risks and unintended consequences –we have noted with much concern most aspects of the very frank Risk Management Implications section of the report to the CYPS Select Committee of 9 March. These include in particular:

‘The main risks of implementing this proposal are:

The impact on local admissions arrangements.

The environmental impact of increasing car usage.

· Some parents may express a preference for local schools rather than pay for transport to a denominational school further away. This could put pressure on the availability of places at some community schools. There could be a knock-on effect in respect of parents’ expression of preferences generally e.g. fewer places may be available at community schools for those living outside the catchment areas.

· If places are not available in community schools for local children, it is possible that some transport costs would be incurred in transporting to the nearest school with an available place.

· Where a denominational school is located in the same town as a community school, there could be an impact on admissions to the community school if more local people take up any spare available places at the denominational school.

· Currently, the 3 in 1 scheme, offering cheaper bus fares helps to mitigate the risk of parents choosing more local schools in preference to denominational schools. However, there could be a further risk if schools choose not to maintain current contract bus services, because the costs are too high. This would be particularly pertinent in respect of two primary schools, although the number of children involved is small.

· Some parents may choose to reduce transport costs by driving their children to and from school.

· The decision to protect current Year 10 pupils mitigates the previous potential risk of a judicial review being brought by parents, either on the grounds that they would have had to move their children if they had to pay a charge for transport, which could have affected them as they would have been half way through their GCSE or diploma courses, or that they would have chosen a different school at the start if they had known that they would be responsible for transport costs. Protecting the current Year 10 pupils eliminates this risk’.

Our Board believes that the taking of such significant risks should not be acceptable for elected members. If any of them do come about, they will have a detrimental impact upon the education of the pupils concerned. It would view as being unjustifiable any discontinuity of education for such children on economic grounds. Our members believe that this potential consequence is neither fair nor equitable as it singles out one particular group of pupils for potentially damaging outcomes directly affecting their education and wellbeing.

6 Further issues – the Board would be concerned if the removal of funding for denominational transport were to lead to increased car usage with the attendant environmental impact. We are aware of the very real concerns of the four Church of England secondary schools most affected by the consultation proposals. The Diocese shares their anxiety about the significant impact that these proposals could have for current and prospective pupils. It has also noted with regret the major impact that the proposals are likely to have for pupils attending Catholic schools across the county.

I know that our views will be given careful consideration. The Diocese values its constructive partnership with the County Council and this will continue whatever the outcome of this consultation process. It also appreciates that these proposals have been brought forward with the greatest reluctance. The Board of Education therefore would ask you to give very careful and sympathetic consideration to the above points. We are confident that you will seek to do all in your power to protect from the risks and adverse consequences referred to above both current and prospective children and families served by our aided schools.

I would be happy for this letter to be shared with the CYPS Select Committee at its next meeting on 20 April 2011.

Yours sincerely

Mike Wilson Diocesan Director of Education

Copies to: The Right Revd John William Hind, The Venerable Douglas McKittrick, Revd Derek Bastide, Chairman of the Chichester Diocesan Board of Education Mary Reynolds, Director of Education, Catholic Education Service, Diocese of Arundel and Brighton Ian Gwenlan, Principal School Transport Officer, Children’s Services, West Sussex County Council