Home to School Transport Consultation – Post 16

Contents Q1, ...... 2 Q2, ...... 3 Q3, ...... 41 Q4, ...... 42 Q5, ...... 64 Q6, ...... 65 Q7, ...... 96 Q8, ...... 97 Q9, ...... 112 Q10, ...... 113 Q11, ...... 124 Q12, ...... 128 Q13, ...... 131 Q14, ...... 133 Q15, ...... 140 Q16, ...... 141 Q17, ...... 150 Q19, ...... 151

1 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q1, What can you give us your views on Option 1? Answer Choices Responses Strongly Support 9.32% 55 Support 1.69% 10 Neither Support nor Oppose 3.05% 18 Oppose 8.31% 49 Strongly Oppose 75.76% 447 Don’t Know 1.86% 11 Answered 590 Skipped 11

What can you give us your views on Option 1? 80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00% Responses 30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% Strongly Support Support Neither Support nor Oppose Strongly Oppose Don’t Know Oppose

2 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q2, Can you tell us why you think this? Answered 342 Skipped 259

Respondents Response Date Responses 1 Mar 01 2018 12:08 AM Young people are now required to remain in education in some form until they are 18. There is no logic in making parents pay for young people to access mandatory education just because they have turned 16, and doing so discriminates against those living in more rural areas.This policy makes education post 16 seem optional - and it will literally make it unaffordable for some in more rural areas. Our local bus company charges £6 daily for people 16-19 to get to the nearest sixth form - and that is a small distance compared with other areas of Suffolk. 2 Feb 28 2018 11:58 PM Grossly illogical. Removes choice and prejudices lower income families. Will create traffic carnage and increase the risk to pupils and road users. In my local area this will result in transport only being provided to a school which does not recognise our village as in catchment - in this way opting for the school to which the bus would be funded is very likely to result in my child not being successful in a place at that school which is already fully subscribed - and thus imposing hardship, increased travel and much distress in trying to find an alternative school placement. It is disgraceful that this option proposes removing funding to the nearest school within "catchment". 3 Feb 28 2018 08:28 PM The current policy is linked to access to post 16 education for those from disadvantaged background as well as those in rural areas where transport would not exist if it wasn't supported. 4 Feb 28 2018 07:41 PM The legal requirement is for them to be in education so transport should be provided even if it is at a small cost to the parent 5 Feb 28 2018 07:14 PM No costs or savings have been given on which to compare the various options. 6 Feb 28 2018 05:55 PM Suffolk children are already disadvantaged with choices for Post 16 education and this proposal will make this even worse. 7 Feb 28 2018 05:46 PM Unfair to freedom of choice where you are educated 8 Feb 28 2018 05:39 PM - The proposals make a mockery of the idea of ‘choice’ in post-16 education. Once again, choice will be available to those who can afford to privately fund their transport arrangements and is, therefore, discriminatory.

- There is no example of how the ‘exceptions policy’ would work for vulnerable students (historically, assessments of individual cases and appeals for post-16 transport have taken months, by which time the student has usually started at a post-16 provider)

- The Endeavour Card does not benefit students in rural areas. There are few public buses to get these

3 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses students to and from certain schools.

- The selling of ‘spare seats’ is usually unreliable and only takes place once term has started. Students and parents cannot rely on these seats being available and this influences their choice of provider.

- The commercial selling of seats to parents discriminates against those on low incomes

- Rural isolation of young people who cannot be driven by car would likely increase

- The number of students who would seek financial assistance via the Bursary Fund would be likely to increase under the proposed arrangements. The Bursary Fund provided to schools is a fixed amount based on number of students who were in receipt of EMA in the year 2009 - 2010 and will not be increased. An increased number of students seeking bursary funds will mean reduced funding for all eligible students and probably a reduction in funding for all but those on the lowest incomes. Bursary funds can only be applied for once a student is on roll. If a student’s application is unsuccessful and they need to apply to Suffolk’s exception policy, how do they pay for their transport in the interim? What happens to the young person if the exception is not granted?

9 Feb 28 2018 01:05 PM Post 16 travel has not kept pace with legislation which keeps students in full time education until 18.

Transport costs are already high so any student with an alternative would be using that instead

This proposal will adversely affect all students who currently use school transport to get to school. Removing all subsidies will mean that there will be

many students among this group who will no longer be able to afford to get to school and who will have no other options.

10 Feb 28 2018 12:45 PM Transport is already expensive. Legislation has changed compelling students to continue in education and the transport policy has already not kept pace. Not all further education provides the same courses so choice is a must. Is it not in the best interests of Suffolk and society in general to produce well educated well rounded young people who will contribute to society? Surely SCC should want to help facilitate this not impede it. 11 Feb 28 2018 11:21 AM Education post-16 is compulsory. Why should 16+ pupils be treated any differently to children under 16? Policy has not kept up to date with the changes in education. Transport to school/college should be free.

4 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 12 Feb 27 2018 11:15 PM In rural areas students cannot walk to school so parents have to pay. This should be kept to the minimum that it can to support these students. 13 Feb 27 2018 10:12 PM It’s discriminatory

Lots of funds are spent supporting families who live in towns. Rural children and families will unfairly suffer.

14 Feb 27 2018 09:40 PM SEBC already provides a good service. 15 Feb 27 2018 08:55 PM Just leave things alone! 16 Feb 27 2018 05:55 PM My future is going to be controlled by a bus. My plans to attend Thurston Sixth Form are ruined if I cannot receive the transport required. Therefore, my future , along with thousands of high school/ sixth form students, is in the control of individuals at Suffolk County Council who do not actually know any of us. We can't even get the future many of us work hard to achieve! 17 Feb 27 2018 02:00 PM The Suffolk County Council is taking away parents right of choice for their children’s education. If we are wanting to still apply for the free transport we would have to move our children from the Bury St Edmunds Trust where they have been happy and secure for many years and this can only affect the children’s education and their potential to do as well as possible. They would be taken away from their friends and the environments that they have grown used to. All of the campuses within the trust work together to provide a secure and happy environment and you are taking this away with these proposals. These proposals discriminate against the Bury St Edmunds All through Trust, rural families and low income families.

Suffolk is already struggling with the raising of the bar of education and with all this upheaval it will not improve anything but be more detrimental to children’s education. Within the Trust however the standards are high and from the SATS last year we were well above the national average in all areas.

The cost for parents if they didn’t move their children and they were to use the bus and pay would too great especially when families have more than one child. It just wouldn’t be financially viable and most parents would end up having to drive their children to school.

The environmental effects of this would be great, there would be a huge amount of cars on the roads and around schools making more congestion, pollution, longer car journeys for everyone not just parents driving to school and health issues for children walking to school past stationary cars emitting more fumes.

The roads which are already in a poor state of repair would need even more attention which will lead to much more expense and disruptions than the money that might be saved by cutting our free transport!

5 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses By leaving parents with no option but to drive their children you are taking away their independence and you are taking away a sense of community within the villages as we are all driving our children to school.

I am self employed and work around my children. But having to drive all three of my children to school and then collect at the end of the day would significantly cut into my working day and instead of taking on more work once all my children are taking the bus I might have to consider cutting back on jobs.

Buses will still need to be taking the same routes and in some cases new bus routes would have to be made to accommodate children having to attend their closest school to receive free transport. The buses won’t be full and definitely not cost effective! There won’t be enough spaces for children wanting to go their closest school? Or will the class sizes just get bigger?? Or will there need to be the cost of building more buildings? How can this help with raising the bar of education?

It is just a postcode lottery to whether or not you can get free transport. The policy that is in place for a school placement wouldn’t be working with the free transport policy which is just bonkers! We are not asking to go to a school that isn’t in our catchment and the difference between the upper schools in Bury St Edmunds is just .2 of a mile!

Councillor Robin Millar said to parents at one of the consultation meetings that these proposals were created with urban areas in mind not rural! How can this be fair and not discriminatory to children living in rural areas.

18 Feb 27 2018 01:55 PM This removes choice for disadvantaged children 19 Feb 27 2018 12:39 PM Changing the goalposts in the middle of the game is outrageous.

The proposal is making children in education pay for the funding issues that have been enforced. 20 Feb 27 2018 12:20 PM Some children already struggle with the subsidised rate and stay in town with family in the week and only home at the weekends. Most families wouldn't even have this option. We have no family close by to rely on for the help. If the children have to be driven to school or college, you're taking away their independence, adding to traffic congestion, pollution and road deterioration. If they have younger siblings who would have to pay too, just not financially viable for most families. 21 Feb 27 2018 10:29 AM Does not meet the needs of young people in rural areas 22 Feb 27 2018 08:56 AM Education should be a top priority and school transport is simply an extension to education. It is very short sighted to try and cut anything to do with Education. 23 Feb 27 2018 08:09 AM In the economic climate and uncertainty of employment this would put added pressure on parents who just can not afford more expense. Some families may not have vehicles to transport children to school

6 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses therefore may be having to rely on others to get their family to school, others may be in no other position other than to let their children walk along country roads, with no lighting and no paths, roads that the buses themselves have to use. This would be an accident waiting to happen. 24 Feb 27 2018 07:38 AM My son has already established himself at Thurston and should be able to stay. The increased traffic around the school, with parents having to take and fetch children will be a big safety issue 25 Feb 27 2018 07:31 AM The "savings" are a fallacy.

The change promotes inequality.

The extra travel is not conducive to the LA green policy

The LA does not have the infrastructure in place to properly make/support these changes especially if the pre-consultation and consultation information provided is anything to go by.

The LA has not thought this through.

SOR did not raise standards, confidence in the LA to make the right choice for our young is at an all time low.

The LA needs to concentrate on raising educational standards.

These changes affect the same pupils who were affected by SOR especially in Thurston.

The LA needs to look at SEND travel as this is the area of extensive uplift in cost, even the LA latest budget report points to SEND overspending this year by ANOTHER £0.5M. The LA is affecting mainstream travel (which has reduced in spend) as it's too fearful of tackling SEND as it doesn't want to be seen as non-pc however, this option 1 promotes inequality for mainstream pupils (and they are happy with that??). 26 Feb 26 2018 10:28 PM Because this will have a significant impact on our family and the wider school community.

We will struggle to pay for bus transport and will still have children at primary school when our oldest child goes to high school. There is no obvious safe route for an 11 year old to walk/cycle between our house and our catchment High schools. 27 Feb 26 2018 08:53 PM Cost savings unrealistic.

Immediate changes is against the best practice in the Department for Education document "Home to school travel and transport government response" Ref: DFE-00500-2014.

7 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses

Would prevent pupils choice which may be restricted by the costs involved. 28 Feb 26 2018 07:09 PM It's compulsory for children to go to school until 18 now unless an apprenticeship is granted so why treat them any different. How would they attend if no transport is available?? 29 Feb 26 2018 06:57 PM Removal of free travel for students when they are required to attend education is unfair for rural areas who may not have other options.

To introduce it in one hit is against guidance for best practice in the Department of Education document "Home-to-school travel and transport statutory guidance" Ref: DFE-00501-2014 30 Feb 26 2018 02:17 PM Transport to compulsory education should be FREE for all. 31 Feb 26 2018 10:34 AM My son is about to sit his GCSE exams, the ideal time to mess about with a child's education - what do you think ?? 32 Feb 25 2018 03:05 PM Disruptive at a crucial time in students' education 33 Feb 25 2018 02:03 PM As the Government have changed the leaving age for pupils, there is no option for parents they have to continue the children’s education. Therefore transport to those places of education should continue. 34 Feb 25 2018 01:52 PM It is unreasonable to introduces changes once a student has begun a course of study/training that the outcome of which is likely to define their adult working future.

I have seen no impact analysis that examines the educational impact of the proposal - it seems driven by transport budget considerations only. 35 Feb 25 2018 10:00 AM Parents should take responsibility for their own chilsren, and not expect the public gto subsidise them. 36 Feb 25 2018 01:07 AM Education is compulsory up to 18 yrs old.

Why should parents have to fund their child’s travel. 37 Feb 24 2018 09:26 PM I live in a very rural area, the nearest 6th form college has no public bus service and they don't offer suitable courses for my son who has ASD. 38 Feb 24 2018 07:21 PM It is a legal requirement for children to be in education / apprentiship until the age of 18 years. Our local 6th form has very little choice, so I feel it very unfair to make our children do a course they are unhappy in doing because it is cheaper. Even though my husband and I are both working and considered to be on a good wages, we simply could not afford to pay for the 20-25 miles to the next nearest college. 39 Feb 24 2018 05:54 PM The focus should be on ensuring that all 16-18 year olds have access to the education that is most suitable for them. It is already very difficult for those living in rural areas to provide this for their children. It is entirely wrong that parents should have to pay to get their children to what is compulsory. The result will be many unhappy teenagers in inappropriate courses, and a great increase in NEETs.

8 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 40 Feb 24 2018 04:33 PM I oppose any changes that might disrupt students in the middle of a course of study - either no longer being able to afford to get there at all, or being under financial pressure if they now have to pay to finish the course. 41 Feb 24 2018 04:31 PM It would be unfair to withdraw subsided travel when a student has started their studies. This is a critical time in their learning and could impact their future. 42 Feb 23 2018 12:20 PM The proposal to remove all subsidised transport for post-16 students is shocking. The effects and limitations for some pupils will be huge. At the 6th form and high school that I work in over 1/3rd of our sixth form students currently travel on a bus. There are no suggested solutions for these students, other than to make their own arrangements. Currently there is no example of how the ‘exceptions policy’ would work for vulnerable students (historically, assessments of individual cases and appeals for post-16 transport have taken months, by which time the student has usually started at a post-16 provider)

The Endeavour Card does not benefit these students. There are no public buses to get these students to and from my school.

The selling of ‘spare seats’ is usually unreliable and only takes place once term has started. Students and parents cannot rely on these seats being available and this influences their choice of provider.

The commercial selling of seats to parents discriminates against those on low incomes

Rural isolation of young people who cannot be driven by car would likely increase

The number of students who would seek financial assistance via the Bursary Fund would be likely to increase under the proposed arrangements. The Bursary Fund provided to schools is a fixed amount based on number of students who were in receipt of EMA in the year 2009 - 2010 and will not be increased. We already use all of our Bursary Funds each year to support eligible students. Bursary funds can only be applied for once a student is on roll. If a student’s application is unsuccessful and they need to apply to Suffolk’s exception policy, how do they pay for their transport in the interim? What happens to the young person if the exception is not granted?

43 Feb 23 2018 09:03 AM Children have to attend school till 18 they have a moral right to be able to access that education for free regardless if their address. 44 Feb 22 2018 11:04 PM Children might have to move schools and be disrupted in their education for the sake of free school travel 45 Feb 22 2018 09:08 PM We need to raise standards in the county and this proposal could put young people off attending post 16 provision! 46 Feb 22 2018 06:06 PM The legal minimum is not suitable for a rural county such as Suffolk

9 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 47 Feb 22 2018 12:49 PM Because my daughter who has been settled in the school (County Upper) for 3 years would no longer be eligible so she would be forced to move or us to pay. My other daughter did not qualify for transport for 5 years as she chose to go to King Edward, her choice so we transported her ourselves even though others locally bullied the council into free transport in the same situation. Now, ironically the situation has been switched around and we lose again! 48 Feb 22 2018 12:21 PM The post 16 travel policy should be enhance to encourage post 16 take up of education suitable to the individual rather than on the location of the nearest school. The Council should be looking at investing in young people and not cutting subsidies. 49 Feb 21 2018 09:34 PM My child will have to attend additional schools to qualify for free transport.

The policy will increase traffic at peak times and reduce road safety.

The policy will reduce child safety.

The policy reduces choices of schools for parents, making choices more price sensitive rather than quality of the education experience. 50 Feb 21 2018 08:41 PM The government has made it mandatory for 16y olds to stay in education, but are not prepared to fund any transport. 16y olds don't have their own transport and many parents work so are unable to drive their 16y old to and from their education. Because we live in a rural area public transport is non existent meaning the only way 16y olds can get to school is the post-16 transport. The policy as it stands, helps in a little way with the cost. It also helps the council to a degree as they are receiving some payment for seats that otherwise would remain empty. 51 Feb 21 2018 07:33 PM Change of policy means disadvantaging pupils. Less choice of potential schools to study at 52 Feb 21 2018 12:48 PM it cost enough now 53 Feb 20 2018 07:39 PM I believe that the proposed changes is discriminatory against parents and children whose catchment school is Westley & County Upper School. We live in Barrow, children from this village have always gone to these schools. Whilst I accept parents who are not choosing their nearest school perhaps should pay; the insertion of the wording "nearest 2 tier school" is completely unfair. As the government has been actively encouraging Academies to improve educational choice, the local council's proposal seems to contradict their political party's approach. 54 Feb 19 2018 11:08 PM If the government expects children to continue in education until 16, they should be expected to fund it 55 Feb 19 2018 09:28 PM We live in Coddenham and our children currently attend Stonham Aspal Primary school and will go to attend Debenham High School - our village catchment school. We have bought a house and made a social network and made a long term commitment to Coddenham primarily for the catchment area schools - Stonham Aspal and Debenham. We therefore strongly oppose any suggestion to amend the school catchment areas. We expressly want to send our children to Stonham Aspal and Debenham High School

10 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses and will do everything in our power to oppose any suggestion to make a change to the catchment area.

Secondly, we are not aware of any children from the village attending Claydon High School. There is therefore no justifiable reason to replace free school travel to Debenham - which serves a community, and replacing it with a service to Claydon - which as far as I’m aware serves no one. It is therefore a ridiculous suggestion to replace a needed and well used service with one that is neither necessary nor wanted.

It would result in parents having to do the school run themselves adding vehicles to the road, creating pollution, and creating an unsafe area around schools because of the increased traffic levels and insufficient drop off areas that would inevitably result in parents being forced to park illegally or drop people in the road.

This could also result in job losses if the cost of paying for the school bus - which wiuld be considerable for multiple children - outweighed the money they’d earn at work. Essentially it could force parents to choose between going to work or doing the school run. A ludicrously ill-considered suggestion where the cost of the ramifications have not been factored in to the cost saving analysis. Please redo the sums considering the wider knock-on impacts.

If the suggestion is taken any further we would seek legal advice on whether this is lawful or represents an effective use of taxpayer’s money.

56 Feb 19 2018 07:37 PM children currently settled in current school so shouldn't have to relocate to another school. parents that wish children to stay at chosen school will have to either pay for transportation, which may not be guaranteed if theres not enough demand, or drive them into the schools themselves causing more congestion, pollution & children missing school if parents are unwell and unable to drive them

57 Feb 19 2018 09:14 AM C 58 Feb 17 2018 07:06 PM Finding the money each term for my child to use the bus is already a struggle. We are not on benefits but we do not have this money spare each term so to increase it will mean we cant afford to send our children to college. We are already discriminated for living rurally and this will affect childrens life choices. 59 Feb 17 2018 12:10 PM How can I tell from this survey?

Why as a parent haven’t I been actually consulted? Brexit I get to vote on, my child’s education is decided by other people. Give a choice, give decent education and stop relying on Cambs to bail you out. 60 Feb 17 2018 08:09 AM Living in a rural area this would really disadvantage some children

11 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 61 Feb 16 2018 11:47 AM it does not give parents time to plan alternatives if students are already enrolled in a post 16 education setting. 62 Feb 14 2018 04:35 PM Mildenhall College Academy is working hard to retain a sixth form provision in a very challenging climate where there are massive cuts in central government funding. This provision provides an excellent educational experience for young people who may not wish to travel to other centres or for whom a larger sixth form college may not be the ideal learning environment. Due to the funding conditions, it is vital that MCA6 does not experience any drop in the numbers of students attending. Any significant drop in numbers will result in the closure of this valuable provision. 63 Feb 14 2018 10:27 AM Currently have children at sixth forms in Suffolk and pay for transport. This is a choice and reflects the subjects they want to study. Can't get all subjects at nearest sixth form. 64 Feb 12 2018 04:05 PM There is no post 16 educational establishment in Hadleigh. All our 16-18 year olds must travel to Ipswich, Colchester and elsewhere so they would be hugely disadvantaged if they had to pay the full fares. 65 Feb 12 2018 09:19 AM education is very high priority in Suffolk and a YP should attend a college where they can be educated to the best of their ability and preference 66 Feb 11 2018 02:44 PM Government now require students to stay in education until they are 18, because of this decision students need to be encouraged to attend sixth forms. There is a limited sixth form provision in Suffolk and this proposal will only create barriers preventing some students to drop out due to costs and unreliability of transport.

The schools that offer a sixth form provision will be a risk of insufficient numbers and may not be able maintain the service.

Rural locations, in particular Lakenheath, have a very poor public bus route hindering rural students further. 67 Feb 11 2018 02:43 PM stupid idea to save money at the cost of massively increasing traffic movements 68 Feb 10 2018 04:28 PM Removes choice and damages rural schools more adversely than urban. Detrimental to the life chances of our young people. 69 Feb 10 2018 04:19 PM The Statutory obligation is perfectly adequate

There is an Endeavour Card in place.

The special educational needs and disabilities are catered for.

There is the introduction of an exceptions policy

Local solutions A through J seem sensible and a combination could provide efficiency and cost savings.

12 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses solutions K&L may be viable if these solutions can show a clear cost saving.

Cost savings can be further achieved by working in partnership with private suppliers , who in my experience will assist. Most sensible business people realise that 100% of something is better than 100% of nothing. The councils responsibility is to negotiate a financially efficient deal.

70 Feb 09 2018 10:57 AM Rural communities are being unfairly penalised. Post 16 education is compulsory and there are very limited public transport options in rural Suffolk. 71 Feb 09 2018 10:48 AM Immediate increase costs to families can have a negative affect, leading to greater absences from school or children just not going, regardless of laws or fines. There are a lot of families earning above the qualifying amount for free school meals and highest award tax credits that won’t be able to afford school transport. 72 Feb 08 2018 05:01 PM 1. Making the change at the mid point of a child's education is disruptive and leaves parents and pupils "stranded" through no fault of their own.

2. It makes no sense to set transport catchments that do not match intake catchments.

3. Children in rural areas that are 16 years old and over could effectively be denied access to education if they have no access to transport or both parents work.

4. Legal and ethical responsibilities are not the same thing. Councillors should demonstrate ethical and moral considerations above and beyond the bare minimum requirements spelt out by central government. 73 Feb 08 2018 01:28 PM May mean the end or the 6th form at Beyton 74 Feb 08 2018 09:32 AM Students travelling to college get no support and I fail to see why A Level students should be subject to a different arrangements. 75 Feb 08 2018 12:50 AM Save & use our taxes better. 76 Feb 07 2018 12:21 PM The proposed policy change will have a totally detrimental impact on schools which have already been through the SOR with all its associated upheaval for children, who were promised at the time a choice of schools, not an autocratic decision based on a mythical cost saving. The suggestion that such a choice still exists for all depending on whether each child and their parents can afford a bus pass is absurd, since this clearly impacts directly on rural children and communities more heavily that their urban equivalents who can take advantage of existing transport or shorter journeys to school. The proposed policy also totally contradicts the Greenest County initiative by blithely accepting that most of the current efficient bus journeys will now be undertaken by private cars. The Raising the Bar initiative also appears to now be irrelevant, byway of the policy tforcing those unable to afford the bus pass and without other means of transport to attend a school with a lower ranking.

13 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 77 Feb 06 2018 10:10 PM Some people can not afford 78 Feb 06 2018 08:12 PM A child aged 16,17 or 18 generally has to be in education of some sort. They wont be earning a wage. They will be in no position to pay for transport to school. The law regarding transport hasn't kept up with changes in compulsory education for 16-18 year olds. 79 Feb 06 2018 04:13 PM You are required to make arrangements for the provision of transport to facilitating the attendance of persons of sixth form age receiving education or training at institutions. If you remove the school bus to Thurston I will not be able to get to college - there is no other transport

80 Feb 05 2018 07:34 PM The legal minimum requirement is wholly inadequate. 81 Feb 05 2018 04:11 PM no changes should be made 82 Feb 05 2018 01:08 PM Education is a basic right of all children, getting to school therefore should be free. Children are now required to stay on at school until 18 and there are much limited options of where they can go - any transport to an educational facility from 16 to 18 should be free. 83 Feb 05 2018 07:40 AM You can legally work at 16 so you can afford to pay for the bus 84 Feb 04 2018 09:27 PM My child’s catchment is not our closest school. It is unfair to force children to change schools. 85 Feb 04 2018 08:31 PM As someone with no children I don not appreciate subsidising other peoples children beyon statutory legal requirements 86 Feb 03 2018 09:28 PM In a perfect world it would be free but this is too expensive. 87 Feb 03 2018 08:20 PM This will affect many family's especially the poorer ones not giving them a choice of schools as it will be costly! Strongly disagree with this. 88 Feb 02 2018 10:53 PM Because of the impact of inevitable increased numbers of car journeys on rural traffic

Disruption to children’s education family life and continuity

Removal of choice of school

Reduction in pupil numbers will impact numbers of teachers and variety of subjects on offer

89 Feb 02 2018 06:16 PM There is no need to change the system now, also I would strongly like to send my child to a school in which they would benefit from most; not just the closest option that I must follow because, there aren't any buses traveling to the most beneficial one. 90 Feb 02 2018 03:49 PM It would mean that children currently receiving free transport would no longer qualify and would either have to move school or parents would have to organise transport. 91 Feb 02 2018 12:23 PM My child would suffer alot of mental trauma if he had to move schools at this stage. Just moving from primary to secondary was very difficult for him and this would massively impact his schooling.

14 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 92 Feb 02 2018 09:45 AM You would be discriminating against rural communities. Not all families can afford subsidised travel let alone pay the full price. This option would alienate children in rural areas and suppress their educational opportunities. This would have a detrimental affect on many young people not only from an academic point of view but could also have an impact on a young persons health and emotional well being. 93 Feb 02 2018 07:17 AM My son will start post 16 in sept 2018 and currently his school doesn’t offer any post 16 facilities. He currently walks to school but I will have to send him to a school which is at least 10miles away.

I believe the government should provide free transport, they made it compulsory to stay on in a form of education so they should pay!!! I pay my taxes! 94 Feb 01 2018 09:23 PM Limits choice for rural students

Increases number of cars on already crowded roads 95 Feb 01 2018 01:58 PM Council tax should not be used to subsidise parental choice

If this age group want to vote then they should also take responsibility for their own decisions 96 Feb 01 2018 12:53 PM The government says that young people are to stay in some form of education until the age of 18, therefore, the rules that apply to children up to the age of 16 should also apply to those between the ages of 16-18. As SCC has not operated in line with legal requirements in the past, it should not do so now just because it will save money. 97 Feb 01 2018 11:35 AM rural discrimination 98 Feb 01 2018 11:05 AM I don't think that Council Tax payers should be required to pay for services above the legal requirements 99 Feb 01 2018 10:27 AM The government has forced children to attend some form of education until 18. They should not therefore be looked at as a separate category. They are all school children. 100 Jan 31 2018 07:17 PM It is deeply unfair to give parents the option of paying or disrupting their children's education. A lot of parents don't have the money to pay and will be forced into moving their children which is cruel. 101 Jan 31 2018 06:45 PM Many parents can afford to pay at least something towards this cost, whereas there are many other services that need funds 102 Jan 31 2018 04:00 PM This will mean that many sixth form students cannot access their chosen school and therefore in many cases will not be able to study the A-level subjects that they would choose, and it would also mean that some children have to change schools part way through sixth form causing enormous disruption and distress. Sixth forms especially in rural schools will suffer in numbers and funding. 103 Jan 31 2018 03:29 PM Many Families are under pressure financially and having a small amount of subsidy for post -16 will help more young people reach the technical and vocational training that they choose 104 Jan 31 2018 03:09 PM No student who HAS TO BE IN POST 16 EDUCATION/EMPLOYMENT OR APPRENTICESHIP SHOULD HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING. IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE FREE TRANSPORT UNTIL THEY ARE IN FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT TO PAY FOR TRAVEL!!

15 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 105 Jan 31 2018 11:17 AM It would be best to make partial changes first, to see how that goes and get used to it before then continuing with the rest a while alter 106 Jan 31 2018 09:43 AM Unfair 107 Jan 30 2018 04:06 PM This would be causing unnecessary disruption to children in their highly important years of schooling.. Putting even more financial strain on families who are already struggling to make ends meet.. Common sense dictates that all children are not going to be able to attend their nearest due to sheer numbers... I have been lead to believe that only 10% of children use the bus to get to school, then it would make sense to try to save money else where, not by sacrificing our children's education !!! 108 Jan 30 2018 03:30 PM This seems to be an unfair system. Students may be forced to change school, affecting both their social and academic progress. Furthermore, siblings may be split up causing great inconvenience to parents. 109 Jan 30 2018 01:54 PM It would mean many students could not get to my school. 110 Jan 30 2018 12:49 PM All children are required by law to stay in full time education or apprenticeship until they are 18. There may not be a sixth form at the school that they currently attend and in order to undertake the right course for the child, the nearest sixth form may not provide the relevant course. If previously free transport to High School, this penalises parents who suddenly have to find hundreds of pounds for transport costs. Public transport in rural areas is also non-existent. 111 Jan 30 2018 10:58 AM It prevents students from accessing their first choice education which majorly determines how they continue in further education or job roles in the future. Option 1 blocks young adults from showing their potential. 112 Jan 30 2018 10:56 AM Everyone has the right to an education and so by stopping/restricting school transport you are depriving them of that right. 113 Jan 30 2018 09:09 AM Because education would be disrupted. 114 Jan 30 2018 07:24 AM I pay my taxes so all children can get a great education, no matter if their parents can afford travel fares or not. Forcing young people to have to go to the closest post-16 educational establishment will mean many cannot follow their ambitions and undermine getting a well/educated next generation. 115 Jan 29 2018 09:26 PM It is unfair for pupils to not have the chance of transport to schools they are happy/thrive at. 116 Jan 29 2018 03:07 PM It will make parents panic and think they would have to move their children now into another school in case they can't get in September 2019. 117 Jan 29 2018 10:29 AM 118 Jan 28 2018 08:06 PM never works well to do things all at one better to stage it and gain support bringing in the changes 119 Jan 28 2018 07:33 PM It is completely unjust to 'move the goalposts' once a child has embarked on his or her school career, and particularly so if the child attends his or her catchment school, even though it may not be the closest to his/her home. 120 Jan 28 2018 06:32 PM The council should be working in line with legal requirements.

16 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 121 Jan 28 2018 06:24 PM It reduces choice and splits up siblings and puts increased pressures on families and remote village communities. 122 Jan 28 2018 10:51 AM What is the point of allowing pupil choice in terms of selecting an institution to meet their needs, but not funding them for it. We must encourage all young people into education that is right for them. The nearest institution doesn’t necessarily offer that. 123 Jan 28 2018 10:27 AM Some children will be halfway through their A level courses and may well have to change schools which would harm their education.

These pupils have already had to endure the change to 2tier schooling (the 1st group actually ) and then they're subjected to this , it's just unfair.

In some cases it would be forcing them away from LEA schools into Free Schools or Acadamies thus taking away choice , something that was given as the reason for Ixworth Free School. That can't be right. 124 Jan 28 2018 09:07 AM You'll be making further education even more inaccessible in a county that already has a large education deficit compared to the national statistics.

The money you save today will be tomorrow's problem. 125 Jan 28 2018 08:44 AM This is totally unfair on people who already have a school place and the following year may not be able to afford the cost of the travel. 126 Jan 28 2018 12:13 AM Council tax needs to be shared and travel doesn't benefit education . 127 Jan 27 2018 05:53 PM if This free service is removed, I don’t know how we are expected to get our children to their catchment school. We live in suffolk and our closest School is in Norfolk which isn’t our catchment School. Under these proposals we would have to pay for transport even if our children were to attend the closest school. For us to be able to take our children to school ourself see would have to make changes to our working hours and therefore our income. 128 Jan 27 2018 03:39 PM No obvious cost saving from this. The disruption to children, potentially have way through their post 16 study. Children have to attend full time education until they are 18 or job with training. The majority do not earn any money so the parents would have to subsidise travel arrangements. The impact on the environment, local travel, local house prices that have cars parked outside them twice a day when the parents drop children off. Lack of choice for parents. The impact on parents work therefore reduced income and may require government support from benefits as they would need to drop children at a school to keep attending current school. Cost of redundancy and reorganisation of schools to accommodate extra pupils. Reduced choice of a levels for children on reduction of size of sixth from. No school checker includes distance to nearest sixth form!These children have already been impacted on due to the change from three tier to two tier. Extra stress for the pupils at a time when they should be concentrating on revision. Change in future voting for this county council as this has impacted on the pre voting population.

17 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses Impact on rural environments, village sizes and transport. Impact on families as children in the same family cannot go to the same school. Impact on parents voting habits. 129 Jan 27 2018 12:12 AM Disadvantaged families hit the hardest. We are a rural community and need to provide transport to school. Those studying in the 6th form need encouragement to stay on. If costs is detrimental to staying on this is not conducive to low income families selecting education as an option. 130 Jan 26 2018 07:50 PM Legal requirement to attend school until 18 unless in an apprenticeship or vocational training.

131 Jan 25 2018 11:42 PM children should not be made to walk long distances to school.You intend to remove transport for some children even though they go the school in their catchment area but live more than 3 miles away. When there is more than one child going to different schools parents can not be in two places at the same time. You should be looking at special needs children who have taxis to school several with only one child per car. If parents have a car because of that child they should be given the choice of car or transport not both. 132 Jan 25 2018 09:53 PM Lack of choice 133 Jan 25 2018 08:20 PM See my comments at the end. 134 Jan 25 2018 02:50 PM Think it's wrong for children to have to walk 6 miles a day to get to a school what has been in the catchment area for years and now all of a sudden it's the furthest away don't know who that is worked out 135 Jan 25 2018 09:13 AM Any changes or increased charges could be a deterrent to young people enrolling on courses at a time when they are obliged to stay on in education / training post -16. 136 Jan 24 2018 12:43 PM I think this needs to be phased in. some of the local high schools are very small and cannot accommodate major influxes.

I'm also concerned with the environmental issues. Putting so many more cars on the road doesn't seem like a good idea. 137 Jan 24 2018 08:59 AM Parents should have a choice. Those of us in rural areas need help getting our children to school. All school transport should be free up to age 18. 138 Jan 24 2018 07:46 AM Cost of bus to Suffolk one already expensive. Travel for post 16 should be free as students have no choice. Travel from Hadleigh to Ipswich us difficult already and gridlocked mist mornings. Parents raking students to one will only make this worse. No parking at one for students 139 Jan 23 2018 05:13 PM In a rural context where post-16 students need to be in full time education or other approved training, how, exactly, are such students supposed to get to Sixth Form (or college) without school transport? 140 Jan 23 2018 04:54 PM Post 16 children have chosen where they are educated; the legislation should be met but not exceeded in these times of austerity. 141 Jan 23 2018 03:42 PM Removing free transport removes feasible choice for parents and pupils unable to find the additional funds for transportation.

Given that some of the central principals and changes put in place by the government have been to

18 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses provide wide educational choices for all, it seems somewhat paradoxical that this is then being stripped away through the removal of transportation to all but your nearest school. 142 Jan 23 2018 02:10 PM There is no other transport in this village apart from the school bus. Due to numbers in the villages no commercial other transport is going to be set up. No other transport , for those living rurally, is an option. This discriminates against those living rurally. 143 Jan 23 2018 02:03 PM We live in Brantham and the majority of children feed from Brooklands Primary School straight into East Bergholt High School. The bus currently goes straight past our house for East Bergholt High School but no bus for Manningtree High School that I am aware of?... The children grow together at Brooklands Primary and then have the opportunity to all grow together at East Bergholt High School but by stopping free transport this will mean depending on circumstance there may be a spilt in which Secondary School they then go to, i.e. affordability, flexible working hours etc to drop the child off at school. 144 Jan 22 2018 08:53 PM as we live in a rural community for some areas public transport is limited and costly. it would be a shame if the cost of transport became a key factor in a childs post 16 training choices 145 Jan 22 2018 01:47 PM If policy phased it would give parents more time to plan 146 Jan 21 2018 08:31 PM We have no bus service in our village, my child would not be able to get to/from school despite them legally having to attend. 147 Jan 21 2018 11:17 AM The children should be allowed to continue to go to their catchment school for free where the council had previously told them to go. Children at this age cannot be unsettled with changing schools at this important stage in their education 148 Jan 21 2018 11:10 AM This proposal would disadvantage many already disadvantaged young people, in so far as those who can afford to make their own arrangements will do so but those who rely on benefits and low incomes will not be in the position to travel to their school. Some may live close to a county boarder and be in the position of no transport to their current school and no transport to their geographically more local school.

The disruption for high school children to relocate schools during their pivotal academic years will bring many extra issues, such as increased need for psychological intervention, emotional crisis and increased risk to children's mental health.

Children who are close to a boarder, and whose family have no financial means to provide their own transport will still need to be provided with taxi services, or face not attending school as their new school may be over the boarder and therefore not transported by the other county.

Children who are forced to walk through unlit, rural footpaths will be at an increased risk of danger, assault, bullying, injury etc.

More school days will be lost for difficulty in travelling, mental health concerns in children will continue to

19 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses rise, further disadvantaging young people and increasing strains on youth mental health provisions.

Many high school aged young people will have developed close and important relationships which could be damaged, again increasing risk to mental health. There is currently inadequate psychological support in most school settings.

If the issue is financial then a sliding scale/means tested system would allow the county council to receive more money, the richest in the community rightly can afford the service and the poorest can still access their current catchment school without prejudice of their ability to finance

Burdening other schools with potentially large intakes of children will again increase the risk of damage to the children's education, mental wellbeing and future prospects.

This feels like a very wrong, unjust and poor proposal to me.

149 Jan 19 2018 08:55 PM we feel that we shouldn't have to pay for our children to travel to school,we already have to pay so much taxes for the public services.the cost of living is going up but the wages aren't for so many people.what if you are stretched to your limits financially and you can't afford to pay for your child to travel to school does that mean that some children won't be able to go to school because parents can't afford it.for our oldest son to go to the nearest two tier school he would have to travel on the same bus anyway so what sense does that make.i was moved school when I was twelve because we moved from London to Suffolk,that was a negative experience for me so I would even consider that option for my children. 150 Jan 19 2018 08:54 PM Not everyone can afford this and cannot run their child into school due to various reasons (e.g. work, health issues). 151 Jan 19 2018 06:22 PM Because it would mean the children would cross the boarder, also when moving from primary school to high school at the minute there is lots of going to hartismere school so the children get used to it, I can't see this happening with diss school so VERY unfair on the year 7 children 152 Jan 19 2018 06:07 PM People need an education and without this it would decrease the chance of people getting a goodbye education 153 Jan 19 2018 05:14 PM To completely remove support for students who require travel support in order to attend further education colleges is to disregard what an important factor this is in their choices post 16. If they cannot afford to get there, they cannot move out from home yet and so cannot achieve their potential fully. It is incredibly short- sighted. 154 Jan 19 2018 04:52 PM It is unfair to limit school options when it is compulsory for students to attend. It also limits course options for students caught on the boundaries. Young people should not be liable to the negative effects of poor planning by the council who disregard the context of their actions.

20 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses

Considering that post-16 is now compulsory it is hugely unfair to limit the potential options for families by not at least subsidising transport options.This option is unthinkable and is harmful to young people in all capacities. 155 Jan 19 2018 09:46 AM We have recently moved to Fressingfield from Leigh on Sea Essex, my children cannot walk to a bus stop as we live on a country road with no pavements, cutting the school bus service is dangerous,traffic congestion will be awful around the school if parents have to drive their children to school & pick them up, my children safety is important. 156 Jan 19 2018 07:04 AM My daughter who will be moving into post 16 education at this time will be disadvantaged

as we are not a low income family but cannot afford for her to travel to west Suffolk college or equivalent - this on top of her school year already being left behind being the first year group held back at primary school and them spending most of the year not knowing what to do with these 'extra' children, then sinking into special measures.

157 Jan 18 2018 09:34 PM Because children are legally obliged to stay at school and the council short continue to support hard working families who are not considered low income but who already struggle to find the current amount. Also more importantly for us there are no alternative forms of transport in rural areas like Charsfield. I could not work and get my child to and from school due to the hours and location of my work.

All children should be entitled to stay at their catchment school for sixth form and the policy means that some children in areas like Charsfield would have to change School in order to get any transport to a sixth form that is slightly closer. Catchment School should remain catchment post 16 because it can have a terrible impact on children if you force them to change. If you insist on nearest School post 16 then you should change catchments so that they line up for the whole of a child’s secondary/sixth form. 158 Jan 18 2018 06:06 PM Some people cannot afford to pay the fare everyday

159 Jan 18 2018 03:01 PM It doesn't account for parental choice of school Vi form or the rural nature of Suffolk. 160 Jan 18 2018 09:51 AM It would cause major disruption to the students education at a very critical point in their studies. 161 Jan 17 2018 11:19 PM It's not fair 162 Jan 17 2018 09:23 PM Parents and children should have a choice of schools in their catchment area 163 Jan 17 2018 05:58 PM Council should keep the service the way it is. This change would directly impact my children and disrupt their education. 164 Jan 17 2018 04:41 PM I believe this puts post 16's with parent who have not got the means or the inclination to pay more transport costs at an educational disadvantage. We need to have a level playing field for all post 16's to access the best education they can get and moreover the opportunities that education provides.

21 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 165 Jan 17 2018 04:38 PM This would be too much disruption to schools and parents, this should be implemental on a phased basis. 166 Jan 17 2018 03:30 PM It would be wrong to force students to stop doing a course because SCC made it impossible for the students to get to sixth form or college. 167 Jan 17 2018 02:38 PM This proposal affects children currently settled in schools. It is totally wrong to move them. It is detrimental t9 their education, and the costs of changing schools and all the associated paperwork, catching up etc will surely outweigh any small saving on transportation costs. 168 Jan 17 2018 12:24 PM The proposal will result in reduced patronage in existing public routes and increase the likelihood of them being cancelled. This will reduce the already limited public transport options and ensure that the Council’s desire to reduce car usage is NOT met.

There will be increased use of the private car to take children to school, which will undermine the Council’s strategy of reducing car use as well as increase traffic congestion around schools.

School places are based on catchment areas not distance from school. Parents/carers will have to gamble on getting their child into an out of catchment school to benefit from free transport. This is illogical.

The proposals will result in a reduction in School admissions for those properties where free transport is not an option. Reduced admissions will undermine the viability of courses run at a school with resultant, negative impact on the educational attainment of Suffolk School children. This is illogical for a County where concerns have been raised about existing education results.

Students will be forced to seek alternative settings for their post-16 studies. This is highly disruptive and will result in negative consequences for the student and the education results of the County. 169 Jan 17 2018 12:00 PM There will be no 6th form in Haverhill in 2 years time. Not funding travel for over 16s will have a huge impact on families where budgets are tight and deny these children any further education. 170 Jan 17 2018 09:22 AM The national policies are not designed for rural areas such as Suffolk and were implemented when post-16 schooling was optional 171 Jan 17 2018 07:54 AM School transport should be free for all children, of all ages, in compulsorily education up to the age of 18. To make changes or charge for transport will descriminate against those who can least afford to pay. Children’s education will suffer if this proposal is implemented. 172 Jan 16 2018 11:46 PM In the area of Suffolk I live in this is not going to be helpful. The nearest high school don’t offer 6th form and Iceni Norfolk no longer does so many of them pupils move onto Mildenhall College Academy in Suffolk. Children meant to stay on till 18 in education this isn’t going to happen when it’s to difficult and extremely expensive to travel to 6th form. 173 Jan 16 2018 11:41 PM We live in mendham, we need transport to Thomas mills and hartismere. If my child starts Thomas mills in sept 2018, will the transport continue for the 2nd year of A-levels in sept 2019.

22 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 174 Jan 16 2018 08:36 PM Making changes part way through children’s education will be disruptive. Having to start at a new establishment part way through a course would mean a settling in or adjustment period which would affect students learning. Students who would be part way through their post-16 provision would have to go elsewhere served by public transport and may not be able to study the same courses and examination boards that they started with. Other centres or the nearest one may not offer the same qualifications and students would have to follow a best fit route which is not acceptable.

Students have to engage in some post 16-18 training or education. Therefore transport should be provided to an establishment of choice within their local area so that young people can select the pathway of their choosing. The associated costs for parents paying for post 16 transport is something that many families have no choice about. Buses into and out of Mildenhall are not frequent at present and therefore travelling to other areas would add extra time to students days. 175 Jan 16 2018 06:00 PM It is unfair to charge students to attend compulsory education they can't work until age 18 now other than very part time hours. 176 Jan 16 2018 05:57 PM We are a rural area. Post 16s are obliged to be in education, training or apprenticeship. There is local bus service in my area. Should I be forced to give up my job and claim benefits in order to allow my child to extend her education beyond 16? 177 Jan 16 2018 05:43 PM It is a decision led by money, not a child's needs. 178 Jan 16 2018 04:12 PM I believe this would have a detrimental effect on post 16 education for students and the choices the students have. 179 Jan 16 2018 02:48 PM Travel to public schools should be covered by the education budget. 180 Jan 16 2018 02:26 PM Raising aspirations for young people in Suffolk has been a priority for years and young people in Suffolk need to be encouraged to attend Sixth Forms. The proposed change to post-16 transport will only act as a further barrier preventing some young people from wanting to attend Sixth Form or will encourage a higher drop-out rate when the transport proves too costly or unreliable. Studies show that for many young people attending a Sixth Form provision which is familiar to them because it is part of or linked to the school they attended pre-16 is the most important factor to them.

Existing Sixth Forms, like the one my child attends, are achieving good and outstanding results and the progress scores made by the learners are some of the highest in the country. Without sufficient numbers they will not be able to maintain a viable Sixth Form provision. The transport policy changes will reduce the numbers of students able to come to our Sixth Form. Why would Suffolk risk losing such quality post-16 provision as ours? Does it or does it not want to raise standards and aspirations in Suffolk?

23 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses Schools such as ours in areas like Forest Heath have worked hard over the years to prevent young people from becoming NEET/NIL. The transport changes will undo much of our work.

There are insufficient public bus routes to many schools with Sixth Forms. The proposed changes unfairly advantage Sixth Form centres in the larger towns such as Bury St Edmunds. It seems too much of a coincidence that these plans are being proposed at the same time that a new Sixth Form centre is opening in Bury St Edmunds. Suffolk County Council appears to be favouring one institution over the fortunes of others.

The Government has raised the participation age to 18. Young people need to be given transport to make it possible to continue in education until they are 18.

Closed contracts for school transport will carry spare seats and by keeping these routes open to Sixth Formers it will actually help to reduce the cost of running the buses for the pre-16 year olds.

Our Sixth Form centre is one of the very few in the county that offers students a full range of Level 3 applied and A-Level courses side by side. In most other institutions students have to choose one pathway or the other or have a very limited choice available to them from an alternative pathway to A-Levels. The transport changes would force young people to pick courses at other institutions which they are not best suited to. Success rates will fall and drop-out rates increase as a result. 181 Jan 16 2018 09:17 AM it is already very difficult for children to attend a number of schools in the county because of a lack of transport but this would make it even harder. 182 Jan 15 2018 07:41 PM I live in a rural village where the route to our primary school has already been said to be unsafe for children to walk. Now you are proposing that our children will have to walk this route putting them in danger. 183 Jan 15 2018 04:03 PM Students/parents have started courses with the current arrangement - changing it now is unfair 184 Jan 15 2018 12:01 PM What happens to pupils who are halfway through their A Level course , it would harm their education to have to change schools . 185 Jan 15 2018 10:43 AM Because people who do not have bursary's will struggle immensely with this change and it will cost the public so much money because of this 186 Jan 15 2018 10:27 AM By making all the changes in one go in September 2019, you'll be disrupting people who are already using the transport to get to their college or school. 187 Jan 15 2018 10:13 AM Not everyone can afford to pay for bus tickets and to pay over the course of a year, some parents could be paying thousands of pounds just to send their child to school to get a FREE education. 188 Jan 15 2018 10:13 AM I think this as the large charge at the start of every term often deters people from going to sixth form or colleges as even if they are able to afford it it is a large cost. Also it can mean students who do have to pay

24 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses may then not be able to afford other things such as books for academic classes or creative products if they are in a creative subject. The charge in short often causes material deprivation. 189 Jan 15 2018 10:11 AM the ting is stupid 190 Jan 15 2018 10:11 AM i oppose option one as it gives sixth former's no choice where they want to go after the change is implemented and therefore could be damaging in terms of friends and curriculum change. 191 Jan 14 2018 10:18 PM How can the council / government expect parents to have to pay for transportation ? Just something else to worry about financially. Only option for them, if they are working, is to work part time to ensure their kids are dropped off and picked up. How can a full time working parent accomplish this ? 192 Jan 14 2018 10:17 PM The Government has raised the compulsory education age to 18, if the child does not have a school within walking distance then the government need to pay for the child to get to school, as they already do for pre 16 education. Why should parents have to pay for the transport for compulsory further education? My salary level means that I would be deemed as not needing financial help with transport costs in this scenario, the reality however with a mortgage (which will now go up with interest rate rises) cost of living and debts means that I could not afford to pay for my childs transport costs in this situation and the nearest sixth form is over 4 miles away down dangerous 60 mile an hour country roads with no footpath. What are we supposed to do? In this area children will need free transport to continue in education until they are 18.

Noty only that but the proposed changes mean that some schools are oversubscribed and others are left with empty classrooms. I also fail to see how it will save money long term. Some schools will have to make redundancies and the costs of those redundancies would be passed on to the Council. Also the oversubscribed schools will probably need to increase their size, so there will need to be money found for that. It is a false economy and it feels like it has not been thoroughly thought through. 193 Jan 14 2018 07:14 PM Removing parental choice for transport funding will mean all Sixth Forms like ours in Mildenhall will not be financially viable. The Suffolk Transport consultation has come about coinciding with the opening of the new Sixth Form in Bury St Edmunds. This does not show support from the Council to ALL schools with a Sixth Form in Suffolk.

The Hub will be severely compromised should Option 1 be implemented as out Sixth Form would not be financially viable. Teachers and support staff would be made redundant as a cost by Suffolk County Council as many are original SCC employed TUPED over.

More importantly this would remove pupil choice of a Sixth Form that offers not only A Level subjects but also Applied subjects running side by side - providing a plethora of subject choices and pathways. 194 Jan 14 2018 06:02 PM Children have to stay in education to 18 and this option would cost certain families more money 195 Jan 14 2018 04:17 PM With children needing to stay in education until they are 18 , they should be given the continued right to travel

25 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 196 Jan 13 2018 01:42 PM It will be really disruptive for so many students and could damage their education. 197 Jan 12 2018 06:24 PM Children have gone to MCA for years why change it now, absolutely ridiculous for 0.2 miles, come on Suffolk County Council lets use some common sense here! 198 Jan 12 2018 03:29 PM As students have to stay in education until they are 18 I don't see why they should have to pay to get there. 199 Jan 12 2018 03:24 PM It will impact lots of children and have potential consequences to their future education.

Additionally it may have financial implications on their families and transportation considerations. 200 Jan 12 2018 02:12 PM All kids should be able to go to school where they feel most happy and not everyone has enough money to do that. 201 Jan 12 2018 02:09 PM If a student is required to stay in education until they are 18, then transport to get them to the place that supports that should be free for all students.

Our closest school only goes up to year 11, so our children have no choice but to travel. 202 Jan 12 2018 01:02 PM This will cause far too much disruption to far too many children all in one massive go AND it would be too large a task to organise all at once. 203 Jan 12 2018 12:40 PM i think people will have chosen schools based on travel that was open at the time so to take this away when the kids are settled is unfair and unreasonable and could cause a huge amount of distress to some families at a time when wages haven't increased and council services are going up as well as rising inflation 204 Jan 12 2018 11:21 AM Allow people time to make other arrangements for the children already going to college/ school 205 Jan 12 2018 08:26 AM It seems as though you want to restrict a child’s choice of school due to cost of Travel because they live in a rural Location when the government has said the opposite

It is totally unfair that the nearerst 6th form college is located out of our village and you’re expected to pay the Travel costs but if a child already lives in the town where the 6th form college is located there’s no Cust to them 206 Jan 12 2018 07:21 AM If my son was moved from Hartismere to Diss High School under proposal 1, I consider this very very disruptive for him. I would want my son strongly to stay where he is, with the schools l he is used to, to maintain continuity for him. With my work hours, I cannot transport my child to school. I cannot afford taxi fares to get my child to school.

I agree cutbacks, yes, it is evident in all areas of our society. But this proposal is just ludicrous in relation to the children it involves. 207 Jan 11 2018 10:01 PM How is my son going to get to school as I work

26 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 208 Jan 11 2018 09:53 PM It will effect mine and my husbands working hours. Means I will have to cut my hours which means less income for us as a family. 209 Jan 11 2018 09:18 PM What is Post 16 transport? Surely seeing as though education is compulsory until 18, there should not be any difference, it is all educational transport!

With that said, why should students/parents have to pay at all for transport to their nearest 6th form or college? So to propose taking away the subsidised rate is insulting! Especially as some of these students may not even want to stay in education and would much prefer to start work...but they can’t and therefore do not have the money to pay for their own transport! 210 Jan 11 2018 08:51 PM By removing free transport for children in Lakenheath who wish to attend MCA, you are risking those who cannot afford the costs taking their children out of school, causing upheaval and detriment to the children involved. If it is law that all registered children attend school, then transport should be part of that provision. 211 Jan 11 2018 08:47 PM Because I can’t afford to send my child to school 212 Jan 11 2018 07:32 PM As the government say all young people need to be in education until they are 18, then so should transport. Where this is to sixth form, collage or apprenterships placement 213 Jan 11 2018 05:35 PM To many cut backs already in Suffolk ! They seem to be getting worse since a certain Mr Noble is in charge!! He wanted people to vote for him , what a joke , I wonder how much money he and many others are getting sitting around in the office !! Shameful !!! 214 Jan 11 2018 12:33 PM Accessing education is paramount. The current provision is effective. Savings should be made via efficiency or from other services 215 Jan 11 2018 09:34 AM children always did go to the closest school ,no need to spend all this money on school travel 216 Jan 11 2018 07:03 AM Where we are in Lakenheath, MCA is the main school but IES is marginally closer. It will have no financial gain to force kids to go to IES as they will still need a bus to get there. IES is a very small school, how's it going to cope anyway?! 217 Jan 11 2018 06:44 AM We live a fair distance from our sons current sixth form and have 3 other children who go to different schools. It would mean him having to change schools to compete his ALevels elsewhere. Disrupting his education, we live in a rural area with no means of public transport. 218 Jan 10 2018 10:37 PM No change should happen, we pay enough in council tax 219 Jan 10 2018 10:10 PM Don't understand proposal. 220 Jan 10 2018 09:23 PM The bus has been running for years. I have one child at mca already and one starting September. Mca was always catchment school. I can afford to pay for transport as I am on a low wage however I am just over the threshold so can't recieve support. I also don't want my children in a Brandon school. And won't change there school. I think charging for the bus is disgusting and scc should be ashamed. 221 Jan 10 2018 08:01 PM How can you propose my daughter to move schools in her last year of education , she has been at hartismere for 5 years and with this proposal she moves to diss !!! Typical stupid ideas to save money on

27 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses such an important time of her life , as usual disregarding local rural life . We both work as parents ,one for Suffolk primary schools who as a secretary is on basic wage and goes over the top to work extra hours without pay , we cannot take her to school every day , please rethink this basic principle that kids education if far more important than anything else , and don't remove the freedom of choice from parents that can't afford private transport . 222 Jan 10 2018 07:28 PM You are picking on innocent children and happy to disrupt their education, what kind of council are you? Forcing them to go to a new school if parents cant afford transport and some will be in the middle of GCSEs, its disgusting 223 Jan 10 2018 06:13 PM Parents who are unable to find transport to get their children to school will be forced to change school mid way through the child's education causing serious disruption to their education. 224 Jan 10 2018 05:44 PM The nearest school may not be easy to get to or could even be In a different county which can make term dates slightly different this can be difficult when arranging child care etc

Moving children from school is stressful and upsetting especially if they are in their GCSE years.

225 Jan 10 2018 04:32 PM Disruption to education without notice. Immediate financial hardship to parents whose kids want to remain at their current school. 226 Jan 10 2018 04:05 PM Because the change effects my children but the change will not save money moving.

Current school is 5.9 miles

New school is 5.4 miles

Bus company has confirmed that this will not save any money! 227 Jan 10 2018 02:44 PM Our children don’t go to the local school we have to pay for our children to get there as it’s our choice to not send them there. Doing this could subsidise fares anyway. 228 Jan 09 2018 03:04 PM Raising aspirations for young people in Suffolk has been a priority for years and young people in Suffolk need to be encouraged to attend Sixth Forms. The proposed change to post-16 transport will only act as a further barrier preventing some young people from wanting to attend Sixth Form or will encourage a higher drop-out rate when the transport proves too costly or unreliable. Studies show that for many young people attending a Sixth Form provision which is familiar to them because it is part of or linked to the school they attended pre-16 is the most important factor to them.

Existing Sixth Forms like ours are achieving good and outstanding results and the progress scores made by our learners are some of the highest in the country. Without sufficient numbers we will not be able to maintain a viable Sixth Form provision. The transport policy changes will reduce the numbers of students

28 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses able to come to our Sixth Form. Why would Suffolk risk losing such quality post-16 provision as ours? Does it or does it not want to raise standards and aspirations in Suffolk?

The Government has raised the participation age to 18. Young people need to be given transport to make it possible to continue in education until they are 18. 229 Jan 09 2018 12:48 PM The Sixth Form in our area has built a strong reputation for excellent results and has a wide curriculum including many vocational subjects. Therefore, if students want to study both academic and vocational subjects they have a Sixth Form in Mildenhall which will facilitate this without a long journey on public transport. Having progressed through the lower school it seems unfair for choice to be restricted for those who can afford to pay public bus fairs. Also in our area public transport is very poor and the catchment area is rural - students don't have the choice to walk or cycle to Sixth Form as they would do in Ipswich or Bury. 230 Jan 09 2018 12:10 PM I think its unfair

231 Jan 08 2018 11:04 PM Too complex to understand. 232 Jan 08 2018 09:52 PM Children have to attend a school/college post 16 and so it is deeply unfair that they have to pay for travel. It will mean that some will just not be able to afford to get to post 16 places 233 Jan 08 2018 05:20 PM Sixth form provision in the area is vital for young people.

They will make the transition more easily to a school environment which is familiar to them.

Proposed changes to the transport would put 6th form provision at risk.

NEET/NIL numbers will rise.

The government have raised staying in education until 18 compulsory and young people need transport to give them the best opportunities at post 16 level.

There are insufficient bus routes to many schools with 6th forms and would unfairly advantage 6th forms in larger towns such as Bury St Edmunds. 234 Jan 08 2018 04:56 PM The choice of 6th form school should be able to be made based on the merits of the school and the suitability for the pupil, not on the cost of getting there 235 Jan 08 2018 04:18 PM Savings need to be made from other areas to ensure that educational opportunities are made equally accessible for all, which includes access to education, and therefore transport. Options 1 & 2 discriminate geographically and financially against poorer families who cannot afford to live in towns due to prohibitive house prices.

29 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 236 Jan 08 2018 02:27 PM Raising aspirations for young people in Suffolk has been a priority for years and young people in Suffolk need to be encouraged to attend Sixth Forms. The proposed change to post-16 transport will only act as a further barrier preventing some young people from wanting to attend Sixth Form or will encourage a higher drop out rate when the transport proves too costly or unreliable. Studies show that for many young people attending a Sixth Form provision which is familiar to them because it is part of or linked to the school they attended pre-16 is the most important factor to them.

Existing Sixth Forms like ours are achieving good and outstanding results and the progress scores made by our learners are some of the highest in the country. Without sufficient numbers we will not be able to maintain a viable Sixth Form provision. The transport policy changes will reduce the numbers of students able to come to our Sixth Form. Why would Suffolk risk losing such quality post-16 provision as ours? Does it or does it not want to raise standards and aspirations in Suffolk?

Schools such as ours in areas like Forest Heath have worked hard over the years to prevent young people from becoming NEET/NIL. The transport changes will undo much of our work.

There are insufficient public bus routes to many schools with Sixth Forms. The proposed changes unfairly advantage Sixth Form centres in the larger towns such as Bury St Edmunds. It seems too much of a coincidence that these plans are being proposed at the same time that a new Sixth Form centre is opening in Bury St Edmunds. Suffolk County Council appears to be favouring one institution over the fortunes of others.

The Government has raised the participation age to 18. Young people need to be given transport to make it possible to continue in education until they are 18.

Closed contracts for school transport will carry spare seats and by keeping these routes open to Sixth Formers it will actually help to reduce the cost of running the buses for the pre-16 year olds.

Our Sixth Form centre is one of the very few in the county that offers students a full range of Level 3 applied and A-Level courses side by side. In most other institutions students have to choose one pathway or the other or have a very limited choice available to them from an alternative pathway to A-Levels. The transport changes would force young people to pick courses at other institutions which they are not best suited to. Success rates will fall and drop out rates increase as a result. 237 Jan 08 2018 01:55 PM They still have to stay in education until 18 not by choice now so the bus should still allow them on especially if they live far away from the school. Not all high schools have a six form so for the few that do, they should stay the same.

30 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 238 Jan 08 2018 01:38 PM Stupid idea, making students have to pay fro travel. Some families cannot even afford

that. 239 Jan 08 2018 01:37 PM Because for residents where public transport is not availible this is the only way they can commute to collage. 240 Jan 08 2018 01:16 PM Education should be amongst the highest priorities for Suffolk County Council, inline with the “Inclusive Growth” priority in SCC 2017-21 document, i.e. “...improve...levels of educational attainment...”. If less students are attracted to our schools due to transport restrictions, it has a direct impact on budgets and therefore will directly affect results. If this is the case, how can SCC expect to maintain or improve OfSted results? It makes no sense! Whilst the unfair budgetary pressures levied on Suffolk County Council have to be born from somewhere, impacting education further is frankly dangerous and any risk and impact assessments should be made public prior to changes and consultation.

241 Jan 08 2018 12:29 PM As a legal requirement for children to stay in further education post 16 I believe if the closest educational provider should still be provided for free as is under 16 so to totally remove subsidising for something which is a legal requirement is rediculous. Whether you are year 11 or 13 you are still required to attend therefore should have the same benefits. 242 Jan 08 2018 12:26 PM All children in education from early years to the completion of their education at 18 must be given free transport. There is absolutely no change in circumstance for a family when their child enters sixth form education - where are we meant to find the money for transport? 243 Jan 08 2018 11:10 AM Children need to be supported to get to school 244 Jan 07 2018 08:37 AM I support this option as long as parents are aware of the cost of transport before they rgister their child for their further education place 245 Jan 06 2018 11:28 PM If they live in brandon there is no school that accomadates 16-18 year olds

So where are they to go to school

Like wise for Lakenheath and elveden

Is it not hard enough on families outlay that you have to take even more funds away from struggling people

To pay for Transport or find suitable Transport

That is also cumpulsary for children to be in education till they are 18.

What are you doing to help the youth of today to get a career a future and good jobs.

31 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses

In my mind take away everything from them that’s what you propose to do.

If it’s working leave it alone

But hey ho let’s make more families anxious about the future

Never mind the insecurity to all.

Appalling 246 Jan 06 2018 06:06 PM The cost of post 16 transport is too as at the moment even with subsidies, any changes that would increase the amount would put many families in financial distress especially as the young people have to stay in education until they are 18. 247 Jan 05 2018 04:48 PM The impact on young people living in poverty has not been assessed. The impact assessments overall are inadequate. 248 Jan 05 2018 03:21 PM There is not any alternative for transport to and from school for these children and it would cause hardship to a working family where both parents work. 249 Jan 05 2018 03:02 PM Completely unfair. Students now longer have a 'choice' to stay in post-16 education other than apprenticeships or training, and now there is a chance they could be a potential for being charged for transport to get to post 16 education that they are told they have to be in anyway? Maybe they could leave school at sixteen and work for the bus company or fundraising for the council...but no they HAVE to be in education earning zero so no this is completely unfair and out of order! And who would pay for the privilege?... the parents - who at the same age were out working and help supporting their families, something their children are being told they cannot do! 250 Jan 05 2018 02:47 PM Its not fair to change the goal posts midway through courses 251 Jan 05 2018 02:46 PM Students should not be faced with these changes in the middle of their courses. This is a critical time for students. 252 Jan 05 2018 02:17 PM I think there has been far too much disruption in the system as it is and far from choice this option narrows the opportunities for young people. 253 Jan 05 2018 01:05 PM School choice is too important to mess with. 254 Jan 05 2018 12:28 PM Limiting school transport and therefore options open to parents about where to school their children can lead to all sorts of problems, from children who fail to thrive in the wrong school, potentially leading to mental health and social mobility issues, and increased traffic, pollution, and school gates safety concerns if parent’s are forced to drive of putting their child on an available bus.

32 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 255 Jan 05 2018 10:56 AM I live in Haverhill and the post 16 offer (non A Level) is non existent. The A Level offer at Samuel Ward is at risk of closure. This would leave no post 16 provision in Haverhill (a town of substantial size) and a town with deprivation challenges. Young people would not be able to walk to any Post 16 provision. I can afford to pay for travel but a significant proportion of students would struggle with paying this. Post 16 participation would be at risk. 256 Jan 05 2018 09:47 AM The current system supports more free choice and those on low incomes. 257 Jan 05 2018 09:24 AM Children are supposed to be encouraged to go to further education. By not helping parents in subsidising transport to school, it influences children whose parents don't have the means to drop out school. This is unacceptable considering that education is even more expensive down the line and many do not go to university. The government (therefore the Council) should try to encourage and help children to go as far as possible. Parents should be helped. In all reality, transport should even be free for some students when parents don't have the means to do it. 258 Jan 04 2018 10:56 PM Suffolk is a rural county. Young people now have no option but to be in school to 18. Transport should be provided. 259 Jan 04 2018 09:16 PM I presently have to drive my granddaughter to 6th form arriving one hour early, her parents cannot afford to pay the bus fare because they have one income and two young children. 260 Jan 04 2018 02:18 PM Phased implementation would be easier to implement . SCC previous history of implementing changes has not been successful so careful planning may assist with a smoother transition. 261 Jan 04 2018 11:11 AM Too disruptive to kids education 262 Jan 04 2018 11:05 AM A student part way through their post 16 education may have to change schools or, if aware of this change, choose a second or third choice school in order to be able to afford the costs. Hardly a fair way for a student to make the best choices for their future. 263 Jan 04 2018 09:00 AM For post 16 Travel this may safe council funds but limit the educational options available to young persons. 264 Jan 04 2018 08:44 AM Children should not be made to change schools part way through their education due to a change in transport provision. Changes in schools are proven to have a negative affect on academic achievements.

Siblings should be able to attend the same school.

265 Jan 03 2018 09:14 PM I think it will be detrimental to schools in all sorts of ways 266 Jan 03 2018 07:55 PM This change in policy would impact on student choice and force students to attend certain centres becuase of the public transport links rather than the most appropriate centre for their learning needs, for example transport links from villages are more regular to large towns such as Bury St Edmunds and Cambridge which house huge Sixth Form centres which are not conducive to learning / wellbeing for all young people so whilst students may wish to attend other centres such as MCA6 this option could be removed due to poor transport links.

33 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses

Furthermore this policy would discriminate unfairly on the poorer / more vulnerable students who do not have parents available to drive them to the centre of their choice. 267 Jan 03 2018 06:44 PM Disadvantages many sixth form students who live in rural areas and who can not drive. Removes access to education 268 Jan 03 2018 05:48 PM Financially does not save money 269 Jan 03 2018 05:15 PM I think this would have a detrimental effect on the students and would prohibit many from further study due to financial reasons which is not fair and not beneficial for society as a whole. 270 Jan 03 2018 03:47 PM There are no viable alternative transport options from our residence. 271 Jan 03 2018 03:06 PM I believe that travel to education up until they are in their 18th year i.e. end of Year 13 should be free.

Social Mobility is stunted due to not being able to afford to go somewhere on a train or bus and not be able to follow their aspirations. 272 Jan 03 2018 02:38 PM The proposal discriminates against families with low incomes as they will not have the option to organise their own transport to the school of their choice. 273 Jan 03 2018 01:39 PM Unreasonable that family's have to pay for this. 274 Jan 03 2018 12:16 PM We have a good integrated transport service at present. We do not want the expense and disruption of change. We elect Conservative councillors to keep things as they are (conserve) not to change things, unless it is clearly a change for the better. This is not a change for the better. 275 Jan 03 2018 07:53 AM I am strongly opposed to any student who goes to the nearest 6th form having to pay for post 16 transport.

It is discriminatory against those who live in rural areas. Further education is compulsory so the students have no choice.

I am in agreement that those who chose to go to a college or 6th form that isn't their nearest should be responsible, with no subsidies. 276 Dec 28 2017 08:52 PM Do the council really believe that this is the right thing to do in a county so rural in nature. Those of us who have lived in and around big towns and subsequently moved to the countryside understand fully the lack of transport options available. Perhaps the council have a grand plan to enable our children to attend school whilst also paying for the increased council tax charges and, no doubt, their lovely salary increments. Perhaps if the last few years of these were reversed we'd not even be considering this. It would not happen in the private sector - there is significant fat to be trimmed from local authorities before you hit those who cannot fight back. In some interpretations, this is nothing short of bullying. If you wish to proceed with this then make sure sensible public transport options are available - have a look at rural villages to Thurston links and then tell me the answer - because I cannot see it.

34 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 277 Dec 27 2017 09:51 AM The policy has already caused issues for students having to rethink their options and also alot of students won't meet the entry criteria for their nearest post 16 establishment. The guidance on Gov.UK for post 16 travel seems to be interpreted by SCC very differently. It is not fair that students will face changes halfway through courses. 278 Dec 24 2017 08:52 PM Students have to stay in education until 18. Rural students are already at a disadvantage about accessing high quality post 16 education, your proposals will make this even more difficult than it already is 279 Dec 24 2017 09:22 AM The rumours we are hearing it's going to cost £1000 a year/school year....if these rumours are true the majority of family's will not be able to afford a initial layout of money like that.....I strongly oppose.....but I want my child to go to high school (hartismere, we live in Rickinghall) so surely there will have to be a payment plan of some kind... 280 Dec 21 2017 11:31 PM Post 16 education transport should be free just as under sixteen is, the government shouldn't be making families pay for this as they have made it compulsory to attend.

281 Dec 19 2017 09:26 PM Doesn’t seem fair to put extra stress on families when they made a decision based on a different set of criteria. 282 Dec 19 2017 11:58 AM Drive to one as is cheaper than bus and I have to take child to next village to catch bus anyway so might as well drop off. 283 Dec 19 2017 11:36 AM Students should have the right to choose which school they would like to attend, rather than having to make a choice based simply on whether or not they can get there because free transport has been denied them. 284 Dec 19 2017 11:24 AM School transport should be free until age 18 as children/young adults have to be in education until that age.

285 Dec 19 2017 11:21 AM Even at 16 years of age, they are still vunerable, I do not think they should have to go to School on Public Transport, especially if in catchment. There is very little employment for youngsters and they have to attend school or college, so to penalise them is unfair

286 Dec 19 2017 11:13 AM Students cannot afford the buses as it is. You are taking away the choice of students to attend a sixth form that suits their needs.

287 Dec 19 2017 11:03 AM This will have a very negative effect on young peoples' participation

288 Dec 19 2017 10:58 AM It is not acceptable to me that taxpayers should be funding the choices made by parents and their children when it comes to their education. If you have decided to send your child to a school which is not their closest, then you and you alone should be paying for this - not expecting everyone else to pick up the tab.

35 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 289 Dec 19 2017 10:50 AM Meeting the basic legal requirements is not acceptable in such a rural county

290 Dec 19 2017 10:07 AM school transport should not be supporting those making personal choices, these monies are required by the more vulnerable and statutory spend of the LA

291 Dec 19 2017 10:04 AM Parental choice Negative impact on existing schools teacher redundancies due to falling pupil numbers in certain school.

292 Dec 19 2017 09:56 AM Post 16 education is essential for the future of this country

293 Dec 19 2017 09:48 AM Clearly savings have to be made and from my own experience very few families are receiving any help. My main issue is Greater Anglia rail charges an adult fare for a full time school pupil over 16. My children travel from Stowmarket to Bury and the fare is over £8 a day. This means that children in compulsory educuation are being forced to pay extortionate fares. I believe very strongly that this should be taken up with rail companies.

294 Dec 19 2017 09:45 AM To cut the funding in one go is terrible.

295 Dec 18 2017 08:56 PM Education is compulsary to age 18 and as such transport to local school 6 form must be provided 296 Dec 18 2017 08:46 PM Will affect the squeezed middle income families, ie those not financially well enough off to not notice but then not low income either where they will receive assistance. 297 Dec 18 2017 08:07 PM Lack of choice and the nearest school may not be the best for the child. 298 Dec 18 2017 07:37 PM Education should be free. 299 Dec 18 2017 04:51 PM This restricts parents free choice of schools to those who can afford the transport to a school or college of their choice. 300 Dec 18 2017 02:50 PM Sixth form is in rural area with limited public transport 301 Dec 18 2017 12:41 PM To encourage children to go into sixth form I believe free transportation should be available. 302 Dec 18 2017 12:38 PM Children have to stay in education until 18 - transport should therefore still be free. They don't choose to go to school or college, they have to. 303 Dec 18 2017 08:06 AM Currently, it is a waste of money that could be spent in a more effective way and means too many people who do not fairly have eligibility (e.g. are not low income and therefore do not really need the money) are being provided for unnecessarily. 304 Dec 17 2017 10:50 PM My son travels everyday from Essex and we have to pay full fare for train and bus costing around £ 900 per year. We had no choice as we have no 6th form or college within 20 miles. Why should we pay and not Suffolk?

36 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 305 Dec 17 2017 09:17 PM I think requiring people to attend school college post 16 but not ensuring there is anywhere they can practically get to by themselves is wrong so to cease funding will just cause many people problems. HOwever that may mean they become proactive and use their voice to compel parliament to look at the issue 306 Dec 17 2017 11:44 AM A level students will not be able to choose their sixth form on the basis of what subjects they wish to study. The nearest school may not offer the subjects they require so their choice will be severely and unfairly limited. 307 Dec 17 2017 07:44 AM It’s absurd 308 Dec 16 2017 05:52 PM I, as a single parent of three, living in a rural area cannot afford the costs of school buses for my children. It is their legal requirement to receive a decent education, therefore transport to gain that education when living in rural areas especially, needs to also be included.

Th eother option would be that i drove them to their respective schools. The roads around this area are narrow, full of pot holes, frequently flooded,and totally inadequate to cope with an increase of traffic. 309 Dec 16 2017 04:28 PM Students are facing such termoil when it comes to the dramatic changes in education, especially in rural areas and you are doing nothing to support them or alleviate the situation. 310 Dec 15 2017 09:37 PM Without knowing which other services would need to be cut it is hard to judge this. 311 Dec 15 2017 09:14 PM Many people cannot afford the travel without help from council.

People cannot always go to their local college/suxthform if they want to do specific courses and forcing people to be unable to do these courses and pursue their career goals because of financial situations is unfair. 312 Dec 15 2017 09:08 PM Finding hundreds s of pounds a year will just about break our family budget 313 Dec 15 2017 04:54 PM If the county council cannot provide a good standard of post 16 education in the area that the child lives, parents need to send their children out of catchment. They should not be financially burdened by having to do this. 314 Dec 15 2017 02:52 PM I cannot get my child into our local school because their are so many children there from out of catchment, quite a few catch a bus, local child should be able to attend their local school 315 Dec 15 2017 02:34 PM Government have said children have to remain at school until 18 rather than 16, so therefore should fund travel esp as limited availability of choices in some rural towns/villages. 316 Dec 15 2017 09:04 AM Schools differ in quality, ability and size. Therefore individuals should be able to choose where is best for them and recieve subsidised/free transport since education is a legality. 317 Dec 15 2017 07:43 AM In principle the option seems satisfactory, but there would need to be an infrastructure in place to support those who were eligible for subsidised travel. The council also needs to make sure that access is

37 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses straightforward and easy so that those who are disadvantaged by the cuts are able to apply for help quickly and easily.

318 Dec 14 2017 10:00 PM Because it could cause an unnecessary amount of anxiety to pupils and their parent/guardians. I personally believe that mental wellbeing should be considered a top priority before any significant changes are made. 319 Dec 14 2017 07:52 PM Because further education is very important to give everyone a chance to achieve their potential 320 Dec 14 2017 05:27 PM This is just abandoning children and absolving yourselves of responsibility. Transport needs to be coordinated to stop our roads being clogged up with unnecessary traffic. 321 Dec 14 2017 04:56 PM This policy will have a catastrophic impact on those students who are midway through their post-16 studies, potentially forcing them to change school.

If the students are to remain at the same school, then someone will have to bear the cost - it will either be parents, school or both

322 Dec 14 2017 04:12 PM Many students would be left without vital transport 323 Dec 14 2017 04:03 PM I believe that education is a frontline service and the council should make efficiently savings in other departments to ensure that any student can study at a post-16 institute. 324 Dec 14 2017 04:02 PM We live in a rural area and naturally the distances that students have to travel to get to school are further than that of larger towns. This proposal would have a drastic impact on the financial obligations of parents and possibly even the school. This in some way removes the 'choice' that parents should have in what school their child attends. The Government have pledged that any parent can choose which school their child attends. By add an extra 'tax' on travel, you are essentially removing this choice. Isn't investing in our young a worthy use of council money? It seems that all decisions made by council or Government seem to make the life of children, and parents, more difficult instead of easier. 325 Dec 14 2017 03:56 PM I accept there has to be savings however this could discourage students moving into yr 13 and then dropping out which will mean they are then NEET. 326 Dec 14 2017 03:56 PM As it could discourage students to continue onto their second year at college and increasing NEET figures in our area 327 Dec 14 2017 02:20 PM This could affect many pupils at critical times in their education, and affect schools themselves, making provision of the expected standards impossible. It also removes the option of choice for parents and pupils who want to give their children the best education possible or receive the best option to help them in the future. 328 Dec 14 2017 01:41 PM These changes may cause major disruption to children's education. Parents who can't afford to pay travel expenses will feel under pressure to move their children's school. siblings may also be split up. 329 Dec 14 2017 01:28 PM It will take away student's choice

38 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 330 Dec 14 2017 01:25 PM This would be detrimental to many children who have started their schooling in locations either the best choice for them or because it's their catchment school. To now alter plans and do in one hit would cause pressures to households/increased traffic and pollution outside schools/increasing the risk to children especially in a primary school. 331 Dec 14 2017 12:53 PM Making the proposed changes to the travel arrangements will mean that parents cannot choose to send their child to the school or post 16 provision that is right for them. Option 1 means that some children will be forced to move schools part way through courses and will create significant disruption to that child's education. 332 Dec 14 2017 12:42 PM Unfair on students. 333 Dec 13 2017 07:43 PM It will take genuine school choice away from families on low income. They will have to settle for their nearest school whether they want it or not. Choice of school should NEVER be determined by wealth. Post-16 education is crucial to determining a student's ability to access the university course of their choice - if they cannot access the subjects required or have to change schools mid-course, this will have an adverse effect on their education and prospects. This option puts young people at a disadvantage at one of the most crucial points in their lives 334 Dec 13 2017 05:18 PM We should be encouraging students to study post 16 and this would be a significant barrier to learning 335 Dec 13 2017 01:41 PM Maximise savings for the Council. Streamline services to families. 336 Dec 13 2017 12:54 PM Because I more strongly support another option 337 Dec 13 2017 12:45 PM I feel that they should be treated the same as children of compulsory school age as they have to legally be in education. 338 Dec 13 2017 12:24 PM This could have a huge detrimental impact on current first year A level students who are studying at a 6th form which is NOT there geographically nearest but was selected based on specific curriculum needs not catered for at the nearest to home 6th form provider 339 Dec 13 2017 04:16 AM This will give the council the biggest savings and so enable other services that benefit the whole community to continue. 340 Dec 12 2017 09:02 PM Education is paramount to all counties & children should not be disadvantaged because they live in a rural area. The impact of disrupted education on self esteem, gathering employable skills is too great. 341 Dec 12 2017 07:51 PM Children, especially those in rural areas will be hugely disadvantaged by having to attend their nearest school so that their parents don't incur bus fees. The school in my village is sub-standard and the facilities in no way compare to those at the school my children would have been entitled to travel to free of charge. I will not be paying the council any money for the buses but will find some way for my children to go to the better school but some people will not have that choice! Evidence also shows that if many other parents feel the same way as me the council will make very little money from parents for bus journeys. The village of Thurston is also not going to be able to cope with all the extra cars that will be going through it on a

39 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses twice daily basis. A child will be injured at some point! I also envisage a lot of children being dropped off a lot earlier than the school will be open so they will just be left to loiter in the village. 342 Dec 12 2017 06:08 PM There is sufficient post-16 opportunities within local areas within all of Suffolk's major towns. Post-16 travel into neighbouring counties for no real reason apart from choice, is unnecessary. If post-16 students wish to travel beyond their locality, then it should be up to them to fund this. This would also ensure that post- 16 provision within Suffolk is maintained.

40 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q3, Can you give us your views on Option 2? Answer Choices Responses Strongly Support 4.94% 27 Support 7.13% 39 Neither Support nor Oppose 4.94% 27 Oppose 12.80% 70 Strongly Oppose 67.82% 371 Don’t Know 2.38% 13 Answered 547 Skipped 54

Can you give us your views on Option 2? 80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00% Responses 30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% Strongly Support Support Neither Support nor Oppose Strongly Oppose Don’t Know Oppose

41 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q4, Can you tell us why you think this? Answered 286 Skipped 315

Respondents Response Date Responses 1 Mar 01 2018 12:08 AM see previous page 2 Feb 28 2018 11:58 PM Grossly illogical. Removes choice and prejudices lower income families. Will create traffic carnage and increase the risk to pupils and road users. In my local area this will result in transport only being provided to a school which does not recognise our village as in catchment - in this way opting for the school to which the bus would be funded is very likely to result in my child not being successful in a place at that school which is already fully subscribed - and thus imposing hardship, increased travel and much distress in trying to find an alternative school placement. It is disgraceful that this option proposes removing funding to the nearest school within "catchment". 3 Feb 28 2018 08:33 PM This seems a waste of money. 4 Feb 28 2018 07:15 PM The impact of a phased solution on both costs and savings has not been outlined. 5 Feb 28 2018 05:56 PM Children are typically in post 16 education only for two years in any case. Does not seem worse phasing in changes. 6 Feb 28 2018 05:46 PM Unfair to freedom of choice where you are educated 7 Feb 28 2018 04:44 PM It will affect so many children and parents at our local school 8 Feb 28 2018 01:06 PM as with opt 1 9 Feb 28 2018 12:46 PM as with option 1 10 Feb 28 2018 11:22 AM Education post-16 is compulsory. Why should 16+ pupils be treated any differently to children under 16? Policy has not kept up to date with the changes in education. Transport to school/college should be free. 11 Feb 27 2018 11:15 PM In rural areas students cannot walk to school so parents have to pay. This should be kept to the minimum that it can to support these students. 12 Feb 27 2018 10:13 PM Same as option 1. It’s wrong and discrimination against rural families. Phasing it in doesn’t make it right. 13 Feb 27 2018 09:41 PM Not Sustainable 14 Feb 27 2018 06:00 PM There should not be a "legal requirement" for a student to achieve their aspirations. I have always wanted to reach six form and Thurston is the best one locally and the nearest as well as allowing me to get the right A- levels to reach university. I work hard in the hopes of achieving my goal, however, without the school I can't achieve this. Legal requirements should not affect a child and their plans for their future. 15 Feb 27 2018 02:05 PM As in option 1 it all applies to option 2 also.

These options are only going to steer children towards to free bus schools in the long run so actually the

42 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses council will still be having to pay for travel on the same bus routes plus the extra routes that have had to be made because of the closest school rule! So actually could end of costing more in the years to come not actually making any income!

St Benedicts is split over two sites but they are being classes as one school so why isn't the Trust regarded as one school just split over different campuses? Once again not fair and blatently discriminatory towards the Trust in Bury St Edmunds.

option 2 doesn't really help many children and the savings that they think are going to be made are all just figures they are making up. Surely when it comes to the people of the future of Suffolk we should be putting more money to their education, helping them to achieve the best results that they possibly can. 16 Feb 27 2018 01:55 PM Again - removes choice 17 Feb 27 2018 12:39 PM The proposal is making children in education pay for the funding issues that have been enforced. 18 Feb 27 2018 12:22 PM This wouldn't help many people so basically there are the same issues that arise as in option 1. It discriminates against rural children. Taking away their freedom of choice. It's a potential postcode lottery to where you can go to school or college! the buses are a necessity for rural children not a luxury. There options 1 and 2 penalize low income families. 19 Feb 27 2018 08:57 AM There will be no benefit whatsoever! Very very very short sighted. 20 Feb 27 2018 07:32 AM For the same reason as option 1 but this will be stupidly expensive and spread the agony over a longer term and destabilise schools further.

The "savings" are a fallacy.

The change promotes inequality.

The extra travel is not conducive to the LA green policy

The LA does not have the infrastructure in place to properly make/support these changes especially if the pre- consultation and consultation information provided is anything to go by.

The LA has not thought this through.

SOR did not raise standards, confidence in the LA to make the right choice for our young is at an all time low.

The LA needs to concentrate on raising educational standards.

43 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses These changes affect the same pupils who were affected by SOR especially in Thurston.

The LA needs to look at SEND travel as this is the area of extensive uplift in cost, even the LA latest budget report points to SEND overspending this year by ANOTHER £0.5M. The LA is affecting mainstream travel (which has reduced in spend) as it's too fearful of tackling SEND as it doesn't want to be seen as non-pc however, this option 1 promotes inequality for mainstream pupils (and they are happy with that??). 21 Feb 26 2018 10:29 PM Same as question 2 22 Feb 26 2018 09:00 PM Phasing this system in will likely still involve disruption to childrens education and create uncertainty which is bad for concentration. Savings will be much lower and hard to realise at the necessary scale to justify the upheaval. 23 Feb 26 2018 07:10 PM Same as before 24 Feb 26 2018 06:58 PM Similarly removal of transport gradually will not achieve the savings as estimated in this proposal. The cost savings appear to have been greatly exaggerated. 25 Feb 26 2018 02:17 PM Transport to compulsory education should be FREE for all. 26 Feb 26 2018 10:36 AM According to this kangaroo farce of a consultation, my children's nearest high school is in the next county and no longer associated with the primary school he has spent 7 years at - what a joke. 27 Feb 25 2018 03:05 PM Disruptive to schools and students. 28 Feb 25 2018 02:01 PM For Suffolk to have a healthy and sustainable employment economy in the future, we need a significant enhancement in the education and vocational training of our 16-19 year olds. In a rural county, with hidden deprivation in what are superficially affluent wards, it is wholly appropriate 'investment' in human capital to subsidise students from low income families to attend, schools, collages or training establishments.

When our young people study out of the County, we need there to be an employment economy that is capable of attracting them back here. 29 Feb 25 2018 10:01 AM If option 1 is not accepted then option 2 becomes the next preferred, as presumably only delayed by 1 year. 30 Feb 25 2018 01:09 AM Transport should be free when education is compulsory.

Not that’s its free as we pay taxes enough to provide for this. 31 Feb 24 2018 09:27 PM Our rural lanes cannot cope with the increase in traffic that this would cause. 32 Feb 24 2018 07:24 PM This system is unfair to those going into the system. 33 Feb 24 2018 05:54 PM See previous answer. 34 Feb 24 2018 04:37 PM It is perverse that, when remaining in eduction or training post 16 has become compulsory , the financial support available to 16-19 year olds has already been cut back and in this option would be cut further still. I would like to see improved support for 16-19 year old students from low income families.

44 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses

Also post-16 learners are more likely to need to travel to access a course appropriate for them- and this is already difficult in a rural county with poor public transport. 35 Feb 24 2018 04:32 PM This is a fairer way of introducing change at this critical time in their education 36 Feb 23 2018 12:20 PM This is essentially the same as option 1 but a phased integration. Some families will face having to tell their children that they do not have the same opportunities for 6th form - they might only be one year apart in age. What about those pupils who want to study a particular subject that is not taught in their nearest 6th form centre? 37 Feb 23 2018 09:04 AM As before 38 Feb 22 2018 09:08 PM We need to raise standards in the county and this proposal could put young people off attending post 16 provision! 39 Feb 22 2018 06:06 PM As per 1 40 Feb 22 2018 12:50 PM same as earlier answer 41 Feb 22 2018 12:22 PM The post 16 travel policy should be enhance to encourage post 16 take up of education suitable to the individual rather than on the location of the nearest school. The Council should be looking at investing in young people and not cutting subsidies. Phasing the proposed changes in is irrelevant. 42 Feb 21 2018 09:35 PM Cost of implimentation. 43 Feb 21 2018 08:43 PM Because it is not always possible to go to "the closest sixth form" because AGAIN there is no public transport in a rural area. 44 Feb 21 2018 07:34 PM This would disadvantage students mid course, higher drop out rates, poor attendance. Poorer results for compulsory education. A waste of everyones time 45 Feb 21 2018 12:48 PM it is vital for this to be offered as it is now 46 Feb 20 2018 07:40 PM Even a phased introduction of charges for not choosing a 2 tier school is unjust and unfair. 47 Feb 19 2018 11:09 PM If the government expects children to stay in education until 18 they should fund it. It's not like there is an alternative option 48 Feb 19 2018 09:28 PM Please see previous answer. 49 Feb 19 2018 07:37 PM children will be forced to go to the closest school rather than the one that's most suited to their educational needs. 50 Feb 19 2018 02:36 PM because when you 'assess me' you might want to change what sixth form I go to and I don't want to move in the middle of my exams 51 Feb 18 2018 06:33 PM Courses are normally only two years long so the impact will only be for one year. 52 Feb 17 2018 07:07 PM It will still cost even more so will be unafordable. 53 Feb 17 2018 12:11 PM Again details are not available

45 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 54 Feb 17 2018 08:09 AM Thus will limit children's choices and affect their life chances 55 Feb 16 2018 11:48 AM It gives parents time to plan for the changes 56 Feb 14 2018 04:35 PM Mildenhall College Academy is working hard to retain a sixth form provision in a very challenging climate where there are massive cuts in central government funding. This provision provides an excellent educational experience for young people who may not wish to travel to other centres or for whom a larger sixth form college may not be the ideal learning environment. Due to the funding conditions, it is vital that MCA6 does not experience any drop in the numbers of students attending. Any significant drop in numbers will result in the closure of this valuable provision. 57 Feb 14 2018 10:27 AM Doesn't help the financial argument. 58 Feb 12 2018 09:19 AM the same reason as previously 59 Feb 11 2018 02:45 PM Government now require students to stay in education until they are 18, because of this decision students need to be encouraged to attend sixth forms. There is a limited sixth form provision in Suffolk and this proposal will only create barriers preventing some students to drop out due to costs and unreliability of transport.

The schools that offer a sixth form provision will be a risk of insufficient numbers and may not be able maintain the service.

Rural locations, in particular Lakenheath, have a very poor public bus route hindering rural students further. 60 Feb 11 2018 02:43 PM saving Suffolk County Council money at the expense of the environment and a massive increase in traffic movements 61 Feb 10 2018 04:29 PM Removes choice and damages rural schools more than urban. Damages life chances of our vulnerable young people - indeed, many young people. 62 Feb 09 2018 10:58 AM Again, pupils in rural communities are being unfairly penalised. 63 Feb 09 2018 10:55 AM Looking at the cost of travel many families will not be able afford the cost of school transport. A new structure of payment is needed and a lower price. Surely the prices should come down if a greater number of people will have to pay. A monthly anytime pass should be available at a cost of no more than £30/month for students and should be offered at a monthly purchase option. People who can afford a yearly pass should not be given a discount and people who can’t should not be charged more. Bus passes should not be offered on just a term time only based. Students should be able to purchase bus passes at the same price every month. 64 Feb 08 2018 05:01 PM 1. It makes no sense to set transport catchments that do not match intake catchments.

2. Children in rural areas that are 16 years old and over could effectively be denied access to education if they have no access to transport or both parents work.

46 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 3. Legal and ethical responsibilities are not the same thing. Councillors should demonstrate ethical and moral considerations above and beyond the bare minimum requirements spelt out by central government. 65 Feb 08 2018 03:38 PM Too expensive 66 Feb 08 2018 01:29 PM May mean end of 6th form at Beyton and redundancies for staff 67 Feb 08 2018 09:33 AM It is unfair to treat college students differently to A Level students and this will prolong that unfairness. 68 Feb 08 2018 12:50 AM Implement this ASAP 69 Feb 06 2018 08:12 PM A child aged 16,17 or 18 generally has to be in education of some sort. They wont be earning a wage. They will be in no position to pay for transport to school. The law regarding transport hasn't kept up with changes in compulsory education for 16-18 year olds. 70 Feb 06 2018 04:30 PM You shouldn't bring in the changes at all . There are no options here apart from the school bus - take that away and people can't get to college unless they drive which I am too young to do 71 Feb 05 2018 07:35 PM The legal minimum requirement is wholly inadequate. 72 Feb 05 2018 04:14 PM the effect would be the same as option 1, just more drawn out. it would result in lots of extra car journeys, poorer people would be disadvantaged and would have a negativ impact on the school and how many teachers it can employ and which subjects it can offer 73 Feb 05 2018 01:09 PM Education is a basic right of all children, getting to school therefore should be free. Children are now forced to stay in education until 18 so they should continue to have free education to any college they choose.This should not change at any time. 74 Feb 05 2018 07:41 AM See question 2 75 Feb 04 2018 08:32 PM Again the general taxpayer should not be burdened with paying for other offspring. 76 Feb 03 2018 09:29 PM This would be fair 77 Feb 03 2018 08:25 PM This will affect all family's especially the poorer ones, not giving them a choice of schools (as it will be costly) ! Strongly disagree. 78 Feb 02 2018 06:18 PM I strongly believe a change in the system now shouldn't be undertaken, especially after my child's siblings are already attending the sixth form that I was planning on sending them to. 79 Feb 02 2018 03:51 PM Siblings would not qualify for free transport or children joining the school would not qualify if not the nearest school. 80 Feb 02 2018 09:49 AM For all the same reasons as option 1. It is a form of discrimination and alienates young people living in rural communities. Young people need help to progress, many have no additional support or income and if that help is not available then they may have to give up their academic studies due to transport costs. 81 Feb 01 2018 09:23 PM Same as above 82 Feb 01 2018 12:53 PM As before 83 Feb 01 2018 11:35 AM rural discrimination 84 Feb 01 2018 11:05 AM I don't think that Council Tax payers should be required to pay for services above the legal requirements

47 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 85 Feb 01 2018 10:29 AM Obviously you have forgotten the stress of young people at this time of life and you wish to limit their options to what their parents can afford - ie transport to an establishment which is free/closer but does not have the preferred courses. Unless of course they are PP then they can have anything. 86 Jan 31 2018 07:18 PM Its much fairer than option one as parents arn't forced to move their child or pay. 87 Jan 31 2018 03:10 PM No student who HAS TO BE IN POST 16 EDUCATION/EMPLOYMENT OR APPRENTICESHIP SHOULD HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING. IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE FREE TRANSPORT UNTIL THEY ARE IN FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT TO PAY FOR TRAVEL!! 88 Jan 31 2018 11:19 AM The policy is too strict, and would not allow many students to have accessible transport. Phased basis is a good idea, but could be unfair if some students are at an advantage depending when they are assessed. 89 Jan 31 2018 09:43 AM Unfair 90 Jan 30 2018 04:16 PM Again for the reasons stated regarding option 1 ... The idea would be a bad one whether it is phased in or change over in one go.. Lets not let our children suffer just to make the councils purse feel better... Disgusting !! 91 Jan 30 2018 03:30 PM This seems to be an unfair system. Students may be forced to change school, affecting both their social and academic progress. Furthermore, siblings may be split up causing great inconvenience to parents. 92 Jan 30 2018 01:54 PM A number of sixth form students would no longer be able to get to my school 93 Jan 30 2018 12:49 PM Again, its unfair to expect parents to suddenly try to find hundreds of pounds for transport costs - especially those of us that live in rural areas where public transport is non-existent. 94 Jan 30 2018 11:00 AM This will only allow some students to access the education which they desire. The idea create an unequal educational which is based on the matter of location 95 Jan 30 2018 09:09 AM Because their education would be disrupted. 96 Jan 30 2018 07:24 AM I pay my taxes so all children can get a great education, no matter if their parents can afford travel fares or not. Forcing young people to have to go to the closest post-16 educational establishment will mean many cannot follow their ambitions and undermine getting a well/educated next generation. 97 Jan 29 2018 03:08 PM At least we know where we stand. If it is phased in we can plan for the children better. Also if your child is in a particular year it may not affect them. 98 Jan 28 2018 07:34 PM It is completely unjust to 'move the goalposts' once a child has embarked on his or her school career, and particularly so if the child attends his or her catchment school, even though it may not be the closest to his/her home. 99 Jan 28 2018 06:34 PM I think option 1 should be implemented. There is plenty of time between now and then for parents to make arrangements. 100 Jan 28 2018 06:25 PM It delays option 1. Reducing choice and affects the education available for children at the penalty of their geographic location. 101 Jan 28 2018 10:52 AM Leave post 16 travel where it is and seek savings elsewhere. SCC would do well to look at remuneration if chief exec as a starting point. 102 Jan 28 2018 10:28 AM Theirs would just transfer the problems onto pupils and parents in future.

48 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 103 Jan 28 2018 09:10 AM The fact that we were going above the legal requirements suggests we had a greater need to assist post-16 students. Removing this will cause noticeable problems. 104 Jan 28 2018 08:45 AM Reduces choice for future families. Unfair on rural areas. 105 Jan 27 2018 03:40 PM As per option 1 106 Jan 27 2018 12:13 AM Again disadvantaged families hit the hardest. Not a good way to encourage further education. 107 Jan 26 2018 06:54 PM Allows students information regarding transport costs before making a decision over where to attend 108 Jan 25 2018 11:43 PM phasing is better but will still effect too many 109 Jan 25 2018 09:54 PM Still disadvantages poorer parents, no children choice 110 Jan 25 2018 08:20 PM See comments at the end 111 Jan 25 2018 09:13 AM see question 2 112 Jan 24 2018 09:00 AM See previous answer. 113 Jan 24 2018 07:46 AM As for option 1 114 Jan 23 2018 05:15 PM All option 2 does for post-16 students is defer the proposal's detrimental impacts by a year. 115 Jan 23 2018 04:55 PM This compromise is not affordable and phasing in is not in line with other government policies (e.g. they did not phase in university fees increases - they went from £3000 to £9000 immediately). 116 Jan 23 2018 03:42 PM Removing free transport removes feasible choice for parents and pupils unable to find the additional funds for transportation.

Given that some of the central principals and changes put in place by the government have been to provide wide educational choices for all, it seems somewhat paradoxical that this is then being stripped away through the removal of transportation to all but your nearest school. 117 Jan 23 2018 02:12 PM All students should continue to get subsidised travel. This is vital for those living rurally 118 Jan 23 2018 02:04 PM Exactly the same reason as answered for strongly opposing Option 1 119 Jan 21 2018 08:31 PM We have no bus service in our village, my child would not be able to get to/from school despite them legally having to attend. 120 Jan 21 2018 11:18 AM It's stupid both children should be able to go to the same school 121 Jan 21 2018 11:10 AM As with option 1, this would disadvantage many already disadvantaged young people, in so far as those who can afford to make their own arrangements will do so but those who rely on benefits and low incomes will not be in the position to travel to their school. Some may live close to a county boarder and be in the position of no transport to their current school and no transport to their geographically more local school. Their siblings may be at another school which would increase feelings of isolation, rejection and mental health issues relating to this.

The disruption for high school children to relocate schools during their pivotal academic years will bring many

49 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses extra issues, such as increased need for psychological intervention, emotional crisis and increased risk to children's mental health.

Many high school aged young people will have developed close and important relationships which could be damaged, again increasing risk to mental health. There is currently inadequate psychological support in most school settings.

If the issue is financial then a sliding scale/means tested system would allow the county council to receive more money, the richest in the community rightly can afford the service and the poorest can still access their current catchment school without prejudice of their ability to finance

Children who are close to a boarder, and whose family have no financial means to provide their own transport will still need to be provided with taxi services, or face not attending school as their new school may be over the boarder and therefore not transported by the other county.

Children who are forced to walk through unlit, rural footpaths will be at an increased risk of danger, assault, bullying, injury etc.

More school days will be lost for difficulty in travelling, mental health concerns in children will continue to rise, further disadvantaging young people and increasing strains on youth mental health provisions.

Burdening other schools with potentially large intakes of children will again increase the risk of damage to the children's education, mental wellbeing and future prospects.

Their would also be the difficulty and potential harm to sibling relationships and provide exceptionally increased family pressures.

This feels like a very wrong, unjust and poor proposal to me.

122 Jan 19 2018 08:55 PM People can't afford this, same reasons as Option 1. 123 Jan 19 2018 06:24 PM Same reason as I wrote before, we need to think of the children not going to nearest school 124 Jan 19 2018 06:08 PM Better than 1 but still prevents students from getting the education they deserve. 125 Jan 19 2018 04:52 PM It is fairer than option 1 and would not be detrimental to students already in their education. Considering that post-16 is now compulsory it is hugely unfair to limit the potential options for families by not at least subsidising transport options.

50 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 126 Jan 19 2018 09:50 AM Children should have free travel, we live in the country, it is not accessible like some other county's. Children are far important then spending the money on Suffolk resident's. 127 Jan 19 2018 07:05 AM Same as previous answer 128 Jan 18 2018 09:37 PM For the same reasons given in question 1 but in addition this will disrupt children already in sixth form.

Our children deserve consistency - rural children have transport needs and have no choice. If you live in an area like Charsfield this will cause a lot of stress for families. 129 Jan 18 2018 03:03 PM Same as previous paragraph - it will limit choice and prejudice against people in more rural areas or reduced circumstances. 130 Jan 18 2018 09:53 AM This would cause less disruption than the first option but I still worry that the difficulties in getting to school from rural communities will affect the take up of courses and limit the realistic choices available to pupils. 131 Jan 17 2018 11:20 PM It's not fair 132 Jan 17 2018 09:24 PM Again, they should have the right to choose 133 Jan 17 2018 06:00 PM This option would still directly and negatively impact and disrupt my children’s education. 134 Jan 17 2018 04:41 PM as before 135 Jan 17 2018 04:40 PM this option would be the preferred choice due to the phased basis 136 Jan 17 2018 02:40 PM This may be fine in urban areas, but in more rural areas if there is not a ‘school’ bus to get children to school or 6th form they cannot get there.

SCC already charges for post 16’s and presumably does not make a loss as the charges are more than some commercial companies. How will changing this save any money? 137 Jan 17 2018 12:27 PM For the reasons given under option 1 - repeated below.

The proposal will result in reduced patronage in existing public routes and increase the likelihood of them being cancelled. This will reduce the already limited public transport options and ensure that the Council’s desire to reduce car usage is NOT met.

There will be increased use of the private car to take children to school, which will undermine the Council’s strategy of reducing car use as well as increase traffic congestion around schools.

School places are based on catchment areas not distance from school. Parents/carers will have to gamble on getting their child into an out of catchment school to benefit from free transport. This is illogical.

The proposals will result in a reduction in School admissions for those properties where free transport is not an option. Reduced admissions will undermine the viability of courses run at a school with resultant, negative

51 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses impact on the educational attainment of Suffolk School children. This is illogical for a County where concerns have been raised about existing education results.

Students will be forced to seek alternative settings for their post-16 studies. This is highly disruptive and will result in negative consequences for the student and the education results of the County. 138 Jan 17 2018 12:00 PM Same reasons as previously. 139 Jan 17 2018 09:24 AM The national policies were not designed for rural areas such as Suffolk. Children are required to attend school until the age of 18 so the post-16 policy needs to be adjusted to reflect that school post-16 is no longer optional 140 Jan 17 2018 07:55 AM School transport should be free for ALL children in compulsory education. 141 Jan 16 2018 11:47 PM For exactly the same reason as Option 1, really what is going to be gained for children and their education NOTHING 142 Jan 16 2018 11:45 PM We live in mendham, my child starts A-levels in sept 2018. Will transport be provided in sept 2019.

All students have already sent their applications for sixth form this term.

Now we don't know if they'll be transport available. From mendham to Thomas mills or hartismere. 143 Jan 16 2018 08:43 PM Again, this removes students choice about where they will carry out their post 16 education if buses are not serving all villages and routes equally to those travelling towards Bury St Edmunds. Some centres will not give the same opportunities in terms of breadth of course or level. For some parents this may mean siblings being at different centres which is not ideal. 144 Jan 16 2018 06:01 PM See previous response 145 Jan 16 2018 05:58 PM The same argument applies to my opposition to option 1 146 Jan 16 2018 05:44 PM Affects the welfare of local, rural communities, and ultimately impacts upon education opportunities. 147 Jan 16 2018 04:12 PM I believe this would have a detrimental effect on post 16 education for students and the choices the students have. 148 Jan 16 2018 02:48 PM Travel to public schools should be covered by the education budget. 149 Jan 16 2018 02:26 PM Raising aspirations for young people in Suffolk has been a priority for years and young people in Suffolk need to be encouraged to attend Sixth Forms. The proposed change to post-16 transport will only act as a further barrier preventing some young people from wanting to attend Sixth Form or will encourage a higher drop-out rate when the transport proves too costly or unreliable. Studies show that for many young people attending a Sixth Form provision which is familiar to them because it is part of or linked to the school they attended pre-16 is the most important factor to them.

Existing Sixth Forms like ours are achieving good and outstanding results and the progress scores made by our learners are some of the highest in the country. Without sufficient numbers we will not be able to maintain a

52 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses viable Sixth Form provision. The transport policy changes will reduce the numbers of students able to come to our Sixth Form. Why would Suffolk risk losing such quality post-16 provision as ours? Does it or does it not want to raise standards and aspirations in Suffolk?

Schools such as ours in areas like Forest Heath have worked hard over the years to prevent young people from becoming NEET/NIL. The transport changes will undo much of our work.

There are insufficient public bus routes to many schools with Sixth Forms. The proposed changes unfairly advantage Sixth Form centres in the larger towns such as Bury St Edmunds. It seems too much of a coincidence that these plans are being proposed at the same time that a new Sixth Form centre is opening in Bury St Edmunds. Suffolk County Council appears to be favouring one institution over the fortunes of others.

The Government has raised the participation age to 18. Young people need to be given transport to make it possible to continue in education until they are 18.

Closed contracts for school transport will carry spare seats and by keeping these routes open to Sixth Formers it will actually help to reduce the cost of running the buses for the pre-16 year olds.

Our Sixth Form centre is one of the very few in the county that offers students a full range of Level 3 applied and A-Level courses side by side. In most other institutions students have to choose one pathway or the other or have a very limited choice available to them from an alternative pathway to A-Levels. The transport changes would force young people to pick courses at other institutions which they are not best suited to. Success rates will fall and drop-out rates increase as a result. 150 Jan 16 2018 09:17 AM complicated and would result in the same issues of limiting choice as option 1 151 Jan 15 2018 07:50 PM I live in a rural area and pay my taxes as required. stopping school transport is going to mean more cars on the roads and chaos outside our primary school. What ever happened to reducing pollution from people using cars. this proposal is just encouraging more people to use their cars. 152 Jan 15 2018 04:03 PM The course they want may well not be available at the nearest provider 153 Jan 15 2018 10:29 AM It's better than option one, however it still limits the choice a student can make for post-16 education, as not everyone can afford to pay for public transport everyday to get to their desired school/college. 154 Jan 15 2018 10:16 AM We live in a rural area where transport is poor enough as it is. To limit the transport opportunities for children going to school will be another set back for the community and will not support children in the best way to get the best education they can receive! 155 Jan 15 2018 10:16 AM I strongly disagree with this option. We live in a rural area, where transport is poor. To hamper transports links for students is ridiculous as they and i have have an entitlement to free education. The council should strongly consider other ways to make money.

53 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 156 Jan 15 2018 10:15 AM I do not agree with making this change as in the long term it will still effect pupils as opinion 1 does causing material deprivation however, it will be done in a longer way it does not change the effects it has on pupils and the strain it puts on parents. 157 Jan 15 2018 10:12 AM as it gives the students who are going to be starting the next bit of education no choice still and it may not be a preferable destination for them. 158 Jan 14 2018 10:19 PM See previous comment. 159 Jan 14 2018 10:18 PM For the same reasons as option 1. 160 Jan 14 2018 07:16 PM Removing parental choice for transport funding will mean all Sixth Forms like ours in Mildenhall will not be financially viable. The Suffolk Transport consultation has come about coinciding with the opening of the new Sixth Form in Bury St Edmunds. This does not show support from the Council to ALL schools with a Sixth Form in Suffolk.

The Hub will be severely compromised should Option 2 be implemented as out Sixth Form would not be financially viable. Teachers and support staff would be made redundant as a cost by Suffolk County Council as many are original SCC employed TUPED over.

More importantly this would remove pupil choice of a Sixth Form that offers not only A Level subjects but also Applied subjects running side by side - providing a plethora of subject choices and pathways.

The Government has raised the the participation age to 18 and pupils should be given choice where they continue their education. 161 Jan 14 2018 06:02 PM Keep the funding as is and make savings elsewhere 162 Jan 14 2018 05:46 PM Our son wants to go to school with the people he's has grown up with. 163 Jan 14 2018 04:20 PM Schools like us in Forest Heath I understand, have worked hard to prevent young people from becoming NEET/NIL, these changes will undo a lot of that 164 Jan 13 2018 01:42 PM It will result in more money being spent, instead of cutting back. 165 Jan 12 2018 03:30 PM Students who have to stay in education until they are 18 should not be made to pay for transport. 166 Jan 12 2018 03:25 PM It will still impact lots of children and have potential consequences to their future education.

Additionally it may have financial implications on their families and transportation considerations. 167 Jan 12 2018 02:10 PM At the age of 16 not everyone knows what they want to do or chooses a course that they later realises isn't right for them. Rightly or wrongly, they are still required to be in education and some will need transport in order to do so. Which should be free for all as it's not a choice but legal requirement. 168 Jan 12 2018 01:03 PM This is the only way of smoothly making the changes you hope for (and which I oppose). Although it will be a little messy for 2-3 years it will be far kinder to the children and families caught up in your 'money saving' ideas.

54 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 169 Jan 12 2018 12:41 PM I don't see a problem if its changed prior to students/parents having to make decisions on where to apply as they will have the full facts about costings 170 Jan 12 2018 11:21 AM As before 171 Jan 12 2018 07:23 AM Children should have some flexibility to chose which school they wish to attend, to maintain some continuity with their school pals. Plus this is a more costly option for the Local Authority for a "handover" period, will they indeed end up saving money? It sounds like it will cost more. 172 Jan 11 2018 09:18 PM What is Post 16 transport? Surely seeing as though education is compulsory until 18, there should not be any difference, it is all educational transport!

With that said, why should students/parents have to pay at all for transport to their nearest 6th form or college? So to propose taking away the subsidised rate is insulting! Especially as some of these students may not even want to stay in education and would much prefer to start work...but they can’t and therefore do not have the money to pay for their own transport! 173 Jan 11 2018 08:51 PM Same reasons as before. You will isolate and cause hardship for families unable to pay the costs. 174 Jan 11 2018 07:34 PM Surely this would not be cost effective 175 Jan 11 2018 05:36 PM Every child should be given free transport ! The government want them to attend until they are at least 18 now so who is to fault? 176 Jan 11 2018 12:33 PM Accessing education is paramount. The current provision is effective. Savings should be made via efficiency or from other services 177 Jan 11 2018 11:08 AM Our children should have choices and we as parents do not have the spare income to pay for travel. 178 Jan 11 2018 07:04 AM Same as answer 1. Siblings could be split for no reason. 179 Jan 11 2018 06:44 AM I’m not sure I really understand what this would mean for our current situation 180 Jan 10 2018 10:11 PM Don't understand proposal. 181 Jan 10 2018 08:01 PM As option 1 182 Jan 10 2018 07:31 PM Because its stupid, some familes may have children at different schools, whoever thought of this idea is an idiot 183 Jan 10 2018 06:16 PM Siblings could then be split between two separate high schools which will require more buses to transport them costing SCC more money in the long run. 184 Jan 10 2018 05:50 PM This would be better for children already at school but could cause problems for parents who have younger children and attending any events such as parents evenings could be a nightmare the cost of more uniform would also make it hard on family's on a low income 185 Jan 10 2018 04:05 PM Because the change effects my children but the change will not save money moving.

Current school is 5.9 miles

55 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses New school is 5.4 miles

Bus company has confirmed that this will not save any money! 186 Jan 10 2018 02:44 PM Again changes have to be made 187 Jan 09 2018 03:46 PM It takes away choice - for students and parents 188 Jan 09 2018 03:23 PM The same problems will still exist

Lack of choice

Redundancies

Traffic congestion

Etc etc 189 Jan 09 2018 03:05 PM Schools such as ours in areas like Forest Heath have worked hard over the years to prevent young people from becoming NEET/NIL. The transport changes will undo much of our work.

There are insufficient public bus routes to many schools with Sixth Forms. The proposed changes unfairly advantage Sixth Form centres in the larger towns such as Bury St Edmunds. It seems too much of a coincidence that these plans are being proposed at the same time that a new Sixth Form centre is opening in Bury St Edmunds. Suffolk County Council appears to be favouring one institution over the fortunes of others.

190 Jan 09 2018 12:50 PM I disagree with the proposal of the new post 16 policy and feel that if there are spare seats on the contracted buses they should be given these seats. Therefore the contract buses would be utilised more efficiently. 191 Jan 08 2018 09:52 PM Children have to attend a school/college post 16 and so it is deeply unfair that they have to pay for travel. It will mean that some will just not be able to afford to get to post 16 places 192 Jan 08 2018 05:20 PM As with Option 1 193 Jan 08 2018 04:56 PM The choice of 6th form school should be able to be made based on the merits of the school and the suitability for the pupil, not on the cost of getting there 194 Jan 08 2018 04:19 PM Savings need to be made from other areas to ensure that educational opportunities are made equally accessible for all, which includes access to education, and therefore transport. Options 1 & 2 discriminate geographically and financially against poorer families who cannot afford to live in towns due to prohibitive house prices. 195 Jan 08 2018 02:27 PM This is not a long term solution but at least would honour the transport arrangements for those who are part way through their sixth form educations.

56 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses Raising aspirations for young people in Suffolk has been a priority for years and young people in Suffolk need to be encouraged to attend Sixth Forms. The proposed change to post-16 transport will only act as a further barrier preventing some young people from wanting to attend Sixth Form or will encourage a higher drop out rate when the transport proves too costly or unreliable. Studies show that for many young people attending a Sixth Form provision which is familiar to them because it is part of or linked to the school they attended pre-16 is the most important factor to them.

Existing Sixth Forms like ours are achieving good and outstanding results and the progress scores made by our learners are some of the highest in the country. Without sufficient numbers we will not be able to maintain a viable Sixth Form provision. The transport policy changes will reduce the numbers of students able to come to our Sixth Form. Why would Suffolk risk losing such quality post-16 provision as ours? Does it or does it not want to raise standards and aspirations in Suffolk?

Schools such as ours in areas like Forest Heath have worked hard over the years to prevent young people from becoming NEET/NIL. The transport changes will undo much of our work.

There are insufficient public bus routes to many schools with Sixth Forms. The proposed changes unfairly advantage Sixth Form centres in the larger towns such as Bury St Edmunds. It seems too much of a coincidence that these plans are being proposed at the same time that a new Sixth Form centre is opening in Bury St Edmunds. Suffolk County Council appears to be favouring one institution over the fortunes of others.

The Government has raised the participation age to 18. Young people need to be given transport to make it possible to continue in education until they are 18.

Closed contracts for school transport will carry spare seats and by keeping these routes open to Sixth Formers it will actually help to reduce the cost of running the buses for the pre-16 year olds.

Our Sixth Form centre is one of the very few in the county that offers students a full range of Level 3 applied and A-Level courses side by side. In most other institutions students have to choose one pathway or the other or have a very limited choice available to them from an alternative pathway to A-Levels. The transport changes would force young people to pick courses at other institutions which they are not best suited to. Success rates will fall and drop out rates increase as a result.

196 Jan 08 2018 01:55 PM Things should stay this same

57 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 197 Jan 08 2018 01:39 PM If the fundding hast to be cut then this is the best way as student that are already studying can complete their course without worrying about transport whilst the transport costs is also cut.

198 Jan 08 2018 01:38 PM If there are any changes that have to be made then I will have to support this 199 Jan 08 2018 01:18 PM Even staggering the introduction of this proposal will ultimately negatively impact on the educational attainment within Suffolk. This is a slightly more palatable offer, allowing the schools to adjust in a more realistic timescale, albeit still not ‘right’.

Education should be amongst the highest priorities for Suffolk County Council, inline with the “Inclusive Growth” priority in SCC 2017-21 document, i.e. “...improve...levels of educational attainment...”. If less students are attracted to our schools due to transport restrictions, it has a direct impact on budgets and therefore will directly affect results. If this is the case, how can SCC expect to maintain or improve OfSted results? It makes no sense! Whilst the unfair budgetary pressures levied on Suffolk County Council have to be born from somewhere, impacting education further is frankly dangerous and any risk and impact assessments should be made public prior to changes and consultation.

200 Jan 08 2018 12:29 PM Same reason as question 1 201 Jan 08 2018 12:26 PM All children in education from early years to the completion of their education at 18 must be given free transport. There is absolutely no change in circumstance for a family when their child enters sixth form education - where are we meant to find the money for transport? 202 Jan 08 2018 11:11 AM Children need to be supported to get to school 203 Jan 07 2018 08:37 AM Parents need to know ithe cost of the transport before they register their child for a further education place 204 Jan 06 2018 11:29 PM Leave it alone it’s ok as it is 205 Jan 06 2018 06:07 PM Financial hardship 206 Jan 05 2018 04:48 PM The impact on young people living in poverty has not been assessed. The impact assessments overall are inadequate. 207 Jan 05 2018 03:23 PM It is beneficial for a phased change to meet legal requirements. 208 Jan 05 2018 03:09 PM Fairer but still a poor decision. Children now have NO CHOICE but to stay in education - therefore if that's what the government request - the government should stand by their decision and fund it. You cannot say 'ok we want all children to stay in education or training until age 18' and then say 'oh bugger, we cannot afford to pay for them to get there' well, that's just not good enough. Instead of the council trying to fleece parents whose household income is already stretched, why don't the council approach government for more funding? parents are expected to finance their children through school, college and university, help with buying first home etc (that's if there are any homes available as the council took away Council Houses and allowed the 'Private

58 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses Landlords' to hike prices to unreal levels) and now we are being told that we have to fund the transport costs to get our young people to the sixth form center that they have little choice but to be in in the first place. 209 Jan 05 2018 02:48 PM Post-16 provision in rural areas is difficult enough without these extra constraints. Since Post-16 education is now compulsory all students should have suitable choices for their next step and not have to settle for what is available for free. This is also a good way to ensure that schools provide a range of courses and drive up standards. 210 Jan 05 2018 02:19 PM Too many schools are losing their sixth forms and course options and young people are disadvantaged enough in rural areas without changes to travel support. 211 Jan 05 2018 01:05 PM Please see the previous question 212 Jan 05 2018 12:28 PM Limiting school transport and therefore options open to parents about where to school their children can lead to all sorts of problems, from children who fail to thrive in the wrong school, potentially leading to mental health and social mobility issues, and increased traffic, pollution, and school gates safety concerns if parent’s are forced to drive of putting their child on an available bus. 213 Jan 05 2018 10:57 AM Same comments as Question 2 214 Jan 05 2018 09:47 AM For the same reason as before. 215 Jan 05 2018 09:29 AM Sometimes, changing school is not always an option and not all schools offer the same range of studies. Students should be allowed to choose in which school they would like to carry on studying. The option shouldn't be reduced to "nearest school to home" which gives no choice for the student to choose his path for the future.

Again, students from poor background should have transport for free. Others should have subsidies according to the parents means.

Education (including transport) should be free. 216 Jan 04 2018 10:56 PM Far too complicated. 217 Jan 04 2018 09:16 PM As previously stated 218 Jan 04 2018 02:20 PM Public transport is poor and expensive within rural suffolk and implementing change will have a knock on effect to students accessing the post 16 courses with added financial burden to families. 219 Jan 04 2018 11:12 AM Its taking away my choice to send my younger child to 6th form in Mildenhall 220 Jan 04 2018 11:06 AM A student should have the freedom to choose the school/college of their choice and should not be restricted by the ability to pay transport costs. 221 Jan 04 2018 09:01 AM This will result in extra costs with few benefits for post-16 students. 222 Jan 04 2018 08:47 AM Students should be able to select the best possible post 16 course for them regardless of the location. This should not be a decision that is made entirely due to cost of transport. 223 Jan 03 2018 07:55 PM Even at the time of change courses or staring post 16 education, students must have the opportunity to select the most appropriate centre for their needs not the easiest to reach on public transport. Consequently this

59 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses would favour students who have parents available to drive them to the centre of their choice and remove choice for the more vulnerable students. 224 Jan 03 2018 06:45 PM removes access to further education for rural students 225 Jan 03 2018 05:49 PM Financially not viable and makes it unfair for less wealthy families to choose their education 226 Jan 03 2018 05:16 PM Again this will prohibit many sixth formers from having a choice of courses and thus limit options post 16 which may mean many no longer to choose to continue their studies. 227 Jan 03 2018 03:48 PM Whilst the impact Is delayed, there is still a considerable impact on those families affected. 228 Jan 03 2018 03:06 PM I believe that travel to education up until they are in their 18th year i.e. end of Year 13 should be free.

229 Jan 03 2018 02:39 PM Removes real choice for all those unable to pay for their own transport 230 Jan 03 2018 01:40 PM Still unreasonable that families have to pay. 231 Jan 03 2018 12:17 PM We have a good integrated transport service at present. We do not want the expense and disruption of change. We elect Conservative councillors to keep things as they are (conserve) not to change things, unless it is clearly a change for the better. 232 Jan 03 2018 07:54 AM 1st point - not enough options 233 Dec 28 2017 08:53 PM See my first set of observations. This policy is simply impossible when no other transport options are available. 234 Dec 27 2017 09:55 AM One size doesn't fit all. Some students won't want to attend their nearest due to past negative experiences. The Statutory guidance should also be published on the website so parents are fully aware of all information to enable them to be empowered to help their children with their choices.

The workshops that were held were advertised at very short notice ie within a couple of hours so the results could be deemed to being subjective.

Post 16 education including training is an emotive subject where SCC should be encouraging and supporting students rather than putting barriers in their way. 235 Dec 24 2017 08:53 PM For the same reasons as question one, it is about being able to access high quality post 15 provision 236 Dec 24 2017 09:23 AM Can't afford. 237 Dec 19 2017 09:27 PM Existing arrangements don’t change and it phased in. 238 Dec 19 2017 11:37 AM As previous point 239 Dec 19 2017 11:24 AM School transport should be free until age 18 as children/young adults have to remain in education until then.

240 Dec 19 2017 11:04 AM Means new starters can make decisions about their choice of provider in full knowledge of transport situation

60 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 241 Dec 19 2017 10:59 AM Any delay in reaching option 1 outcomes costs money - I see no reason to delay the inevitable.

242 Dec 19 2017 10:51 AM These young people are our future and need choice, not least as the offerings for post 16 education vary widely. They should not be penalised by either paying for transport or giving up on their chosed careers before they start if their local school does not offer the curriulyum choices they want.

243 Dec 19 2017 10:40 AM but as a second choice to Option 1

244 Dec 19 2017 10:05 AM Same as previous answer

245 Dec 19 2017 09:45 AM Students living in smaller commnities would suffer disproportionately compared withose living in and around towns.

246 Dec 18 2017 08:13 PM Beyton will cease to attract a high proportion of Thurston students. There is no alternative public transport from this area (Market Weston) so many students from this area will be left with no accessible sixth form college. 247 Dec 18 2017 07:37 PM Education should be free 248 Dec 18 2017 04:52 PM This restitution parents free choice of schools to those who can afford to pay their own transport costs. 249 Dec 18 2017 02:50 PM Sixth form is in rural area with lack of public transport 250 Dec 18 2017 12:42 PM Again I believe to encourage children to attend sixth form they should have free transportation. 251 Dec 18 2017 12:40 PM See previous response.

Children of this age have to be in compulsory education therefore transport should be free.

We must invest in the next generation not cut their choice or life chances.

This generation of children are growing up in schools that have faced a 30% cut in income. Their education has suffered enough without transport being an issue too. 252 Dec 18 2017 08:07 AM It would probably please the general public more than other options, however I think it will take too long to implement and take effect. 253 Dec 17 2017 09:18 PM Purely from a "not messing with peoples lives" point of view. 254 Dec 17 2017 11:44 AM Same reason as before. 255 Dec 17 2017 07:45 AM It’s absurd 256 Dec 16 2017 05:53 PM I, as a single parent of three, living in a rural area cannot afford the costs of school buses for my children. It is their legal requirement to receive a decent education, therefore transport to gain that education when living in rural areas especially, needs to also be included.

61 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses

Th eother option would be that i drove them to their respective schools. The roads around this area are narrow, full of pot holes, frequently flooded,and totally inadequate to cope with an increase of traffic. 257 Dec 16 2017 04:29 PM Students won't get the access to the school of their choice or the one they may have been attending for the last 5 years of life. You are disrupting their education, their social life, and their families. This is a case of neglect in terms of the mental health and wellbeing of our young people. 258 Dec 16 2017 07:52 AM I a child need transport and the can’t afford to pay for it they should go to the nearest school available time them 259 Dec 15 2017 09:38 PM This seems like the least worst option assuming the other services to be cut impact other front line services rather than re-designing council buildings 260 Dec 15 2017 09:16 PM Same as previous 261 Dec 15 2017 09:09 PM This will force children to go to the school whic May not run the a levels they wish to take 262 Dec 15 2017 04:55 PM Please refer to my first answer. 263 Dec 15 2017 02:34 PM Government have said children have to remain at school until 18 rather than 16, so therefore should fund travel esp as limited availability of choices in some rural towns/villages. 264 Dec 15 2017 09:05 AM All at once or nothing at all, unfair otherwise. 265 Dec 15 2017 07:44 AM It provides a middle ground between making cuts that would probably damage the options of low income families and doing nothing which means making cuts to other services. 266 Dec 14 2017 07:54 PM If this gives a student the opportunity to go to the College they want to access. 267 Dec 14 2017 05:27 PM as before...This is just abandoning children and absolving yourselves of responsibility. Transport needs to be coordinated to stop our roads being clogged up with unnecessary traffic. 268 Dec 14 2017 04:59 PM This option is no better than option 1. Students will be forced to change school for their post-16 studies. It seems absurd to introduce a policy that is disruptive to the students. Many will have built up relationships with peers and teachers and to force them to attend another education establishment seems blatantly unfair and possibly disciminatory. 269 Dec 14 2017 04:13 PM Everyone should have a right to what sixth form/college they go to. 270 Dec 14 2017 04:03 PM I believe that education is a frontline service and the council should make efficiently savings in other departments to ensure that any student can study at a post-16 institute. 271 Dec 14 2017 04:02 PM We live in a rural area and naturally the distances that students have to travel to get to school are further than that of larger towns. This proposal would have a drastic impact on the financial obligations of parents and possibly even the school. This in some way removes the 'choice' that parents should have in what school their child attends. The Government have pledged that any parent can choose which school their child attends. By add an extra 'tax' on travel, you are essentially removing this choice. Isn't investing in our young a worthy use of council money? It seems that all decisions made by council or Government seem to make the life of children, and parents, more difficult instead of easier.

62 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 272 Dec 14 2017 03:58 PM I believe this is the better option of the three as it allows students and parents to understand and prepare for the new system, whilst also allowing students to complete their second year of courses. This also raises the importance of new applicants of considering the importance of transport and its costs. 273 Dec 14 2017 03:58 PM Accept there has to be savings as this gives new students at the beginning of their courses to look at transport options for their post 16 choices . this also allows yr 13 to maintain their attendance using the current system and funding 274 Dec 14 2017 02:20 PM This could affect many pupils at critical times in their education, and affect schools themselves, making provision of the expected standards impossible. It also removes the option of choice for parents and pupils who want to give their children the best education possible or receive the best option to help them in the future. 275 Dec 14 2017 01:30 PM It will take away student's choice 276 Dec 14 2017 01:29 PM Children have started their educational path and is generally determined by their catchment school. If this starts with free transport, this should be continued as the initial school will have been chasen on this basis, and to alter this would be disruptive to the education of the child 277 Dec 14 2017 12:54 PM Making the proposed changes to the current transport arrangement means that parents cannot choose to send their child to the school or post 16 provision that is right for them. Those on low incomes or from rural areas will be significantly disadvantaged as a result. 278 Dec 14 2017 12:42 PM Unfair on students and their families 279 Dec 13 2017 07:41 PM Please see my response to the previous question. Parental choice should not be the prerogative of those who can afford to pay for school transport. 280 Dec 13 2017 12:55 PM This will achieve savings over the long term while reducing immediate impact on struggling families. 281 Dec 13 2017 12:45 PM It has more chance of helping people in need. 282 Dec 13 2017 12:26 PM I think introducing this in 2019 lessens the likely impact on current first year A level students 283 Dec 13 2017 08:28 AM A definitive date needs to be made - this means all students and parents can make informed choices 284 Dec 13 2017 04:21 AM Option 2 is not my preferred option but would still provided a saving that could ensure a whole community service continues. 285 Dec 12 2017 09:06 PM As with the previous response, staggering the issue will not support children adequately in the future. It is vital to growth in this county that students are given access to higher education in line with where their skills and talents lie. This often requires students ti travel further as course option vary between establishments. 286 Dec 12 2017 06:10 PM Information needs to be in place so that students can make an informed choice. If they want to travel to other providers, then that is their right, but they should be expected to pay for this.

63 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q5, Can you give us your views on Option 3? Answer Choices Responses Strongly Support 68.25% 374 Support 10.04% 55 Neither Support nor Oppose 4.74% 26 Oppose 4.20% 23 Strongly Oppose 11.13% 61 Don’t Know 1.64% 9 Answered 548 Skipped 53

Can you give us your views on Option 3? 80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00% Responses 30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% Strongly Support Support Neither Support nor Oppose Strongly Oppose Don’t Know Oppose

64 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q6, Can you tell us why you think this and how do you think this should be funded? Answered 316 Skipped 285

Respondents Response Date Responses 1 Mar 01 2018 12:10 AM SCC needs to revisit this plan. Education is not only a right, it is a necessity if all parts of our lovely county is to remain a viable and prosperous place to live. Furthermore reductions to school transport could lead to more young people moving away from villages, making transport ultimately even more expensive for those who remain, and jeopardising the viability of our village communities. 2 Feb 28 2018 11:58 PM This is the only option that for children in Rickinghall and Botesdale provides a funded bus service to the nearest school for which we are in in catchment. Under option 1 & 2 providing a bus to a school which does not recognise our villages as in catchment is prejudicial to parental choice, disadvantages lower income families and will increase traffic at school drop off tremendously. Options 1 & 2 create material increases in the risk of accident.

Funding should be from county council funds as now.

3 Feb 28 2018 08:35 PM This is the only option that allows you to rethink other options. 4 Feb 28 2018 07:18 PM Other services where savings could be considered have not been listed for comparison against the value of these travel services. 5 Feb 28 2018 05:58 PM Suffolk children should have the same opportunities to student post 16 as children elsewhere. In rural areas that requires transport. This isn’t a privilege or a favour the Council needs to fund this and if it cannot then the Government need to to be pressured to provided more resources. As I have said this is just to make things equal not to advantage children in Suffolk. A child in London already has transport/can walk to appropriate provision. Children in Suffolk need transport so they can do the same thing. 6 Feb 28 2018 05:47 PM Look at Thurston's proposal 7 Feb 28 2018 04:45 PM Because the children deserve it 8 Feb 28 2018 01:07 PM because it doesn't restrict choice for students and fewer families will feel compelled to drive them to their chosen courses 9 Feb 28 2018 12:48 PM will not reduce opportunities for students

will not increase traffic & pollution 10 Feb 28 2018 11:23 AM Education post-16 is compulsory. Why should 16+ pupils be treated any differently to children under 16? Policy has not kept up to date with the changes in education. Transport to school/college should be free. Local solutions should be used to save money currently spent on school transport.

65 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 11 Feb 28 2018 08:43 AM If i am still in education why then should i have to travel to go to school? surly its compulsory to stay in education till you are 18.

From a low income family where are we supposed to pay for this 12 Feb 27 2018 11:21 PM This is the most preferable option although students living in rural areas are penalised simply for living more than 3 miles away from their local school. It is not possible to walk or cycle 6 miles on country roads, yet parents still have to pay.

As all students now have to stay in some form of education or training until they are 18 this means that many more parents are having to fund transport.

13 Feb 27 2018 10:14 PM It works.

14 Feb 27 2018 09:41 PM Additional funds from central government. 15 Feb 27 2018 06:03 PM The next generation deserves a future and the opportunity to reach a higher education. Savings can be made in other departments instead of schools who already need more financial support than they receive. 16 Feb 27 2018 02:44 PM The current system of subsidised transport is fair and equitable for 16-19 yr olds throughout the county. It should be recognised that many young people can't and don't access their nearest 16-19 provider, particularly in rural areas, not out of "choice" but because they have not met the entry requirements for A Levels at their nearest provision or the nearest provision has a very limited choice of courses not suitable for the young person or their intended career. Any changes to the current post 16 transport without increasing the number and range of 16-19 training venues and courses would result in more NEET young people, particularly in rural areas and goes against the idea of raising aspiration within the county. In many rural areas of the county young people currently experience very long journeys using public transport to access 16-19 provision and find that public transport is unreliable and timetables are not sympathetic to college start and finish times. To then put the full cost of accessing this transport on to the young people and their families as well, will add another barrier. As well as a risk to increasing the NEET population in Suffolk a change to the transport policy will put more young people at risk of being groomed into gang membership, drugs and sexual exploitation as if they are not engaged in EET then they are more vulnerable to less positive influences.

Maintaining the current system could be funded by making changes to the universal provision 5-16 that is currently underused i.e large expensive coaches for a handful of children and by streamlining the SEN transport. If Free Bus passes for the over 65's were means tested would that release any funds? Savings could also maybe be found in other directorates like corporate services or parts of the council that are not operational.

66 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 17 Feb 27 2018 02:16 PM Our children deserve the best possible education and start to life as possible and by trying to undermine the good work produced already by the schools that are most effected by the other options is a disgrace. You can't possibly think you can raise the bar of education by constantly changing policies to suit some councillors. The savings that actually might be made if any in the long run are not nearly as much as the proposals are saying.

Start by cutting out mini buses and taxis, combine these with the normal buses and just re-route them to accomodate these children and in most cases it wouldnt even take any longer.

Use double decker buses instead of single buses

Stop wasting money on repairing roads so inefficiently that you have to constantly keep repairing the same areas of road! If these were actually repaired properly in the first place the amount of money saved would be huge.

Stop wasting on so called road improvements that only cause traffic congestion and local frustration for months on end with the end results being barely noticeable.

18 Feb 27 2018 01:56 PM Gives young people the widest choice in career path - something that will pay the county back in the long term 19 Feb 27 2018 12:40 PM The proposal is making children in education pay for the funding issues that have been enforced.

Also the Reserves are at a high level and should be used to fund some of these shortfalls. 20 Feb 27 2018 12:26 PM Free or subsidised bus services are not a luxury for rural children they are a necessity. The SCC has significant reserves which they hold on behalf of it's taxpayers and are making the biggest increase in council tax in 15 years. How CAN THEY justify making these changes which ultimately are not making huge savings just depriving parents of free choice and for children to develop to their potential. They need to put more time and effort into repairing of roads properly the first time so they don't need constantly repairing costing much more and saving a lot more than what they would if they implemented their transport proposals. 21 Feb 27 2018 10:30 AM The only Option which provides the best opportunities for young people in Suffolk. Post 16 education is key and Post 16 travel has to meet the need. 22 Feb 27 2018 08:59 AM Surely we want our future generations to be working tax payers? Make cuts in social services where there is no return from people accepting those benefits. Education (including transporting those children to school to enable them to become educated) and the encouragement of a future tax paying generation should be a priority of the council.

67 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 23 Feb 27 2018 08:46 AM It should continue to be funded by MSDC and to avoid more traffic on the roads leading to more repairs to rural roads. 24 Feb 27 2018 07:39 AM By the LA making cost savings in other areas of CYP rather than the soft touch of our mainstream pupils, or cuts in other LA budgets. Cuts in SEND free transport.

Raising the Bar is totally ineffective so cut that and give the budget to free transport.

Asking Central govt to recognise rural issues and give extra funding for this as they do with London by giving London weighting- most our councillors are Conservative so this should be EASY!

I am another parent who will not pay an additional fee, I will drive my child out of principle. 25 Feb 26 2018 09:01 PM Other sources might be found such as small raises in council tax.

Savings could be made in other areas of the education budget. Consultation along the lines of this consultation but involving other areas of the budget might result in large savings not thought of by the council. 26 Feb 26 2018 08:05 PM Government has introduced all kids should be in education until they are 18, so they should fund it 27 Feb 26 2018 07:12 PM Same as before.

Funded in the same way it has been. Maybe tackle the lazy arses that don't want to work or pay tax to make up the short fall!! 28 Feb 26 2018 06:59 PM Continue to support the education of our young people so they may achieve their potential.

Make cost savings elsewhere.

Consider increase in council tax or similar revenue generation activity. 29 Feb 26 2018 05:32 PM This will allow us to have a choice to where we want to go as some sixth forms don't offer all the courses that we need to be able to go forward with our learning to even specialise within that field at university but without the choice and the only option to have to go to the closest sixth form or have to pay for transport will take this away. 30 Feb 26 2018 05:26 PM Because if it is law that are children have to attend school until they are 18 then transport to the school should be funded. The money should come out of staff bonuses!! 31 Feb 26 2018 04:06 PM County Council should stop pretending that it can absorb cuts in funding from central government and speak out for increased central support- for education as a whole as well as for older people 32 Feb 26 2018 02:17 PM Transport to compulsory education should be FREE for all. 33 Feb 26 2018 10:37 AM This system is well established and has worked well for all the rural communities for decades - why are you now thinking of messing this up ?

68 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 34 Feb 25 2018 03:07 PM Savings on Options 1 or 2 don't take into account the total costs that such a disruptive policy would cause. 35 Feb 25 2018 02:04 PM You haven't provided me (or anyone else) with the information I'd need to answer this question responsibly. (I fear you have merely included it for rhetorical effect.) 36 Feb 25 2018 10:02 AM Parents should take more responsibility for the cost of their own children as most do already. 37 Feb 25 2018 01:09 AM Transport should be provided free at the point of travel for students in compulsory education.

38 Feb 24 2018 09:30 PM Our rural lanes are not safe for either walking or cycling to school, especially during the winter, due to bad road conditions, no street lights, no paths and lack of public transport. 39 Feb 24 2018 07:29 PM The Government have made it legal requirement for children to be in education or apprenticeships until 18 years. They therefore should also have a legal requirement to help pay for these children to get the a college that is suitable for their requirements. Our local college does not have that much choice and therefore it is likely that our children will have to travel 20-25 miles every day to go to a college that offers what they would like to do. I feel the Government / local authority should take some responsibility for helping parents with this additional cost. 40 Feb 24 2018 05:58 PM It is already too expensive for pupils to access post 16 education. They have to pay adult entry to everything and cannot access student discounts.

Education should be a main focus. Do whatever is necessary.

41 Feb 24 2018 04:39 PM I’d like to see Councilors lobbying government to reintroduce the highly effective education maintenance allowances to help 16-19 year olds make the most of post-16 education and training opportunities. 42 Feb 24 2018 04:33 PM Savings need to be made. There is no reason why student transport should be given a higher priority than other services e.g. for elderly and homeless 43 Feb 23 2018 12:20 PM We have to do our best for all young people. They are the future. We would be restricting opportunities so massively if options 1 or 2 were phased in. In my eyes it is criminal - we would in many cases essentially dictate where and what courses pupils would have to take. Where is the choice and opportunity in that? 44 Feb 23 2018 09:08 AM By going back to central government and put pressure on them to stop austerity. Cuts to services aren't "necessary" they are a choice made by cetral goverment: fight to get them reversed and stop pretending your hands are tied. 45 Feb 22 2018 09:09 PM We need to encourage young people to gain the qualifications that will help them gain employment. 46 Feb 22 2018 06:07 PM Local solutions should be found which would save money without detriment to children's education, congestion, air pollution 47 Feb 22 2018 12:51 PM we subsidise the school enough as it is, my daughter is always coming home telling us what isn't in school or what there isn't enough of!

69 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 48 Feb 22 2018 12:23 PM In this it isn't enough to make no changes but rather SCC should be increasing support for young people to access the best education for them - and that will probably mean that this budget item should be increased not decreased! 49 Feb 21 2018 09:36 PM I need greater clarity on the specific areas which would be affected. 50 Feb 21 2018 08:43 PM See previous comments in option 1 and 2. 51 Feb 21 2018 07:35 PM Education to 18 yrs is compulsory and extremely valuable to society. Students will attend more consistently given free transport and wider choice of places to study 52 Feb 20 2018 07:40 PM I believe that children should be able to have free transport to their nearest school; whether that is 2 tier OR an all through trust. 53 Feb 19 2018 11:10 PM This is the only option I can afford!! 54 Feb 19 2018 09:34 PM A good education is vital to creating the next generation of wage earners. A good education gives our children a strong footing to go on to excel in life and create a life where they’re self sufficient and can achieve their full potential. Whilst I accept cuts need to be made, at the cost of our children’s education is unacceptable. I therefore strongly support the continuation of initiatives such as free school travel that enable our children to achieve their full potential. 55 Feb 19 2018 07:38 PM currently we have 3 busses running to the school considered in the catchment area. this is approximately .5 of a mile closer and is also in another county. This county as far as we're aware are not doing the same so places will not be available for pupils to move. this will make a very minimal saving! 56 Feb 19 2018 02:36 PM this isn't a great system either, but it is better then the others 57 Feb 18 2018 06:33 PM Make savings from the post 16 travel costs. 58 Feb 18 2018 02:38 PM I think if it is mandatory for a child to remain in full time education until they're 18 then they should not be expected to pay for the journey there and back if it is of a reasonable distance. The government should not be able to insist we stay in education and then expect us to pay for transport, much like it shouldn't expect us to pay for our own mandatory equipment eg. Bunsen Burners. 59 Feb 18 2018 01:16 PM Cut the salaries of the top people in the council, they do not justify their very high wages, they earn more than the MPs.!! The waste in the local council offices can be cut as well. 60 Feb 17 2018 07:08 PM I still feel that the termly cost is not fair for post 16 61 Feb 17 2018 12:12 PM We pay to transport our children because there is no post 16 education available, even though we live in a large town. It’s a disgrace. 62 Feb 17 2018 08:10 AM I'd there was greater access to public transport the other options would be more viable but there isn't 63 Feb 14 2018 04:35 PM Mildenhall College Academy is working hard to retain a sixth form provision in a very challenging climate where there are massive cuts in central government funding. This provision provides an excellent educational experience for young people who may not wish to travel to other centres or for whom a larger sixth form college may not be the ideal learning environment. Due to the funding conditions, it is vital that MCA6 does

70 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses not experience any drop in the numbers of students attending. Any significant drop in numbers will result in the closure of this valuable provision. 64 Feb 14 2018 10:28 AM Again. Doesn't help financial situation. 65 Feb 13 2018 10:14 AM Loss of staff

Loss of A-LEVEL subject

Making the roads busier and making us late for lesson.

Don't know how else to fund it 66 Feb 12 2018 04:08 PM In Hadleigh all our post-16 students must travel to Suffolk One, Suffolk New College or to Colchester for post 16 education. It would discriminate them to make them pay full fares. 67 Feb 12 2018 09:20 AM education is a high priority in Suffolk and therefore we need to support the CYP to access the best education for them and their individual needs 68 Feb 11 2018 07:40 PM The council needs to have a substantial pay cut. 69 Feb 11 2018 02:48 PM The Government now require students to stay in education until they are 18, because of this decision students need to be encouraged to attend sixth forms and have subsidised transport provided.

Closed contracts for school transport will carry spare seats and by keeping these routes open to sixth formers it will help reduce the running costs for pre-16 year olds. 70 Feb 11 2018 02:45 PM the only sensible option...savings could be made by eschewing traffic light nonsense in Bury St Edmunds 71 Feb 10 2018 04:30 PM Because it is the least worse option.

If the government is unable to fund local authorities further then council tax must be raised. It is nonsense otherwise. 72 Feb 09 2018 11:06 AM Explore why Suffolk school pupils are funded at a lower rate than pupils in areas such as Hackney. Schools and the education budget in Suffolk are already ridiculously tight - the cost of travel must not being passed to individual schools. Central government funding should be supporting our rural areas and ensuring a level playing field for all pupils across the UK. 73 Feb 09 2018 10:57 AM If monthly passes at a lower price would not be offered then I see no other option then to continue with keeping what is offered now and finding the saving and money elsewhere. 74 Feb 08 2018 05:01 PM Make savings in other areas - overstaffing, excessive terms and conditions of employment, councillors' expenses, proper scrutiny of procurement etc 75 Feb 08 2018 03:38 PM Have to make savings

71 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 76 Feb 08 2018 01:30 PM Keep the status quo

Demand more money from Mrs May 77 Feb 08 2018 09:34 AM A level and college students should be treated exactly the same and currently they are not 78 Feb 08 2018 12:51 AM About time SCC stopped wasting our taxes 79 Feb 06 2018 08:13 PM Already answered on the 5-16 survey 80 Feb 06 2018 04:35 PM There are lots of others things you could cut down on like having expensive recruitment drives for council staff . Have your own people to do things like filling in pot holes - the companies you buy in are useless . Make people pay to have horses on the roads - why should only cars have to be taxed for this . 81 Feb 05 2018 07:37 PM By the savings in statutory benefits for all the NEETs you won't create by not depriving them of access to education and training post-16. 82 Feb 05 2018 04:16 PM it is better for the environment to have school journeys more centralised in busses, poorer children are not so disadvantaged and less disruption for local residents 83 Feb 05 2018 01:11 PM Education is a basic right of all children, getting to school therefore should be free. Children are required to stay in education until 18 so it should still be free. You should go to government and ask for more money - you do not have to cut other services. You are creating a flawed consultation process by implying that the only option is to decide which services to cut - this is not correct. You should be going to central government and explaining that you need more money. 84 Feb 05 2018 07:42 AM It should be funded by those actually using the service 85 Feb 04 2018 08:33 PM Se previous comments 86 Feb 03 2018 09:29 PM Education budget is already high 87 Feb 03 2018 08:29 PM Wherever making savings is taken from, it will affect the public in other ways why should this be ? 88 Feb 02 2018 06:20 PM I extremely agree with this option because, I feel my child should be able to travel to the sixth form that would benefit them the most in order to succeed. Therefore, I feel that this should be funded for. 89 Feb 02 2018 03:53 PM Why on earth should parents have to pay for school transport when it is a legal requirement that all post 16 students have to receive education. Completely ridiculous that we have to pay anything at all especially if it is our local school as our local high school does not have a 6th form. It is a very unfair system as it is so anything to make it worse should not happen. 90 Feb 02 2018 09:53 AM Even this suggestion is far from ideal as I believe that all children post 16 should be given the support required for them to meet their full potential. In an ideal world this would mean free transport so that they can pursue their academic studies. Young people rely heavily on parental support as it is and so out of all the options this would be the best of a bad bunch! 91 Feb 01 2018 09:24 PM Increase in council tax lobby local government 92 Feb 01 2018 01:06 PM I currently receive discretionary travel for my child as he has to travel 26 miles to access his main A level course due to the inadequacy of local 6th form provision. Personally, paying for the transport is not the issue.

72 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses The lack of transport and the unreliability of what does exist is the problem. This is because we live in rural mid Suffolk. You are right, there are big differences between rural and urban needs. If school transport is costing too much then yes it needs to change - it is how it is changed. 93 Feb 01 2018 11:36 AM allows the community to move forward economically as people are employed and the community has good educated students that will help grow the area 94 Feb 01 2018 11:05 AM I don't think that Council Tax payers should be required to pay for services above the legal requirements 95 Feb 01 2018 10:30 AM Funnily enough I think it should be funded out of the taxes which are taken from my wages to pay for the education of my children. 96 Jan 31 2018 07:21 PM depending on what you took away from other things that the council funds.if you were to take money from schools, hospitals, doctors nurserys its not acceptable as people pay taxes. 97 Jan 31 2018 06:46 PM Money needed in other areas 98 Jan 31 2018 03:33 PM It is not clear how else young people would be supported to reach vocational and technical courses at College. This is especially the case where a 'similar' course might be offered at a school that is located nearer to home, but without employing the in-depth industry links, work placements and tutors that Colleges have. It is also important to recognise the need for young people to study in a college environment rather than a school environment 99 Jan 31 2018 03:11 PM No student who HAS TO BE IN POST 16 EDUCATION/EMPLOYMENT OR APPRENTICESHIP SHOULD HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING. IT IS THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE FREE TRANSPORT UNTIL THEY ARE IN FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT TO PAY FOR TRAVEL!!

THEY SHOULD BE FUNDED AS THE GOVERNMENT STATE THEY HAVE TO BE DOING SOMETHING SO THEY SHOULD NOT FACE THE INDIGNITY OF HAVING TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THEY DID NOT DEMOCRATICALLY CHOOSE TO HAPPEN 100 Jan 31 2018 11:20 AM Make cuts to the pay of those who are being paid ridiculous amounts i.e over £100k a year, rather than essential things like transport, front line workers etc 101 Jan 31 2018 09:43 AM Make savings elsewhere 102 Jan 30 2018 04:31 PM Disruption to children's schooling can have lasting effects for their futures as adults... We must support the continuing ability for our children to progress / stay at their catchment area schools... This would then not cause more pressure, stress and financial burden on families.. Also keeping our great teachers in the jobs they love and have trained for.. As for how this could be funded, I am sure there are many areas that could be looked at first.. I have been witness in the past how councils waste money on unnecessary things ( eg replacing door handles and locks on doors only to replace the complete doors a month later) These are the sorts of areas where money could be saved.. Not by making our children/teachers and schools suffer !! 103 Jan 30 2018 03:31 PM This system must be kept as it is with the exception of simpler routes and larger buses where necessary. 104 Jan 30 2018 01:55 PM Depends on what the alternative funding is

73 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 105 Jan 30 2018 12:51 PM this is a roundabout way of penalising parents of children who want to go to certain sixth forms or colleges of their choice. Our local school does not have a sixth form college and the nearest ones are not accessible by public transport - how are they then expected to get to these as they are legally required to stay in education until 18. 106 Jan 30 2018 11:03 AM Allows students to choose the post 16 education which they require to access further education such as universities. Creates an equal chance of potential and prevents effects such as stress on young people 107 Jan 30 2018 10:57 AM Less busses should run but still go to all destinations. 108 Jan 30 2018 09:10 AM Because allows people to choose where they go to school and what course they do. 109 Jan 30 2018 07:26 AM I pay my taxes so all children can get a great education, no matter if their parents can afford travel fares or not. Forcing young people to have to go to the closest post-16 educational establishment will mean many cannot follow their ambitions and undermine getting a well/educated next generation.

To fund this, bring all social care provision including expensive foster care back in house to remove unnecessary expenditure on private company profit. 110 Jan 29 2018 09:33 PM It is important for children to have the opportunity to go to a school of their choice but if these cuts are made a lot of parents could not afford to pay transport fees. 111 Jan 29 2018 03:10 PM We have a child with special needs and he is now panicking that he will not be able to continue at his school. Like may children who have special needs but may not qualify for travel this service is good for them. Having looked through the booklet change start times and drop offs could save money. 112 Jan 28 2018 08:07 PM i have 3 disabled children and need post 16 transport but more than on offer as they cant insure one of mine already :( 113 Jan 28 2018 07:34 PM It is completely unjust to 'move the goalposts' once a child has embarked on his or her school career, and particularly so if the child attends his or her catchment school, even though it may not be the closest to his/her home. 114 Jan 28 2018 06:26 PM The present system works. 115 Jan 28 2018 03:43 PM Make buses more efficient. Save the money from a different budget. Reduce the cost of transporting a small number of SEN children by being more efficient about it. 116 Jan 28 2018 10:55 AM Education is vital. Too many young people in Suffolk are NEET. Travel changes won’t help that. Travel changes will cause huge costs elsewhere. Schools losing pupils will make staff redundant - cost eventually borne by LA. Madness. Cut chief exec pay, reduce expenses for councillors and lead by example please. As a teacher I’ve had 5 consecutive pay cuts, perhaps SCC could start by engaging with schools about what travel plans they actually need?? 117 Jan 28 2018 10:35 AM All through our children's education we have followed our catchment schools, as instructed by you , now we're told our child would need to go to school in Norfolk . Just not right.

To do otherwise would force some to go to Free Schools or Academies , again wrong.

74 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses

On the question of funding SCC have no idea how much they'd save from this , if anything , as it may well end up costing them money .

118 Jan 28 2018 09:15 AM Instead of making more cuts, approach your workforce for ideas on how they can increase commerciality and make savings. Listen to what they actually have to say and offer incentives for viable ideas.

Some of your staff will no doubt have years of experience, and know the organisation inside and out. They are bound to have at least one good idea between them. We should be encouraging commerciality and innovation, not more austerity. 119 Jan 28 2018 08:45 AM Fairest option 120 Jan 28 2018 12:00 AM Students now have to stay in education until the age of 18. Therefore transport is needed to ensure it is possible for this to happen. 121 Jan 27 2018 05:08 PM Best option, we pay enough to send my child to sixth form 122 Jan 27 2018 03:44 PM Basically the reverse of option 1. To maintain choice. To prevent splitting in villages and families as they go to different schools. To maintain education attainment to prevent harm to local environment. To prevent harm to local economy as parents would not have to give up work and village would not change as people would not be forced to move house to attend school of choice. To allow children that have been severely disrupted due to three tier two tier changes to finish education in peace. Prevent reduction in house prices due to increased traffic congestion/parking issues. 123 Jan 27 2018 02:20 PM no change is a no win 124 Jan 27 2018 12:14 AM Bigger buses and option for those who wish to pay for extra seats to do so.

Schools have their own buses and staff accordingly. 125 Jan 26 2018 06:54 PM All budgets are stretched 126 Jan 26 2018 04:50 PM The government has forced children to stay in education so transport should operate the same as pre 16 127 Jan 25 2018 09:54 PM Fairest option 128 Jan 25 2018 08:22 PM We live in a rural area with little public transport, certainly none that can get the students to school and back at the right time and efficiently.

Children are now obliged to remain in education until they are 18 and the government needs to facilitate this by providing free - or at the very least subsidised transport - particularly in rural areas which are not well served by public transport and where the nearest the 6th form centre is not within walking distance.

75 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 129 Jan 24 2018 12:50 PM To put more cars on the road is a bad idea environmental.

School busses are really important for working mums.

Our roads although quiet can be dangerous, and I am not keen on the idea of young people cycling on routes which are fast, or have poor visibility. 130 Jan 24 2018 09:02 AM If 16-18 year olds must go to school, free transport should be provided. Without the bursery, we wouldn't be able to afford to send our children to school. 131 Jan 24 2018 07:47 AM Although transport should be free as college is compulsory 132 Jan 23 2018 05:17 PM Other budgets need to be examined, for example, SEN transport cost as much as mainstream for significantly less students - a review is needed.

Also within education the county council awarded £5m to Suffolk University (a folly in its own right) for "publicity" not anything tangible like getting students to school. 133 Jan 23 2018 04:56 PM Quite simply, it is unaffordable. 134 Jan 23 2018 02:15 PM The current proposals would not save sufficient funding, impact of standards of education and discriminate against rural students. If the council really wants to decrease its NEET figures then it needs to ensure transport is available post 16 135 Jan 23 2018 02:10 PM A childs education will give them a means to work and provide tax pay in the future, without education, the child may not gain the confidence, results and general requirements to go onto a successful tax paying career themselves. Take away free meals in schools up to Y3, as the majority of children will be provided with packed lunches on a daily basis by their appropriate adult regardless. Transport is a completely different issue as some people do not drive, cannot drive or work themselves so cannot transport their children around at school times as they are working and paying tax towards things such as their child's education 136 Jan 22 2018 08:55 PM I think if handled carefully this is an area where the council can save money with less dramatic issues for people than in some other areas 137 Jan 22 2018 02:55 PM Every student should have the right to free transport to 6th form, especially now that they have to by law stay in education till age 18. 138 Jan 21 2018 08:34 PM This is stilll not ideal but at least in this scenario it is subsidised. However, we have no bus service in our village, my child would not be able to get to/from school despite them legally having to attend. The ‘local’ bus service would see them dropped in a village several miles away and left there in the dark until I got home from work. None of these scenarios work. 139 Jan 21 2018 11:40 AM This make the most sense, not only for young people, in terms of disruption, psychological impact, educational consistency, future prospects and wellbeing; it also financially will bear the least burden.

proposals 1 and 2 will bear to heavy an impact on the children it affects, feeder schools need to be able to

76 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses offer children the right to attend the schools in their catchment, within their county. Families should have the option to send their child to their local primary school and feel reassurance that they can attend the linked high school. The amount of savings from transport costs will be much less than the cost and burden produced by such proposals.

Children need stability and protection from their families but also from the wider community, which includes local provisions.

Funding option 1)

I believe a means tested fee system should be introduced which allows those in financially advantaged households to pay a reasonable price and allows those in disadvantaged households a free service to enable their children the same opportunities as their peers.

Funding option 2)

Free travel to continue for all, money is saved in senior management salaries and expenses within the local government.

Funding option 3)

All those who receive pupil premium and live outside of the walking area are eligible for free travel to their current school regardless of their location to another school. Those who are attending their nearest school, and not within walking distance are eligible for free travel, those who are attending their catchment school, but may be closer to another school are offered a continued place, with a sliding scale fee system, allowing the more advantaged to pay a higher fee and incremental reductions/increases dependant on family income.

Children who are close to a boarder, and whose family have no financial means to provide their own transport will still need to be provided with taxi services, or face not attending school as their new school may be over the boarder and therefore not transported by the other county, so continuing with the current system seems to me financially better value in the long run.

Safe routes for walkers/cyclists who are not within the eligible distance MUST be insured too.

Young people who live within walking distance could also be offered bus stops to catch a school bus, but fees will be charged and weekly passes should be available online, so they have options for winter months, illness

77 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses etc.

Children who are forced to walk through unlit, rural footpaths will be at an increased risk of danger, assault, bullying, injury etc. The current system gives the best opportunities to our young people and offers the best protection to their vulnerabilities. 140 Jan 21 2018 11:20 AM Probably cut some of the higher scaled salaries within your council. It is the duty of our council to provide transport for our children to their catchment school. 141 Jan 20 2018 07:54 PM As 16-18 education is compulsory Suffolk should provide free transport to catchment schools 142 Jan 19 2018 09:03 PM I don't understand that there isn't enough money in our area as the unemployment is low,council tax is high,the price of car parking is rediculous within the town and there are lots of new houses being build around bury so more money will be coming into bury 143 Jan 19 2018 08:57 PM Parents shouldn't have to pay for their child to go to school, or at least pay over £100 a year to do so. It should be a free service. 144 Jan 19 2018 06:25 PM Definitely think you need to leave the children schools how they are, I know you want to save money but it shouldn't be down to our children and their education 145 Jan 19 2018 06:12 PM Students need access to a good education and you can pay for it by not paying council members so much money for trying to remove access to an education and not much else. 146 Jan 19 2018 05:14 PM By phrasing this option as having to make cuts from elsewhere you are asking respondents if they are willing to place other essential services above their child's education and this is an unfair way to present the issue. 147 Jan 19 2018 04:53 PM It is unfair to prevent students from going to school of their choice. The next generation of people should not have to be so heavily impacted by the council's unnecessary decisions.

Considering that post-16 is now compulsory it is hugely unfair to limit the potential options for families by not at least subsidising transport options. 148 Jan 19 2018 07:10 AM Same as previous answer, maybe the savings could be made from restrictions on salary salary increases from you senior staff 149 Jan 18 2018 09:48 PM Children who take school transport usually do so because they have no other choice. At present children can continue at their current catchment school into sixth form at the same school (even though it is not their closest sixth form) using the spare seats scheme. This system of closest school being different from catchment is ridiculous but this compromise has allowed us to do the best thing for our children. The cost is high enough for hard working families - these are children and they need support while they are growing up. They are the future of our county and country and we need to invest in them. By the time the changes come in , my own children will thankfully be out of the system but I feel very strongly that we need to help people in rural areas and not put them through the stresses that changes have already brought to my family. If we hadn’t had the spare seats scheme I do not know how we could have could our high achieving children to school.

78 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 150 Jan 18 2018 06:15 PM Use a smaller bus and have a fun day in a local area so people can help support the council

151 Jan 18 2018 03:06 PM Parental choice of school is just as critical in rural counties as it is in urban places.

Young people from villages will have to travel anyway they may as well travel to a college they want to attend.

People in reduced circumstances or rural isolation should be supported in joining in with wider society and have the same opportunities. 152 Jan 18 2018 09:55 AM I think the council should invest in post 16 provision in this way. It will raise aspirations of pupils to dream and imagine a better future if they haven't got to worry about the cost of attending post 16 provision.

This will, in turn, affect the communities the pupils come from and raise standards across the county. 153 Jan 17 2018 11:21 PM Stop wasting money on public consultations for issues that do not need altering 154 Jan 17 2018 09:28 PM The cost of getting to a chosen school should not prevent a child from having the education they are entitled to.

A way of saving would be to means test families for free school meals. Just because a parent is in receipt of a qualifying benefit does not mean they cannot afford school meals as they may be receiving other income such as tax credits or child maintenance which is disregarded for such benefits. Therefore all income should be considered in the determination. 155 Jan 17 2018 08:17 PM It is essential to support young people under the age of 18 as they are our future. 156 Jan 17 2018 07:06 PM My children’s education will not be affected and they will have the best chance to succeed.

Firstly, reduce pay for every employee earning over the higher rate of tax threshold. The chief executive and executive officers should never earn more than the prime minister of the whole country! I would suggest that if pay of this level is required to get the best leaders, then you fundamentally misunderstand what a good leader is and these people are in public service for the wrong reasons and we are better off without them.

Secondly, in the interim, a small rise in the council tax specifically going to the education budget (and not to things like drying rooms for staff coats at the council office), would easily raise a significant portion of the needed funding.

Thirdly, in the longer term, the councillors and other council leaders along with other county councils and the Local Government Association should join forces to demand central government increase the annual finance settlement and end the scandal of years of cuts and austerity so that all services the council provides can be adequately funded.

79 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 157 Jan 17 2018 04:53 PM ?

Sponsored school buses, advertising on side of buses by local and national businesses.

Save on non essentials such as xmas lights.

Means testing of parents (only those that qualify get subsidised) whilst somehow safeguarding and not excluding those who have parents who refuse to pay even though they can afford it. -Educating parents to prioritise education.

158 Jan 17 2018 04:41 PM This would be the preferred option due to less impact on families and schools, if it could be funded by opening up the spare places on the buses to fare paying passengers this could recoup some of the cost to the council 159 Jan 17 2018 03:31 PM It is wrong to remove funding from education when there will be other areas that could be cut. 160 Jan 17 2018 02:47 PM The principal of Thurston Community college has calculated that the savings will be minimal in any case. They will be outweighed by staff redundancy payments for many years.

My view in this area is that savings should be made by closing down the under performing, and hugely over funded Ixworth Free school. Assuming that SCC still owns the site, Sell it for for housing, and that would fund the difference in school transport costs for many years.

Also SCC has recently sold the site of the old Stanton Primary school for housing, whilst the new site was improved with a lot of help from the local community at much reduced cost. Why not plough the profits back into transporting children to properly performing schools. Generally speaking to not attempt to send their children to more distant schools if their local one is doing well.

161 Jan 17 2018 12:28 PM The issues raised under options 1 and 2 would not be experienced. The cost savings of those other options are far-outweighed by impacts identified. 162 Jan 17 2018 12:01 PM It is imperative that there is no discrimination between families where income is high and those that are struggling. it would penalise the next generation to do anything else. 163 Jan 17 2018 11:13 AM Money should be allocated for rural areas to ensure that children can get to school without an extra cost to parents.

Children must stay in education post 16 so provision should be made in all areas to allow this to happen.

Increasingly both parents are having to work longer hours to support the rising cost cost of living so are unable to fit work hours within school hours.

80 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 164 Jan 17 2018 09:27 AM Children are now required to attend school post-16 rather than it being optional. There are limited options available for this compulsory schooling so young people shouldn't be penalised by being sent to unsuitable schools when a more suitable alternative is only marginally further away 165 Jan 17 2018 07:56 AM Suffolk County Council are very wasteful, savings can be easily made elsewhere without impacting services. 166 Jan 16 2018 11:50 PM We'll just have to pay more I suppose. At least our children can still be transported to the high school/sixth form that they are expecting to go to.

167 Jan 16 2018 11:50 PM The area of which I live Mildenhall. Lakenheath, Brandon, Sedge Fen, Elveden etc is not going to save the Council any money transport is still going to have to be run will still cost the same so why shouldn’t those that have to stay in full time education have to pay full costs and get no subsidy 168 Jan 16 2018 08:53 PM Young people should have the opportunities to reach their potential. For some that means attending an establishment they are familiar with or of their choice. Those parents who work but are just above low income thresholds for help are those under the most pressure. In an ideal world post 16 transport would be free, but realistically, subsidised transport is a Good alternative. 169 Jan 16 2018 07:12 PM Education and Training is compulsory post 16 and there is insufficient public transport to enable the majority of youngsters to use this to get to sixth form or college - the council therefore needs to support post 16 travel. 170 Jan 16 2018 06:20 PM I don't think it's a good idea at all to pay 171 Jan 16 2018 06:03 PM Something needs to happen in rural communities that do not have regular bus services in order to allow parents to encourage post-16 education, whilst continuing to work and pay tax. I do not know how I will be able to do this in September 2018 when my child wishes to start college - I am stuck between a rock and a hard place. I do not wish to claim benefits and have always worked as a single mum. However, I am struggling to see what practical options I have left. (I am a teacher, so cannot request flexi-time - nor have the funds to pay for cabs). Funding should be made to provide some form of public transport for all post 16s in these areas 172 Jan 16 2018 06:02 PM There are savings to be made in back office functions or SCC could use its reserves 173 Jan 16 2018 05:48 PM It is not 'fair' to punish communities by withdrawing monies available, to maintain basic structures, as the government does.

Money should be invested for all, and not have such an obsession with private business ventures to line the pockets of all the wealthy individuals involved, at the expense of all. 174 Jan 16 2018 04:13 PM I think better savings can be made within Suffolk County Council without having a detrimental effect on post 16 education for students and the choices the students have. 175 Jan 16 2018 02:49 PM Stop wasting time and money on meetings. Especially the pursuit of unity status.. so much money is wasted in meetings and contractors.. 176 Jan 16 2018 02:27 PM Raising aspirations for young people in Suffolk has been a priority for years and young people in Suffolk need to be encouraged to attend Sixth Forms. The proposed change to post-16 transport will only act as a further

81 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses barrier preventing some young people from wanting to attend Sixth Form or will encourage a higher drop-out rate when the transport proves too costly or unreliable. Studies show that for many young people attending a Sixth Form provision which is familiar to them because it is part of or linked to the school they attended pre-16 is the most important factor to them.

Existing Sixth Forms like ours are achieving good and outstanding results and the progress scores made by our learners are some of the highest in the country. Without sufficient numbers we will not be able to maintain a viable Sixth Form provision. The transport policy changes will reduce the numbers of students able to come to our Sixth Form. Why would Suffolk risk losing such quality post-16 provision as ours? Does it or does it not want to raise standards and aspirations in Suffolk?

Schools such as ours in areas like Forest Heath have worked hard over the years to prevent young people from becoming NEET/NIL. The transport changes will undo much of our work.

There are insufficient public bus routes to many schools with Sixth Forms. The proposed changes unfairly advantage Sixth Form centres in the larger towns such as Bury St Edmunds. It seems too much of a coincidence that these plans are being proposed at the same time that a new Sixth Form centre is opening in Bury St Edmunds. Suffolk County Council appears to be favouring one institution over the fortunes of others.

The Government has raised the participation age to 18. Young people need to be given transport to make it possible to continue in education until they are 18.

Closed contracts for school transport will carry spare seats and by keeping these routes open to Sixth Formers it will actually help to reduce the cost of running the buses for the pre-16 year olds.

Our Sixth Form centre is one of the very few in the county that offers students a full range of Level 3 applied and A-Level courses side by side. In most other institutions students have to choose one pathway or the other or have a very limited choice available to them from an alternative pathway to A-Levels. The transport changes would force young people to pick courses at other institutions which they are not best suited to. Success rates will fall and drop-out rates increase as a result. 177 Jan 16 2018 09:18 AM fair and equitable, funded form SCC budget. 178 Jan 15 2018 07:54 PM Ensure that where public transport is available in towns, that parents are using it to get their children to and from school. rural communities have no public transport and rely on the school bus service.

179 Jan 15 2018 04:05 PM I accept that money needs to be saved and so changes made, but this should be made in another area ... we should be consulted on a selection of services where the same amount could be saved

82 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 180 Jan 15 2018 10:18 AM This will allow students to comfortably be able to use and afford the travel without the stress of affording transportation and items they need for school. 181 Jan 15 2018 10:18 AM There are far better ways to save money in the region rather than effecting the education of students. 182 Jan 15 2018 10:18 AM I'm sure that the council can commit to other methods for saving money. 183 Jan 15 2018 10:13 AM this method works as it means that students get a choice where they go and what courses to do. It means that people can travel by bus safely to their sixth form or college. 184 Jan 14 2018 10:23 PM The Council needs to make savings elsewhere.

It needs to keep the current transport policy where parents and school communities are asking for it to remain unchanged.

Suffolk County Council has a duty to ensure that educational standards are maintained. The proposed transport policy changes will unfairly advantage some schools and put other good schools at a disadvantage. This will impact on educational standards when those schools cannot afford staffing and resources. This will reduce the number of good schools in Suffolk. This goes against Suffolk's own 'Raising the Bar' philosophy.

I have been told that in some areas such as Lakenheath the proposed changes will not realise any savings at all, as it costs just as much to run a bus from Lakenheath to Brandon as it does to Mildenhall. Therefore the reason for making the changes to the existing transport policy is disruptive and pointless.

185 Jan 14 2018 10:21 PM Education is key. Nothing is more important than my child's education. Get the government involved, I`m sure someone could do with a pay cut. 186 Jan 14 2018 07:19 PM Closed contracts for school transport will provide choice to pupils where they continue their education as well as providing additional funding towards the cost of transport. If double decker buses were used this would be an even greater flexible, financially viable option.

Our Sixth Formers have made outstanding progress and achieved good and outstanding results. If the HUB is not viable due to reduced numbers in our Sixth Form, then again parental choice has been compromised and goes against all the ethos of SCC - Raising the Bar for Suffolk pupils. 187 Jan 14 2018 06:04 PM By making savings elsewhere other than education. Suffolk is one of the worst counties in the UK for educational attainment and charging more to get to school will make the situation worse. There must be areas in why it is the only county in England without a university 188 Jan 14 2018 04:21 PM This will encourage more students to attend school which will benefit our community 189 Jan 13 2018 01:45 PM Education and emergency services are things that should not be cut back on. 190 Jan 12 2018 06:27 PM This travel service has been provided since I went to school at MCA, continue to use the funds that you have used since 1989!

83 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 191 Jan 12 2018 03:25 PM There are a variety of ways that money that be saved and this is not the answer. 192 Jan 12 2018 02:10 PM I think this is a bad idea because it will put families who financially struggle under pressure. Attendance of students would fall because they are unable to get the education provider. 193 Jan 12 2018 01:47 PM Again, Suffolk is a rural county and most residents live far away from any public transport. Funding - maybe you'll have to dare to increase the rates? 194 Jan 12 2018 12:42 PM you obviously need to make changes of some sorts but not all of the proposals are reasonable so some changes required to avoid losing money to other services 195 Jan 12 2018 11:23 AM I feel that children who live in the catchment area of a school or college should still be helped with the cost of travel....education and access to it is vital and the bus service is already very limited. 196 Jan 12 2018 07:26 AM To maintain continuity for my son. To allow him to get to school safely around my work hours. To ensure that he actually gets to school as I have never known a bus be cancelled.

Maintain the funding as it is, perhaps make a cutback in another area of Local Authority funding which is not so important.

Or perhaps a small nominal fee to contribute towards the cost? 197 Jan 11 2018 09:22 PM See my previous response, we should not have to pay for this at all. How do you fund it? Ask central government to means test disability living allowance, or the winter fuel allowance, that should pay for our kids to get to school and college to get an education! 198 Jan 11 2018 09:08 PM Cut top level executive wages. 199 Jan 11 2018 08:52 PM Find another way to cut costs. It should never be done at the expense of the vulnerable members of society. 200 Jan 11 2018 08:42 PM Our children and families need the support to get their children to school, changing something that works for the people is not the way forward. Families will never be able to afford to send their children to school, which will end up effecting the education and welfare. Continue the current funding, and cut from the over paid wages and pay rises currently given in government. 201 Jan 11 2018 07:34 PM Don't agree with this point 202 Jan 11 2018 05:38 PM Cut wages of those in charge ! Big savings to be made there I am sure 203 Jan 11 2018 12:33 PM Accessing education is paramount. The current provision is effective. Savings should be made via efficiency or from other services 204 Jan 11 2018 11:09 AM With regards to lakenheath village the bus companies have confirmed it costs no more to run buses from lakenheath to mildenhall than it does from lakenheath to Brandon. 205 Jan 11 2018 07:05 AM There needs to be some time looking into government funding for rural areas.

206 Jan 11 2018 06:46 AM Clearly changes need to be made, however funds for current services are limited to so would be concerned about where cuts would need to be made.

84 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 207 Jan 10 2018 10:16 PM I live in Newmarket and my daughter is only interested in a course at Mildenhall 6th form college. And I don't drive.

I receive Family Tax Credits and Working Tax Credits so not financially able to pay full fare so a subsidised fee is acceptable to me.

But most importantly my daughter has no choice but to continue her education as it has become legally compulsory, therefore I think students should have financial help to travel to compulsory education if needed!

She has no choice but to travel to a venue of further education as Newmarket Academy no longer provides a 6th Form! 208 Jan 10 2018 09:25 PM I think you can get the funding else where children's education is getting under strains as it is without parents getting charged fees . 209 Jan 10 2018 08:04 PM By taking away job seekers money who don't want to work but claim everything 210 Jan 10 2018 07:34 PM Children have a right to free education at a school in their catchment area, you should look at what the bus companies are charging for their buses and not penalise Children 211 Jan 10 2018 06:46 PM Although I support 'no change' my opinion is that since children are required to remain in full-time education until the age of 18, the Government should be under a duty to provide the transport for them to be able to do this. 212 Jan 10 2018 06:22 PM My local school 'requires improvement' and the school I have chosen to send my children to is 'outstanding'. A good education should be free for all - not just to those who are lucky enough to live near a good school or the rich who can afford to pay for travel arrangements to get their children to a good school.

A good education for all children is an entitlement. Preventing children from accessing it is immoral. Cutbacks need to be made elsewhere. 213 Jan 10 2018 05:55 PM Education is supposed to be free parents already have to pay for books and trips that are part of the curriculum because of cuts to funding to pay for children to get there as well is a step too far for families who struggle already it could mean they just don't bother sending the children to school somedays at all 214 Jan 10 2018 04:33 PM Give the parents and kids the opportunity to choose the education they want without penalty. 215 Jan 10 2018 04:05 PM Because the change effects my children but the change will not save money moving.

Current school is 5.9 miles

New school is 5.4 miles

Bus company has confirmed that this will not save any money!

85 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 216 Jan 09 2018 03:28 PM There would be no disruption to pupil’s education or schools (eg redundancy) Schools would be able to get on with providing the best education they can. As research has shown, not that much money would be saved by options 1 and 2! Therefore SCC need to do more research on ways to save money, without disrupting pupil’s education. 217 Jan 09 2018 03:05 PM The Government has raised the participation age to 18. Young people need to be given transport to make it possible to continue in education until they are 18.

218 Jan 09 2018 12:55 PM For a rural area with a wide catchment area it is essential that our 6th form students can travel to our Sixth Form in Mildenhall without discrimination. For other areas of Suffolk there is not such a reliance on public transport nor the mileage involved and so I don't think out young people should be penalised because of the area they live in.

Without excellent education post 16 our county will not be able to fulfill employment needs in the future and therefore it seems short sighted to stop the transport system we have now - it's still expensive but at least students who want to study at Mildenhall Sixth Form Centre can be guaranteed the means to get to the centre. 219 Jan 09 2018 12:11 PM its the only fair way 220 Jan 08 2018 09:53 PM IF a child is obliged to attend post 16 education, then they should get help with travel, particularly as not every provider offers the same qualifications. Many children are not capable of A levels and hence in the rural location, there is little choice than to have to travel much further afield to find suitable courses. 221 Jan 08 2018 04:56 PM The choice of 6th form school should be able to be made based on the merits of the school and the suitability for the pupil, not on the cost of getting there 222 Jan 08 2018 04:19 PM Savings need to be made from other areas to ensure that educational opportunities are made equally accessible for all, which includes access to education, and therefore transport. Options 1 & 2 discriminate geographically and financially against poorer families who cannot afford to live in towns due to prohibitive house prices. 223 Jan 08 2018 02:29 PM Raising aspirations and providing good quality post-16 education around the county and not solely focused in the larger towns is an essential aspect of Suffolk's Raising the Bar strategy. Maintaining transport routes for Sixth Form students is essential to achieving this. 224 Jan 08 2018 01:56 PM It should be funded the same as it has been 225 Jan 08 2018 01:42 PM This means the students that can otherwise commute can still get to college but for those more fortunate like me public transport still turns out to be cheaper and also like me now being able to drive I can take myself and others in the local area to college if possible. 226 Jan 08 2018 01:38 PM Firstly, you are already funding option 3, why do you need to ask how I think it should be funded?

86 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses Secondly, most families have 2 children (maybe more). If the annual cost for the bus is over £1000 per person, thats going to be quite expensive on the families - most will not be able to afford that. 227 Jan 08 2018 01:22 PM Efficiency savings and reduction in costs from other areas 228 Jan 08 2018 01:18 PM Education should be amongst the highest priorities for Suffolk County Council, inline with the “Inclusive Growth” priority in SCC 2017-21 document, i.e. “...improve...levels of educational attainment...”. If less students are attracted to our schools due to transport restrictions, it has a direct impact on budgets and therefore will directly affect results. If this is the case, how can SCC expect to maintain or improve OfSted results? It makes no sense! Whilst the unfair budgetary pressures levied on Suffolk County Council have to be born from somewhere, impacting education further is frankly dangerous and any risk and impact assessments should be made public prior to changes and consultation.

229 Jan 08 2018 12:30 PM It’s the least that should be provided 230 Jan 08 2018 12:28 PM We currently have to pay for our son's transport to sixth form college - £200 per term. We simply cannot afford this and yet have no option, he is legally required to be in college or education until 18. It is in his best interests to be in college or education until 18, we do not have any additional income to support this, so whilst I support this option, it is only because it is the least negative of the 3. TRANSPORT FOR 16 TO 18 YEAR OLDS MUST BE MADE FREE - TO MAKE THE SYSTEM FAIR FOR EVERY SINGLE CHILD 231 Jan 08 2018 11:14 AM Children are expected to stay in full time education unit 18 and need support to get to educationally facilities. We did not have a sixth form option at our exisiting school and have had to pay full bus fares as our "catchment school" was failing in our opinion and would not have been the right school for our children. 232 Jan 07 2018 08:38 AM Savings have to be made 233 Jan 06 2018 11:32 PM I know that you have to save money

How about not having such big wages for staff like over 100k pet year ect

Cut down on new furniture and printing postage

234 Jan 06 2018 06:12 PM Any help given to young people should be a priority,especially those who are legally required to attend an educational setting, putting their familes in financial hardship puts too much pressure on their shoulders at such a young age.

Perhaps pass on more of the discretionay bursary onto 6th forms and use it to help fund transport relaxing benefit/income limits, a family earning £20000 is not entitled to help but will not earn another £500 per year to pay for a bus pass. 235 Jan 05 2018 04:50 PM Taking funding intended to support choice in education and to aid social mobility to meet dogmatic spending cuts is immoral and irresponsible. Adequate impact assessments will demonstrate this.

87 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 236 Jan 05 2018 03:24 PM If transport is cut for the local Sixth form than propestive students will have no choice but go to a centre where transport is available. This is not supporting the local school system if funding for these students is not available. 237 Jan 05 2018 03:11 PM Damn right - make no changes! You want them there - you fund it. It really is that simple! If it really were a freedom of choice option i may think differently, but as it is i don't feel you can have it both ways.

Have to stay in education - then it is funded - simple! 238 Jan 05 2018 02:49 PM Since Post-16 education is now compulsory it needs to be funded appropriately. 239 Jan 05 2018 02:21 PM Young people are the future of this county and without options that are properly open to all they will have to leave . This will mean this county only suits those who can pay to travel to the best places for education. 240 Jan 05 2018 01:07 PM It is high time councils and voters stood up to central government and said 'no more'. Suffolk is Tory led and has rolled over like sheep with every cut. I would far prefer to pay more Council Tax to preserve essential services - and school transport is one of those. My children walk to school, but many of their friends do not. Cutting school transport would strip my children of their friends, strip those friends of genuine school choice, force children into schools that are not optimal for them. 241 Jan 05 2018 12:30 PM Limiting school transport and therefore options open to parents about where to school their children can lead to all sorts of problems, from children who fail to thrive in the wrong school, potentially leading to mental health and social mobility issues, and increased traffic, pollution, and school gates safety concerns if parent’s are forced to drive of putting their child on an available bus.

Asking respondents how to fund it is ridiculous, the public generally don't know about council budgeting, you need manage the budget yourselves without disadvantaging children 242 Jan 05 2018 10:57 AM It would continue to allow young people in Haverhill to access provision 243 Jan 05 2018 09:43 AM Subsidies for post-16 travels should not change unless it is to make things easier for parents (ie, free transport for children from poor background).

Other solutions:

Maybe street lights should be turned off during off peak times at night

Extend students learning hours at school to have "concentrated" days and remove some days of the week from educaction so there is no need for transport on those days. Those students could have a programm for "studying at home days. If students were tomgo to school 3 days a week instead of 5 for exemple, this would save money.

Offer some financial reward for some parents who drop/pick up their chidren from school to take on others

88 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses who live nearby. These parents would have to be checked (obviously) and registered as "official transport" for a particular year. This would have to be renewed every year.

244 Jan 04 2018 10:58 PM If young people have to be in school, then transport should be provided. Fund it from SCC reserves or cut the corporate budget. 245 Jan 04 2018 02:21 PM continue to provide what little support is available .....rural suffolk areas have limited transport available to post 16 .. improvement is required in increasing the availability of transport and therefore savings from other areas would benefit. 246 Jan 04 2018 11:13 AM I feel that the government as a whole should be able to help fund a choice for rural students 247 Jan 04 2018 11:09 AM SCC should be promoting that students and parents have the freedom to choose the school/college of their choice and not be restricted by whether they can afford to travel there or not. A small rise in council tax could cover these costs. 248 Jan 04 2018 09:02 AM The current travel arrangements are barely adequate for post16 Travel a reduction is not feasible. 249 Jan 04 2018 08:51 AM As previously stated, I do not feel that choice of post 16 education should be made by cost of transport. It is not fair to prejudice students for living in a rural area as opposed to a city and/or on a low income. They should have the same freedom of choice regardless of their location. 250 Jan 03 2018 07:56 PM All post 16 students should be able to freely choose their place of study and not be forced to attend one purely based on public transport available. 251 Jan 03 2018 06:46 PM All students should have access to higher education after school and this gives the opportunity. Look at reducing costs in other areas 252 Jan 03 2018 05:17 PM This seem the only sensible option for a a fair policy and one that will encourage further education. 253 Jan 03 2018 03:50 PM Each Council is encourage to provide a huge range of support to minority groups within the community: disabled, mentally ill, those with SEN, and a whole range of other issues. Further education affects almost all children and the impact will be felt much more widely than individual groups/issues. 254 Jan 03 2018 03:07 PM Unfortunately I have not been given the accounts for Suffolk County Council so I am unable to offer ideas of savings. 255 Jan 03 2018 02:40 PM It is not the responsibility of members of the public to come up with alternative ways of funding school transport – that is the job of the county councilors and officers of Suffolk County Council 256 Jan 03 2018 01:41 PM Families should not be penalised. 257 Jan 03 2018 12:19 PM We have a good integrated transport service at present. We do not want the expense and disruption of change. We elect Conservative councillors to keep things as they are (conserve) not to change things, unless it is clearly a change for the better.

Funding should come from the 'Local Solutions' menu of options in the consultation booklet, most of which will yield considerable savings.

89 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 258 Jan 03 2018 07:54 AM As before 259 Dec 28 2017 08:55 PM This can be funded through fat-trimming and perhaps not discriminating against 'normal' children from a funding perspective. Lets look at the provisions of taxis and half-full mini-buses before we stop a bus with 50 kids on because the council is unable to look in the mirror. 260 Dec 27 2017 10:28 AM Why are Post 16 students seem as an easy target? Having read the statutory advice on Gov.UK it seems what SCC is currently providing and proposing is creating more barriers to those students who will in the future be the workforce of Suffolk. The leap from school to Post 16 is huge and for some students adding the complication and worry of how they are going to get there can mean that it they have no option but to leave.

Could there not be some kind of partnership with local business where they sponsor transport to Post 16 establishments.

Applying for grants or funding, working in positive co operation with public transport operators

Public transport being improved to the point that it actually becomes a feasible option rather than for alot of students especially in West Suffolk a barrier especially in terms of time tabling in relation to operational hours of establishments. 261 Dec 24 2017 08:56 PM As I have previously said it enables students to access high quality post 15 education. It enables them to have a choice. Raising aspirations is vital in our location and we need to support post 16 education particularly in rural areas. 262 Dec 24 2017 09:24 AM How I think this should be funded... I'm not really sure....a meeting is needed that's for sure.... 263 Dec 22 2017 06:35 AM Families with children this age are tight for money and we are talking about the difference between children affording to get to their education placements or not. Those who can’t afford to go simply won’t go or the money will have to come from another part of the family budget leaving struggling families even worse off.

It should be funded from other savings within the council or another source not yet known. For example, how much is the CEO on? Is it really necessary to pay one person that amount when the majority of people scrape by with families on far less? Take it from the fat cats please not the already struggling families. 264 Dec 19 2017 09:27 PM Economically doesn’t seem viable. 265 Dec 19 2017 11:38 AM It is up to the borough to decide where the money should come from - not me. I don't think it is fair for the schools to foot the bill - their budgets are tight enough as it is. Nor is it fair to pass the cost on to parents - many of whom struggle financially as it is. 266 Dec 19 2017 11:25 AM School transport should be free until age 18 as children/young adults have to remain in education until then.

267 Dec 19 2017 11:13 AM Because students will drive a thriving future economy

90 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 268 Dec 19 2017 11:04 AM This new policy strongly discriminates against young people in rural areas and will further drive the depopulation of rural areas

269 Dec 19 2017 10:59 AM I do not wish to see genuinely important services impacted to support the choices made by parents - who should be expected to pay for those choices in full.

270 Dec 19 2017 10:51 AM All young people should have equality of opportunity and not be penalised in their career choices because of where they live. I would be happy to pay slightly higher community charge to support not making changes. Alternatively the Council carries massive reserves to cover rainy days, maybe this is one of them!

271 Dec 19 2017 10:40 AM The LA cannot afford this option

272 Dec 19 2017 10:05 AM I think parents/students should not have their freedom to choose removed; The other options would have a negative impact on exiting schools and lead to teacher redundancies.

273 Dec 19 2017 09:56 AM We cannot reduce other public services to provide services that have be personally chosen without due consideration to viability or cost.

274 Dec 19 2017 09:46 AM Funded by increase in council tax - but I know this would be unpopular to many...

275 Dec 18 2017 08:57 PM Protect 5 form transport. I already pay £210 per term to ensure my child can get to 6 form 276 Dec 18 2017 08:47 PM Won't t make savings and hence likely to see cuts elsewhere instead which isn't favourable. 277 Dec 18 2017 08:32 PM Both Thurston and Beyton thrive under this present policy. There is no public transport to either school meaning that additional traffic would congest roads into bury. Parents would be forced to provide transport and so would be limited in employment. Ixworth free school cannot provide the range of GCSEs offered at Thurston and certainly not a sixth form. WE WERE OFFERED CHOICE OF SCHOOLS WHEN A FREE SCHOOL WAS CONSIDERED AND ASSURED THAT THE INSTIGATION OF A FREE SCHOOL WOULD NOT AFFECT SCCs

COMMITTMENT TO RETAINING THE EFFECTIVE THURSTON AND BEYTON SCHOOLS. Removal of the school bus would mean just that.

Over 16s already pay for the bus, meaning there would be no saving in running costs for that age group.

91 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses If a bus is to be run to Ixworth, how much possible saving can there be in changing children to a different school which is barely 2 miles further on?

278 Dec 18 2017 07:39 PM By saving money elsewhere. Education should be a priority. 279 Dec 18 2017 04:55 PM The savings should not be made at the expense of children's education, as our children are our future. Massive savings could be made by amalgamating the distinct councils and Suffolk county council into a unitary authority. This is a much better alternative and would achieve far more savings with less negative impacts. 280 Dec 18 2017 02:50 PM It works well as it currently is 281 Dec 18 2017 02:01 PM Surely all 16 to 18 year olds should be entitled to free transport to school/college..as its vital they should be able to access learning at this age. 282 Dec 18 2017 12:40 PM Central government should provide all transport for any child in compulsory education 283 Dec 18 2017 08:09 AM Unless it is a specialist course that is not provided at a sixth form within three miles or the child is from a low- income family, transport should not be provided, especiallt if the course is offered at a closer institution as this is ineffective use of money. 284 Dec 17 2017 09:20 PM This is a bigger problem than it seems and continuing to fund it at the expense of other services would be reckless. 285 Dec 17 2017 07:32 PM Education is now compulsory up,to the age of 18, some parents whether they are able to or not may not pay for transport thereby restricting opportunities for their child. If it is free then in the long term the benefit to society would be greater as more young people will be educated to a higher level 286 Dec 17 2017 11:46 AM I think this because it will allow the free choice of subjects that students deserve. I have no idea how you can make further savings as I do not have access to your books and it is unfair to ask such a question. 287 Dec 17 2017 07:47 AM All children who are in a catchment area should carry on going to the relevant school and transport should be provided free as all children are required to stay in education or have an apprenticeship until they are 18. So if this is a requirement then transport should be provided. 288 Dec 16 2017 05:58 PM Children need to be able to get to school safely. a bus service especially in rural areas, requiring the children to have bus passes is the only option to ensure this .

If council budgets are to be reduced ,( I don't see a reduction in my council tax, therefore why a reduction in expenditure of the council tax funds?) then more appropriate ways of cost cutting need looking into. Decreasing the safety and opportunity of a childs education, must NOT be an option .

289 Dec 16 2017 04:30 PM Protecting our children's future and their happiness is a priority - by showing them that they deserve the best, deserve choice, and deserve being listened to. 290 Dec 16 2017 07:53 AM Make it fair for everyone

92 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 291 Dec 15 2017 09:18 PM I don’t think that cutting spending on post 16 travel would be fair on financially disadvantaged students. 292 Dec 15 2017 09:13 PM The local schools do not run the a levels or btecs this mean the children have to take a levels they do not want to take.

293 Dec 15 2017 04:56 PM Answer as per first question.

This should be funded from other savings such as councillors allowances. 294 Dec 15 2017 02:35 PM Government have said children have to remain at school until 18 rather than 16, so therefore should fund travel esp as limited availability of choices in some rural towns/villages. 295 Dec 15 2017 01:40 PM It is wrong that students have to legally stay in education until they are 18 but are not entitled to free transport after turning 16. 296 Dec 15 2017 09:05 AM Do both! It’s possible if you try hard enough. 297 Dec 15 2017 07:47 AM As with everything under the current government, councils are being forced to make choices that are going to damage certain sections of the community. It is necessary that councils try to find the best way to avoid damaging the lives of those who are already at a disadvantage through either income and/or disability. 298 Dec 14 2017 10:13 PM Perhaps encouraging more people to join one of the transport training schemes or getting the community involved e.g by asking people to volunteer to help drive vulnerable students to and from school. Of course there would need to be DVLA checks for the drivers and parental consent for under 18s. 299 Dec 14 2017 05:28 PM ideally you should improve the provision, but that doesn't seem to be an option... 300 Dec 14 2017 05:05 PM It is the only option that does not affect the students.

It seems that options 1 and 2 will cause tremendous upheaval to a huge number of people; students, parents and schools. Keeping the status quo is the only option.

As a layman without access to the necessary financial information it is impossible to even consider alternative funding sources. Surely this is what the council are paid to do!!

It bothers me a great deal that the council are willing to detrimentally impact the lives of students, the financial position of parents and the budgets of schools purely to make savings. Has anyone actually performed a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis for this? I couldn't find one anywhere in the document. 301 Dec 14 2017 04:19 PM Perhaps take funding from the town library as there is many within schools. People are more inclined to visit the school library than go into town to find support with their studies. 302 Dec 14 2017 04:04 PM We are in a rural costal area, and free travel allows young people from disadvantaged areas to attend a post- 16 institute of their choice. Without this social mobility will be negatively impacted and the local economy will suffer as a result.

93 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 303 Dec 14 2017 04:03 PM The reason that taxes are paid are to fund public services, such as transport. The number of bus services to the rural area of Mid Suffolk have already been cut recently. Please allow children the opportunity to get to their selected school without parents being burdened with an extra bill to pay. This consultation seems like it may have already made its mind up, but please think about children and schools who are not in a large town. Savings could be made elsewhere - did Corn Hill in Ipswich need redevelopment? Does lots of money need to be spend on moving the market? Was there a public consultation on these decisions? 304 Dec 14 2017 04:00 PM There would have to be savings made in this area, students (such as Otley) are managed outside of county. 305 Dec 14 2017 04:00 PM Accept there has to be saving and a lot of post 16 is managed outside of SCC transport, eg Otley college have their own buses . 306 Dec 14 2017 01:41 PM The proposed savings would be negligible if at all. Time would be better spent looking at the reason the travel budget has increased. The money could be saved in a number of ways but affecting already stretched families and children's education is not the way it should be done. Try looking at the extraordinary waste the council spends on poorly based decisions 2 local egs they sent 2 gardeners to fill in pot holes they said didn't know what they were doing (which was clear) but they didn't care as they were being paid handsomely for their efforts. The other was a flood issue and they advised it was going to cost in excess of £4500 to create a ditch (the reality is it would cost no more than £500 if done by a normal contractor) 307 Dec 14 2017 01:33 PM This is the best option for all students/parents. From studying the evidence changing the current transport model would not provide the savings Suffolk CC are looking to find. 308 Dec 14 2017 12:55 PM Without a clear financial breakdown for all three options it is impossible to offer alternative suggestions on funding. The amount spent/saved by options 1 and 2 has changed dramatically during discussions and consultation. 309 Dec 14 2017 12:43 PM Impossible to answer this question - we have very little knowledge of how and where you spend money. 310 Dec 14 2017 11:55 AM Unless the identified 'savings from other services provided by Suffolk County Council' target another aspect of education that undermines the opportunity of parents/pupils to access the best quality education they can. 311 Dec 13 2017 07:40 PM Children in this area deserve to go to the best schools available, where they can take the courses that they need for 312 Dec 13 2017 12:56 PM Other services provided by the county council are equally as important and it is important to spread the impact of cuts. 313 Dec 13 2017 12:46 PM Seems terribly unfair - get Government to invest properly. 314 Dec 13 2017 04:25 AM For the children this is effecting there are other options but other Council services there is not always an alternative the people can use. 315 Dec 12 2017 09:10 PM As a rural county, Suffolk, like Norfolk should continue to press the government for greater funds to ensure sufficient access to educational establishments as well as social services & hospitals.

94 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 316 Dec 12 2017 06:11 PM County Council Services are already stretched to their absolute limit and this money could be better spent on other educational resources e.g. maintaining the transition project or to fund mental health support within schools. However, this money should stay within education.

95 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q7, Do you think Rights of Way should be taken into account when assessing your nearest post-16 provision? Answer Choices Responses Yes 24.22% 124 No 57.62% 295 No view either way 12.70% 65 Don't know 5.47% 28 Answered 512 Skipped 89

Do you think Rights of Way should be taken into account when assessing your nearest post-16 provision? 70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

Responses 30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% Yes No No view either way Don't know

96 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q8, Can you tell us why you think this? Answered 251 Skipped 350

Respondents Response Date Responses 1 Mar 01 2018 12:11 AM It is extremely unlikely that most parents are going to be happy with their children using unlit bridleways or footpaths in the winter months. 2 Feb 28 2018 11:58 PM Public rights of way may not be maintained in suitable condition. Pathways may be flooded, overgrown, muddy or deserted and be exploited by deviants in wait to attack ypung people in often secluded / obscured locations. 3 Feb 28 2018 10:30 PM Public rights of way may not be safe for reasons such as no lighting or poor weather conditions to ensure a safe route to school/back home in the winter months, especially where paths are near rivers for example with no safety barriers such was the footpath between Mildenhall and West Row. And on entering the village several roads do not even have a pavement to walk on and there is no alternative but to walk in the road. 4 Feb 28 2018 08:36 PM Due to the distances involved it seems that this would make little difference. For those in urban areas maybe but for the rest of the county this would have little affect. 5 Feb 28 2018 07:20 PM The quality and accessibility of Rights of Way in rural areas is variable. 6 Feb 28 2018 05:48 PM Safety of pupils should be paramount 7 Feb 28 2018 04:46 PM It is not safe for young children to walk to school 8 Feb 28 2018 01:09 PM because a few yards difference on a footpath that will never be used to get to school would make a huge difference to individual students

9 Feb 28 2018 12:50 PM because it's small minded. small differences in distance making huge differences in student's decisions 10 Feb 28 2018 11:26 AM Because many are impassable at certain times of the year or are isolated and therefore not safe for pupils to use. Why would these by used to assess distance? Road/pavement routes or 'as the crow flies' would be better options. 11 Feb 27 2018 11:24 PM This would only really work in more built up areas, ie not in villages with country lanes, paths that students would have to travel in the dark during the winter. 12 Feb 27 2018 09:43 PM Not all public footpath are wide enough for use of bike and pedestrian use to enable other sustainable travel options. 13 Feb 27 2018 06:07 PM This would not affect me. However, many students should be guaranteed a safe, efficient and the quickest walk to school. However, in harsh weather conditions like rain or snow further plans should be made.

97 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 14 Feb 27 2018 02:48 PM There shouldn't be a blanket rule. It depends on how safe a right of way is e.g in a rural area using a well maintained and lit right of way may be safer than walking on the road. However, if the right of way is overgrown and not lit then no it shouldn't be taken into consideration.

15 Feb 27 2018 02:16 PM only relates to urban areas 16 Feb 27 2018 01:58 PM Many are impassible during winter or lack safety of more public routes 17 Feb 27 2018 12:43 PM Because the alternative is wrong 18 Feb 27 2018 10:31 AM Poses safeguarding issues 19 Feb 27 2018 08:14 AM Public footpaths and bridle paths tend to run alongside fields, these get untended most of the year, over growing to the point that you have to walk on the field. Dog walkers use them, not all ways picking up what their dog leaves behind. Schools do not need to start the day off by having a line of students needing mud/faeces wiped off their shoes! 20 Feb 27 2018 07:44 AM What's the point? There is so little choice in post 16 provision that costly assessment is a waste. Nearest provision is easy to ascertain. 21 Feb 27 2018 07:42 AM Safety - using footpaths across fields is not safe 22 Feb 26 2018 07:13 PM It makes no difference and some routes are dangerous or not well lit in dark nights 23 Feb 26 2018 06:56 PM To many dangers 24 Feb 26 2018 05:35 PM If children/young adults are going to be forced to walk to school, there should at least be safe and provisions put into place to allow them to do so safely and easily. 25 Feb 26 2018 05:04 PM Unsafe inappropriate 26 Feb 26 2018 04:09 PM Try walking through the sea of mud most such paths are turned into at this time of year 27 Feb 26 2018 01:48 PM Some sections have no streets lights or proper laid footpaths. 28 Feb 26 2018 10:38 AM Who travels to work or school on a bridleway - it's not the 1800's 29 Feb 25 2018 03:08 PM Not realistic 30 Feb 25 2018 02:06 PM Yes, but as with the situation for school pupils, if a right of way is safe, secure, well-lit, and passable in all weathers, then encouraging walking or cycling is a good thing. But many (probably the majority) of the rights of way you will have to consider won't meet those criteria because they are in rural rather than urban or peri-urban environments.

31 Feb 25 2018 10:03 AM Let's make more use of rights of way. 32 Feb 24 2018 09:33 PM There are no public rights of way that do not involve unlit, main roads or lanes without lighting or paths. 33 Feb 24 2018 05:59 PM What's the point? It won't make any difference 34 Feb 24 2018 04:41 PM Rights of way vary considerably in their safety and accessibility. It would not be cost effective for the council to maintain an up-to-date register of safe and passable rights of way.

98 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 35 Feb 24 2018 04:34 PM The most sensible options for getting to a place of education should be considered 36 Feb 23 2018 12:20 PM Buses cant use these routes so why should it come in to question? These distances over bridleways, public footpaths are poorly lit and huge safeguarding concerns for pupils. 37 Feb 23 2018 09:09 AM It's unsafe. It's not reasonable to expect children to walk through woods and muddy fields on their own. 38 Feb 22 2018 09:10 PM Public rights of way are not always safe to use, particularly during winter months. 39 Feb 22 2018 06:08 PM This should be done only where right of way are not necessarily passable or usable all year round. This requires proper field evidence gathering rather than simple A-B desk based online mapping exercise. 40 Feb 22 2018 09:02 AM When considering rights of way, a couple of things should be considered:

There are perfectly adequate footpaths from, for example, Norton to Thurston, which would take just over an hour to walk (via Pakenham to be 99% off road), but the footpaths are exactly that - footpaths. Ideal for dog walks, weekend excursions etc. They are not designed to be used to walk to school, or even work.

1.They are not lit, so for the majority of the year they would be in total darkness and potentially unsafe both to and from school.

2. It also does not account for weather and the state of those paths during the winter months when they are full of mud. This is not a viable option for a 'countryside' based school.

The maintenance of the paths would need to be considered - and I'm guessing it wouldn't be the council that would provide the finance for this.

41 Feb 21 2018 10:02 PM For safety reasons my child is safer on the bus than walking footpaths. Terrible idea 42 Feb 21 2018 08:50 PM It doesn't work in a rural area, many children would be walking through fields or on edges of fields and down single track roads where cars never stay to the speed limit in the pitch black (in winter), probably taking them 20 or 30 times as long as it would for a bus to drive, which in all honesty is driving quarter empty right past where the children need to go. 43 Feb 20 2018 07:43 PM The nearest post -16 provision should be based on the actual road route to the school. 44 Feb 20 2018 05:29 PM In rural areas paths are often unsuitable especially in winter, unlit and therefore unsafe. 45 Feb 19 2018 09:42 PM No, absolutely not. Rights of way should only be considered for those walking to school so is therefore irrelevant to this discussion about school vehicular transport. Only routes on which a vehicle can reasonably be expected to travel on should be considered. 46 Feb 19 2018 02:38 PM because rights of ways are muddy a lot of the time and as someone who suffers from nerve damage in her back if I slip over I could physically be stuck there. this is dangerous and also many people would have to leave so early in the morning in order to get to school on time its absurd

99 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 47 Feb 17 2018 12:14 PM Shortest route is shortest route, the council should ensure the route is safe and usable. 48 Feb 17 2018 08:12 AM I think this depends on each case as some maybe be safe technically but not pleasant to walk through on your own 49 Feb 16 2018 11:49 AM It would depend if route was accessible, safe, well lit and risk assessed. 50 Feb 14 2018 04:36 PM Some rights of way are unsuitable and unsafe so should never be taken into account. Others become unsuitable during the winter due to poor weather conditions or poor lighting. 51 Feb 13 2018 10:16 AM No paths so would walk on Main road 52 Feb 12 2018 04:09 PM There is no safe footpath from the nearest bus stop to Suffolk One. 53 Feb 12 2018 09:21 AM at 16 they can walk if needed 54 Feb 11 2018 02:49 PM How the routes are calculated is astounding, although your method may work in a town location with multiple safe, lit footpaths and byways. Again, a rural location is completely different and lacks safe byways and footpaths and also in many cases the journey to school would not be able to be completed without a motorised vehicle. This shows that the distance should be calculated using the most direct road access (The true distance from home to school). 55 Feb 10 2018 04:31 PM It is inappropriate and unsafe to include them. 56 Feb 09 2018 11:06 AM Pupil safety - isolated bridleways and footpaths should not be using as a deciding factor 57 Feb 09 2018 11:02 AM There are many houses with no Rights of way making it unsafe for children to get to school or to a bus stop. Children need to have a safe way to school or bus stop 58 Feb 08 2018 05:01 PM "Rights of way" includes unlit public footpaths through isolated fields which can put children at risk in many circumstances - not least, inclement weather. 59 Feb 08 2018 01:31 PM No comment 60 Feb 08 2018 09:35 AM They are not always suitable or safe walking routes 61 Feb 08 2018 12:52 AM Children are able to walk. 62 Feb 06 2018 08:13 PM Already answered on the 5-16 survey 63 Feb 06 2018 04:38 PM The ones round here are across fields - in winter they are dark and dangerous as well as muddy . Why should someone who lives in the country have to do this when people in towns can walk by roads ? This isn't fair to people who live rurally 64 Feb 06 2018 04:38 PM Rights of way are not always walkable at all times of the year and could be through unsafe areas 65 Feb 05 2018 07:38 PM Rights of way can be dark, wet, and muddy in winter. It's not safe, and so deprives people who need it of transport because of a fictional alternative they would not use. 66 Feb 05 2018 01:13 PM It is impossible to say what is safe - so this should not be taking into account as it is a subjective opinion. What is appropriate for one child may not be for another so it should not be counted. 67 Feb 05 2018 07:44 AM Because if there's a footpath leading straight to their college then they don't need a bus

1 0 0 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 68 Feb 03 2018 09:30 PM Hardly any children walk

To school anyway, 90% seem to be drive 69 Feb 03 2018 08:36 PM This all depends on what the area is like that is being reviewed . The main priority is the children's safety ! Fuel prices maybe high, but a child's life is priceless!! 70 Feb 02 2018 06:21 PM It would make it much more safer for my child/children. 71 Feb 02 2018 09:55 AM This is a waste of time and resources at a time when I assume the Council is trying to use its funds more wisely! 72 Feb 01 2018 11:37 AM some of these right of ways are dangerous and have to cross dangerous roads 73 Jan 31 2018 06:47 PM As long as it is afe Tom do so, if this is the shortest route it is a no brainer 74 Jan 31 2018 04:02 PM NO young person should be expected to walk on tracks or bridleways or anywhere unlit, secluded, isolated or muddy. 75 Jan 31 2018 03:12 PM IT IS UNSAFE AND SHOULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED. 76 Jan 31 2018 11:22 AM How can a child be young person be expected to walk along a muddy footpath in winter, when there are puddles, ice etc their school uniform will be filthy and the student cold/wet when arriving at school, which gives them more excuse to be late for school. 77 Jan 31 2018 09:44 AM Muddy fields in rural areas are not suitable to use walking to school 78 Jan 30 2018 04:38 PM No this would be splitting hairs and about how far your child could walk... Possibly suggesting they take a route that could pose them extra danger etc.. More pressure and stress of the children and their parents.. Don't agree at all.. Seems a petty idea !! 79 Jan 30 2018 03:46 PM The routes need to be safe. Children can't walk down bridleways in treacherous weather conditions. 80 Jan 30 2018 12:59 PM It is unfair to expect parents to let their children go walking off across footpaths etc and lose their free transport - this would work maybe in the summer but what about the winter months when it is cold, wet and dark - could you expect your child to walk to and from school in those conditions?: 81 Jan 30 2018 09:11 AM Because some are unsafe. 82 Jan 30 2018 07:28 AM Because it’s unrealostic and meaningless - a 3 Mile walk down a muddy right if way to college in the dark in January is not going to set a young person up for a good day’s learning and just won’t happen. 83 Jan 29 2018 03:12 PM Our catchment school we felt was not suitable for our child so we chose one further away. So the right of way paths would make no difference to us. 84 Jan 28 2018 08:09 PM because of disability not all people can cross in that manner safely or walk on that surface. unless you will put n amendments for those with health needs 85 Jan 28 2018 07:37 PM Some footpaths/bridleways may be impassable in practice at certain times, particularly in winter. It is impractical for the transport appeals committee to assess this. 86 Jan 28 2018 06:35 PM So long as they are safe.

1 0 1 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 87 Jan 28 2018 06:29 PM So long as distance and safe lit options are considered 88 Jan 28 2018 10:56 AM Most students don’t walk. 89 Jan 28 2018 08:46 AM May not be appropriate or safe routes to take. 90 Jan 27 2018 05:09 PM It's not safe especially in the dark 91 Jan 27 2018 03:44 PM If path lit at all times 92 Jan 27 2018 02:20 PM as long as they are safe, lights etc 93 Jan 27 2018 01:51 PM Some are not maintained and accessible 94 Jan 27 2018 12:15 AM Not always the safest route. Do not put our children at risk. 95 Jan 26 2018 06:55 PM Poorly kept in rural areas 96 Jan 25 2018 11:45 PM Not safe. Often muddy, not proper pathways. Not lit 97 Jan 25 2018 09:14 AM muddy and lonely footpaths / bridleway are not safe routes. 98 Jan 24 2018 05:52 PM not practical 99 Jan 24 2018 12:52 PM This depends on how far the child would be walking. Often the footpaths don't link up. It wouldn't work well in the winter months. 100 Jan 23 2018 05:18 PM The right of way needs to b e appropriate for the journey to be undertaken. 101 Jan 23 2018 04:56 PM It is logical. 102 Jan 23 2018 03:45 PM It goes without that safety and feasibility assessments should be made in this area. Alternatives to car/road travel are pretty poor in this area. 103 Jan 23 2018 02:19 PM These are often dangerous and difficult to negotiate paths. in rural areas they are across fields that are muddy and can be hard to get across, particularly if carrying bags full of books etc 104 Jan 23 2018 02:12 PM I would not be happy for my child to have to cut across secluded footpaths across fields during winter months, where it is dark by 3.45pm. I would prefer my child to walk along a main pathway where there are other people and cars passing 105 Jan 22 2018 02:58 PM rights of way can be unsafe for children, no street lighting etc. 106 Jan 21 2018 08:37 PM No child can be expected to walk a footpath on their own in the dark. Not to mention the need for carting wellies around with them in winter. Ridiculous. 107 Jan 21 2018 11:41 AM Safe routes for walkers/cyclists who are not within the eligible distance MUST be insured too.

Young people who live within walking distance could also be offered bus stops to catch a passing school bus, but fees will be charged and weekly passes should be available online, so they have options for winter months, illness, adverse weather conditions etc.

Unlit paths during winter months are not acceptable condition for young people. Walking on unbathed rural roads is not acceptable either, unless these are quiet lane systems.

1 0 2 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses

Children who are forced to walk through unlit, rural footpaths will be at an increased risk of danger, assault, bullying, injury etc. The current system gives the best opportunities to our young people and offers the best protection to their vulnerabilities.

The number of days children attend school will also be decreased if there are no suitable paths to get to school or adverse weather conditions and unlit, unsuitable footpaths. 108 Jan 21 2018 11:22 AM The child's safety is the most important thing 109 Jan 19 2018 09:09 PM Children shouldn't have to walk up to two miles to school especially in the winter time,everyone feels unsafe letting there children our of there sight now days,I wouldn't be comfortable letting my boys walk to and from school,not knowing weather they have made it to school or not,My children don't have mobile phone because I don't feel it is necessary for children to have phones 110 Jan 19 2018 06:27 PM This makes no difference to me as either way my child would go by vehicle as I live in the middle of nowhere 111 Jan 19 2018 06:13 PM You can’t expect people to walk miles across a field in all kinds of weather simply to go to school 112 Jan 19 2018 04:53 PM Disputes could take too long to be resolved for this to be affected. 113 Jan 19 2018 09:05 AM These routes are unlit, off-road, and often impassable in winter. I would not feel safe walking along them in the dark and would certainly not allow my children to walk them unsupervised. I work full-time and could not accompany them. I also think that a 3 mile walk before and after school would impact negatively on my children's health - they would be exhausted! How many Council members and officers walk three miles to work each day? Probably not very many as there’s a car park adjacent to Endeavour House! 114 Jan 19 2018 07:12 AM Irrelevant, this will not help children from towns such as Sudbury etc get to the college running their chosen course 115 Jan 18 2018 09:56 PM Because when you get over 3 miles from school this becomes irrelevant as it is not safe enough for young people to be travelling from rural areas to School. For example no sane parent would allow their child to travel the route from Charsfield to either Framlingham or Woodbridge by roads or rights of way in winter as it is too dark and dangerous to walk or cycle.

The calculation should be by a sensible route but more importantly it should line up with 11 to 16 cartchment regardless of distance. 116 Jan 18 2018 06:16 PM Some are able to walk to school where as others are unable to as the roads are unsafe

117 Jan 18 2018 03:12 PM Rights of Way are frequently unlit or unmade roads in out of the way locations that do not have acceptable standards of safety or public surveillance, as such they are not suitable as routes for young people to use in all weathers at all times.

1 0 3 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses In reality, how many instances will actually be impacted by taking R.O.W. into account? i.e. for how many pupils will it actually change how their transport is arranged /what place is offered?

How much actual saving will be derived by this change? 118 Jan 18 2018 09:57 AM As long as the routes are well lit and have proper paths to make them safer.

It is also about the course provision of local schools and colleges- sometimes the nearest provider doesn't run the particular course the student wishes to study. This should also be taken into account. 119 Jan 17 2018 11:21 PM It's not fair 120 Jan 17 2018 09:29 PM There are serious safety and security issues with children travelling these routes, often alone 121 Jan 17 2018 07:12 PM Yes, but driving distances should also be allowed to be considered as well as the realistic suitability for the chid to be able to use the public footpaths. 122 Jan 17 2018 04:57 PM Good practise to save on transport if safe and practical for benefits to environment, health and economy. 123 Jan 17 2018 03:33 PM Pupils will not get on a bus get off that bus and walk through an airfield get on another bus etc... It will not be safe during winter months for girls to be wandering through dark paths. 124 Jan 17 2018 02:55 PM Many rights of Way are not properly maintained, and some are not always accessible. An example of this is The Grundle Rigth of Way in Stanton. The footpath in places goes along the river bed. After it has been raining this path cannot be used as it is deep in water.

Bridleways are often several inches deep in mud. Would you want to walk to work and get there covered in mud?

Also I am not aware of any Rights of Way etc being properly lit and the lack of passing traffic, other pedestrians etc could affect the safety of children walking alone who got into difficulties or were approached by strangers etc.

I can’t believe that in 2018 a government department, which has responsibility for children’s services is even asking this question. 125 Jan 17 2018 12:31 PM Such routes are often unsurfaced and unlit. They do not provide a safe route to school. 126 Jan 17 2018 12:03 PM It is not possible to walk from Haverhill to either Bury or Cambridge. 127 Jan 17 2018 11:15 AM This will be safer for children 128 Jan 17 2018 11:08 AM Could be isolated and dangerous 129 Jan 17 2018 09:29 AM Realistically, young people are not going to walk 2.9 miles to school, so manipulation of the distances doesn't reflect reality 130 Jan 17 2018 07:57 AM The route to school should be along lanes and roads that afford vehicular access.

1 0 4 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 131 Jan 16 2018 11:54 PM There are no paths along country lanes. 132 Jan 16 2018 11:54 PM Some routes given to make a certain school the closest are unsafe Like walking next to a river or get a bus walk get another bus then walk a bit more 133 Jan 16 2018 08:55 PM They are not always accessible/suitable so would not be part of the journey taken to the establishment. 134 Jan 16 2018 06:03 PM Because in rural areas footpaths are not lit they are wet muddy dark footpaths through field where no one should be walking on dark evenings and mornings as it is dangerous 135 Jan 16 2018 05:48 PM n/a 136 Jan 16 2018 04:14 PM Suffolk is rural and these pathways are not always practical or even safe for young people. 137 Jan 16 2018 02:53 PM These could be unlit allyways and thus unsafe areas. Especially as there will be unaccompanied children using these routes.. at the core of any policy safeguarding should be paramount. 138 Jan 16 2018 02:28 PM Rights of Way can only be taken in to account when determining a route which does not require motorised vehicles to carry out all or part of the journey or which do not provide a safe route for pedestrians of school age. No parent would want their child walking down unlit or unsafe paths. 139 Jan 16 2018 09:19 AM unlit, unsafe in winter 140 Jan 15 2018 10:32 AM I don't think they take into account the safety of the pupil when being asked to walk these routes. 141 Jan 15 2018 10:23 AM No. I do not think that it should as there can be cut throws that students feel uncomfortable with and the safer route in the opinion of the pupil may be twice as long and therefore force them to walk an hour not 30 minutes. 142 Jan 14 2018 10:27 PM It depends, rights of way should only be taken in to account when determining a route which does not require motorised vehicles to carry out all or part of the journey or which do not provide a safe route for school age pedestrians. No parent would want their child walking down unlit or unsafe paths.

143 Jan 14 2018 10:22 PM Now its getting silly. 144 Jan 14 2018 07:21 PM If pupils have to used public roads to get to a Sixth Form Centre, then small unlit pathways should not be taken into account when calculating the nearest Sixth Form provision. 145 Jan 14 2018 04:23 PM Some footpaths, bridleways can be dark and lonely and shouldn't be taken into account, only well lit, populated routes should be looked at - what parent is going to allow their child to walk down an unlit, lonely path to get to school ? 146 Jan 13 2018 01:47 PM Many main roads are not well lit in Winter in Suffolk, so footpaths and bridleways will not be either. Therefore I believe it is unwise to take them into consideration, as it is just unsafe. 147 Jan 12 2018 03:31 PM Rights of way may not be suitable for students to walk along. 148 Jan 12 2018 03:28 PM Discrimination against certain individuals. 149 Jan 12 2018 02:11 PM I dont think it should as it could be a route that is unsafe or doesnt provide road safety crossing points. Alot of the roads are used by lorries or speeding drivers or are on top of junctions to main entry or exit points to our villiages and towns.

1 0 5 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 150 Jan 12 2018 01:50 PM Not sure - it will look quite simple on a map in your Ipswich office I'm sure. But may well be dark and dangerous on the ground. Plus, not many footpaths are wheelchair friendly. 151 Jan 12 2018 12:46 PM I do not feel that any children should be expected to walk to or from school down any unlit footpaths or rights of way- this is clearly a personal safety issue for both boys and girls of all ages particularly in the winter months but not exclusive to, when many high school children in more rural locations would be expected to walk along badly kept, boggy, dark unlit and unsafe paths. Many of the public rights of way in the country that i use for dog walking are overgrown, unsafe and frankly dangerous for adults with dogs let alone children in the dark. In the towns there is increasing gang crime and knife crime as well as the usual paedophile issues everywhere and it is unsafe to expect kids to walk along some of the paths you would be suggesting 152 Jan 12 2018 11:24 AM A muddy track across miles of field is not safe for a child to use. 153 Jan 12 2018 07:29 AM They are unlit during winter hours and are totally unsafe. They are not maintained adequately. This is a most disgusting idea by the local authority.

I would not want my son walking to/from school using these routes in the winter months when they are not covered my street lights, unsafe areas. I would not allow it.

I know the local authority want to make cutbacks but I am disgusted they would even consider this as a means of calculating a route. If they are considering it in their calculations, they would expect a child to use this route. 154 Jan 11 2018 09:36 PM Unlit and potentially unsafe routes should definitely not be taken into account. We have a responsibility to keep our children safe, at all times of year and weather conditions. 155 Jan 11 2018 09:10 PM Pupils should have more than one choice of school. 156 Jan 11 2018 08:53 PM There is no suitable, accessible walking route to either school for children in Lakenheath. Ridiculous suggestion! 157 Jan 11 2018 08:47 PM I dont want my child walking to school, in the dark on an unlit bridal or foot path where lord knows who is waiting for them. It is not a safe place to be sending children, nor would I want to have my children turn up to school covered in mud from the foot paths, mud, puddles and horse poop from bridal ways. The council going to pay for the uniforms and shoes that get ruined? 158 Jan 11 2018 07:36 PM Safety, suitably, mud 159 Jan 11 2018 12:35 PM This is not an appropriate or fair way of assessing routes. ROW are unsafe, unkempt, and not a reasonable way of travelling to school. They are often over muddy fields, dangerous bridges etc. They are dark and dangerous in winter and a highly inappropriate way to consider distance or walking route 160 Jan 11 2018 11:12 AM With 5 miles either way it is not safe or logical or time efficient for the children of lakenheath to walk to school so to measure in walking distance is an unfair and unrealistic measurement.

1 0 6 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 161 Jan 11 2018 07:06 AM Not realistic at all 162 Jan 11 2018 06:46 AM I do not understand what rights if way is 163 Jan 10 2018 10:18 PM As long as safety is the main concern not cost. 164 Jan 10 2018 09:27 PM It is dangerous this is 2018 not 1930 and it's over 7 miles 0 165 Jan 10 2018 07:36 PM Safety should come first 166 Jan 10 2018 06:49 PM The distance should be measured using the route that a bus would take as this is how children would actually travel 167 Jan 10 2018 06:24 PM They are unlit and muddy in the winter and therefore unsafe for children to travel to school. 168 Jan 10 2018 06:02 PM Anyone who thinks that it is ok for a child to walk home alone in the dark on an unlit lonely footpath Obviously either doesn't have children or has never had to do this for themselves! 169 Jan 10 2018 04:34 PM unsafe, filthy and poorly maintained spaces 170 Jan 10 2018 02:45 PM Safety 171 Jan 09 2018 03:47 PM Unsafe and unsuitable 172 Jan 09 2018 03:30 PM Thurston Community College is served by a rural community; not safe for pupils to walk to school 173 Jan 09 2018 12:59 PM Distance to the nearest provision in terms of transport should be measured along the road that will be travelled - not through public rights of way which may be unsuitable for walking - or not accessible (eg rights of way through a base!)

I watch a young lady struggle walking across a public footpath to the bus stop every day. It is unsafe and in bad weather poor conditions for her to walk in. To walk around the fields (in really poor conditions) must add to her journey time. We should not be using public rights of way to determine which Sixth Form is closest - the student should have choice and then transport to get there. 174 Jan 08 2018 09:55 PM But the assessment has to be done by looking at the ROW on the ground and not just on a map as ROW are not pavements and there are no set maintenance standards. ROW can be legally ploughed up and they have low levels of maintenance.

175 Jan 08 2018 02:31 PM Routes that involve vehicular transport must take in to account the distance by road only as it is the only realistic option available for transport. 176 Jan 08 2018 01:46 PM . 177 Jan 08 2018 01:39 PM Irrelavent 178 Jan 08 2018 01:19 PM Safeguarding 179 Jan 08 2018 12:31 PM As many local families live along country tracks with out walking paths suitable for a safe walk to school 180 Jan 08 2018 12:29 PM I don't think transport should be charged for.

1 0 7 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 181 Jan 08 2018 11:17 AM Walking to shcool is fine in the summer months. However, from October to March this is ridiculous. 182 Jan 07 2018 08:39 AM As long as they are in a suitable condition and are safe for children to walk along. 183 Jan 06 2018 11:35 PM What has right of way got to do with our schools

Of course public right of way has to be protected other wise people would try and claim even more of what is not theirs

Leave it alone 184 Jan 05 2018 04:58 PM With increasingly inadequate policing and growing threats from undesirables it is prudent to avoid unnecessary risks to our young people in travelling to education. 185 Jan 05 2018 03:26 PM Not all would be able to walk the distance or live within a area where this is possible. 186 Jan 05 2018 03:13 PM No - by road only 187 Jan 05 2018 02:51 PM It only makes sense to use the distance traveled by buses when considering the nearest school since this is the route that will be taken. 188 Jan 05 2018 02:48 PM We have some very dodgy rights of way around us 189 Jan 05 2018 02:24 PM Inaccessibility in bad weather or due to unsuitable clothing etc. Make the route the easiest ,safest,best lit, most suitably hard under foot. My children have ruined the only school shoes their academy will allow them to wear by going across fields and bridleways. 190 Jan 05 2018 01:08 PM I do not trust the council to do this fairly. 191 Jan 05 2018 09:46 AM Some right of ways might not be suitable to walk to school and it might be safer to take transport or take a longer route. It should be the student's choice 192 Jan 04 2018 11:00 PM A young person has to be safe and also feel safe. This is best judged by parents who know their children best. 193 Jan 04 2018 02:24 PM rural suffolk has a number of bridleways which are not maintained and it would be unfair to expect a 16 yr old to use these unsafe and poorly lit areas to access post 16 facilities. this would further limit access to these facilities. 194 Jan 04 2018 11:15 AM Silly idea. I want my child traveling to school on well used routes only. This means a school which is safe for my child to get to 195 Jan 04 2018 11:11 AM The fair way to work out the cost is by using the route travelled by coaches not using poorly lit footpaths and bridleways that could put students' safety at risk. 196 Jan 04 2018 09:02 AM safety 197 Jan 04 2018 08:54 AM This can only be considered if it is a sensible walking distance. Also safety is a major consideration. In the winter it is dark at the times that students would be travelling to school so you cannot consider it suitable for students to be walking on unlit, isolated paths. 198 Jan 03 2018 05:18 PM These options for walking would not make sense for many.

1 0 8 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 199 Jan 03 2018 03:51 PM Walking down a muddy bridleway to school, if even possible, is not really a viable or safe way for children to travel and arrive at school in good order. Metalled surfaces etc are fine. 200 Jan 03 2018 03:10 PM It is not safe for students to be crossing fields, going down unlit roads etc

Further money would have to be spent maintaining and lighting the routes to be inline with safeguarding so there would probably be no saving . If not an actual cost 201 Jan 03 2018 02:40 PM Not safe in the most rural of areas 202 Jan 03 2018 01:47 PM I wouldn't want a child of mine walking down dark footpaths or bridleways. 203 Jan 03 2018 12:19 PM Please keep things the way they are at present 204 Dec 28 2017 09:00 PM Are you absolutely serious about this question - we live in Suffolk! It is not 500 yards to our schools it is miles! Perhaps had we not wasted all that money on moving from 3 tier to 2 tier we may have a chance. Or how about selling the land we've stolen from the middle schools and using these proceeds to fund the buses. 205 Dec 27 2017 10:32 AM It is a fine line I feel as on one hand it could be viewed as penalising students based on where they live especially in rural areas.

Surely if a PROW is part of the route then common sense suggests it should be included as a matter of course. Whether or not is a safe route would need to be considered 206 Dec 24 2017 08:57 PM Some of the rural areas and rights of way are very isolated and it would be unsafe in the winter nights 207 Dec 19 2017 09:28 PM The line has to be drawn somewhere. 208 Dec 19 2017 11:26 AM Some rights of way are unsafe, unpassable or blocked.

209 Dec 19 2017 11:21 AM Unsafe 210 Dec 19 2017 11:14 AM Rights of way are unsafe for use all year and the cost involved of making assessments will be wasted

211 Dec 19 2017 11:00 AM Because rights of way are a viable route to school and therefore are an option which should be considered.

212 Dec 19 2017 10:52 AM This is a rural county and many rights of ways are not well lit or walked. To expect anyone to use them in winter, particularly is ridiculous. Adults would refuse to do so , why are we expecting children to do it?

213 Dec 19 2017 10:41 AM As long as the safety aspects for the child are considered

214 Dec 19 2017 10:05 AM Walking to school in rural areas is not always feasible or advisable

1 0 9 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 215 Dec 19 2017 09:58 AM High School and 6 form provision is only available a distance away from Horham and the cost and inconvenience to parents should be considered.

216 Dec 19 2017 09:50 AM Rights of way can be taken into consideration but the County Council must ensure that routes are safe. Are they well lit, on a footpath etc? Crossing a field in the dark in mid winter or walking down a lane with no footpath should not be considered as viable.

217 Dec 18 2017 08:49 PM Depends on the criteria for whether a right of way is suitable or not. A footpath cutting through a town is one thing and likely suitable, A bridle way through a wood in deep countryside is not. So the criteria for inclusion or not is key in my opinion. 218 Dec 18 2017 08:34 PM These can be muddy tracks accessible by four track vehicles or paths with no footpaths or lighting. 219 Dec 18 2017 07:41 PM Try walking our rights of way at 4pm in December. 220 Dec 18 2017 04:57 PM Public footpaths in this rural area are often unlit and during the winter it is completely unrealistic to expect children to walk or cycle along these to get to and from school. 221 Dec 18 2017 04:06 PM SOME OF THESE MAY NOT BE A SAFE OPTION FOR A YOUNG PERSON OR SOMEONE WITH A DISABILITY TO ACCESS 222 Dec 18 2017 02:51 PM There is no path on route from school to sixth form 223 Dec 18 2017 02:03 PM I don't want my children walking isolated paths especially in the dark 224 Dec 18 2017 12:45 PM Half of the pathways/ bridleways are not proper paths and are not suitable for walking along or walking alone. Such pathways and bridleways are also not lit by street lights. 225 Dec 18 2017 08:12 AM Unless there is no path for the majority of their travel to the nearest college, there should not be provisions. 226 Dec 17 2017 09:21 PM post 16's have a variety of self propelling means at their disposal so the shortest route would generally be the most practical. 227 Dec 17 2017 11:46 AM Rural areas - many foot paths become impassable in poor weather during winter. 228 Dec 16 2017 06:02 PM Absoloutely not. Try walking across a 'right of way ' around this area, in summer it's impossible due to brambles and stinging nettles, in winter the paths are turned into mud swamps. i would NEVER allow my child to walk across a field alone, in the dark coming home from school. Our duty as parents and councillors alike, is to protect our children. 229 Dec 16 2017 04:32 PM We live in a large, rural area. Many students would have to walk miles. It doesn't work like that. 230 Dec 16 2017 07:55 AM Child needs to be safe 231 Dec 15 2017 09:39 PM You cannot expect children to walk cross country to get to school. Ridiculous 232 Dec 15 2017 09:19 PM Some people are able to walk however others have disabilities that may reduce this and some distances are too far to walk realistically

110 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 233 Dec 15 2017 04:58 PM Nearest shouldn't mean the only option for parents, quality of teaching and attainment is what is important. 234 Dec 15 2017 02:35 PM Unsafe and dangerous in bad weather 235 Dec 15 2017 01:41 PM These areas are very often unlit and not proper pathways - how would they be safe? 236 Dec 15 2017 07:49 AM Suffolk is a very rural county and there are probably a number of Rights of Way that could put the lives of young people at risk of those who intend them harm. 237 Dec 14 2017 10:22 PM I think that the quality of education and suitability of educational provisions should always come first. Although if the root is safe and accessible then it should be taken into account. 238 Dec 14 2017 07:57 PM Because there is no way of monitoring these rights of way and how safe they would be. You can’t even Guate the safety of people on the public footpaths 239 Dec 14 2017 05:30 PM footpaths are often overgrown with brambles, ploughed up by farmers or a quagmire. This is rural Suffolk after all. 240 Dec 14 2017 05:06 PM The footpaths in rural areas are very poorly maintained and in some instances can be completely inaccessible during periods of poor weather, so they should not be included when calculating distances 241 Dec 14 2017 04:24 PM Children are very vulnerable to being assaulted or intimidated by strangers as they have less power than older people. Therefore, routes which are busy and have regular witnesses should be guaranteed if an incident was to take place. 242 Dec 14 2017 04:03 PM Should be considered on length of journey as some colleges are further away but the bus takes a shorter time to the nearest college. Paths in rural areas are NOT safe 243 Dec 14 2017 04:03 PM Distances should be measured by transport routes, as at times the closest colleges have been the longest to get to for students due to the bus/train route required to get there. 244 Dec 14 2017 04:03 PM As many people in Suffolk live in rural areas, there are not many safe footpaths for children to walk to school. It should be noted that I do not believe a path alongside a road like the A140 to be considered safe for a child, or anyone, to walk along everyday or to be considered as a right of way to measure nearest school. 245 Dec 14 2017 01:46 PM Really!!! What a ridiculous idea. If you have to take children to school you would use a road. The option of walking 2-4 miles or further through the mud in the middle of winter when you have to get to school is NOT an option. We've moved on from horse and carts - use a road & a brain..... 246 Dec 14 2017 12:56 PM Option 3 - No change to current transport arrangements 247 Dec 14 2017 12:45 PM A short route isn't always a safe route. 248 Dec 13 2017 12:58 PM I strongly believe that it should be listened to when an individual feels unsafe on a walking route but it is fair to expect them to use safe walking routes to get to school. 249 Dec 13 2017 12:47 PM It makes sense as long as the route is safe and accessible. 250 Dec 13 2017 11:40 AM Footpaths can be unsuitable at different times of the year. 251 Dec 13 2017 04:27 AM Yes as long as they are safe, well lit routes.

111 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q9, Do you think Rights of Way should be taken into account when deciding the shortest walking route to your post-16 provision? Answer Choices Responses Yes 26.32% 135 No 54.58% 280 No view either way 12.09% 62 Don't know 7.02% 36 Answered 513 Skipped 88

Do you think Rights of Way should be taken into account when deciding the shortest walking route to your post-16 provision? 60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00% Responses

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% Yes No No view either way Don't know

112 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q10, Can you tell us why you think this? Answered 227 Skipped 374

Respondents Response Date Responses 1 Mar 01 2018 12:11 AM see above 2 Feb 28 2018 11:58 PM Public rights of way may not be maintained in suitable condition. Pathways may be flooded, overgrown, muddy or deserted and be exploited by deviants in wait to attack ypung people in often secluded / obscured locations. 3 Feb 28 2018 10:30 PM Public rights of way may not be safe for reasons such as no lighting or poor weather conditions to ensure a safe route to school/back home in the winter months, especially where paths are near rivers for example with no safety barriers such was the footpath between Mildenhall and West Row. And on entering the village several roads do not even have a pavement to walk on and there is no alternative but to walk in the road. 4 Feb 28 2018 08:36 PM Due to the distances involved it seems that this would make little difference. For those in urban areas maybe but for the rest of the county this would have little affect. 5 Feb 28 2018 07:20 PM A Right of Way is not necessarily safe for a child/young person to use e.g. unlit / dark in winter months 6 Feb 28 2018 05:59 PM If the routes are safe 7 Feb 28 2018 05:48 PM Safety of pupils should be paramount 8 Feb 28 2018 04:46 PM We do not think that children of school age should be made to walk to school 9 Feb 28 2018 01:09 PM some routes may be inaccessible or dangerous 10 Feb 28 2018 12:50 PM not all routes are safe 11 Feb 28 2018 11:26 AM Because many are impassable at certain times of the year or are isolated and therefore not safe for pupils to use. Why would these by used to assess distance? Road/pavement routes or 'as the crow flies' would be better options. If children are expected to use isolated or impassable routes which would then make them ineligible for school transport they will be unfairly affected. 12 Feb 27 2018 11:24 PM This would only really work in more built up areas, ie not in villages with country lanes, paths that students would have to travel in the dark during the winter. 13 Feb 27 2018 09:43 PM As above. 14 Feb 27 2018 06:07 PM We deserve a safe route to and from school and the Rights of Way allow that to be managed and controlled. 15 Feb 27 2018 02:48 PM There shouldn't be a blanket rule. It depends on how safe a right of way is e.g in a rural area using a well maintained and lit right of way may be safer than walking on the road. However, if the right of way is overgrown and not lit then no it shouldn't be taken into consideration. 16 Feb 27 2018 02:16 PM only relates to urban areas

113 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 17 Feb 27 2018 01:58 PM Many are impassible during winter or lack safety of more public routes 18 Feb 27 2018 12:43 PM Because the alternative is wrong 19 Feb 27 2018 10:31 AM Unrealistic in a rural environment plus safeguarding issues, lighting, heavy traffic etc 20 Feb 27 2018 07:44 AM They are not safe for pupils. They also cost a fortune to assess (£3k) so appeals cost will compromise any savings. And as parents know this they will they constantly appeal to ensure these cuts fail. 21 Feb 26 2018 07:13 PM Same reason 22 Feb 26 2018 06:56 PM Too many dangers 23 Feb 26 2018 05:35 PM The main aim should be to keep children safe so these should be taken into account at all times. 24 Feb 26 2018 05:04 PM Unsafe 25 Feb 26 2018 04:09 PM see above 26 Feb 26 2018 01:48 PM Unsafe no Street lights. 27 Feb 26 2018 10:38 AM See above 28 Feb 25 2018 03:08 PM Not realistic 29 Feb 25 2018 10:03 AM Young people are more than capeable of walking! 30 Feb 24 2018 09:33 PM As above. 31 Feb 24 2018 05:59 PM What's the point? It won't make any difference 32 Feb 24 2018 04:41 PM See above 33 Feb 24 2018 04:34 PM Walking, or cycling, are reasonable options 34 Feb 23 2018 12:20 PM Massive safeguarding concerns. All routes are very rural here, therefore lack of shelter and or assistance if needed in an emergency 35 Feb 23 2018 09:09 AM As above 36 Feb 22 2018 09:10 PM Public rights of way are not always safe to use, particularly during winter months. 37 Feb 22 2018 06:08 PM As above 38 Feb 22 2018 09:02 AM When considering rights of way, a couple of things should be considered:

There are perfectly adequate footpaths from, for example, Norton to Thurston, which would take just over an hour to walk (via Pakenham to be 99% off road), but the footpaths are exactly that - footpaths. Ideal for dog walks, weekend excursions etc. They are not designed to be used to walk to school, or even work.

1.They are not lit, so for the majority of the year they would be in total darkness and potentially unsafe both to and from school.

2. It also does not account for weather and the state of those paths during the winter months when they are

114 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses full of mud. This is not a viable option for a 'countryside' based school.

The maintenance of the paths would need to be considered - and I'm guessing it wouldn't be the council that would provide the finance for this. 39 Feb 21 2018 10:02 PM As above 40 Feb 21 2018 08:50 PM For the reasons given in question 8. 41 Feb 21 2018 07:36 PM Students of this age can use alternative routes 42 Feb 20 2018 07:43 PM The nearest post -16 provision should be based on the actual safe route to school - and this route should be on proper concrete pathways which are lit by street lighting and safe for young people. Similarly, at 4pm it can almost be dark in winter, and expecting young people to walk home when the route is not necessarily a proper road/path, is putting young people at risk. 43 Feb 20 2018 05:29 PM As above 44 Feb 19 2018 09:42 PM I support walking to school where feasible. Where it is not, it should not be used to artificially skew school catchment areas to support an argument for reducing or amending services provision. Coddenham residents att3nd Stonham Aspal Primary School and Debenham High School and free bus travel should be maintained for these schools. 45 Feb 17 2018 12:14 PM Same as above 46 Feb 17 2018 08:12 AM Same answer as above 47 Feb 14 2018 04:36 PM Some rights of way are unsuitable and unsafe so should never be taken into account. Others become unsuitable during the winter due to poor weather conditions or poor lighting. 48 Feb 13 2018 10:16 AM Same as above 49 Feb 12 2018 09:21 AM as above 50 Feb 11 2018 02:49 PM How the routes are calculated is astounding, although your method may work in a town location with multiple safe, lit footpaths and byways. Again, a rural location is completely different and lacks safe byways and footpaths and also in many cases the journey to school would not be able to be completed without a motorised vehicle. This shows that the distance should be calculated using the most direct road access (The true distance from home to school). 51 Feb 10 2018 04:31 PM Not safe. 52 Feb 09 2018 11:06 AM As above 53 Feb 09 2018 11:02 AM Children need a safe way to get to school. 54 Feb 08 2018 05:01 PM "Rights of way" includes unlit public footpaths through isolated fields which can put children at risk in many circumstances - not least, inclement weather. 55 Feb 08 2018 01:31 PM No comment 56 Feb 08 2018 09:35 AM They are not always safe or suitable walking routes

115 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 57 Feb 08 2018 12:52 AM Children are able to walk. 58 Feb 06 2018 04:38 PM Same as above . To walk to the nearest provision form here is about 15 miles each way so again if you live rurally this is impossible 59 Feb 06 2018 04:38 PM Rights of way are not always walkable at all times of the year and could be through unsafe areas 60 Feb 05 2018 07:38 PM Rights of way can be dark, wet, and muddy in winter. It's not safe, and so deprives people who need it of transport because of a fictional alternative they would not use. 61 Feb 05 2018 01:13 PM It is impossible to say what is safe - so this should not be taking into account as it is a subjective opinion. What is appropriate for one child may not be for another so it should not be counted. 62 Feb 03 2018 08:36 PM Certain areas don't have street lighting . 63 Feb 02 2018 09:55 AM This is a waste of time and resources at a time when I assume the Council is trying to use its funds more wisely! 64 Jan 31 2018 07:22 PM its quicker 65 Jan 31 2018 04:02 PM As above 66 Jan 31 2018 03:12 PM IT IS UNSAFE AND SHOULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED. 67 Jan 31 2018 11:22 AM If the post 16 provision is within walking distance as in under 1 mile this would make sense, not for longer journeys as this is no feasible with weather 68 Jan 31 2018 09:44 AM As above 69 Jan 30 2018 04:38 PM As above 70 Jan 30 2018 03:46 PM The routes need to be safe. Children can't walk down bridleways in treacherous weather conditions. 71 Jan 30 2018 12:59 PM As above. 72 Jan 30 2018 09:11 AM Because they are still a possibility that they are unsafe. 73 Jan 30 2018 07:28 AM Because it’s unrealostic and meaningless - a 3 Mile walk down a muddy right if way to college in the dark in January is not going to set a young person up for a good day’s learning and just won’t happen. 74 Jan 29 2018 03:12 PM This is not really applicable for us so find it difficult to answer. 75 Jan 28 2018 08:09 PM as above 76 Jan 28 2018 07:37 PM Some footpaths/bridleways may be impassable in practice at certain times, particularly in winter. It is impractical for the transport appeals committee to assess this. 77 Jan 28 2018 06:35 PM So long as they are safe. 78 Jan 28 2018 06:29 PM Cycling and walking should be encouraged so long as it is safe. 79 Jan 28 2018 03:43 PM Have you seen them? Dark, muddy and unsafe. 80 Jan 28 2018 10:56 AM I think you should fund young people into education not limit their choices by cost cutting imperatives 81 Jan 28 2018 08:46 AM May not be appropriate or safe routes to take. 82 Jan 27 2018 03:44 PM If path lit at all times

116 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 83 Jan 27 2018 02:20 PM as long as they are safe, lights etc 84 Jan 27 2018 01:51 PM Some are not maintained and accessible 85 Jan 27 2018 12:15 AM As above. Not safe. 86 Jan 26 2018 04:51 PM Should be the safest not shortest route considered 87 Jan 25 2018 11:45 PM ot safe. Often muddy, not proper pathways. Not lit 88 Jan 25 2018 08:23 PM There is nowhere within walking distance providing post-16 education. 89 Jan 25 2018 09:14 AM see above. 90 Jan 24 2018 12:52 PM It's really important that the children are safe. 91 Jan 23 2018 05:18 PM The right of way needs to be safe, including lighting. 92 Jan 23 2018 04:56 PM If the walking routes are on good ground and are safe/lit then this is logical. 93 Jan 23 2018 02:19 PM Same reason as above although if you live rurally their is no walking route to a post 16 provision 94 Jan 23 2018 02:12 PM As above 95 Jan 22 2018 08:56 PM I think the safest sensible walking route should be used not necessarily the shortest 96 Jan 22 2018 02:58 PM as above, rights of way can be unsafe for children, no street lighting, muddy fields in winter, etc. 97 Jan 21 2018 08:37 PM No child can be expected to walk a footpath on their own in the dark. Not to mention the need for carting wellies around with them in winter. Ridiculous. 98 Jan 21 2018 11:41 AM Safe routes for walkers/cyclists who are not within the eligible distance MUST be insured too.

Young people who live within walking distance could also be offered bus stops to catch a passing school bus, but fees will be charged and weekly passes should be available online, so they have options for winter months, illness, adverse weather etc.

Unlit paths during winter months are not acceptable condition for young people. Walking on unbathed rural roads is not acceptable either, unless these are quiet lane systems.

Children who are forced to walk through unlit, rural footpaths will be at an increased risk of danger, assault, bullying, injury etc. The current system gives the best opportunities to our young people and offers the best protection to their vulnerabilities.

The number of days children attend school will also be decreased if there are no suitable paths to get to school or adverse weather conditions and unlit, unsuitable footpaths. 99 Jan 21 2018 11:22 AM The child's safety should always be important 100 Jan 19 2018 09:09 PM No main roads only with foot paths

117 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 101 Jan 19 2018 06:27 PM Depends if your taking into account bridleways 102 Jan 19 2018 06:13 PM But you can’t expect people to walk miles across a field in all kinds of weather simply to go to school 103 Jan 19 2018 04:53 PM Disputes could take too long to be resolved for this to be affected. 104 Jan 19 2018 09:05 AM See above. 105 Jan 19 2018 07:12 AM It's not going to make a big difference 106 Jan 18 2018 09:56 PM Because rural journeys over 3 miles are likely to be unsafe particularly in the dark in winter. 107 Jan 18 2018 03:12 PM Rights of Way are frequently unlit or unmade roads in out of the way locations that do not have acceptable standards of safety or public surveillance, as such they are not suitable as routes for young people to use in all weathers at all times.

How much actual saving will be derived by this change? 108 Jan 18 2018 09:57 AM same as above 109 Jan 17 2018 11:21 PM It's not fair 110 Jan 17 2018 09:29 PM There are serious safety and security issues with children travelling these routes, often alone 111 Jan 17 2018 07:12 PM Same as above. 112 Jan 17 2018 04:57 PM might help preserve these for everyone's use.

quickest route saves time. 113 Jan 17 2018 02:55 PM Same as above. They are children until they reach 18. 114 Jan 17 2018 12:31 PM Such routes are often unsurfaced and unlit. They do not provide a safe route to school. 115 Jan 17 2018 12:03 PM As above. 116 Jan 17 2018 11:21 AM UNSAFE 117 Jan 17 2018 09:29 AM Realistically, young people are not going to walk 2.9 miles to school so manipulation of the distances doesn't affect reality 118 Jan 17 2018 07:57 AM The route to school should be along lanes and roads that afford vehicular access. 119 Jan 16 2018 11:54 PM Unless the routes have been walked or travelled and can be done safely and not taking hours longer because they may be closer on a map but may not be quicker to walk 120 Jan 16 2018 11:54 PM All sixth forms are too far to walk from mendham. 121 Jan 16 2018 08:55 PM These routes may be isolated from main roads and during dark winter weather be unsafe. This would especially be the case if they are not illuminated. 122 Jan 16 2018 06:03 PM See above 123 Jan 16 2018 05:48 PM n/a 124 Jan 16 2018 04:14 PM Suffolk is rural and these pathways are not always practical or even safe for young people.

118 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 125 Jan 16 2018 02:53 PM These could be unlit allyways and thus unsafe areas. Especially as there will be unaccompanied children using these routes.. at the core of any policy safeguarding should be paramount. 126 Jan 16 2018 02:28 PM In all cases where road transport will have to be used as part or whole of a journey, the realistic distance should be calculated using the most direct road access. This represents the true distance from home to school. 127 Jan 16 2018 09:19 AM as above 128 Jan 15 2018 08:02 PM Rural unlit footpaths/ roads are not a safe way for any child to get to and from school. 129 Jan 15 2018 10:32 AM They might consider a safe route as half hour, but a pupil may not think of this route as 'the safest route' as they live there and know the area and may walk a longer route which is safer. 130 Jan 15 2018 10:23 AM The shortest route to the school may be measured and be seen as the most effective way to cut the travel costs. However, I do not think that the safety of the pupils and their worries may not be taken into account when being forced into walking this route. 131 Jan 14 2018 10:27 PM It depends, rights of way should only be taken in to account when determining a route which does not require motorised vehicles to carry out all or part of the journey or which do not provide a safe route for any school pedestrians. No one wants to walk on unlit or unsafe paths. Especially women and children.

132 Jan 14 2018 10:22 PM Stop dilly dallying and scrap the whole idea. 133 Jan 14 2018 07:21 PM If pupils have to used public roads to get to a Sixth Form Centre, then small unlit pathways should not be taken into account when calculating the nearest Sixth Form provision.

Whatever age a young person is at 16-18 this is still not safe for pupils to be walking in unlit, unsafe pathways and Rights of Way should therefore not be taken into account when calculating the shorted walking distance. 134 Jan 14 2018 04:23 PM As above 135 Jan 13 2018 01:47 PM Many main roads are not well lit in Winter around Suffolk, so footpaths and bridleways will not be either. Therefore I believe it is unwise to take them into consideration, as it is just unsafe. 136 Jan 12 2018 03:31 PM Rights of way may not be suitable for students to walk along. 137 Jan 12 2018 03:28 PM As before Discrimination against certain individuals. 138 Jan 12 2018 02:11 PM I dont think it should as it could be a route that is unsafe or doesnt provide road safety crossing points. Alot of the roads are used by lorries or speeding drivers or are on top of junctions to main entry or exit points to our villiages and towns. 139 Jan 12 2018 01:50 PM As above. 140 Jan 12 2018 12:46 PM unless these are well lit footpaths on major roads so safe for all then they should not be included as explained in previous responses 141 Jan 12 2018 11:24 AM As above

119 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 142 Jan 12 2018 07:29 AM As above 143 Jan 11 2018 09:36 PM As above. Potentially remote and unsafe routes should not be taken into account, we should not expect our children to walk certain routes. 144 Jan 11 2018 09:10 PM Safety 145 Jan 11 2018 08:53 PM As above. 146 Jan 11 2018 07:36 PM Same as above 147 Jan 11 2018 12:35 PM This is not an appropriate or fair way of assessing routes. ROW are unsafe, unkempt, and not a reasonable way of travelling to school. They are often over muddy fields, dangerous bridges etc. They are dark and dangerous in winter and a highly inappropriate way to consider distance or walking route 148 Jan 11 2018 11:12 AM With 5 miles either way it is not safe or logical or time efficient for the children of lakenheath to walk to school so to measure in walking distance is an unfair and unrealistic measurement. 149 Jan 11 2018 07:06 AM Not realistic 150 Jan 11 2018 06:46 AM Same as above 151 Jan 10 2018 10:18 PM Again safety is paramount! I understand the need to control costs. 152 Jan 10 2018 06:49 PM The distance should be measured using the route that a bus would take as this is how children would actually travel 153 Jan 10 2018 06:02 PM As above. Rights of way can also be altered 154 Jan 10 2018 04:34 PM see above 155 Jan 10 2018 02:45 PM Doesn’t matter what age safety is paramount 156 Jan 09 2018 03:47 PM Unsafe and unsuitable 157 Jan 09 2018 03:30 PM As above 158 Jan 09 2018 12:59 PM See Above 159 Jan 08 2018 09:55 PM But the assessment has to be done by looking at the ROW on the ground and not just on a map as ROW are not pavements and there are no set maintenance standards. ROW can be legally ploughed up and they have low levels of maintenance.

160 Jan 08 2018 02:31 PM Routes that involve vehicular transport must take in to account the distance by road only as it is the only realistic option available for transport. 161 Jan 08 2018 01:46 PM . 162 Jan 08 2018 01:39 PM The shortest walk could be 5 miles 163 Jan 08 2018 01:19 PM Safeguarding 164 Jan 08 2018 12:29 PM I don't think transport should be charged for. 165 Jan 08 2018 11:17 AM Have you ever tried walking along a muddy, wet bridelway in the dark when trying to get to and from work?

1 2 0 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 166 Jan 06 2018 11:35 PM Do you want young children to be unsafe muddy alone on certain footpaths and rights of way

Saftey is important 167 Jan 05 2018 04:58 PM With increasingly inadequate policing and growing threats from undesirables it is prudent to avoid unnecessary risks to our young people in travelling to education. 168 Jan 05 2018 03:26 PM For the same reasons as above. 169 Jan 05 2018 03:13 PM No - if it is in walking distance there is no need for transport in the first place... if it is not easily walkable it should be determined by ROAD TRAVEL distance! 170 Jan 05 2018 02:51 PM Rights of way are not always suitable routes for youngsters and may not be an option for all families. 171 Jan 05 2018 02:48 PM see above 172 Jan 05 2018 02:24 PM Same reasons. Some students with moderate physical needs also find rights of way unsuitable. 173 Jan 05 2018 01:08 PM Not applicable to me 174 Jan 05 2018 09:46 AM It should be student's decision on which road they are taking to go to school. They should be able to choose the safest trip to school, not the shortest. 175 Jan 04 2018 11:00 PM Same as above. 176 Jan 04 2018 02:24 PM as above 177 Jan 04 2018 11:15 AM Same as above 178 Jan 04 2018 11:11 AM The fair way to work out the cost is by using the route travelled by coaches not using poorly lit footpaths and bridleways that could put students' safety at risk. 179 Jan 04 2018 09:02 AM safety 180 Jan 04 2018 08:54 AM Unsafe in winter. We have a duty of care for students. 181 Jan 03 2018 07:57 PM Not all routes are safe or appropriate for young people to be walking especially on dark mornings / afternoons. 182 Jan 03 2018 03:51 PM As above - there are so many variables within this term. The quality and safety of the path should be considered. 183 Jan 03 2018 03:10 PM It is not safe for students to be crossing fields, going down unlit roads etc Further money would have to be spent maintaining and lighting the routes to be inline with safeguarding so there would probably be no saving . If not an actual cost 184 Jan 03 2018 02:40 PM Not safe in the most rural of areas 185 Jan 03 2018 12:19 PM Please keep things the way they are at present 186 Dec 28 2017 09:00 PM As mentioned above it is irrelevant. Perhaps this question more than anything demonstrates the lack of understanding the council has on this issue. Perhaps if those making the decision come and spend a week in my childrens' lives on their school transport they might understand. This question is a simple insult to the people who populate rural Suffolk in an attempt to produce the good citizens of tomorrow.

1 2 1 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 187 Dec 27 2017 10:32 AM Surely if a PROW is part of the route then common sense suggests it should be included as a matter of course. Whether or not is a safe route would need to be considered 188 Dec 24 2017 08:57 PM See previous comment it is about safety in the dark winter nights 189 Dec 19 2017 11:26 AM Some rights of way are unsafe, unpassable or blocked.

190 Dec 19 2017 11:21 AM Unsafe, dark, unlit, and can be icy etc

191 Dec 19 2017 11:14 AM As above 192 Dec 19 2017 11:00 AM Because they are a viable route. If parents or young people decide not to utilise them, then this is a choice they have made. If this choice has financial implications then they (and not the rest of us) should have to pay the cost.

193 Dec 19 2017 10:52 AM Can the transport appeals committee.really assess the safety of a particular route? They are not children. If that assessment goes wrong and a child is harmed or worse will the Council be legally liable? I doubt it.

194 Dec 19 2017 10:05 AM same reason as above

195 Dec 19 2017 09:58 AM Cannot be considered for reason given above.

196 Dec 19 2017 09:50 AM As above

197 Dec 18 2017 08:34 PM As above 198 Dec 18 2017 07:41 PM Impractical. 199 Dec 18 2017 04:57 PM Same reason as above. 200 Dec 18 2017 04:06 PM SOME OF THESE MAY NOT BE A SAFE OPTION FOR A YOUNG PERSON OR SOMEONE WITH A DISABILITY TO ACCESS 201 Dec 18 2017 02:03 PM as above 202 Dec 18 2017 12:45 PM Please see the answer to question 8 203 Dec 18 2017 08:12 AM As above 204 Dec 17 2017 07:32 PM Only normal well lit safe routes should be considered 205 Dec 17 2017 11:46 AM See above. 206 Dec 16 2017 06:02 PM Absoloutely not.

Try walking across a 'right of way ' around this area, in summer it's impossible due to brambles and stinging nettles, in winter the paths are turned into mud swamps.

1 2 2 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses

i would NEVER allow my child to walk across a field alone, in the dark coming home from school. Our duty as parents and councillors alike, is to protect our children. 207 Dec 16 2017 04:32 PM This is a short-sighted way of considering things. 208 Dec 16 2017 07:55 AM As above 209 Dec 15 2017 04:58 PM As per previous answer 210 Dec 15 2017 02:54 PM It needs to be as safe as possible for children to get safely to and from school 211 Dec 15 2017 02:35 PM Unsafe and dangerous in bad weather 212 Dec 15 2017 07:49 AM For the same reason as no. 8 213 Dec 14 2017 10:22 PM Possibly, however vulnerable pupils may be more at risk of getting bullied in an isolated area. 214 Dec 14 2017 07:57 PM As above 215 Dec 14 2017 05:30 PM as before...footpaths are often overgrown with brambles, ploughed up by farmers or a quagmire. This is rural Suffolk after all. 216 Dec 14 2017 05:06 PM See response to 8 217 Dec 14 2017 04:24 PM I simply do not understand why you would compromise a students safety just for a shorter route. 218 Dec 14 2017 04:03 PM safe walking route must be considered eg Suffolk one - access to bus stop 219 Dec 14 2017 04:03 PM Safety should be considered when exploring walking routes, for example Suffolk One. 220 Dec 14 2017 04:03 PM As many people in Suffolk live in rural areas, there are not many safe footpaths for children to walk to school. It should be noted that I do not believe a path alongside a road like the A140 to be considered safe for a child, or anyone, to walk along everyday or to be considered as a right of way to measure nearest school. 221 Dec 14 2017 01:46 PM You need to use roads for the reasons above 222 Dec 14 2017 12:56 PM Option 3 - No change to current transport arrangements 223 Dec 14 2017 12:45 PM Only if the safety of the route for all students (age and physical ability) is seriously taken into consideration. 224 Dec 13 2017 12:58 PM See above 225 Dec 13 2017 11:40 AM see above 226 Dec 13 2017 08:29 AM Road safety is important 227 Dec 13 2017 04:27 AM Yes as long as they are safe, well lit routes.

1 2 3 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q11, Should we change the price charged for the sale of empty spare seats on closed contract routes? Answer Choices Responses Keep the same 31.55% 153 Actual cost per route (currently ranging from £380 to £1710 per year) 12.78% 62 The average cost (currently £960 per year) 6.19% 30 At a subsidised cost 36.49% 177 Other (please specify) 12.99% 63 Answered 485 Skipped 116

Should we change the price charged for the sale of empty spare seats on closed contract routes? 40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00% Responses 15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00% Keep the same Actual cost per route (currently The average cost (currently At a subsidised cost Other (please specify) ranging from £380 to £1710 £960 per year) per year)

1 2 4 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Other (please specify) 1 Feb 28 2018 10:30 PM They should be free, everyone should have a choice to attend a school of their choice to receive education 2 Feb 28 2018 08:43 PM The actual cost but means tested so its subsidised for those who can't afford it. 3 Feb 28 2018 05:40 PM There is no adequate financial modelling available to be able to judge whether any of the suggestions are valid 4 Feb 28 2018 01:10 PM impossible to know without knowing what the prices are 5 Feb 28 2018 11:28 AM Should be free 6 Feb 27 2018 02:16 PM dont charge 7 Feb 27 2018 12:27 PM Don't 8 Feb 27 2018 10:32 AM Assessed on a route by route basis. Difference between urban rural transport 9 Feb 27 2018 07:45 AM I will drive my child on way to work as it will be cheaper for me 10 Feb 26 2018 08:11 PM If in education until 18 all bus transport should be free 11 Feb 26 2018 02:18 PM Transport to compulsory education should be FREE for all. 12 Feb 26 2018 10:40 AM I don't understand the context of this question in relation to this discussion 13 Feb 25 2018 01:11 AM Free travel for compulsory education 14 Feb 24 2018 09:35 PM Families cannot afford actual or average cost. 15 Feb 22 2018 06:09 PM It should be free as education is compulsory and 16-18 should be treated the same as other school years 16 Feb 19 2018 02:39 PM it's law for me to stay in education until im 18, i had no say in that, i had to go to sixth form or college so why should i pay for something when im forced to go? 17 Feb 18 2018 02:41 PM If they are spare there is no need to expect people to pay - nobody would be using them anyway so it's just a matter of being morally helpful. 18 Feb 18 2018 01:18 PM Use smaller vehicles.Where there less persons. 19 Feb 10 2018 04:22 PM A fixed price closed contract means that the seats are already costed, no charge should be made 20 Feb 09 2018 11:09 AM Should be assessed by need in each circumstance 21 Feb 05 2018 04:18 PM idon't know how it works now 22 Feb 05 2018 01:14 PM All transport should be free you should not charge for any 23 Jan 31 2018 03:13 PM IT SHOULD BE FUNDED COMPLETELY 24 Jan 30 2018 01:00 PM free of charge for certain groups - ie. where there is no local provision for a sixth form and no alternative but to use the transport 25 Jan 28 2018 10:40 AM No charge although greatly subsidised would be next best 26 Jan 27 2018 03:45 PM Means tested

1 2 5 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Other (please specify) 27 Jan 24 2018 03:03 PM Any award should be for the whol;e period that a young person attends in order to complete their course rather than reviewed each term which undermines a family's ability to financiaqlly plan ahead. 28 Jan 24 2018 12:54 PM We would pay more if necessary rather than loose the bus. 29 Jan 21 2018 11:45 AM Charge the actual cost to those who can afford it and a sliding scale fee to those on low incomes 30 Jan 20 2018 07:55 PM It should be free as education is compulsory and 16-18 should be treated the same as other school years 31 Jan 19 2018 07:17 AM Minimal cost as if you have decided you are going to run this service with an empty seat then you should do the right thing and offer for minimal cost. Ps college buses from Sudbury to Bury are always full so I doubt they could make a loss 32 Jan 18 2018 03:16 PM Offer the places to all children free - the bus is running anyway! 33 Jan 16 2018 06:06 PM Reduce the cost 1700 is really high - maybe use coaches owned and operated by the council then you would not be covering private companies profits. Who could afford 1700 a year? 34 Jan 16 2018 04:15 PM At a fair price to all parties. 35 Jan 15 2018 10:14 AM don't know 36 Jan 14 2018 07:22 PM If double decker buses were used, then additional seats could be charged and pay towards the cost of transport for the actual transport to post 16 schools of choice 37 Jan 13 2018 01:49 PM Charge depending on what families can afford. 38 Jan 11 2018 08:55 PM Means tested costings only. 39 Jan 11 2018 11:15 AM Give to first in line at no cost 40 Jan 10 2018 09:28 PM Not sure 41 Jan 08 2018 11:12 PM No idea 42 Jan 08 2018 04:20 PM Non-eligible children and young people will be using these services to access opportunities to support activities that beneficial to society and so should be subsidised. 43 Jan 08 2018 01:57 PM I come based pricing to include everyone 44 Jan 08 2018 01:47 PM Don't make them pay as you aren't using them anyway. 45 Jan 08 2018 01:19 PM As low as possible. Max should be actual cost 46 Jan 08 2018 12:30 PM All seats should be free of charge 47 Jan 06 2018 11:36 PM Share public transport. Three busses go same way half the time at the same time they are all half full 48 Jan 03 2018 05:50 PM No financial evidence to support this 49 Jan 03 2018 03:13 PM No charge this should even out across the whole network. 50 Jan 03 2018 07:57 AM If within catchment then it should be free

1 2 6 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Other (please specify) 51 Dec 27 2017 10:35 AM Continuining your education Post 16 should be available to all not just those who have the parents with the means to pay for the transport. This is an area where a separate consultation and better understanding is needed 52 Dec 24 2017 09:26 AM Can people afford it... 53 Dec 21 2017 11:32 PM . 54 Dec 20 2017 01:00 PM free of charge 55 Dec 19 2017 11:26 AM Should be provided free. It's an empty seat so wouldn't be used otherwise. 56 Dec 19 2017 10:52 AM If there are spare seats, why are they not free as the contract has been issued agaisnt a set budget anyway 57 Dec 18 2017 04:03 PM Not really sure what this means 58 Dec 18 2017 03:40 PM don't know 59 Dec 18 2017 02:05 PM I will move nearer to the school 60 Dec 18 2017 12:46 PM I don’t believe students should be charged for attending schools 61 Dec 18 2017 08:14 AM Assess on individual basis - this could otherwise be done unfairly. 62 Dec 15 2017 07:50 AM At a cost households would be able to afford 63 Dec 14 2017 12:56 PM Option 3 - No change to current transport arrangements

1 2 7 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q12, Should we sell the spare seats? Please tick those you feel are appropriate. Answer Choices Responses On a first come first served basis 16.63% 81 Prioritise those unable to access public transport 46.82% 228 Prioritise those who come from a low-income family 41.89% 204 Prioritise those who live in a rural location 55.65% 271 Other (please specify) 10.27% 50 Answered 487 Skipped 114

Should we sell the spare seats? Please tick those you feel are appropriate. 60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00% Responses

20.00%

10.00%

0.00% On a first come first served Prioritise those unable to Prioritise those who come from Prioritise those who live in a Other (please specify) basis access public transport a low-income family rural location

1 2 8 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018

Respondents Response Date Other (please specify) 1 Feb 28 2018 08:43 PM based on provider offer ranking 2 Feb 27 2018 04:49 PM none 3 Feb 27 2018 02:16 PM dont charge 4 Feb 27 2018 12:27 PM Don't 5 Feb 27 2018 07:45 AM You have got to prioritise those without other options as a common sense approach! 6 Feb 26 2018 08:11 PM Shouldn’t have to pay for any buses if in education until 18 7 Feb 26 2018 05:05 PM You have a responsibility in a rural area to provide transport 8 Feb 26 2018 10:40 AM If it is a school bus and children need to get to school then they can get on that vehicle - is that not sensible ? 9 Feb 25 2018 01:11 AM Don’t sell them at all. Provide a free service to compulsory students. 10 Feb 24 2018 04:43 PM There is no sense in prioritising low income families if the costs are prohibitive 11 Feb 21 2018 08:52 PM All - no child should be penalised for their situation 12 Feb 20 2018 07:44 PM I don not feel that spare seats should be sold. People moving to an area could end up not being able to obtain free transport if bus places are full 13 Feb 18 2018 01:18 PM Let the public use the seats as well. 14 Feb 14 2018 04:37 PM Vulnerable students 15 Feb 10 2018 04:22 PM we should not charge if the contractor has quoted a fixed cost for the vehicle, if it is on a per person basis then prioritise those unable to access public transport 16 Feb 09 2018 11:09 AM Should be assessed by need in each circumstance 17 Feb 08 2018 01:31 PM No comment 18 Feb 08 2018 10:35 AM no selling of spare seats 19 Feb 05 2018 01:14 PM All seats should be free and only children going to school should use them. 20 Jan 31 2018 03:13 PM PRIVATISATION IS NOT DIPLOMACY THAT THESE STUDENTS HAVE VOTED FOR 21 Jan 30 2018 05:25 PM no 22 Jan 30 2018 04:40 PM No - Segregating people again 23 Jan 28 2018 08:11 PM not possible but on individual needs basis point system for most needing mybe 24 Jan 28 2018 02:44 PM I am unsure if spare seats should be sold. 25 Jan 24 2018 03:03 PM with the exception of first option cannot see how you can morally choose between any of the other options! 26 Jan 19 2018 07:17 AM Give everyone a seat. 27 Jan 18 2018 03:16 PM Rurality and low income already limit opportunity and aspiration

1 2 9 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Other (please specify) 28 Jan 17 2018 02:56 PM And prioritise areas with no public transport 29 Jan 17 2018 12:32 PM Can’t answer 30 Jan 16 2018 06:23 PM We shouldn't have to pay at all so no 31 Jan 16 2018 05:49 PM no 32 Jan 16 2018 04:15 PM Set a fair policy. 33 Jan 14 2018 04:24 PM I don't know 34 Jan 10 2018 07:39 PM How can you prioritise one childs situation over another, all should be equal 35 Jan 08 2018 12:33 PM Use a point basis on lack of transport AND location. 36 Jan 08 2018 12:30 PM All seats should be free of charge 37 Jan 06 2018 11:36 PM Treat every one the same 38 Jan 05 2018 10:58 AM It depends if tehre is public transport in place already in the area 39 Jan 03 2018 05:50 PM No financial evidence to support this 40 Jan 03 2018 03:13 PM Who would you sell them to? Not clear here 41 Dec 27 2017 10:35 AM All of the above. No one should be penalised or discrimanted based on their circumstances in able to attend post 16 education otherwise Suffolk's Post 16 establishments will not be a true reflection of Suffolk as a whole. 42 Dec 24 2017 09:26 AM Can people afford it.... 43 Dec 21 2017 11:32 PM . 44 Dec 19 2017 11:26 AM Should not be sold, should be free. 45 Dec 18 2017 04:03 PM Not sure 46 Dec 18 2017 03:40 PM don't know 47 Dec 18 2017 12:46 PM I don’t believe children should be charged to attend schools. It’s a disgrace 48 Dec 15 2017 09:12 PM Unaffordable for most on low income 49 Dec 15 2017 02:13 PM Do not sell seats 50 Dec 14 2017 04:25 PM Prioritise those who are furthest away

1 3 0 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q13, Can you please give us your views on the following Local Solutions? Neither Strongly Support nor Strongly Support Support Oppose Oppose Oppose Don’t Know Total a) Changing school start and finish times - use fewer vehicles on school transport 10.30% 45 25.40% 111 20.37% 89 15.33% 67 23.11% 101 5.49% 24 437 b) Extend school opening times – re-use vehicles for school transport 8.70% 38 26.77% 117 17.85% 78 18.54% 81 23.57% 103 4.58% 20 437 c) Increase the size of the vehicles used - use fewer vehicles on school transport 17.58% 77 42.47% 186 18.26% 80 7.99% 35 10.27% 45 3.42% 15 438 d) Increase acceptable journey times - use fewer vehicles on school transport 9.15% 40 23.34% 102 22.20% 97 19.22% 84 20.82% 91 5.26% 23 437 e) Influence professional development (PD) days - may be able to operate buses on fewer days 12.87% 56 20.69% 90 26.90% 117 13.79% 60 17.93% 78 7.82% 34 435 f) Hub collection points - may be able to operate shorter routes and reduce cost of transport 14.03% 62 33.71% 149 17.42% 77 11.31% 50 19.00% 84 4.52% 20 442 g) Ride and stride - - may be able to operate shorter routes and reduce cost of transport 13.27% 58 27.46% 120 20.14% 88 13.96% 61 18.31% 80 6.86% 30 437 h) Opt-in to travel - use fewer vehicles on school transport 14.39% 62 23.43% 101 24.83% 107 12.30% 53 16.24% 70 8.82% 38 431 i) Group schools together - use fewer vehicles on school transport 13.15% 58 31.07% 137 17.01% 75 14.97% 66 19.27% 85 4.54% 20 441 j) Plan for excess capacity - use fewer vehicles on school transport 11.21% 49 27.69% 121 27.23% 119 11.90% 52 15.33% 67 6.64% 29 437 k) Schools plan transport - flexibility for schools to work collaboratively or use transport provision for students without entitlement. 11.21% 49 32.49% 142 22.88% 100 10.07% 44 16.70% 73 6.64% 29 437 l) Parental payments - use fewer vehicles on school transport 6.93% 30 11.32% 49 25.64% 111 19.17% 83 29.56% 128 7.39% 32 433 Answered 448 Skipped 153

1 3 1 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Can you please give us your views on the following Local Solutions? 45.00%

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

Strongly Support Support Neither Support nor Oppose Oppose Strongly Oppose Don’t Know

1 3 2 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q14, Do you have any other suggestions/comments on the Local Solutions? Please put the local solution letter (a-l) beside your comment. Answered 80 Skipped 521

Respondents Response Date Responses 1 Feb 28 2018 08:44 PM These are good ideas but can they work with option 1 or 2. These would be worth exploring if option 3 is chosen 2 Feb 28 2018 07:24 PM Journey times can already be significant for young people travelling from rural areas to provisions offering non-'A' level post-16 options. 3 Feb 28 2018 06:00 PM Talk to schools to find the most cost effective solutions. 4 Feb 28 2018 01:10 PM all local solutions should be considered, but not imposed by matter of policy 5 Feb 28 2018 12:56 PM We live in Hargrave, and understand the later bus bringing post 16 students home only brings them as far as Chevington leaving a 1 mile walk without pavements (accross fields) so only really passable in summer. In really would not be a big deal for the bus to continue 1 stop further to Hargrave like the up to 16 travel 6 Feb 27 2018 11:26 PM a d g i would all work with Option 3 7 Feb 27 2018 06:13 PM a-l : The high schools should share busses and a separate bus system that can fit in to the high schools time eg. six form arrive earlier then the high schools, the sixth form leave earlier then the high schools 8 Feb 27 2018 02:56 PM For 16-19 transport a "local solution" is not as practical as for the 5-16 transport as many 16-19yr olds in the county access their 16-19 yr provision 15-25 miles away from their home because their local provision either a) didn't accept their grades b) A levels at the local 6th form are not their best 16-19 pathway c) A level at their local provision is extremely limited. It is more complex than just working out how to get the 16- 19 yr olds to their nearest school. 9 Feb 27 2018 08:54 AM Continue with current plan to keep more cars off the road. Ride and Stride is a good option provided the hub point is safe. 10 Feb 27 2018 07:50 AM k)Bury St Edmunds has decided their own policy, why shouldn't other areas of Suffolk?

The LA has to (finally) recognise Suffolk is a rural county and act accordingly. Suffolk extends further than IPSWICH! 11 Feb 26 2018 04:11 PM I dont support option 1 12 Feb 26 2018 02:20 PM Transport to compulsory education should be FREE for all. 13 Feb 23 2018 12:20 PM There is no financial modeling here of the likely savings or costs for any of these local solutions. I cannot, therefore, make a judgement. What are the additional costs, for example, of increasing the size of vehicles used or extending school opening times? Again, no financial information or modeling.

1 3 3 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 14 Feb 22 2018 06:13 PM In many cases public bus services providing school transport are the only buses serving rural areas - this should be factored when making any cuts to services. Has Suffolk lobbied central government to bring 16- 18 transport inline with 5-16. Now education is compulsory there should be no difference. Could Suffolk look to industry to sponsor 16-18 transport? 15 Feb 22 2018 09:06 AM B - makes sense, however, the council would need to make provisions for young people to do activities whilst being on the premises. You would save on transport, but then need to spend on staff overtime etc.

C - not viable on some country lanes that buses already go down

The best solution is to not change the current system?? 16 Feb 20 2018 07:50 PM I believe that transport to school if you live more than 3 miles away should be free for all if you are choosing a school within your catchment choices. I do not believe that it should be defined as "nearest 2 tier school" as this is discriminating against those of us whose children are part of the All Through Trust - this has been our natural catchment schools for decades; and to try and penalise parents; especially when Barrow has been defined as a village of development is ludicrous. So many houses have been built with families in mind, but many will chose not to live here if they cannot go to their catchment school - and the alternatives will be over subscribed; and cause massive disruption to our children's education. Please amend the wording so that we are not discriminated against so that the nearest school includes those within the All Through Trust. Thank you. 17 Feb 19 2018 07:47 PM log current bus users to make sure people with pass are actually using it. Those not using it on a regular basis should not have new pass issued.

state on the buss pass application form that passes will only be issued to students using the bus over a certain percentage of the school year

18 Feb 18 2018 01:23 PM The use of smaller buses where the demand is less,

lees pollution, easier to get around narrow country lanes, use electric buses,

The 2 more schools beong built in our area will cause havoc on the roads, which are to narrow now!

19 Feb 17 2018 12:18 PM Just provide a decent school in Newmarket....that will save much travel 20 Feb 12 2018 09:23 AM fatith schools make this difficult as they need to travel to them not to the nearest school 21 Feb 11 2018 02:51 PM Agree to hub points (more than one is needed), if they can be safely located to enable a large number of children to wait for the transport.

1 3 4 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 22 Feb 10 2018 04:33 PM The solutions in general are not focused on the situation for isolated rural schools with wide catchment areas.

23 Feb 08 2018 05:01 PM Please remember the difficulties of pupils in rural areas where there are very limited transport alternatives. Also bear in mind that the legal requirement should be the bare minimum service provision - not the target - and ethical and moral considerations should be taken into account. 24 Feb 08 2018 01:33 PM No comment 25 Feb 06 2018 08:13 PM Already answered on the 5-16 survey 26 Feb 06 2018 04:42 PM None of these work for where I live . You are penalising rural communities. The nearest sixth form is at Thurston but if you take away the bus to Thurston I won't be able to get there . Ixworth doesn't have a sixth form . I don't want to have to go to Norfolk - I live in Suffolk so why can't I continue my education here . You are proposing to ruin my life chances 27 Feb 05 2018 07:39 PM Talk to schools and colleges about local solutions. They understand their context better than I do. 28 Feb 05 2018 01:17 PM Getting children to and from college should be free - education is a right, children are required to stay in further education until 18 as such the council should provide free transport to all and if they do not have the money they should got to central government and get the money rather than cutting other services. It is not an issue for local people to solve and transport should have no impact on the running of colleges or schools whose only goal should be doing what is best to educate our children and not on how to get them there. 29 Feb 03 2018 08:47 PM Keep everything the same and make no changes ! 30 Feb 02 2018 06:23 PM n/a 31 Feb 02 2018 10:03 AM (a-l) A successful country needs well educated people. In order for these young people to become productive members of society we need to make sure that they can have access to the right educational environment. Transport is a vital link to a young persons educational opportunities and should be offered free in my opinion, but if this is not viable then should certainly be susidised. Rural communities will be hit harder by these decisions and why should young people living in a rural setting be marginalised. 32 Feb 01 2018 01:26 PM Although this is the post 16 response form, these options are tailored to schools with or without 6th forms not 6th form colleges many miles away. However, it is obvious that they are logical steps to take for all school years.

My child currently has a journey time of 2.25 hours each morning if the transport is on time and the connections, therefore, are made. In the evening journey time is 1.75 hours if the transport is on time but, as the transport finishes 10 miles from home, relies on parental pick up from where the bus finishes. If the evening starting transport is late (which it often is), he has to wait an hour for the next connection and the journey time is 2.75 hours.

1 3 5 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses There has to be a better way of providing this service to the young people of our county. 33 Jan 31 2018 03:15 PM ASK CARRILLION BOSSES AND OTHER PRIVATE CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE RIPPED OFF THE HARD WORKING UK CITIZEN TO PAY FOR IT THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH IN THEIR WAGE PACKET ON ITS OWN!!!!! 34 Jan 30 2018 01:03 PM Arrange transport to different sixth forms by forming hub points for sixth forms. (a-l) 35 Jan 29 2018 03:16 PM We need to make sure that all the pupils that use the bus service can't get in another way for example a parent driving in that direction. We are fine with changing the times of schools but for some parents it maybe difficult with other siblings. For us local solution letter A. 36 Jan 28 2018 03:44 PM Unless you tell me what these would save and tell me that this won't be in addition to cutting my access to a subsidised bus, I'm not interested. 37 Jan 27 2018 12:18 AM Schools have their own buses. 38 Jan 25 2018 08:25 PM I strongly oppose all the local solutions as I think that Option 3 is the only option that should be considered. 39 Jan 24 2018 03:05 PM Abandon cuts to transport subsidy 40 Jan 24 2018 12:57 PM Do an analysis of busses which aren't full to capacity. Slightly longer routes might be acceptable. I think most parents would pay a bit more to keep the busses - it's really vital for working parents, and especially women. But it's very important that busses are fit for purpose. Since September one bus has broken down 4 times. 41 Jan 24 2018 09:06 AM School transport should be free for all pupils up to the age of 18. 42 Jan 23 2018 04:57 PM 16+ can cycle or walk, they are near adults. Incentivise this - e.g. if you cycle in, get a lunch voucher (e.g. £3) 43 Jan 23 2018 02:22 PM If you live rurally none of the above would make any difference at all. There is currently only one bus to our nearest Suffolk post 16 provider and your proposals for 5-16 travel may well remove that option too!!!!!! 44 Jan 19 2018 10:37 AM I do not feel that these questions should be part of this consultation as I d not have enough information to make an informed decision. A decision needs to be made on the options and then further discussion take place if needed. 45 Jan 19 2018 07:28 AM If you cannot provide for our children to get from their home towns to colleges then you need to provide ALL college courses in the pupils local area that they can attend without enormous financial penalty to the parents, the same parents that pay council tax increases that can get no help in any other way. Children/ families on benefits will not see a loss to their income like working parents will 46 Jan 18 2018 10:04 PM Rural children need to get to school safely - as long as they can then I think that compromises can be acceptable. I have no objection to change so long as rural children are not disadvantaged which includes excessive/restrictive charges.

Cut out inconsistencies - make decisions that streamline catchment and don’t force changes at 16. I wouldn’t have objected to going to my nearest school at 16 if this had been our catchment school at 11.

1 3 6 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 47 Jan 18 2018 03:24 PM a-l) All these options will result in many non standard and hard to navigate time arrangements and travel options with parents paying additional sums to make them work or not paying and increasing traffic / pollution by driving their young people to school or college.

d) increase acceptable journey time is not acceptable AT ALL; the time some young people have to spend travelling is already detrimental to their education / well being. 48 Jan 17 2018 11:22 PM Leave it alone 49 Jan 17 2018 08:21 PM This questionnaire is incredibly badly written!!

You are asking two questions but only allowing one answer in some of the questions.

I strongly oppose any cuts to transport for 16+

50 Jan 17 2018 07:16 PM Don’t change anything! Stop this now. 51 Jan 17 2018 12:01 AM To keep the transport the same, as children like routine... the drivers know which children they collect, and the children get know who's driving them. 52 Jan 16 2018 11:06 PM A-l 53 Jan 16 2018 06:13 PM Set up a council owned bus company, use school minibuses and pay their staff to collect from isolated villages, transport primary and high school students together if buses are not running to capacity, stop putting children in taxis let them take the bus, (it's good for them to learn to use buses and get along with others) the use of taxis seems to be growing and must cost a fortune. don't send special needs children to schools a long way away, make the provision locally, 54 Jan 16 2018 02:57 PM Bit of a pointless exercise you will do what you want.. this is just a pr tick box. To say after consulting with thw public we arw going to do x.. 55 Jan 15 2018 10:15 AM keep things the same! 56 Jan 14 2018 04:26 PM N/A 57 Jan 11 2018 10:11 PM Just keep how it is, or my son will have to move schools. Which isn’t great for his schooling plus I’m a single parent trying to work to provide for them. Otherwise I will have leave my job so I can take my son to school which to be honest isn’t option due to my hours of work. I have to earn to pay for my mortgage. So stopping the bus for his school is just plain silly in option. My son enjoys going to that school and does very well Indeed! Feel you taking that away just to save money on transport! Crazy idea really is 58 Jan 11 2018 05:45 PM My son will be going to 6th form come September and there is no way I have the funds to pay for his travel! I am a single mum in receipt of benefits , so rely on this, what makes me angry is that the bus that goes to sixth form ( mildenhall) also goes to the academy anyway yet those going to sixth form are asked to pay!

1 3 7 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses When this was a site for those starting before it was changed into sixth form there was no charge then so why now ?? It is an utter joke !! 59 Jan 10 2018 07:32 PM Spend some money on transport instead of scraping savings on such an important part of a students educational life. 60 Jan 05 2018 05:04 PM It is unrealistic to pursue options that shift costs to schools when so many schools are outside the authority and education funding is so abysmal. 61 Jan 05 2018 03:17 PM What about a 'Scooter Scheme' or funding towards a car/reduced insurance costs to youngsters? What if a young person at driving age picks up a group of friends thus saving the bus seats could they receive a benefit for doing so? Fuel tokens etc? 62 Jan 05 2018 02:35 PM a. Ask our MP to get Suffolk some funding as there is a rural inequality issue. Town children have access to schools near their homes.

b.Look closely at provision to prevent future chaos-eg what will happen when all the A level students have to go elsewhere because Alde Valley Academy has no sixth form?

63 Jan 04 2018 11:06 PM Why not just give parents money towards transport? It’s then up to them to sort it out. 64 Jan 03 2018 02:42 PM There is no financial modeling here of the likely savings or costs for any of these local solutions. The reader cannot, therefore, make a judgement 65 Jan 03 2018 12:21 PM Please use these to fund Option 3 66 Jan 03 2018 08:04 AM Cluster points to collect students would seem a sensible option, although in some cases this will mean parents driving to the points. Local rural primary schools would be a good option. However school opening times would need to reflect this to avoid congestion.

If prices are increased then more parents will drive increasing congestion. 67 Dec 27 2017 10:42 AM Based on where alot of Post 16 establishments are based alot of the options above are not feasible or workable. Unless school 6th Forms are going to start offering more than just A Levels then you can't discriminate against those sudents who are suited to vocational courses. Due to locations it is a term of safety especially for those from areas outside of for example Suffolk One.

How would these suggestions be managed, also I personally can't see how School Transport and establishments are going to work together seeing as they don't at the moment with parents already getting conflicted information when it comes to transport to pre 16.

Suffolk One runs their own bus service for those leaving in certain areas and as a user of this service I am so glad I was not at the mercy of someone making a decision for my child based on red tape rather than the needs of my child and what would suit them.

1 3 8 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 68 Dec 24 2017 09:28 AM Meetings are needed. 69 Dec 19 2017 12:07 PM If parents want to keep transport they should pay, I would gladly pay for a service that was exclusive to the Suffolk one but it is public transport as well and I have to drive next village so may as well carry on to destination. Also on the odd occasion when child has used the public transport it hasn't turned up and have had to drive back from Colchester to drop off ! 70 Dec 19 2017 11:15 AM Local solutions are only relevant as an addition to the current regime so only if Option 3 is accepted

71 Dec 19 2017 09:59 AM same as my comments for pre 16 transport survey.

72 Dec 19 2017 09:51 AM Urge bus and rail companies to charge child fares for 16-18 year olds, not adult fares. Ask parish councils to look at car pooling schemes and liaise with local people to identify parents who could potentially lift share.

73 Dec 18 2017 07:43 PM These are issues for you to decide. My concern is the disruption and negative impact on education. 74 Dec 18 2017 12:49 PM I do not agree that children should be charged to attend schools. 75 Dec 15 2017 09:23 PM With collages over 25 miles away you can not expect parents to pay when you do not provide the a levels at local school / college 76 Dec 15 2017 05:01 PM I do not agree with option one so none of these solutions are suitable. 77 Dec 14 2017 04:04 PM F - Of all the options, solution F seems the most appropriate, especially for rural areas. 78 Dec 14 2017 01:38 PM Do not implement options 1 and 2. The only acceptable option is 3, to not makes any changes 79 Dec 14 2017 12:47 PM This is impossible to do. 80 Dec 13 2017 04:40 AM Using the minimal vehicles should be a must whatever solution is decided. Some of the local solutions could be implemented along side Option 2.

1 3 9 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q15, Can you please tell us in what capacity you are responding to this consultation? Please tick all those that are appropriate. Answer Choices Responses Parent/Carer of child/young person currently at school/college in Suffolk 55.99% 271 Parent/Carer of child/young person not yet at school/college in Suffolk 9.30% 45 Pupil/Young person 11.57% 56 Head Teacher/Principal 0.62% 3 Teacher 12.19% 59 School Governor 4.96% 24 Member of the public 24.17% 117 Councillor 0.83% 4 Other (please specify) 5.79% 28 Answered 484 Skipped 117

Can you please tell us in what capacity you are responding to this consultation? Please tick all those that are appropriate. 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00%

10.00% Responses 0.00%

1 4 0 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q16, If you answered that you are a pupil/young person or parent/carer please tell us which school(s) or college(s) your answers refer to (and if known the postcode)? Answered 266 Skipped 335

Respondents Response Date Responses 1 Mar 01 2018 12:13 AM Thomas Gainsborough School 2 Feb 28 2018 11:59 PM Hartesmere, Eye 3 Feb 28 2018 10:32 PM Thurston Community College 4 Feb 28 2018 10:30 PM MCA6 IP28 5 Feb 28 2018 06:00 PM Suffolk One 6 Feb 28 2018 01:11 PM county upper, ickworth park 7 Feb 28 2018 11:30 AM County Upper 8 Feb 28 2018 08:46 AM Mildenhall 9 Feb 28 2018 08:44 AM Mca 10 Feb 27 2018 11:59 PM Stowmarket 11 Feb 27 2018 10:35 PM Ip313pb 12 Feb 27 2018 09:48 PM IP32 6RF 13 Feb 27 2018 06:17 PM Thurston Community College ( IP31 3PB) and Thurston Sixth (Beyton Campus (IP30 9AA) 14 Feb 27 2018 05:08 PM Thurston sixth 15 Feb 27 2018 02:58 PM Suffolk One 16 Feb 27 2018 02:16 PM County Upper School IP32 6RF 17 Feb 27 2018 12:30 PM Barrow Primary School IP29 5AU. Horringer Court Middle IP33 2EX. County Upper School IP32 6RF. 18 Feb 27 2018 09:03 AM County Upper Bury St Edmunds 19 Feb 27 2018 08:55 AM Thurston Community College 20 Feb 27 2018 08:17 AM IP313PB 21 Feb 27 2018 07:50 AM Thurston 22 Feb 27 2018 07:44 AM Thurston 23 Feb 26 2018 10:33 PM East Bergholt high school 24 Feb 26 2018 09:46 PM thurston community college 25 Feb 26 2018 08:15 PM Bungay high schools

1 4 1 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 26 Feb 26 2018 05:30 PM Thurston 27 Feb 26 2018 05:06 PM Beyton 28 Feb 26 2018 04:48 PM Thurston CC 29 Feb 26 2018 04:12 PM Thurston 30 Feb 26 2018 02:21 PM Thurston Community College 31 Feb 26 2018 02:20 PM Thurston Community College 32 Feb 26 2018 01:52 PM Thurston 6th, Beyton 33 Feb 26 2018 10:42 AM Hartismere, Eye, Suffolk 34 Feb 24 2018 07:33 PM Samuel Ward Academy 35 Feb 24 2018 06:01 PM Hartismere 36 Feb 23 2018 09:12 AM Tgs, st gregs, priory 37 Feb 22 2018 06:15 PM BSE County Upper 38 Feb 22 2018 12:55 PM county upper IP32 6RF 39 Feb 21 2018 08:57 PM Thurston Community College and Sixth Form 40 Feb 21 2018 12:50 PM king edward 41 Feb 20 2018 07:51 PM Westley Middle and County Upper School 42 Feb 19 2018 09:51 PM Stonham Aspal Primary School & Debenham High School 43 Feb 19 2018 08:09 PM hartismere high school, eye 44 Feb 19 2018 07:49 PM Hartismere Eye and St botolphs Botesdale 45 Feb 19 2018 02:42 PM Beyton Sixth (Thurston Communty College) 46 Feb 18 2018 06:34 PM Suffolk One 47 Feb 17 2018 07:12 PM West suffolk college 48 Feb 17 2018 12:19 PM County upper 49 Feb 17 2018 08:13 AM Alde valley and saxmundham primary 50 Feb 16 2018 01:22 PM Hadleigh Community Primary School 51 Feb 14 2018 10:30 AM Farlingaye, Copleston & Suffolk One 52 Feb 13 2018 10:21 AM Thurston community college l 53 Feb 12 2018 05:25 PM Thurston Community College 54 Feb 12 2018 09:23 AM IP3 55 Feb 11 2018 02:52 PM Mildenhall College Academy postcode: IP28 7HT 56 Feb 09 2018 11:37 AM Bungay High school

1 4 2 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 57 Feb 09 2018 11:11 AM Thomas Mills Framlingham IP13 9HE 58 Feb 08 2018 09:35 PM Thurston 59 Feb 08 2018 08:34 AM Thurston community college 60 Feb 08 2018 06:57 AM Samuel ward , west suffolk 61 Feb 07 2018 01:48 PM BEYTON SIXTH FORM 62 Feb 06 2018 10:13 PM Thurston 63 Feb 06 2018 10:13 PM Thurston 64 Feb 06 2018 08:14 PM thurston 65 Feb 06 2018 04:46 PM Thurston Community College 66 Feb 06 2018 12:05 PM Thurston Community College 67 Feb 05 2018 07:40 PM Thurston Community College 68 Feb 05 2018 09:56 AM Thurston college ip31-3pb 69 Feb 02 2018 06:26 PM Thurston Community College Sixth Form - IP30 9AA 70 Feb 02 2018 04:14 PM Thomas Mills Framlingham 71 Feb 02 2018 07:22 AM Ip171dz 72 Feb 01 2018 05:33 PM Farlingay high school, ip12 4jx 73 Feb 01 2018 01:28 PM Suffolk One IP8 3SU 74 Feb 01 2018 11:40 AM thurston community college 75 Feb 01 2018 10:31 AM Beyton Sixth 76 Jan 31 2018 07:26 PM thomas mills IP13 7JP 77 Jan 31 2018 04:03 PM Thomas Mills HS 78 Jan 30 2018 04:48 PM Hartismere 79 Jan 30 2018 01:04 PM Stradbroke High School 80 Jan 30 2018 11:10 AM Thurston community college 81 Jan 30 2018 11:01 AM Thurston 82 Jan 30 2018 09:13 AM Mildenhall College Academy Sixth Form 83 Jan 30 2018 08:41 AM cockfield 84 Jan 30 2018 07:31 AM Hartismere 85 Jan 29 2018 10:34 PM Thurston Community College 86 Jan 29 2018 09:37 PM Stradbroke high school 87 Jan 29 2018 07:56 PM thurston

1 4 3 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 88 Jan 29 2018 03:17 PM Stradbroke High School 89 Jan 29 2018 03:12 PM thurston community college 90 Jan 28 2018 08:14 PM felixstowe and ipswich 91 Jan 28 2018 07:41 PM Thurston Community College 92 Jan 28 2018 10:42 AM Thurston Community College 93 Jan 28 2018 08:47 AM Mildenhall college academy 94 Jan 27 2018 05:12 PM King Edward v1 school 95 Jan 27 2018 03:46 PM IP31 3PB 96 Jan 27 2018 12:19 AM Stowupland High School IP14 97 Jan 26 2018 07:08 PM Thurston Community College 98 Jan 26 2018 06:58 PM West Suffolk college 99 Jan 26 2018 04:52 PM Stowupland High 100 Jan 25 2018 08:26 PM Hartismere 101 Jan 24 2018 05:55 PM hartismere 102 Jan 24 2018 04:34 PM Otley College 103 Jan 24 2018 12:58 PM Hartismere 104 Jan 24 2018 09:07 AM Bungay High 105 Jan 24 2018 07:52 AM One 106 Jan 23 2018 05:19 PM Bungay High School 107 Jan 23 2018 03:52 PM Thurston Community College, IP31 3PB 108 Jan 23 2018 02:23 PM Thurston IP31 3 PB 109 Jan 23 2018 02:18 PM East Bergholt Secondary School / currently at Brooklands Primary School, Brantham 110 Jan 22 2018 03:02 PM bungay high NR35 1RW 111 Jan 21 2018 12:02 PM Hartismere High School 112 Jan 21 2018 11:28 AM Hartismere 113 Jan 19 2018 09:06 PM Mildenhall College Academy 114 Jan 19 2018 08:54 PM hartismere sixth form 115 Jan 19 2018 06:35 PM Wortham primary, 116 Jan 19 2018 06:17 PM Mildenhall College Academy (MCA6) 117 Jan 19 2018 04:53 PM Mildenhall College Academy 118 Jan 19 2018 10:37 AM Thurston Community College

1 4 4 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 119 Jan 19 2018 09:57 AM stradbroke high school IP21 5JN 120 Jan 19 2018 07:30 AM Sudbury schools to post 16 education potentially west Suffolk college 121 Jan 18 2018 10:06 PM Thomas Mills High School Framlingham travelling from Charsfield 122 Jan 18 2018 03:25 PM Thurston 123 Jan 18 2018 09:58 AM Sir John Leman 124 Jan 17 2018 11:22 PM Thurston community college 125 Jan 17 2018 09:32 PM Thurston community collegei 126 Jan 17 2018 07:49 PM Thurston community college 127 Jan 17 2018 07:17 PM MIldenhall College Academy 128 Jan 17 2018 06:07 PM Bungay High School 129 Jan 17 2018 05:06 PM Thomas Mills High School, next september 6th form 130 Jan 17 2018 04:45 PM Bungay & City College Norwich 131 Jan 17 2018 03:00 PM Thurston Community College 132 Jan 17 2018 01:00 PM Thurston Community College 133 Jan 17 2018 12:37 PM Thurston CC 134 Jan 17 2018 12:06 PM SWA 135 Jan 17 2018 11:24 AM TCC 136 Jan 17 2018 11:21 AM Thurston Community College 137 Jan 17 2018 09:31 AM Mildenhall College Academy 138 Jan 17 2018 08:00 AM Thurston Community College 139 Jan 17 2018 12:02 AM Ip200nh 140 Jan 16 2018 11:58 PM Mildenhall College Academy 141 Jan 16 2018 11:07 PM Wickham market 142 Jan 16 2018 08:58 PM Mildenhall academy 143 Jan 16 2018 06:26 PM Mildenhall college academy 144 Jan 16 2018 06:08 PM Ipswich colleges (Suffollk One) and Bury colleges 145 Jan 16 2018 02:58 PM Ebhs 146 Jan 16 2018 02:30 PM Mildenhall College Academy & Mildenhall College Academy 6th Form Centre 147 Jan 16 2018 10:30 AM Hartimsere High 148 Jan 16 2018 09:22 AM Hartismere 149 Jan 15 2018 10:35 AM MCA6

1 4 5 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 150 Jan 15 2018 10:28 AM Mildenhall College Academy 151 Jan 15 2018 10:23 AM Mildenhall College Acedemy 152 Jan 15 2018 10:23 AM Mildenhall College Academy 153 Jan 14 2018 10:33 PM Mildenhall College Academy Bury Road Suffolk IP28 7HT 154 Jan 14 2018 06:14 PM Farlingaye 155 Jan 14 2018 04:26 PM Mildenhall College Academy 156 Jan 13 2018 01:52 PM Hartismere 157 Jan 12 2018 05:43 PM Thurston Community College, IP31 3PB 158 Jan 12 2018 03:32 PM St Mary's CEVC 159 Jan 12 2018 02:17 PM West suffolk college & IES Breckland 160 Jan 12 2018 02:15 PM Mildenhall College Academy Sixth Form 161 Jan 12 2018 01:36 PM Mildenhall College Academy 162 Jan 12 2018 12:50 PM east bergholt high school 163 Jan 12 2018 11:29 AM Suffolk one 164 Jan 12 2018 07:31 AM Hartismere Academy 165 Jan 11 2018 10:12 PM Mildenhall school 166 Jan 11 2018 09:41 PM West Suffolk College 167 Jan 11 2018 09:19 PM MCA Mildenhall 168 Jan 11 2018 09:10 PM Hartismere High School, Eye 169 Jan 11 2018 08:47 PM MCA 170 Jan 11 2018 05:46 PM Mildenhall academy 171 Jan 11 2018 12:36 PM Thomas Mills IP13 172 Jan 11 2018 11:24 AM Mildenhall College Academy 173 Jan 11 2018 11:20 AM Mildenhall college /IES Breckland 174 Jan 11 2018 07:09 AM Mildenhall College Academy 175 Jan 11 2018 06:49 AM Stour Valley community school & Orminston Sudbury academy 176 Jan 10 2018 11:26 PM Mildenhall College Academy 177 Jan 10 2018 10:21 PM Newmarket Academy, Mildenhall 6 Form College. 178 Jan 10 2018 09:32 PM Mca ip287 179 Jan 10 2018 08:16 PM Hartismere 180 Jan 10 2018 07:42 PM Hartismere high school

1 4 6 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 181 Jan 10 2018 06:50 PM Hartismere, IP23 7BL 182 Jan 10 2018 06:33 PM Hartismere High School 183 Jan 10 2018 06:10 PM Hartismere 184 Jan 10 2018 04:34 PM Hartismere IP23 7BL 185 Jan 10 2018 04:07 PM lakenheath / Mildenhall MCA 186 Jan 10 2018 02:50 PM Holbrook Acadamy 187 Jan 09 2018 12:14 PM MCA 188 Jan 09 2018 09:29 AM Farlingaye high school 189 Jan 08 2018 09:57 PM suffolk one 190 Jan 08 2018 09:20 PM Farlingaye 191 Jan 08 2018 06:44 PM Stowupland high school 192 Jan 08 2018 04:57 PM Mildenhall College Academy and MCA6 193 Jan 08 2018 04:22 PM Farlingaye IP124JX 194 Jan 08 2018 02:40 PM Mildenhall College Academy 195 Jan 08 2018 01:58 PM Farlingaye high school 196 Jan 08 2018 01:53 PM Mildenhall College Academy 197 Jan 08 2018 01:43 PM MCA 198 Jan 08 2018 01:21 PM Farlingaye, Rendlesham 199 Jan 08 2018 12:55 PM Farlingaye Woodbridge 200 Jan 08 2018 12:32 PM Farlingaye IP12 4JX 201 Jan 08 2018 11:21 AM Farlingaye 202 Jan 07 2018 08:40 AM Ixworth Free School 203 Jan 06 2018 11:40 PM Mildenhall 204 Jan 06 2018 06:17 PM Mildenhall 6th form 205 Jan 05 2018 03:18 PM not known at this point 206 Jan 05 2018 02:52 PM Mildenhall college Academy 207 Jan 05 2018 02:37 PM AVA-IP16 4BG 208 Jan 05 2018 01:10 PM MCA and MCA6 in mildenhall 209 Jan 05 2018 12:31 PM Stanton Community Primary, IP31, and St Benedicts in Bury St Edmunds 210 Jan 05 2018 11:00 AM Samuel Ward 211 Jan 05 2018 09:51 AM Thurston college ip33 3pb

1 4 7 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 212 Jan 05 2018 09:49 AM Thurston community College 213 Jan 04 2018 11:08 PM Sixth form college Colchester (we live in Suffolk) 214 Jan 04 2018 02:27 PM Stour Valley and West Suffolk College (newmarket campus) 215 Jan 04 2018 11:18 AM Mildenhall College 6th form 216 Jan 04 2018 09:03 AM IP28 217 Jan 03 2018 05:21 PM Mildenhall College Academy 218 Jan 03 2018 03:55 PM Thurston College 219 Jan 03 2018 03:16 PM Hartismere School 220 Jan 03 2018 02:42 PM Suffolk 221 Jan 03 2018 12:47 PM Thurston Community College 222 Jan 03 2018 12:23 PM King Edward VI School, Woolpit Primary Academy and Thurston Community College 223 Jan 03 2018 08:06 AM Farlingaye 224 Dec 28 2017 09:05 PM Thurston Community College IP31 3PB 225 Dec 27 2017 10:43 AM Those in Mid Suffolk and also Suffolk One 226 Dec 22 2017 06:40 AM Farlingaye 227 Dec 21 2017 11:34 PM . 228 Dec 19 2017 09:32 PM Saffron Walden County High 229 Dec 19 2017 07:10 PM Claydon high 230 Dec 19 2017 12:08 PM Suffolk one ip9 2bl 231 Dec 19 2017 11:29 AM Thurston CC & Benton Sixth 232 Dec 19 2017 11:19 AM Castle manor , west Suffolk college 233 Dec 19 2017 11:15 AM Thurston Sixth 234 Dec 19 2017 11:05 AM Stradbroke 235 Dec 19 2017 09:52 AM St Benedicts, Bury St Edmunds 236 Dec 18 2017 09:57 PM Thurston Community College 237 Dec 18 2017 09:01 PM Beyton 6th 238 Dec 18 2017 08:52 PM Debenham High School 239 Dec 18 2017 08:41 PM Beyton Sixth 240 Dec 18 2017 07:45 PM TCC IP31 3PB 241 Dec 18 2017 02:05 PM Thomas Mills 242 Dec 18 2017 12:51 PM Thurston sixth form

1 4 8 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 243 Dec 18 2017 08:18 AM Suffolk One 244 Dec 17 2017 10:52 PM Suffolk one 245 Dec 17 2017 07:52 AM Thurston currently and Thurston 6th from Sept 18 246 Dec 16 2017 06:10 PM thurston community college, main school and 6th form(at beyton) suffolk.I also have a child at Rougham Primary School 247 Dec 15 2017 09:24 PM Suffolk one 248 Dec 15 2017 09:15 PM Stowupland high school and Suffolk One 249 Dec 15 2017 05:34 PM Suffolk one 250 Dec 15 2017 05:02 PM Suffolk one 251 Dec 15 2017 02:42 PM Freemans community primary school 252 Dec 15 2017 01:49 PM Hartismere 253 Dec 15 2017 10:19 AM BUNGAY 6TH FORM 254 Dec 15 2017 09:09 AM Suffolk One 255 Dec 15 2017 07:53 AM Suffolk One 256 Dec 14 2017 10:41 PM Suffolk one 257 Dec 14 2017 10:29 PM Suffolk One 258 Dec 14 2017 08:02 PM Suffolk One 259 Dec 14 2017 05:32 PM Thomas Mills High School 260 Dec 14 2017 04:28 PM Suffolk one 261 Dec 14 2017 02:21 PM IP23 7BL 262 Dec 14 2017 02:10 PM Hartismere IP23 263 Dec 14 2017 12:57 PM Suffolk One 264 Dec 13 2017 12:50 PM Thomas Mills, Framlingham, IP13 9HE 265 Dec 13 2017 12:30 PM Thomas Mills 266 Dec 13 2017 11:40 AM Hartismere

1 4 9 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q17, If you answered that you are a pupil/young person or parent/carer please tell us how you currently travel to your school(s)? Please tick all those that are appropriate. Answer Choices Responses Walk 16.83% 52 Cycle 1.94% 6 Drive 18.45% 57 Car share 5.18% 16 Free school bus 42.07% 130 Free public bus 5.18% 16 Paid school bus 17.80% 55 Paid public bus 11.33% 35 Taxi 0.97% 3 Mileage allowance 0.32% 1 Other (please specify) 6.47% 20 Answered 309 Skipped 292

If you answered that you are a pupil/young person or parent/carer please tell us how you currently travel to your school(s)? Please tick all those that are appropriate. 50.00% 40.00% 30.00%

20.00% Responses 10.00% 0.00% Walk Cycle Drive Car share Free school Free public Paid school Paid public Taxi Mileage Other (please bus bus bus bus allowance specify)

1 5 0 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Q19, If there is anything else you would like to tell us, including alternative suggestions or local issues which may mean a loss of equality for any groups you know of, please use the box below: - Answered 118 Skipped 483

Respondents Response Date Responses 1 Mar 01 2018 12:15 AM These proposals amount to discrimination against parents and young people living in rural areas. SCC should undertake and publish an equality impact assessment that takes into account rurality as well as income. 2 Mar 01 2018 12:01 AM Only option 3 avoids a fundamental prejudice of parental choice and equality in education regardless of family wealth. Lower income families, those where both parents work and those with kids aspiring to be at the same school are wholly and unacceptably prejudiced by options 1 and 2. 3 Feb 28 2018 10:37 PM Young people now have to remain in some form of education until 18 by governmental policy, but the government has made no provision to extend LA responsibility to provide transport, the same as 5-16 year- olds.

4 Feb 28 2018 10:33 PM It is important for all children to receive an education, they should have a choice in where they go, some schools specialise in certain subject areas and those individuals that may want to go down a specific path in their lives, may be able to obtain a higher level of specific education from a school that may be slightly out of catchment 5 Feb 28 2018 07:28 PM Suffolk County Council should ask the DfE to align statutory transport duties to the current statutory education ages 5-18 or use their discretion to do this.

Paying for transport may mean an increase in the NEET figures within Suffolk. 6 Feb 28 2018 06:01 PM Yes the proposals particularly disadvantage children in rural areas. They did not choose to live there and they should have the same opportunities as children elsewhere 7 Feb 28 2018 04:49 PM WE, AS A PARISH COUNCIL SUPPORT OUR LOCAL SCHOOL ALL SAINTS SCHOOL AT LAWSHALL AND CONSIDER THAT THE CHILDREN ATTENDING THERE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KEEP THEIR FREE SCHOOL TRANSPORT. 8 Feb 28 2018 01:13 PM I understand the college/6th form bus only goes as far as Chevington and Hargrave students must find their way to Hargrave. Could this bus be extended further stop to Hargrave as with primary middle & secondary buses? 9 Feb 28 2018 12:57 PM We live in Hargrave, and understand the later bus bringing post 16 students home only brings them as far as Chevington leaving a 1 mile walk without pavements (accross fields) so only really passable in summer. In really would not be a big deal for the bus to continue 1 stop further to Hargrave like the up to 16 travel. As will all these transport changes anyone rural or on low incomes are discriminated against.

1 5 1 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 10 Feb 28 2018 11:31 AM Policies should be updated to reflect the fact the post 16 education is compulsory and therefore those pupils should be treated in the same way that under 16 pupils are. 11 Feb 27 2018 10:39 PM I’m concerned that this is not well thought through.

I want our council to be leaders and help our county to be well organised and good for all families. Options 1 and 2 just seem like the council are absolving themselves of their responsibilities. 12 Feb 27 2018 04:51 PM Have Cllr Jones resign. Sack Sarah Vize! 13 Feb 27 2018 02:59 PM If option 1 or 2 are chosen then there is a loss of equity for young people living in rural areas in accessing 16- 19 provision. 14 Feb 27 2018 02:21 PM Four Conservative members have come out and said that these proposals won't save anywhere near as much as they are saying they will. How many more are actually against it too but are too afraid to come out and say.

Is this really worth all the stress you are causing so many parents and to the detriment of our children's future education. Please think about who you are hurting and what you are doing to the standards of education in this county and if they go ahead the effects on the greenest county policy if you force so many parents onto the roads. 15 Feb 27 2018 10:37 AM Reducing 6th Form sizes impacts not just on the students who need transport but on other students whose subject options will be limited due to fewer students on roll. At a time when Suffolk is showing signs of improvement in results etc, limiting opportunity to aspiring leaders and strategists of the future is surely a backward step. 16 Feb 27 2018 09:08 AM This policy is simply discriminating against children at County Upper School in Bury St Edmunds and under the proposed consultation we would be forced to choose King Edwards which is a Church of England school. Surely this is also discrimination in that we should be allowed to choose whether our children are education in a non-denomination school or not. Why should our children be forced to go to a religious school in order to qualify for free school transport???? 17 Feb 27 2018 08:57 AM Children should be allowed to choose their school to shape their future. If one school that is not in catchment is better for their career pathway this should be supported with transport. 18 Feb 27 2018 07:52 AM Loss of equality for Suffolk pupils-what more do you need to know?!

Loss of equality for mainstream compared to SEND pupils (reverse discrimination!).

19 Feb 26 2018 09:04 PM This consultation itself must have been an expensive exercise. Where is the cost of this being counted? Will it add to the education budget?

1 5 2 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses Further consultation across the whole education budget may result in similar cost savings in other areas and in a more efficient system.

20 Feb 26 2018 07:05 PM Further consultations may help elicit further money saving ideas. The pre-consultation may not have been as far reaching as it could have been and including people involved now with the consultation might yield some other ideas. 21 Feb 26 2018 04:17 PM Young people in rural areas do not have equal access to facilities. There is little or no public transport so they mostly depend on parents to take them to places. Cycling is much more unsafe than in my day- more/faster traffic/enormous lorries and tractors. Education after 16 is vital for widening their horizons and it should be as easy for rural children to get to it as for young people in Ipswich 22 Feb 26 2018 02:20 PM Transport to compulsory education should be FREE for all. 23 Feb 26 2018 10:47 AM This is a loss of equality for children in rural areas, they are already at a transport disadvantage compared to those in towns - why are they being punished ?? This school transport system is not broken and I cannot fathom why SCC are trying to meddle. All this proposed change will serve to create is additional expense for schools and cash strapped parents who will have to drive their children to school. Hartismere has 1000 children on it's register - they are going to have to tarmac the school field to accomodate the massive volume of cars being driven in each day - Have Suffolk Police been consulted on these proposals ? 24 Feb 23 2018 09:16 AM The policy of removing free school transport discriminates again those in rural areas- it's over 2 miles walk to our nearest public bus stop and no pavements so unsafe to walk. Our geographically nearest school is not our catchment school and it's oversubscibed some years. 25 Feb 23 2018 09:15 AM Too many cars dropping off one child at school gates but there is no alternative when bus services and train services are infrequent or non existent. Timetables don't always fit in with parents work schedule so it is a difficult scenario. 26 Feb 22 2018 09:17 PM I believe this policy will adversely affect the less well off (those that are on lower incomes, but don't quiet qualify for FSM) families living in rural areas.We need to support young people to gain qualifications not make it more difficult! 27 Feb 22 2018 06:16 PM What will happen when BSE STEM Academy opens? This uncertainty is damaging children's education. They have already had their education interrupted by the changes from 3 to 2 tier. 28 Feb 21 2018 10:11 PM The true cost of implimenting changes to save funds has not be calculated accurately. The cost to adminster and manage the changes each year will be higher than with the current system.

Road safety during peak times will be reduced.

Child safety will be reduced as a result of these proposed changes.

Choice of school will be influenced by cost rarher than the benefit of the child.

1 5 3 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses

Cost saving have been ranked above my childs safety with these proposals of footpath usage.

The outcome of this survey will determin my next vote in local and national elections. 29 Feb 20 2018 07:54 PM If the decision goes ahead to remove free buses for Barrow children who go to Westley Middle and County Upper you will be impacting so many families. The cost for 2-3 children will put many families below the poverty line, and as families who are encouraged to work, we rely on this transport for our children to get home safely. We cannot afford this, and the proposal discriminates against the All Through Trust education choice (which provides year on year the best GCSE and A Level results for our young people; together with an Outstanding Ofsted). 30 Feb 20 2018 05:31 PM As post 16 education is compulsory, the transport should be on basis of other school transport 31 Feb 19 2018 09:54 PM Strongly oppose any proposed change to either school catchment areas themselves or free transport for those schools currently benefitting from free school transport. 32 Feb 17 2018 12:21 PM There is no 6th form provision in Newmarket, and Cambridge offers superior options to Suffolk. It’s a shame that young people have to travel.....maybe look at the root cause... 33 Feb 16 2018 12:06 PM Children have to be in education or training until they are 18. With the imminent, rumoured closure of Samuel Ward Sixth form we are reliant on transport to Bury St Edmunds, Sudbury or Cambridge for post-16 education for our children. We understand that there will be cost implications but it cannot be prohibitive when it is compulsory that they attend. Is there any possibility of West Suffolk creating a post-16 hub, independent of the Samuel Ward Trust, in Haverhill to cater for an expanding town with a large number of post 16 students who all need a high quality education provision? 34 Feb 14 2018 04:39 PM The sixth form at MCA6 provides a fantastic education for our young people and would have to close if admission numbers dropped (which they will do if this policy is implemented). 35 Feb 12 2018 09:26 AM it is important that SEN children attend the school which is best for them.

Faith schools we live in a society which embraces diversity.

we live in a rural county and there is a strong focus on improving education standards so therefore we need to provide this to the best of that YP ability and their prefernces 36 Feb 10 2018 04:35 PM The plans are discriminatory. They work against the rural community which is already disadvantaged by hopeless public transport and few facilities.

They are also discriminatory as they do do provide for individual young people being able to pursue their education at the establishment which best meets their interests and needs. 37 Feb 08 2018 03:40 PM I think with any policy there has to be a provision to consider exceptional circumstances so that any children who are in need but do not otherwise qualify, will not be adversely affected.

1 5 4 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 38 Feb 06 2018 04:48 PM There is a loss of equity with your proposals for those people who live rurally . What you are proposing is wrong . I want to be able to do well at school and go to university . If I have problems with transport you are stopping me doing this . Please don't do it !! 39 Feb 05 2018 01:24 PM Children's education is a basic right, therefore getting children to school or college is also a basic right and as such should be free. As children are required to stay in education until age 18 and the choice of educational facilities is much narrower, distance should not be an issue - all transport to learn should be free. Your consultation is flawed - the way the questions are structured pushes people into having to make either or decisions i.e. it is already stating that something has to change - and pushes people to make a less worse choice - which is wrong. You do not have to cut school transport or any other services if you go to central government and request more money. I note the sudden introduction of terms such as "statutory" - i.e. providing the absolute minimum that you are legally obliged to provide (this is not made clear to people and the impact of this is huge) it means the continuing erosion of any services. This is not what the government promised with austerity - it was meant to be cutting back. So you should be going to the government on behalf of us and telling them you need more, you cannot provide essential services with what you have been given. 40 Feb 02 2018 06:26 PM N/A 41 Feb 01 2018 01:55 PM I believe that as they should be going into further education then free travel to nearest college should be provided. 42 Feb 01 2018 01:39 PM As previously stated, firstly I believe SCC has an obligation to provide all children with the ability to access a choice of education to the age of 18 if the government says they must stay in a form of education to this age.

However, I do not believe it should be paid for by SCC in all cases; free or subsidised travel should not be provided to those who do not need it. 43 Feb 01 2018 11:07 AM How has a situation arisen where Council Tax payers are subsidising certain residents over and above that required under the law? 44 Jan 31 2018 04:04 PM Leave school transport alone - make savings elsewhere! Start with salaries, expenses and "bungs" received to push through planning applications. 45 Jan 30 2018 03:51 PM The routes need to be safe. Children can't walk down bridleways in treacherous weather conditions. 46 Jan 30 2018 01:08 PM Parents of children in rural areas are going to be severely penalised by these proposals. Not all children want to go to their nearest Sixth Form and indeed if they are continuing education which is a legal requirement, why should the parents suddenly have to find hundreds of pounds for transport costs - the public transport in rural areas is non-existent.

I have a child at Suffolk One, the only way she could get there was for me to drive her to Stradbroke where she picked up the bus to Ipswich, then had to change to another bus to Suffolk One and then do the same journey home. This means that she leaves home at 7.15am and does not return home until 6.35pm. Her day is far too long and affects her concentration and ability to complete all of her homework as she is just too tired to do it

1 5 5 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses when she gets home. I was offered the train service from Diss to Ipswich and then she would have had to get a bus from Ipswich to Suffolk One. The Transport Team accepted that this was not ideal as there was no bus service between our home and Diss Train Station 10 miles away. 47 Jan 30 2018 07:33 AM If the Conservative Govt funded local authorities properly including social care, and if Suffolk County Council stopped using expensive private firms who profit from essential public services, this consultation would be unnecessary. 48 Jan 29 2018 08:12 PM I have 5 children. 4 of these went to Rattlesden primary and then to Beyton and Thurston when it was not in the Rattlesden catchment area. We paid thousands of pounds over the years to school transport, and many children from Rattlesden walked 3/4 mile down a 60 mile busy rural road with no pavements or areas to step onto when cars came along at 60/70 miles per hour. We literally we waiting for the day a child would be killed on this journey. It was unsafe, yet 99% of the children from Rattlesden primary went to Thurston, rather than the Stowupland catchment school at the time and walked down this road to get the bus, which we had to pay for. It has only been in the last couple of years that you have seen sense and altered the catchment area and provided buses into the village. To think these buses will be removed or not supplied for these children again will put so may young lives at risk. Parents will not choose Stowupland school over the catchment school of Thurston, you will be risking their lives, and taking significant financial resources from families who are already struggling to live in a rural, under-resourced community. Parents are already financially restricted as the local rural primary school are unable to provide pre and after school care, meaning usually only one parent can work whilst children are of school age. You are further burdening families who are already restricted in their choices with these plans. Post 16 children will not be able to continue in mainstream education but will be forced onto the few public buses that run to access apprenticeship type schemes as A'level education will not be feasible. 49 Jan 29 2018 03:18 PM We would be happy to pay a subsided fee for a seat on the bus. 50 Jan 28 2018 03:45 PM Rural discrimination! 51 Jan 28 2018 10:49 AM Just to say this would be very disruptive to my daughters , and many others education at a crucial time.

I do not feel effectively forcing children out of LEA schools into Free schools or academies is acceptable.

You have no idea if you'd save money from this and it may well actually cost you money .

Parents could well be put in the position of giving up work in order to drive their children to school.

It would be the families on lowest incomes who would suffer the greatest here , you can't feel comfortable with that ? 52 Jan 28 2018 09:22 AM When you make your decision, remember the already poor social mobility score we received as a county 53 Jan 27 2018 03:46 PM Loss of equality for children living in small rural villages and those on low incomes

1 5 6 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 54 Jan 27 2018 02:24 PM While in rural locations transport is a challenge this needs to be looked at. 55 Jan 27 2018 12:22 AM Options 1 and 2 are unfair to low income families. Bridal paths and rural walk ways are not safe to be used. Inclement weather would make surfaces unsuitable. Frequently dark in winter months.

Siblings should not be split. 56 Jan 25 2018 11:52 PM Children should NOT be made to change schools to accommodate this change. Children who are expelled and have to go to schools outside their catchment should not be given taxis. 57 Jan 25 2018 09:56 PM This is a poorly thought through policy 58 Jan 25 2018 02:54 PM I think changing all this transport will cause more hassele and money and children will loose out in there school work because more. Will be late to school as there will be no where for family's to park outside the schools trouble waiting to happen

59 Jan 24 2018 03:14 PM Removing subsidies to post 16 education is an appalling and economically myopic proposal. In a county where there should be a total commitment to supporting young people to access the best possible educational opportunities in an attempt to redress the many disadvantages of living in a mostly rural area, the county is taking a retrograde step. Our community taxes are paid to provide services for all - not least our young people. Abandon these cuts and invest in the future of our county. 60 Jan 24 2018 12:59 PM The lack of school transport will have an impact on working women. People need to have a clear idea of what will be happening with the schools before they commit to sending their children to high school. So the impact of this consultation needs to be pushed through quickly. Buses are much better than 53 cars for the environment. 61 Jan 24 2018 09:15 AM Free school transport to all catchment area schools gives parents choice. If a child has to change school for whatever reason, or if a certain school is unable to meet their requirements, the council should support the parents in their decision and help by providing free school transport. 62 Jan 23 2018 04:59 PM Incentives need to be provided to 16+ children to travel to school by themselves. Loan bikes, subsidised lunches (assuming they cost less than the travel) etc. 63 Jan 23 2018 02:26 PM There is only one bus that goes through our village - the school bus to Thurston . If your 5-16 proposals are carried through this would be removed ( children would be forced to go to Ixworth Free which does not have a sixth form). Therefore there would be no other transport available. This is discrimination against rural children and is totally unacceptable 64 Jan 20 2018 07:59 PM The stress this is causing parents is significant. This should not have been imposed at a time that we are only just recovering from school reorganisation. You should raise taxes before suggesting such extreme action as removing free school transport. 65 Jan 19 2018 10:00 AM If there would be an option of paying for school travel, I would be happy to pay, as long as if doesn't affect their bus journey/times.

1 5 7 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 66 Jan 19 2018 07:36 AM Look at local provision, you say that some of this issue is caused by providing nursery transport, nursery provision is plentiful in most towns - stop providing this, nursery attendance is not compulsory education so you should not be providing transportation until compulsory school age.

Post 16 education is compulsory, and provision is a lot less so should be freely available to all. 67 Jan 18 2018 10:14 PM As I have said throughout, Charsfield children are disadvantaged as we have no public transport to either Framlingham or Woodbridge. Out catchment School at 11 is different to our nearest sixth form. It needs to be the same for both in our village and any other villages with the same issue. It is unfair to stress children with a forced move. Some can make the change but for many it would be devastating to change at such a critical time.

If you lined up the two, I am sure that lots of issues would disappear. Should children choose to move then I would have no issue with then having to take responsibility for transport. We need one safe choice. 68 Jan 18 2018 03:29 PM The changes proposed in options 1 and 2 limit the choices available to people who already suffer deprivations of rural isolation and who already have reduced access to almost all other public services.

The changes proposed in options I and 2 proposals impact people in reduced circumstances most.

Parents want their children to be safe on reliable school buses that do not have random members of the public travelling on them. 69 Jan 17 2018 08:24 PM If you cut transport you will be causing an increase in traffic around schools causing an increase in hazards and potential raised risks to health and safety

Parents who rely on school transport due to their own disability and inability to get children to school due to remoteness will be disadvantaged 70 Jan 17 2018 05:22 PM In the consultation booklet option 1 point 2 (for under 16's) it says "2. Continue to provide free travel to children of compulsory school age who have a statutory entitlement (see page 6). Travel would be provided for eligible children in the term after they reach their fifth birthday".

Children leave preschools to go to school in the September of the academic year they turn 5 and enter reception classes. They may not therefore be able to afford to access school for up to a full year.

I may have misunderstood but if not local nurseries and the Early Years Team at SCC should be made aware of the implications to primary schools, preschools, families etc etc...

1 5 8 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 71 Jan 17 2018 03:34 PM My son is Dyslexic. Neither he nor my daughter are academically gifted, although they attain average marks. At Thurston Community College there is a wide range of other activities and subjects which benefit them more than the standard academic subjects.

They are both sporty and represent their school in events, which is vital for their self confidence. This would not be possible if they have to move to our geographically closest school as this currently only has less than 400 pupils and a much more limited curriculum and range of activities. Whilst we are closer to Ixworth school it is still over 3 miles away, so they would require school transport, but for a slightly shorter journey. 72 Jan 17 2018 12:38 PM Please consider the wider implications of this decision - it is not just about School transport. It had implications for existing public transport services, local traffic congestion and for the education standards of this County. 73 Jan 17 2018 12:07 PM 6th form provision should be retained in Haverhill, otherwise young people will lose out. 74 Jan 17 2018 08:01 AM School transport MUST be free for all children. 75 Jan 16 2018 11:08 PM Its unfair to penalise children who live in rural areas who are unable to walk to and from school because of the distance!! Town children at least have the option of walking to school,our high school kids out here DO NOT have that option!! 76 Jan 14 2018 07:26 PM I can only reiterate that the potential of the closing of our Sixth Form would severely compromise the opening of the HUB as this is an integral part of this plan.

It would also compromise pupil and parent choice not being able to attend a great Sixth Form with A level and Applied courses running side by side. The pupils at this Sixth Form currently out perform many of the other Sixth Form sites. Parental and pupil choice HAS to be offered. 77 Jan 14 2018 04:27 PM N/A 78 Jan 12 2018 01:58 PM Be wary that your 'Vertas' option is actually reducing choice and parental control and council control over school transport. Currently private companies can have there contract removed if there is a problem - how does the council remove the contract from council owned Vertas? 79 Jan 12 2018 11:31 AM It already cost us £15 a week. 80 Jan 11 2018 05:48 PM Just pure disgust that this is even being discussed , it seems no matter what these surveys or meetings that take place these desicions are already made behind closed doors anyway 81 Jan 10 2018 07:49 PM Some schools will potentially. Become overcrowed wont the council have to fund that and what about children on IEPs their nearest school may not have enough senco teachers to support them, i cant believe the council are happy to upset and hinder the education of hundreds of children, you should be ashamed of yourselves, i am disgusted at the proposal 82 Jan 10 2018 07:33 PM How about you stop paying yourselves so much money which will then free up plenty of money for all the services that we require to live properly.

1 5 9 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 83 Jan 10 2018 02:53 PM Special needs transport should not be touched, however given free bus passes to families where they are claiming benefits and not seeking work should be stopped. 84 Jan 09 2018 03:56 PM Losing pupils from certain schools may mean job losses at that school.

Rural Suffolk is not the place to be walking down unlit winding roads at dusk if parents unable to afford bus fees. 85 Jan 09 2018 01:07 PM Rural areas with low public transport links provide many difficulties with these proposals. I think parents paying for increased bus fares will prove discriminatory - those with better finances will be able to facilitate their student's choices and those with less will not.

The Government has raised the education participation age to 18 - surely Suffolk has to ensure that all post 16 students have access which is not based on a 'means test'.

With the building of a new Sixth Form in Bury it seems that an unfair advantage will be given to those living within walking distance of a Sixth Form College. 86 Jan 08 2018 04:23 PM Transport for education should be a right to ensure equality of access for all children in education up to age 19. Anything other than this is likely to discriminate against poorer families who cannot afford town house prices. 87 Jan 08 2018 01:21 PM Education should be amongst the highest priorities for Suffolk County Council, inline with the “Inclusive Growth” priority in SCC 2017-21 document, i.e. “...improve...levels of educational attainment...”. If less students are attracted to our schools due to transport restrictions, it has a direct impact on budgets and therefore will directly affect results. If this is the case, how can SCC expect to maintain or improve OfSted results? It makes no sense! Whilst the unfair budgetary pressures levied on Suffolk County Council have to be born from somewhere, impacting education further is frankly dangerous and any risk and impact assessments should be made public prior to changes and consultation.

The time for austerity is over and ‘the line’ was crossed a long time ago, allowing unsafe and under-resourced practices within local government. Education of our young people is majorly important however, so please see sense and allow students to flourish within the establishments they have elected or are entitled to attend. Do not negatively impact schools budgets, therefore performance, through the introduction of this reckless proposal 88 Jan 08 2018 12:35 PM I'm so weary of being asked to solve problems that local authorities are being paid to do. You mask this survey as public consultation, the decision has probably already been made, officers and managers have probably already been guaranteed the work to scurry around making these inappropriate systems work.

Get rid of more officers and managers and spend that money on providing the services we need. I work in a private sector business but with local authorities and see the utter waste of resources and money that go on

1 6 0 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses every single day by the councils. It is disgusting. OUR MONEY SHOULD BE SPENT ON EDUCATION, HEALTH AND TRANSPORT. 89 Jan 06 2018 11:41 PM Like the state of high ways it’s terrible do the repairs

Damaging cars in road

Not just in the a roads

Timescale notgood 90 Jan 05 2018 05:06 PM The consultation document offers no credible evidence of properly costed impact assessments and ignores the impact on children in poverty - contrary to government guidelines on this issue. 91 Jan 05 2018 03:34 PM Reducing transport will force some that live in out lying areas that normally use school transport will be forced to find alternate facilities to attend and it will force a school closure and teacher jobs. 92 Jan 05 2018 03:20 PM Maybe part of the problem is that you are bussing in students who wouldn't normally be at college / sixth form as they would have previously been out working and supporting the community in other ways. Therefore part of the problem is not down to the parents so you cannot expect parents to cover the cost of what is not our oversight! Maybe part of the sum of money the school receives for our young person should be allocated to transport costs? 93 Jan 05 2018 02:53 PM We currently live in Mildenhall, but this may change by the time my son gets to 6th form. I want him to go to 6th form and then to university and I am worried what the provision will be available to him if these transport changes happen. 94 Jan 05 2018 02:40 PM I have concerns for local families with bright children who have fears over lengthy travel or lack of funds . The forms you have to fill in to receive help are complicated and will put off many people who might settle for the easiest option which is becoming narrower and narrower. 95 Jan 05 2018 11:02 AM Please can the County Council intervene to ensure A Level post 16 provision continues in Haverhill. This would reduce travel costs and increase participation. 96 Jan 03 2018 03:17 PM I do not have the required financial information to make an intelligent informed decision.

Some of the statistics used where they may be true are misleading. 97 Jan 03 2018 02:42 PM The driver for the change is a financial one. There is no financial modeling in the consultation document and no details about financial outcomes or savings. Therefore, the detail that is needed to make an intelligent judgment about the validity of the proposals is not there 98 Jan 03 2018 08:13 AM I do feel this is a forgone conclusion and decisions will have already been made.

It's unfortunate that our elected councillors do not support rural students.and encourage them to attend local 6th forms rather than put obstacles in the way.

1 6 1 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses

As for our local MP Mrs Coffey she should be more vocal in supporting the people who elected her and reminded that her constituents should be a priority in government.

99 Dec 24 2017 09:30 AM Meetings.... 100 Dec 19 2017 12:12 PM I live in a village 13 minutes from Suffolk one, yet there is no dedicated transport and a public bus service which runs every 2 hours to Ipswich and the government wonders why there's so many cars on the road. 101 Dec 19 2017 11:49 AM The proposal seems to be divisive and unjust - students should have the right to choose where they would like to continue their post-16 education. It is unfair that this decision will also have to consider whether or not a person can get to their chosen establishment. Their choices should be based on academic and pastoral considerations, not transport.

Furthermore, it is inevitable that those individuals whose families struggle financially will end up having to go to their nearest school, which may not necessarily offer the courses they wish to pursue.Surely, it is precisely these students we wish to encourage to break the cycle of poverty, by supporting them in pursuing higher education, not discouraging them by placing barriers in their way. 102 Dec 19 2017 11:16 AM My child will drive to sixth form if there is no bus. This will add to the congestion.

103 Dec 19 2017 11:02 AM Disabled young people must NOT be impacted by any changes. Ensuring that disabled children get to the MOST SUITABLE school for them is all important and this may not necessarily be the closest school. As a tax payer I am very happy to continue paying for these families to access the best services for their children.

104 Dec 19 2017 10:00 AM Post 16 transport should be provided to support youngsters pursue their careers even if their parents have to pay.

105 Dec 19 2017 09:53 AM If buses and rail services charged reasonable fares, families on lower incomes who are not in the entitlement bracket would have more choice on where to send their children to school. Working families who don't quite meet the criteria are the group suffering the most disadvantage.

106 Dec 18 2017 08:44 PM Loss of school transport discriminates against children living in rural areas with very limited public transport and families where one parent is able to work reduced hours in order to take child/children to school. 107 Dec 18 2017 07:45 PM I think you should check the wording of some of your questions! 108 Dec 18 2017 05:06 PM I think these are terrible ideas which will impact adversely on the education of the next generation of children in Suffolk, particularly children from low income families who will be forced to go to their nearest school irrespective of it's quality. What was the point of allowing schools to become academies and free schools and to encourage parents to exercise free choice if this is then restricted only to those who can afford it?

1 6 2 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses 109 Dec 18 2017 12:46 PM Suffolk tried to force our son to go to a school in Norfolk as it was - the closest provider. What they failed to consider was that the school bus to our catchment school stopped at the end of our drive. There is no other means of transport to the local school as there is no bus route to said school. This would have meant my wife giving up work and reducing the family income. You do not understand how stressful this sort of thing is. We pay taxes for this - use our money better 110 Dec 16 2017 06:14 PM Before making any changes, you need to physically walk around / drive around the rural villages in this area (Thurston, Beyton, Rougham , Hessett. ) You need to understand that safe school trasnport is the only option for our children. The roads cannot take more cars, they are in a disgraceful state of repair as it is. Pot holes, flooding, single lane, not gritted in the winter. And to ask a child to walk to school from most of these areas is ridiculous, and impossible. 111 Dec 16 2017 04:35 PM You must listen to the people who are directly involved. They have years worth of knowledge and experience. Don't make a decision that will tear our community apart. 112 Dec 15 2017 09:24 PM Run bus from leiston / Saxmundham to Suffolk one 113 Dec 15 2017 07:54 AM Cuts always seem to make lives harder for those who already have hard lives. Everything needs to be done to shift the difficulty to those who are able to afford it the most. 114 Dec 14 2017 05:09 PM The damage caused to students with learning difficulties or special educational needs could be disastrous. 115 Dec 14 2017 04:11 PM There will always be that vulnerable group that will require specialised transport/taxi and agree that travel training has been positive to support moving towards being independent - there still needs to be that option to ensure these yp can access post 16 116 Dec 14 2017 04:05 PM It seems from the outside an easy solution to save money by cutting child transport, as the numbers it will affect (in terms of those who will complain and are voters) is relatively low. But it will seriously affect a great number of children and parents in rural areas, who seem to get the brunt of all 'central' council and Government decisions. 117 Dec 13 2017 12:31 PM A diverse curriculum on offer at a 6th form college which is not the nearest accounts for exceptional circumstances currently and should continue 118 Dec 13 2017 11:53 AM There is very little choice for Post 16 Education for children who live in rural areas. SCC continuously talk about "raising the bar" and giving children more choice. Yet nothing is done to enable the children to access this mythical raised bar. If children cannot access the options available at their nearest Post 16 provider or they do not offer the options children would like to study, children in rural areas are stuck. The public transport is almost non-existent and where public transport exists it is not remotely at a time suitable to help children access educational establishments. Instead of messing around with this ridiculous consultation, pull your fingers out and sort out the public transport system. That way you will enable the young people to access the Post 16 education that suits them. By forcing them to attend establishments that are not suitable for them through lack of choice or transport you, as a County, will continue to fail to reach your "bar" and penalise the young people who could, if you let them, help you get there. So step 1 is to consult on how to improve public transport, step 2 could be to consult on changes to Post 16 transport to education. There is little point

1 6 3 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018 Respondents Response Date Responses consulting on something that doesn't exist. At the moment you are offering the children a golden future by promising to "raise the bar" but still enabling them to reach it, then you lower the floor beneath their feet by preventing them from accessing the Post 16 education that will help them achieve their full potential and therefore helping SCC reach their "rasied bar". Remember that there are many areas in Suffolk that are very rural, there is no public transport and that needs to be rectified.

1 6 4 | P a g e R e d a c t e d Monday, 09 April 2018