Debenham High School

A Church of England High Performing Specialist Academy

26th February 2018

Mr. C. Noble & Members of the Cabinet Suffolk County Council Endeavour House 8 Russell Road IPSWICH IP1 2BX

Dear Cabinet Member,

REFERENCE: PROPOSED CHANGES TO MAINSTREAM SCHOOL TRANSPORT

I write as Headteacher of Debenham High School but also as someone who has given over 25 years of service in the education of young people in Suffolk. I have worked in Stowmarket, Lowestoft, Bury St Edmunds and now Debenham since my arrival in Suffolk in 1993 as a newly qualified teacher.

I write with grave concern over the proposed changes to transport policy as outlined in the public consultation document of 12 December 2017. The potential impact to Debenham High School would be a net loss of 65 students (based on current transport arrangements), a significant number, estimated at 10% of our current student population, yet my concerns and considerations for cabinet go beyond the impact that might be seen by Debenham High School or others at an individual institution level.

The proposal does not promote social equality At present schools work closely with neighbouring, catchment feeder schools and whilst it is recognised that not all schools have a traditional catchment area, this is the case for the majority of High Schools. This policy will mean the end of catchment areas as their role will be meaningless. There are two possible outcomes that are possible from this:

1. High Schools could chose to maintain a catchment area principle in their admissions policy. They would continue to work closely with schools in their catchment area, supporting development across phases and establishing activities and shared opportunities (for staff and students) that ensure smooth transition and effective continuity of learning. This, you might think, would be commendable and likely to result in continued improvement across all stages of education in Suffolk. However, this policy will mean that students who are part of this work, will find that whilst they gain a place at their catchment secondary school for transition, that they do not have free transport to get there. The social isolation that a child might feel, having had interactions from High School, that they might not be able to then attend that school in the future.

Gracechurch Street, Debenham, Suffolk IP14 6BL Tel 01728 860213 Fax 01728 860998 Email [email protected] Website www.debenhamhigh.co.uk

Headteacher: Miss J Upton BSc Senior Leadership Team: Mr S Martin, Miss S McBurney, Mrs L Ramsay, Mrs T Willmott Chairman of the Academy Trust: Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Chairman of Governors: Mr David Carruthers

Debenham High School is a company limited by guarantee and registered in England and Wales with company No. 07467445 Unintended Consequence: Those that cannot afford to find another means of transport will attend another school and hence transition work undertaken will have been worthless and the child will feel isolated from their peers on transition

2. It is possible that as a result of the change in transport policy that High Schools chose to make a change to their admissions policy. Academies are not bound by keeping a catchment area first principle in their admissions policy. High Schools might chose to work with only some chosen feeder primary schools, hence the possibility of isolating some schools and leaving some geographical areas, with no school in which their child would be likely to gain a place.

Unintended Consequence: The potential manipulation and loss of catchment areas could mean that social equality and access to High School places is not fair or equitable for some children.

The proposal will have a negative impact on educational standards in Suffolk It is fact that in a time of significant organisational change that standards are hard to maintain. The proposed changes will have an impact on the staffing (increasing or decreasing) of 21 of the 39 High Schools. Changes in staffing (either joining or leaving) will mean a period of instability and hence poorer results in the schools affected. In those schools who will lose staff, redundancy changes will likely see schools lose experienced staff, hence weakening teams. In those schools who will gain staff, building new teams, adapting to bigger cohorts takes time to establish good practice. At a time when significant public funds have been spent on the improvement of educational standards in Suffolk, through the Raising the Bar agenda, this proposal will set back any improvements made and undermines the considerable effort and resource which has been spent on this agenda. The policy proposal, despite numerous calls for it, has failed to provide any analysis of the potential educational impact of this change. It is being presented on a financial basis alone, with no considerations for the consequences of the change.

Unintended Consequence: In both situations, standards will fall for some time (generally acknowledged to be at least a period of five years to adapt to such change). Can Suffolk afford for 54% of its secondary schools to dip in standards? The evidence is clear, that whether a school grows or shrinks, standards will fall.

Suffolk schools are still dealing with the impact of SOR changes SOR has had and is still having a significant impact on educational standards in Suffolk, as a result of the great disruption caused. SOR did however create new and improved relationships between primary and secondary schools. Much time, expertise and money has been invested in these relationships which aid transition for all, but most especially for vulnerable students.

Unintended consequences: One implication of this policy change is established (in SOR areas possibly new relationships) relationships become difficult to maintain as an impact of the change in policy losing continuity.

The proposal is scheduled at a time of significant financial change and challenge for schools The new funding formula is due to be implemented in the next two to three years. This change comes at a time of increased pension and national insurance contributions for all schools. This results to a net decrease in funding for schools of 5%. There are no proposals from the DfE that schools will receive money to address these increased outgoings. In fact we are constantly reminded that we will have to “cut our cloth” accordingly.

Unintended Consequence: Schools who will be struggling with changes in funding and stretched budgets already will face further disruptive change, which will distract schools from the focus on teaching and learning and result in a drop in standards.

The proposal creates rural discrimination Policies that are implemented such as this in more urban areas have a very different consequence. In an urban environment, parental choice and transport is much easier facilitated when more than one school is within walking distance. The proposal that this policy should use rights of way as part of the nearest school calculation is just one element of how the proposal has not taken into account of the needs of a rural environment.

Unintended Consequence: Families who live in a rural area, with less access to public transport and other transport routes will be left with no choice, whereas in more urban settings this policy would not create the same rural discrimination.

The proposal will result in the diversion of the use of public money for the education of young people, for the transport of them to schools It has been suggested that schools could use their own income to create their own transport arrangements for those who might be affected by the loss of student numbers. This will be money that is intended for students’ education once at school, not in order to get them there.

Unintended Consequence: This goes against the Nolan Principles expected of those in public office and will result in the misuse of public money intended for the purpose of education of young people.

Schools in the East of England face a teacher recruitment crisis The government has recognised the dire and immediate recruitment crisis facing the teaching profession. In January 2018 the public accounts committee admonished the education department (DfE) for not foreseeing the shortage of teachers and taking action to avoid it. The stark statistics are:  As of 18 December 2017, 12,820 people had applied for teacher training. At the same point in the previous recruitment cycle, 19 December 2016, 19,330 people had made applications. The figures equate to a drop of 6,510 (33 per cent)  The number of teachers leaving the profession for non-retirement reasons increased from 22,260, or 6%, in 2011 to 34,910, or 8.1%, in 2016.  At least 25% of teachers leave the profession within five years of qualification, take this to ten years and the percentage is closer to 50%  The issue in the East of England is the bleakest in the whole country – o Mathematics: Nationally 58% of schools report difficulties recruiting; East of England 65% o Science: 45% of schools report difficulties recruiting; East of England 56% o English: Nationally 40% of schools report difficulties recruiting; East of England 46% o IT/Computer Science: Nationally 21% of schools report difficulties recruiting; East of England 30% o MFL: Nationally 16% of schools report difficulties recruiting; East of England 46% o Design and Technology: Nationally 13% of schools report difficulties recruiting; East of England 23%

Unintended Consequence: Further destabilisation and change in Suffolk will only discourage more teachers from joining or remaining in the profession. It is not true to say that all those that leave one school will join another. This move will likely be the trigger for many to leave the profession for good. Do we really need to compound the already stark recruitment crisis?

The proposal will cost public funds more than it will save in the redundancy and recruitment for school The significant impact that this will have on some schools will incur a cost far greater than the savings that it proposes. The cost of the redundancy of members of staff in just the two most affected schools is expected to be in the region of £3.4 million. Even where these schools are academies a proportion of this will still be met by the Local Authority, with terms and conditions on academy conversion that mean that the cost of years prior to conversion are met by the employer at the time, not the academy itself. The savings to be made would need to be significant to outweigh the costs incurred with these redundancy packages. Alongside this, it should not be though that recruitment occurs without financial cost. The cost of an advert in the local media and Suffolk Schools Website is in the region of £500 for an advert for one week. For an advert in the Times Education Supplement, the teaching recruitment hub, a basic advert costs in the region of £1,500.

Unintended Consequence: Further inappropriate spending of public money as a direct result of this proposal, which will be taken from the education of current pupils.

So, I ask Cabinet, based on all this, are the savings significant enough for the cost, disruption and most importantly drop in standards that will be caused?

What else can be done to save funds? I propose that there are more savings to be made through other areas, perhaps even in the area of education and transport. In the last four years the mainstream transport costs have dropped from £11.7 million in 2013 to £10.5 million in 2017. By contrast the cost for transport of those not in mainstream education has increased from £7.2 million to £10.5 million. This is at the same time as the cost of the educational provision for those with SEND in Suffolk, having been overspent for at least the last four years. As a member of Schools Forum I am aware of the inefficient spending on SEND students in Suffolk, as has been highlighted in a number of reports. If we were to address the provision to SEND in a timely and coherent manner, we would in the same breath address the cost of transport in this area, I am sure with potential savings of even greater than the quoted £200,000 per year to mainstream transport that this proposal suggests.

Time has not been given for further exploration of local solutions, either at a school or county level. I would not wish to question the efficiency of the mainstream transport system as it stands at present but to what extent have further solutions been

As an Accounting Officer for Public Funds I am fully aware that difficult decisions sometimes need to be made. However, I implore the members of cabinet to consider this proposal understanding fully the implications of this decision. The negative impact that this will have on the educational standards in Suffolk cannot be underestimated.

Yours sincerely

Miss Julia Upton Headteacher Parental Comments from East Bergholt High School

Parental |Comments on School transport consultation from a survey undertaken by East Bergholt High School – February 2018

The impact of more parents having to transport children to school in cars. Is both bad for the environment and the school and local area to manage the increased traffic

I think it is a mistake to remove the transport. We live in a village and there is no school my daughter can walk or bike to. This would mean adding a lot of unnecessary car journeys. This is awful for the environment not to mention the added traffic. My daughters both have asthma and the pollution adds to them being poorly.

I work full time and would have to get 1 child to primary school for 8:20 and then 1 to EBHS and be in Work for 8:40....impossible task. We do not have £900 a year spare to pay for transport. I understand the need for savings to be made but my child attends her nearest school, but it is too far and dangerous with the A12 to walk.

I have on several occasions tried to get my child into the local school but there is no availability. We moved out of catchment just over a year ago. The free bus is a lifeline. I work so I'm unable to take by car, the only service bus runs after 10am and I couldn't possibly afford £900 a year to cover bus fares. Ridiculous and frustrating as this will be his last school year (year 11) so moving schools isn't really an option as it would be too disruptive.

I SENT MY CHILD TO THIS SCHOOL IN THE BELIEF THAT IT IS MY CHILDS NEAREST SCHOOL. IT IS THE FEEDER SCHOOL TO THE PIMARY SCHOOL MY SON ATTENDED. YET YOUR CHECKER SAYS THE SCHOOL IN THE NEXT COUNTY IS THE CLOSEST SCHOOL. IT IS UNSAFE TO EXPECT HIM TO WALK TO THE SCHOOL AS THERE ARE NO FOOT PATHS AT VARIOUS POINTS WHICH EVER WAY HE WERE TO WALK ONE IS A STEEP WINDING HILL WHICH IS SCARY EVEN ON A BIKE AS I HAVE TRIED MYSELF AND WOULD NOT ALLOW HIM TO ATTEMPT. TO WALK THE OTHER WAY WOULD PUT ANOTHER MILES WALK ON THE JOURNEY FOR HIM THEN HE WOULD HAVE TO GO DOWN MILE STRAIGHT AT EAST END WHICH HAS NO FOOT PATH. IF I WERE TO CHANGE SCHOOLS HE WOULD BE DISTRAUGHT AS HE HAS SETTLED IN SO WELL AT EASTBERGHOLT.HE WOULD STILL HAVE TO WALK ALONG THE RIVER WERE YOU GET VAGRANTS AND OTHER STRANGERS WHO PUT FEAR INTO YOU JUST BY WALKING PAST AS I HAVE FELT MYSELF O FAMILY WALKS THERE. AS A HOUSEHOLD WE CANNOT AFFORD £900 TO GET HIM TO SCHOOL. WHY IS EAST BERGHOLT THE FEEDER SCHOOL IF NOT THE CLOSEST AND HOW YOUR CHECKER CAN SAY IT ISNT I DONT KNOW. DID SOME SOMEONE DRAW A STRAIGHT LINE WITH A RULER THAT DOES NOT COUNT ROADS AND ROUTES TO GET THERE? MY HUSBAND LEAVES FOR WORK AT 630 AND I START WORK FROM HOME AT 730 AND CANNOT TAKE HIM DUE TO NATURE OF MY JOB. IT IS A COMPLETE NIGHTMARE. I DONT KNOW WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO VERY WORRYING?????

My problem would occur with getting my children home from school. I can drop them before I go to work in the morning but it would mean they are both in school one hour before they need to be there - I would expect the school to make provision for this rather than having them stand outside in the cold for an hour. I would be unable to collect them from school at pick-up time as I work longer hours so they would have to get transport or again the school would have to make provision for them to wait for an hour after school if they were to continue at EBHS. I would not be prepared to pay £900 for each child for a return trip only on a bus. I think EBHS is a fantastic school and I would want my children to continue at the school. I would also want my 3rd child to attend the school too when his time comes. However, I cannot afford to pay £900 per child for one bus journey each day. Walking to EBHS from Brantham is unsafe. There is no pavement past East End and you cannot take footpaths/bridleways into consideration due to being unlit, muddy and unsafe. I have seen the speed cars and Parental Comments from East Bergholt High School lorries travel.along these roads and a child on a bike with books, lunch and pe bags is also unsafe in my opinion, plus farm vehicles in and out along Straight Road. The roads are not lit between Brantham and EBHS. Consideration must be given to rural areas as we have different factors to consider than town schools. The safety of children must come first and also the child's right to attend their catchment school. Maybe catchment/closest school rules are changing but for those children already in a school under the old catchment rules it is very unfair to put changes in place during their years at the school and very disruptive for a child's education if they have to move schools part way through their high school education. A mass move of students will also be disruptive to the education system and the individual schools. The congestion around EBHS and East Bergholt itself at school drop off/pick up time will be detrimental to all road users - how are schools and roads supposed to cope with the extra cars that will be turning up each day if school bus services are cut? Not to mention the pollution increase of these extra vehicles doing extra miles. Cutting bus services is not the answer to council financial problems. As cheesy as it sounds, children are the future, please don't mess with their right to a good education in a good school.

I spend over £150.00 a month at one time as had 3 children going last year I am shocked at the prices especially that I live in Ipswich and Ipswich school children’s can use there pass at weekend also but my kids then have to pay for transportation over the weekend , if the bus company run by the same company then all children must be given the same charges and same ability to use the pass ove4 the weekend and get a monthly pass for the same price .

People who are not within catchment and opt to send their child to a different school shouldn't be entitled to free transport. It's the parents choice to send them to that school.

I understand that the council needs to make savings and wouldn't object to paying towards school transport but not £900!

At the moment I have to buy a daily or weekly bus ticket on the bus. I would dearly love to be able to purchase a pass that lasts half a term - or even a whole term, rather than try and find the correct money in cash each week.

I also have 2 stepchildren who have to go to school by bus and the free service was suddenly taken away. Our eldest child continued to get free transport to school until she left as she was enjoying free transport, our youngest had to pay from year 7. I can't believe that any parent will be willing to pay £1,800 to send 2 children to school

I agree with the policy entirely. Why should the council pay for transport to whichever school parents choose that isn't their closest. I have to pay and don't see why others don't if they choose not to attend the school to which free transport is provided.

If this does go ahead I hope the school will help arrange school transport as mentioned in the meeting

Walking or cycling to school isn't an option as the roads are extremely dangerous, with fast moving traffic and very little or no paths. There is also the issue of Safeguarding with many incidents increasing of people approaching children to and from school. Moving to the nearest school is also not an option, firstly as my daughter is currently taking her GCSE options and would severely disrupt her education if moved at such a critical time. Secondly, there is also the fact that there are no available spaces at her nearest school. Parental Comments from East Bergholt High School

When we moved into the village we knew there was a free school bus which was part of the reason we moved as I am a non driver . I work part time and could not afford the £900 a year to send my child to school.

My son will be 12 and I feel I’ll have to change or give up my job to be able to take and pick him up as a nearly 4mile walk to school on country roads will be a risk to his safety.

The road to EBHS is not cycle friendly. Very windey and narrow. So I would drive as would I suspect other parents which would mean more traffic on the road which is wrong in so many ways

My son's education would most certainly suffer from the change of school.

I would probably have to leave my current job as I can’t afford to pay £1800 for school transport.

Although my children will have left by Sept 2019, for the sake of all other pupils, I would suggest the councellors proposing this plan get out of their offices and actually try to walk/cycle the road route from Brantham to East Bergholt - no paths, no lighting, not even safe verges for the majority of the route.

Although this does not really affect me as I pay for school transport, I believe the council should maintain the status quo as the proposal is a nonsense in rural areas, which is unlikely to deliver the large savings that are envisaged.

Whilst EBHS is my son's catchment school, it is not his nearset. However, his nearest school (Chantry) is still more than 3 miles distant and as such if I did decide to move him to his nearset school, Suffolk County Council would still have to provide free school transport and thus make no saving at all (indeed may cost more as the transport would end up sat in traffic getting out of the village and the joureny time would be longer!). I may look at potential car sharing, but this would not be possible on all days. Currently he catches the mini-bus/taxi right outsdie our house, but I would be happy for him to walk/cycle to a meeting point in the village to get on the main school bus from Copdock.

The road has no path in most areas if the child was to walk/cycle and the road is extremely busy and unsafe with no lighting in most areas either, this would prove to be a potential fatality waiting to happen.

I can not foresee how I could afford the bus fee if the free transport was removed

Is it possible for children living a little further away to travel to existing bus stops and join free buses?

The road outside the school main entrance is a nightmare with traffic at the moment, especially at 9am and 3.35pm, so what on earth will it be like when there are many more parents picking up their kids from school by car in the future? The road will not cope with that much traffic on it, it's an accident waiting to happen!! Parental Comments from East Bergholt High School

I think it is unfair to impliment this for children already at EB. It is only fair to impliment for children starting from 2019 moving forward as we based our school choice based on transport available at the time of applying.

It is very unfair if this proposal is implemented at relatively short notice. This will be particularly pertinent if you have several children at the school and/or children that have only recently attended the school in the lower year groups. A fairer implementation would be to phase the changes in as children start at Suffolk schools in Year 7, thus giving parents choice and all the facts before they apply for school places. These proposed changes will be unaffordable to some families. It is a great concern that children could be forced to walk or bike to school as many rural roads are unsuitable for this purpose. We pay for our child to use the school bus as we are out of catchment, but we took this decision based on our family finances at the time we applied for a school place.

We already pay the £900 per child for a bus survice that we have to drive to. Why can’t the bus come to Great Horkesley? £1800 for two children to get to school is a very large sum of money and not something that most families can just find. I think many parents will seriously consider, where they can afford to send their children!

We moved to copdock so that Our children would be in catchment for EBHS. It seems unreasonable to make changes to free transport, now the catchment school would be different to the one transport is provided. The addimisions policy change to now mean children are placed to closest school as priority?

As a single mother I cannot afford to pay out more money. There is also currently no bus from Brantham to Manningtree High School (which is technically our closest school) so would a bus be laid on? If so I presume this would not save any money?!

EBHS is our nearest school I would not feel happy about paying for transport I hope that we don’t have to.

Given that rural schools both primary and secondary have a significant number of pupils from outside catchment, this proposal would have a huge impact on said schools with a potentially high number relocating to nearer schools. EBHS would lose out financially by way of pupil premiums and other financial factors attached to some Pupils. A drop in pupil number and finances could in turn impact staffing among other areas. East Bergholts local economy / amenities gain from pupils and parents who commute to East Bergholt on a daily basis (shops in village, garage, sports centre etc). I think this is a rather short sighted approach by County and they should consider the long term impact on schools and surrounding businesses / amenities - let alone the potential impact on roads and environment should parents opt to drive their children to school. This proposal needs much more consideration and consultation with users.

I think that these changes will endanger the lives of children. Firstly, because if children are forced to walk/cycle to school the roads are unlit and isolated. Secondly, because many parents will drive their children to school as they will not be able to afford the bus, therefore increasing the traffic around the school/village which in turn will increase the risk of a road traffic accidents, especially as there are no safe places for children to cross over the road near the school. At the present time, the amount of parked cars/cars waiting to enter the school at the end of the day brings the village to a stand still and the additional cars will make this matter even worse, especially with all the housing developments which are taking place in the catchment villages!

Parental Comments from East Bergholt High School

The nearest school for us is EBHS, so moving schools would not be considered. My key concern for those affected is that, living in a rural area, there are often no safe cycle routes - the only possible route from Bentley to EBHS is on a very narrow winding country road used by many cars at commuting time and unlit. Walking would involve a tramp of an hour's plus over country footpaths or on the same unlit road with no pavements - hardly feasible on winter evenings or with the amount of books and kit that children are expected to take to and from school these days as there is no (or very limited) on site storage. Without huge investment in the infrastructure to make cycling or walking safe, this strategy is highly dangerous.

I think it is unfair that depending on where you live in Brantham determines whether you are entitled to free transport. If you live in Brantham you should all get free transport I was one of the parents that fought for this when my eldest child was at East Bergholt .

We live in Brantham and East Bergholt is the school that Brooklands feeds into, the nearest school is in Essex and not the school our primary school feeds into because of this I don’t see why I should have to pay £1800 a year for my children to attend school when this is a legal requirement.

The impact of this policy on the lives of students, families that will have to adapt to ensuring other means of getting got school will be significant, particularly for those students taking GCSEs, and wanting to do after school activities has clearly not be thought through. Plus the impact on the local community as a result of increase congestion of cars taking and picking up school (Health road and the doctors surgery near the school), let alone impact all these cars will have on the school and being able to start the day on time. THE POLICY IS NOT EVIDENCE BASED AND PARENTS OPINIONS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE ANY BELIEVED BENEFIT OF THIS OUTWEIGHS THE DISADVANTAGES THIS WILL HAVE ON STUDENTS AND THE SCHOOL.

There is no other safe way for my children to attend EBHS other than by car or bus. Lack of pavements or street lights along the route to EBHS make it a unsuitable to walk or cycle.

Hoping the free bus provision continues!

If I had to take my child myself by car I could be late as have other children to drop off at primary school and preschool. We couldn’t afford to pay for bus but don’t want our child going to a school that isn’t their catchment school.east bergholt is our children’s catchment school and our current primary is a feeder school and the kids all grow up expecting to go on to east bergholt as that’s where nearly everyone ends up going from their school. The primary school only does special days/ events with east bergholt high school not any other high school. They are prepared for going to east bergholt not any other high school.

I think it will be utter mayhem, more cars is going to be a much bigger safety problem!

I have added to the council site but the suggestion of expecting children to use footpaths through countryside instead of going by road mileage is ludicrous. Many of those paths are not fit to use normally let alone for children in the winter dark months!!

Parental Comments from East Bergholt High School

We wouldn't be in a position to spend £900 per child on transport, but would want them to stay at EBHS so would have to try and find some kind of car share solution. It would be very difficult for us though, as we would also have children at other schools at the same time, so morning and afternoon transportation would be very challenging. In our view, any existing pupils (as well as siblings which join the school later) should continue to receive free transport.

For those of us that live out of area; we send our children to East Bergholt as it's a good school instead of sending more locally. Children should suffer for their education due to Councils wanting to make cut backs. By not building the eye sore in Ipswich Town Centre the funds could have gone on other much needed resources - school transport and repairing the roads!

I will also have to change my job because along with other parents I will have 2 children in different schools and without the free transport I could not afford the £900 per year and I will have to help and do my fair share of the pick ups and drops to EBHS

It is extremely unfair to propose these changes on a child already attending the school, I understand the need for the council to save money but they must only consider option 2, and phase this change in for new children who have not started the school yet.

Based on information received from parents in my area, an application to Manningtree High School will be our best course of action. I have a son and daughter. We cannot spend £900 on transport per child every year. It will probably increase over time too. It is not safe to cycle along the roads between our home and East Bergholt High School.

I think its wrong that we have picked our catchment school and yet are now being told Manningtree is nearer. There is no bus service as far as I am aware to Manningtree high at the right times and walking to either Mannngtree or East Bergholt would involve walking along very busy roads - some with no footpath. I would estimate walking to East Bergholt would take about an hour. The cost of £900 per year for a bus pass is obscene considering the fact an annual rail pass to London costs £5000 - I don't know how they can justify that cost.

East Bergholt School is our nearest school in Suffolk. I would not be happy letting my children walk to either Manningtree or Bergholt in the Summer let alone on dark, cold, wet winter nights!!!!

My ability to pay for school transport would be impacted by my ability to work sufficient hours to cover the increase to the travel costs I already pay. As I understand it, there may no longer be a bus that my children could catch and we are not able to access a public bus from our home. So I would need to drive daily to EBHS. As a teacher, currently employed by the council, this makes my ability to work impossible.

I would not wish for my children to attend the nearest school as my choice has always been my catchment school and I am more than happy with my current childs progress and performance. I would endeavour to make arrangements with other parents for car sharing options. I would be concerned about the effects on the children, the school and the environment, as well as those who do not have children at school but would be effected by the traffic at peak times in the village. I am not convinced that other options have been explored by the council regarding how money could be saved in other ways.

Parental Comments from East Bergholt High School

If I have to drive my child to school every day it is going to be diffacult as I start work at 8.30 so I would have to leave a lot earlier and it is going to cost a lot more for fuel if I drive my child in every day

There is no safe way for our children to make their own way to either EBHS or to Manningtree High which will now apparently be classed as our local school, therefore we would have no option other than to drive them ourselves.....Financially we could not afford to pay for three children to use a bus should the funding be removed.

We have completed the SCC survey and also submitted a lengthy email to local councillors, our local MP and various other people. I will have to change my working hours to enable me to bring my child to school. In September 2020 I will have two more children attending EB High School. We could not afford to pay for the bus.

From: David Balding To: School Travel Subject: FW: Fressingfield Primary Date: 06 February 2018 09:04:35

Please log and file

Regards

David

School Travel Team Children and Young People Suffolk County Council

From: Tracey Vobe Sent: 06 February 2018 08:53 To: Mark Taylor Cc: Bruce Hunter ; Sarah Vize ; David Balding Subject: RE: Fressingfield Primary

Hi Mark,

Thank you for your email. I am copying in Sarah and David so they will ensure that they include these comments with the consultation responses.

Tracey Vobe Passenger Transport Manager Growth, Highways and Infrastructure Suffolk County Council Endeavour House ~ L5 Lime Block, desk 57 Russell Road, Ipswich. IP1 2BX

Tel 01473 265057 Email: [email protected] www.suffolkcc.gov.uk

From: Mark Taylor [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 05 February 2018 17:44 To: Tracey Vobe ; Bruce Hunter Subject: Re: Fressingfield Primary

Dear Tracey and Bruce,

Thank you for your reply - I now have a greater understanding of the impact the proposal may have on the school.

If the reason for changing to a new policy is to save money, how can providing additional transport to Mendham, when there will continue to be a bus going through Fressingfield to Stradbroke High School (primary age children currently share the morning bus with the High School children), going to save any money?

Therefore, I firmly believe there needs to be a local solution for the Fressingfield area. If out of area children is a major issue, why can't the the few children actually living in the Mendham catchment attend Fressingfield Primary instead, and the Norfolk children attend schools on the other side of the boarder? This would save a lot more money than putting on another bus service!

In addition if Fressingfield was to incur a falling role in the coming years and there was a need to reduce staffing would the LA support the school with redundancy packages, because if all the Metfield children did take up the option of free transport to Mendham it could result in the school loosing in the region of £60,000, broadly equivalent to a teacher and between one or two TA's?

Best wishes

Mark

Mark Taylor Headteacher - Fressingfield CEVC Primary School 01379 586393

From: Tracey Vobe Sent: 02 February 2018 16:46:46 To: Mark Taylor Cc: Bruce Hunter; Sarah Vize Subject: RE: Fressingfield Primary

Dear Mark,

Thank you for your email dated 17th January 2018 in which Bruce and I have both contributed to this response.

The distance from Metfield to Mendham ranges from 2.1 miles to over 3 miles. As such all children under 8 would be entitled to free transport and some of the older children too. Most of Weybread is nearer to Fressingfield than Harleston. Those addresses that are nearer to Harleston are mostly over 2 miles away, so the younger children would again be entitled to free transport. I am not able to confirm however, whether these routes are safe to walk as there has been no assessment carried out yet and this would need to be assessed by the Education Transport Appeals Committee.

2. The nearest school for many of my children living in Metfield will become Mendham under the new proposals. Mendham (3.3 miles approx from the village bus stop) is roughly 0.5 miles closer to Metfield than Fressingfield (3.8 miles approx from the village bus stop), but to get the children to Mendham a new bus route would need to be created. There will continue to be a bus running to Fressingfield (currently used by Metfield primary aged children) on its way to Stradbroke High School, so I don't see that changing the majority of Metfield children's designated closest school will save any money at all and will in fact add to current transport costs. Therefore, would local cost saving arrangements take precedence over the wider County Council policy in September 2019?

I can confirm that for most of Metfield, the nearest primary school is Mendham. I understand that most of the homes are between 2 and 3 miles away, though as you head towards Metfield Common the distances exceed 3 miles (so most would qualify for transport when under 8, some when over). From your email it appears that you may be measuring from the central bus stop, however we are required to measure from the student’s home (gate) to the school (gate) and bus pick up stops may change in future, if transport requirements change.

3. In relation to accommodating children, Fressingfield is a significantly larger school and has the capacity to cater for the Metfield children, as we currently do. If all the Metfield pupils did gravitate towards Mendham in the future the local authority could incur an additional cost of increasing the physical size of the school - again another cost the County Council that doesn't need! Also, a decrease of 17 children at Fressingfield could lead to a need to reduce staffing and all the associated redundancy costs that would go with it. Therefore, I cannot see a financially favourable solution to changing the current transport arrangements between Weybread and Fressingfield, and Mendham and Fressingfield - in fact I believe the proposals would increase costs in the Fressingfield area. With the above in mind has the wider implications of the transport proposal been discussed with the schools infrastructure team?

As you state, Mendham is a smaller school than Fressingfield, however there would be no need to expand the school if more Suffolk children chose to go there. The catchment population of Mendham is usually between 0 and 3. The school relies on out of catchment children, and has a significant number of children from Norfolk. Based on the current distribution of pupils and assuming this continues, those living in Metfield would have good chance of getting a place at Mendham. However if there were situations in future where the nearest school (e.g. Mendham) was full, this would mean that the next nearest school with places available would be offered and if the distance was over the 2/3 mile (depending on age) then free council funded transport would be offered. I note your comment that the number of children attending a school does affect the finances of that school and could have implications. The proposed policy change will be considered at a local and countywide basis and I confirm that the school travel team are working closely with other teams including the school infrastructure team.

4. On the point of safety I know a number of parents are willing to contest any suggestion that the routes to any of the suggested schools in the proposal are safe for children to walk to. In addition any reduction in the number of children travelling by bus could significantly increase the amount of cars on the road, further jeopardizing the safety to pedestrians, increasing congestion in the vicinity of schools and having a negative effect on air quality. Are Suffolk County Council planning to change any designation of previously declared unsafe routes and have the environmental impacts of the proposal been considered?

As mentioned above, any new route that has not been previously assessed would need to be assessed by the Education Transport Appeals Committee. Currently previously assessed unsafe routes will not be reassessed unless there is a right of way in the area which may change the distance measurement or may suggest an alternative route to the previously assessed “unsafe” part of the route.

Please let us know if you have any further queries.

Yours sincerely

Tracey Vobe Passenger Transport Manager Growth, Highways and Infrastructure Suffolk County Council Endeavour House ~ L5 Lime Block, desk 57 Russell Road, Ipswich. IP1 2BX

Tel 01473 265057 Email: [email protected] www.suffolkcc.gov.uk

From: Mark Taylor [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 January 2018 11:32 To: Bruce Hunter Cc: [email protected] Subject: Fressingfield Primary

Dear Bruce,

Following the briefing for headteachers on 10th January I would like some clarification regarding the current routes serving Fressingfield Primary School.

1. In recent years the routes from Metfield to Fressingfield and Weybread to Fressingfield have been designated as unsafe routes for children to walk to school. I cannot believe that any walking route from Metfield to Mendham or Weybread to Harleston would be deemed safe either. Therefore, am I correct in stating that children would still be entitled to free transport to school, preferably Fressingfield, on the grounds of the routes being unsafe? 2. The nearest school for many of my children living in Metfield will become Mendham under the new proposals. Mendham (3.3 miles approx from the village bus stop) is roughly 0.5 miles closer to Metfield than Fressingfield (3.8 miles approx from the village bus stop), but to get the children to Mendham a new bus route would need to be created. There will continue to be a bus running to Fressingfield (currently used by Metfield primary aged children) on its way to Stradbroke High School, so I don't see that changing the majority of Metfield children's designated closest school will save any money at all and will in fact add to current transport costs. Therefore, would local cost saving arrangements take precedence over the wider County Council policy in September 2019? 3. In relation to accommodating children, Fressingfield is a significantly larger school and has the capacity to cater for the Metfield children, as we currently do. If all the Metfield pupils did gravitate towards Mendham in the future the local authority could incur an additional cost of increasing the physical size of the school - again another cost the County Council that doesn't need! Also, a decrease of 17 children at Fressingfield could lead to a need to reduce staffing and all the associated redundancy costs that would go with it. Therefore, I cannot see a financially favourable solution to changing the current transport arrangements between Weybread and Fressingfield, and Mendham and Fressingfield - in fact I believe the proposals would increase costs in the Fressingfield area. With the above in mind has the wider implications of the transport proposal been discussed with the schools infrastructure team? 4. On the point of safety I know a number of parents are willing to contest any suggestion that the routes to any of the suggested schools in the proposal are safe for children to walk to. In addition any reduction in the number of children travelling by bus could significantly increase the amount of cars on the road, further jeopardizing the safety to pedestrians, increasing congestion in the vicinity of schools and having a negative effect on air quality. Are Suffolk County Council planning to change any designation of previously declared unsafe routes and have the environmental impacts of the proposal been considered?

Could you also make Sarah Vobe aware of this email as well please?

Best wishes

Mark

Mark Taylor Headteacher - Fressingfield CEVC Primary School 01379 586393 Emails sent to and from this school will be monitored in accordance with the law to ensure compliance with policies and to minimize any security risks. The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software.

Emails sent to and from this organisation will be monitored in accordance with the law to ensure compliance with policies and to minimise any security risks. The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software.

Emails sent to and from this school will be monitored in accordance with the law to ensure compliance with policies and to minimize any security risks. The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software.

13 December 2017

JMC/JM

All Elected Councillors Suffolk County Council Endeavour House 8 Russell Road IPSWICH IP1 2BX

Dear Sirs

HOME TO SCHOOL AND POST 16 TRAVEL CONSULTATION

The letter is in response to the consultation.

We are in favour of Option 3 only: all other options would result in a catastrophic loss of income for the school. Options 1 and 2 would be utterly and absolutely disastrous for our school. It seems that what you are desperate to do is to destroy our school. Don’t.

What you are doing is removing choice from all but those parents who have the money to arrange private transport. Your policy favours the rich and removes choice only from those who do not have the money to make their choices real. Your concern should be for those parents and families at the bottom of society and for those who have the least and will be unable to make the choices available to richer parents.

Each and every individual involved in these proposals deserves nothing but deep personal shame.

Shame on you.

J McAtear Executive Headmaster Hartismere Family of Schools

Cc Dr Dan Poulter MP

2 Hawthorn Walk Beck Row Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP28 8UD

14th March 2018

Dear Cllr Jones

I write to express the concern of the Governors of Mildenhall College Academy to proposed changes to the Suffolk County Council School Transport Policy. In summary we believe that the proposed policy changes to school transport for both 11-16 and post 16 students will simply not generate the savings expected but will have a far more deleterious effect to the fabric of local communities than the Council believes possible. Thus in our view this policy proposal is a ‘lose’ – ‘lose’ situation. We discussed this at our last meeting and I am writing to communicate our concern.

We foresee the policy impact as seriously affecting individual students and their families in the Mildenhall area simply because the outcome of these travel policies will affect the educational provisions offered to students so that students have both limited and forced choices about their educational futures. At a time when all levels of government in the United Kingdom seek to promote education and training for young people, all levels of government should be seeking to promote educational provision for all students and thus be increasing financial support so that students can receive the best education suitable for them.

Mildenhall College Academy has provided and can continue to provide the ‘facts and figures’ relating to the impact of the transport policy on course provision, school size, the future of the Mildenhall Hub and a history of family concerns and promises from Councillors and Members of Parliament about school choice. Please see the following page for a summary.

What I wish to communicate to you as County Councillor is our concern for the students and families affected by the proposed changes: (a) through unnecessary anxiety about future school options for children (b) through the additional costs to families for transport to schools of their choice (c) through the changes to school size and provision that the proposed policy will effect We look to you as our representative to support the Mildenhall and surrounding communities by either not changing the school policy or by establishing a ‘special case’ situation for Mildenhall (as is proposed for other parts of the County). A County wide transport policy is simply unjust in this community.

Mildenhall College Academy always works with its community as you well know. We seek your support so that we can maintain and continue to improve serving our students and their families.

For more details please contact the Academy’s Principal, Ms Susan Byles [[email protected] / Tel: 01638 714645] or myself [[email protected] / Tel: 01638 510024].

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

The Rev. George Samiec Vice Chair Governors, Mildenhall College Academy Summary of the Issues and Concerns relating to Suffolk County Council’s Proposed Transport Policy

 The social impacts of the proposed transport policy can be considerable – siblings at different schools, changes of school part way through education, increased costs for students 16 – 18 years who lose all subsidised transport.

 Enrolments affect funding both of which have provided the ‘landscape’ for the planning required to support both the projected regional growth in the next 5 years and the completion of the Mildenhall Hub project (estimated completion February 2020). The proposed transport policy will affect students and families particularly in Lakenheath with the loss of free travel (impacting an estimated 16% of total pupil numbers). Questions of financial viability are thus raised part way through a project deemed a great benefit to the region.

 The proposed transport policy runs counter to a 2012 Suffolk County Council promise to the parents of children in Lakenheath that they could have free transport either to IES Breckland or to MCA. Parents made their choices in light of this. From costings seen it seems ironic that it appears that running buses to IES Breckland is potentially more expensive than running them to MCA and a bus will still need to be provided for the few students from Lakenheath eligible to go to MCA under the proposed map. It seems that from both ‘economic’ and ‘parental choice’ standpoints the proposed transport policy is problematic in our situation.

 An initial reply about the consequences of the proposed transport policy is that MCA might receive students from other schools which are ‘full’. This is no credible way to go about planning staffing ratios and curriculum offerings.

From: Gavin Hailes To: Matthew Hicks; School Travel Subject: Re: Stonham Aspal Primary School Governors - Schools Transport Consultation Date: 28 February 2018 19:04:04

We have but I will forward this on to if the broadband works today.

Gavin

Gavin Hailes

On 28 Feb 2018, at 16:54, Matthew Hicks wrote:

Dear Gavin

Thank you for the email and I note your comments.

I would encourage you to also make a formal response to the consultation via SCC website which runs until the end of today.

Kind regards

Matthew

Matthew Hicks Cabinet Member for Environment, Public Protection and Broadband County Councillor for the Thredling Division Tel : 01728 628176 Mob : 07824 474741 E-mail : [email protected] Twitter: @HicksCllr

From: Gavin Hailes Sent: 26 February 2018 22:00 To: Matthew Hicks Subject: Stonham Aspal Primary School Governors - Schools Transport Consultation

Dear Mathew, I am the Chair of the governing body of Stonham Aspal CofE VA Primary school. Our governing body is extremely concerned at the revised transport proposals and would like to make the following points that we request you strongly represent in the decision making of the council.

Schools have been underfunded for some time. Our school is unfortunate to hit a not so sweet spot of low funding as a result of the way the funding formula operates but despite this we have continued to innovate maintaining our offering and remaining a Good school in an environment where standards are rising. We have made representations to our MP and wider government to make our case for improved funding despite the fact that Suffolk CC is ineffective in representing fairer funding for Suffolk Schools. We are not alone as a school in effectively living within our means and the LA should do the same by providing an equivalent service by innovating. The consultation is simplistic and inadequate. It does not properly consider the circumstances of rural schools where catchment and transport areas should be one and the same thing. It does not consider the impact on children’s education or parents working lives. In the case of our school you should be aware that: Our school catchment area reflects the fact that in the past when the school in Coddenham was closed the intention was children would go to Stonham Aspal. Our school is sized to reflect this and local relationships also reflect this. We are a church school and the school maintains close links with a collection of parishes in part aligned with our catchment area. This is an essential part of our school ethos which underpins the effectiveness of the school. Walking to school beyond the paved footpaths in Stonham Aspal is not safe and even then children need to be accompanies on a busy road and at dusk where there is no effective street lighting Our school budget relies on securing pupil numbers. We actively promote our school to secure numbers and properly plan for the future. These proposals are likely to undermine our budget without proper consideration to the detriment of current and future pupils educational outcomes. In the even that these transport changes have an impact on our school budget we would look to the LA to make up the difference in perpetuity. Funding calculations within the consultation should consider the whole financial impact not just the impact on the transport budget These proposals are at odds with the LA “Raising the Bar” strategy. Suffolk is still an under performing county without sufficient focus on providing the best possible education for our children. Any recent improvements are modest and planning lacks ambition. This consultation demonstrates the inadequate short sighted approach taken by the LA.

We recognise the LA has financial challenges and in the past we tried to engage in a debate on changing the length of the school day. At that time there was no appetite from the LA to reconsider transport options to provide a better service to children/parents/carers and make the school day more effective. We remain happy to consider practical/sensible solutions that respect local circumstances and put children first.

I hope you fully represent our position within the LA and look forward to hearing from you with positive news following the consultation.

Many thanks

Gavin

Gavin Hailes

Transport Response

This is a response to the Home-to-School (HtS) transport consultation on behalf of Saxmundham Free School (SFS), Ixworth Free School (IFS) and Beccles Free School (BFS), which are all part of the Seckford Foundation Free Schools Trust (Trust). All three schools are secondary schools educating students in Years 7-11.

The Trust supports option one (as set out in the consultation document) as it is fair and equitable to all schools in Suffolk. The existing arrangements are actively unfair to numerous schools in Suffolk.

The Trust opened BFS and SFS in September 2012 with IFS opening in September 2014. All three schools were opened as a direct result of the community, in which they are located, wanting an alternative to the then current provision. The Trust responded to this request from the local communities and opened the three schools thereby offering educational opportunity and choice to those communities.

The current HtS transport policy actively disadvantages IFS and SFS. Currently students wanting to attend IFS and SFS only qualify for free HtS transport if it is their nearest school. Neighbouring schools benefit from having a wider transport priority area meaning that any student in that area that qualifies receives free HtS transport even if the school is not their nearest school.

From the very beginning, during the public consultations arranged to gather views about the proposal to establish the free schools and at all times subsequently, prospective parents have been concerned about the inequitable nature of the current HtS transport policy.

BFS is not disadvantaged by the HtS transport policy as it is located in the same town as another school and has the same transport arrangements.

In the consultation document a number of “local solutions” are proffered. The Trust would support any solution that is fair and equitable and would be prepared to discuss these alternatives if the underlying tenet of such conversations was fairness. However, solutions that require a significant change to how we operate - such as changing the length of our school day or the timing of our holidays - would be more difficult for us to accommodate.

It should be noted that the Trust already runs numerous bus routes to get students to its schools, which the Trust pays for itself (with parental contributions). An HtS model (on some routes) of cost sharing between SCC, school(s) and parents would be consistent with our current experience. The Trust would also be prepared to have an appropriate level of funding from SCC to deliver HtS transport itself, again on the understanding that it was fair and equitable for all schools in Suffolk.

G E Watson Director

Suffolk County Council School and Post-16 Travel Consultation

Response from Thurston Community College

28 February 2018

Signed:

Elizabeth Dunn Helen Wilson Chair of Governors Principal

Contents Page 2: 1 Consultation Response: Children of Compulsory School Age Page 40: 2. Consultation Response: Post-16

Page 43: 3. Appendices 3.1 Suffolk County Council Flow Diagram 3.2 Essex County Councils FOI response on savings made and analysis 3.3 Cabinet paper Agenda item 09 June 2014 3.4 Letter to parents from Simon White, Director of CYP, October 2012 3.5 Email from Jan Scott, August 2013 3.6 Cabinet paper Agenda item 08 September 2013 3.7 Thurston Community College transport survey report 3.8 Transcript of Thurston Community College Stakeholders meeting 1 February 2018 3.9 Email from Iain Maxwell, March 2017

2 of 86

1. Consultation response: Children of Compulsory School Age (5 to 16) We contend that your consultation is biased against Option 3, both in the document and in the manner in which questions have been asked. It fails to include sufficient, relevant impact assessments and costings and in doing so makes it impossible for respondents to make an informed, intelligent answer to the questions you have posed. It is not possible for a respondent or a decision maker who is not in possession of the full information to decide whether the money that might be saved is worth the disruption it will cause. You have failed to provide either fully-modelled estimates of savings or estimates of the additional costs and impacts of each option.

Question 1 What are your views on Option 1?

Answer: Strongly Oppose

Question 2 Can you tell us why you think this?

1. You have not demonstrated that this will save money Suffolk County Council claims that this option has the potential to make the greatest financial saving, but it has not demonstrated how such a saving would result from the policy or how much it thinks it could save through Option 1.

The Information Pack attempts to model the outcomes, but the modelling is both flawed and incomplete. In this document, you estimate that 13% of those currently transported would lose their entitlement. Rather than properly modelling the saving this would make, you have arbitrarily combined two different areas that have been modelled and concluded from this the county-wide saving would be 18.3%, resulting in a saving of £2 million.

You have presented no information on how these savings were modelled or any robust basis for assuming that combining these two areas is a reasonable model for the whole county. In fact, Richard Selwyn confirmed to us in an email in October 2017 that “Area B” is the catchment area for Thurston Community College. In meetings with the Passenger Transport Team in October and November 2017, it was established that the savings quoted are not achievable since they do not take into account the number of children who will require a bus to the nearest school within 3 miles because there is not a safe walking route. In addition, it was confirmed at these meetings that savings will only be realised when a whole bus can be removed from the network. In most cases, this is not possible as some children who do not get into their nearest school because of capacity issues will still need a free bus to Thurston Community College. In other cases, multiple part-empty buses will be required to go to different nearest schools where currently just one full bus is needed to take all the children in a village to the catchment school. These factors are entirely omitted from your published models and mean that any calculations using “Area B” cannot be relied on to give an estimate of the potential savings for the county as a whole.

3 of 86

We know that more appropriate modelling was undertaken by the Suffolk County Council Passenger Transport Team resulting in a flow diagram1 that was emailed to the College.

The figures provided by officers on this diagram show that across the whole of Suffolk, the estimated saving for this policy change would be only £200,000 per year. This is because it has been established that if all 3,700 children who live in the transport priority area of a school which is not their nearest were to attend their nearest school from September 2019, most (2,400) would still need free transport; just to a different school. For these students, no money is saved.

The remaining 1,300 students would no longer need free transport in Suffolk because they live within 2 (primary) or 3 (secondary) miles of their nearest school. However, not all of these students would have a safe walking route, not all “nearest” schools have capacity and savings can only be made when there are sufficient numbers to remove an entire bus from the network. Taking these three limiting factors into account, officers have calculated that only 5 buses could be removed across the whole of Suffolk, saving just £200,000. You chose not to publish this with the consultation.

There are opportunities for income generation, should students choose to attend their catchment school, even when it is not the nearest school. If all 3,700 students remained in their non-nearest catchment school in September 2019 and all of their parents were prepared to pay up to £900 per year for a bus pass, this would generate approximately £3 million per year in income. But you have no evidence that this is what would happen. You have not taken the opportunity of the consultation to ask parents whether they are willing to pay for a bus or how much they are prepared to pay if so.

We have shown that Suffolk County Council would be foolish to rely on this as an income stream. We conducted our own survey – the only evidence that SCC has about this. Just 5% of parents said they would be prepared to pay for a school bus. If this proportion were replicated across the whole of Suffolk, the income generated would be only £150,000.

In the longer term, it is unlikely that future parents will be prepared to commit to costs of £5,000 per child for their transport throughout the secondary years and the Council’s income from this source would dwindle over time. Bus routes will not be sustainable at this level of usage and are likely to be cut altogether. The uncertainty over the long-term sustainability of bus routes is a further disincentive for parents to commit to a school that is not their nearest.

If the buses were no longer running, alternative transport would need to be provided for disadvantaged students and those with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities who retain their legal entitlements to transport and for any students who are awarded transport through your appeals process. For these students, taxis may be the only, expensive, option. Of the 16 students at Thurston Community College

1 Appendix 3.1 4 of 86 for whom it is named as their school in their Education and Health Care Plan, only one is currently transported by taxi (the other students use existing buses). Under the new policy, a further 12 students will still require transport to school at an average cost of £64,000 per year if taxis are required for them all.

The loss of bus routes will also remove the possibility of sixth form students using them to get to school. With them will go the fare income they currently provide – this amounts to £50,000 annually for students attending Thurston Sixth Form alone.

Your consultation conflates the cost of mainstream transport and that for SEN and alternative provision. As you know, but have not made clear to respondents, it is not the “mainstream” school travel budget which is overspent. This budget has in fact decreased by £1.3 million in the last four years. In the same time period, “other” school transport costs have risen by £3.3 million. It is in this area that savings should be found.

The mainstream home-to-school transport budget has already been reduced over the past few years. When this issue was last examined by the Policy Development Panel in December 2013, the overall budget was £19 million, of which £11.8 million (62%) was for mainstream transport and £7.2 million (38%) was for other provision.

Since then, while the overall budget has risen to £21 million, the mainstream transport budget has actually decreased by £1.3 million. The overall budget overspend is entirely due to increased costs of other school transport provision, which in the same four-year period, has risen by £3.3 million. We note from the recent budget submission to Cabinet, that this overspend has grown again. Why should the mainstream budget be further reduced to support the overspend in other transport provision?

You know, but have not released models to show this, that you expect a reduction in travel costs in any event due to an increase of in-county SEN provision under current plans. Specifically, the SEN transport calculations in page 11 of the Information Pack (which are projections just based on student numbers), do not appear to contain any associated planning to reduce further out-of-county SEN placement (and associated transport cost) and also the impact on transport costs of the new SEN provision scheduled for Suffolk (e.g. the SEMH free school that is due to open in Ipswich).

Not only will the policy not create the savings initially claimed, but it will also result in cost-shunting to other parts of the authority and school budgets where costs will rise. The narrow focus on balancing the transport budget ignores the costly detrimental impacts elsewhere. You have not provided any assessments of the impact on costs in other parts of the Suffolk County Council budget under Options 1 and 2. The least we could have expected are reasonable estimates of the costs of school capital, school redundancies, highways and other parts of the budget where the disruption to patterns of school attendance will require additional expenditure. You have not shown you have the capacity to deal with all the appeals that will result from the loss of transport. You should expect every parent to appeal.

5 of 86

Schools, already under pressure as costs rise, will find it necessary to run additional before and after school provision to look after children whose parents take them by car on their way to and from work. As schools rapidly contract and expand, recruitment and human resources costs will rise and the detrimental impact on children’s mental health, behaviour and progress when changing schools will need additional interventions.

You have cited savings from other counties as evidence that this proposal will make savings to your budget. We have seen no robust evidence of these savings from other counties nor that such a scheme would translate into Suffolk’s context. In Essex, for example, where the County Council introduced a policy in an Option 1 manner in 2015, it was hoped that savings of more than £3 million would be made. In fact, a Freedom of Information request revealed that the savings were only £40,000 in the first full year of the policy compared with the full year before the policy came into effect and the cost per pupil has risen significantly2.

Initially, you used Hertfordshire as a model for this policy. Comparison of the two counties, looking at the number of districts classified as rural, clearly shows that Suffolk is a more rural county. It will not, therefore, have the same public transport infrastructure as Hertfordshire, meaning there are inevitably fewer existing alternative modes of public transport to and from school for children in Suffolk. Moreover, the free schools in Suffolk make it a special case since their imposition in the county, without any need for places, has created a particular problem for nearby schools. You should not compare Suffolk to examples you have cherry-picked without considering whether they are suitable models.

Despite all this evidence, which you as a County Council have produced or been made aware of during the consultation, Aidan Dunn in a television interview on 1 February 2018 claimed that Option 1 could “potentially” result in savings of “up to” £3 million. Nowhere have you published evidence to support this contention that we believe is fundamentally misleading. Any consultation responses that you receive that are based on an assumption that this proposal will save council tax-payers significant sums of money must be disregarded as they are based on incomplete and misleading information.

It is our firm view that further efficiencies within the current policy are possible and should be implemented instead of this damaging proposal. Our work with the Passenger Transport team has identified savings in the Thurston Transport Priority Area that could be achieved within the existing policy, by operating more efficiently. These have been costed by the team and could be as much as £235,000 a year. This is five times more than has been estimated would be achieved from the policy change in our area (a saving of one bus). These options should be further explored before a wholesale policy change is implemented. In fact, we believe that such measures are likely to save more than the policy change. Thurston Community College is proud to remain a school maintained by Suffolk County Council. We have always worked closely with the Local Authority on transport matters to achieve cost efficiencies, which have led to our transport priority area being one of the cheapest

2 Appendix 3.2 6 of 86 per student for home-to-school travel across Suffolk. If you change the policy to nearest school only, the College will be far too busy managing the damaging consequences and conserving its dwindling budget to cooperate with any local solutions that are proposed.

2. Future academies and free schools will not increase costs One claim made in favour of the policy is that it needs to change because in future all secondary schools and many primary schools will be academies and hence able to change their catchment areas and school start and finish times. It is not the case that Thurston Community College intends to become an academy. It is expected by the local authority to retain its “Good” status in its forthcoming inspection. Moreover, even if it wanted to become an academy or was required to convert, no sponsor would take a school into its trust in circumstances where the local authority has introduced a policy that means its roll will fall catastrophically resulting in redundancies whose cost would be crippling.

All schools, including local authority schools, have been able to change the start and end times of the school day since 2011, so this too is a straw man. What is required is a concerted effort on the part of the local authority in conjunction with trusts to work together to coordinate start and finish times so that they work for school transport. What better time to do this than now when all minds are focussed on the issue?

In terms of catchment areas, this issue was dealt with in 20143. Suffolk County Council adopted a policy that defined Transport Priority Areas for academies as the area which was the catchment area when the local authority was last responsible for admissions. For new schools, it was agreed as the area for which it is the nearest school. It is astonishing that Councillors and officers seem to have forgotten this policy was adopted and are raising this false argument now.

3. Your proposal will increase inequity Officers have told us that 812 of our existing pupils would no longer have free transport to Thurston Community College, their catchment school, if the nearest school only policy were in place. This is 72% of those who currently receive free transport. For many families, especially those with more than one child, paying for school transport is simply not possible and Option 1 will force children to move schools in the middle of their education. This will not be the case for pupils in less rural areas.

The Equalities Impact Assessment makes clear that this proposal discriminates against those in rural areas. Parents in towns get a choice of schools because public transport is available and safe walking and cycling routes allow children to get to school independently. In rural areas, we do not have these options and are dependent on school buses. The proposed changes would remove the limited choice we currently have.

3 Appendix 3.3, paragraphs 36 and 42 7 of 86

Rural council tax payers already have access to fewer services provided by the County Council than those in towns. We do not benefit from street-lights, pavements, libraries or drop-in services – yet, we pay for them. Rural parents are not asking for council tax to support an extravagant choice of school. We do not expect to be provided with transport to any school, just to the school that has been the catchment school for their villages for 45 years.

The proposed policy change will also have a serious impact on the choices available to post-16 students. October 2017 guidance4 from the DfE on post-16 transport makes it clear that local authorities have a duty to take into account the needs of rural young people when framing their transport policies and determining subsidies. Contributions must be affordable, transport must be available without undue stress, strain or difficulty and journey times should be reasonable. These factors do not seem to have been considered at all in the case of our sixth formers.

Suffolk goes beyond its statutory duty because its circumstances demand that it does. We accept that Suffolk County Council provides more school transport than it is required to do under the law. However, Suffolk is a special case for two main reasons: • Free schools – unlike other counties, Suffolk has seen a number of free schools opening in rural locations. This has resulted in disruption to traditional patterns of school admissions and wholesale changes to what is a nearest school for many communities. Recent research by the Education Policy Institute has shown that in areas with free schools the pattern is for fewer students to attend their nearest school. This is because free schools, by design, are supposed to offer choice.

In the case of Thurston Community College, for 560 of our students currently receiving free transport, the nearest school is Ixworth Free School. This school was established to offer the choice of a secondary school for students who would benefit from a smaller environment that offers a cut-down curriculum. All students at Ixworth Free School take the same core subjects at GCSE. As its website explains: “we do not have formal ‘options’ process in anything other than the creative subjects, as there are no options to choose.” Triple Science is offered as an after-school club and was taken last year by 3 students, with the remainder taking two or just one science GCSE. We recognise that this limited choice suits some students. For the rest, the opportunity to choose the subjects they wish to study to GCSE is important to their successful futures. Thurston Community College is able, because of its size, to offer students a choice of 30 GCSE subjects. Triple science is available as an option to all students who would benefit from it and last year 40% of the year group were entered for it. Where the nearest school is one that was set up to provide a very different experience, we feel it is unreasonable for it to be the default school for all students living nearest to it.

Suffolk County Council supported the opening of free schools in the county because they offered choice. It now has a responsibility to ensure that choice can be exercised by all parents, not just those who can afford it. Parents were promised that their choice to send their child to Thurston Community College

4 Post-16 Transport to Education and Training: Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities, DfE, October 2017 8 of 86

would not be compromised by the opening of the Free School in a letter to them by the then Director for Children and Young People5 in October 2012:

“In a large rural area, parents will be concerned about arrangement for home to school transport. When decisions are made about the free school, the County Council will consult parents before making arrangements for school transport. However, under the current policy for similar settings, it is the Council’s intention to provide free transport for students from across the present catchment areas to Thurston Community College, if they live more than three miles from the College. If a free school is established, transport will be provided to that school if it is a student’s nearest school and also more than three miles from their home.”

Parents took this assurance to mean what it says – that they could make a choice of school safe in the knowledge that they would retain their free transport. Subsequently, when the free school was approved, the County Council considered whether a consultation was required on transport arrangements and decided it was not. Thurston Community College received this assurance in an email from Jan Scott in August 20136:

“Dear Helen … We are not planning to carry out a consultation on transport arrangements in the Thurston area for September 2014. This is because we will continue to provide transport to Thurston CC for all pupils living in your catchment area. We will also meet the statutory requirements for transport to Ixworth FS, i.e. we will provide transport when it is the nearest school and pupils meet the relevant distance criteria.”

The County Council and the local MP, Matt Hancock, led parents to believe that their transport was secure. There is a precedent for accepting that such an expectation of transport being available when choosing a school should mean that transport continues to be provided. In 2013, there were similar expectations on the part of parents in areas of Elmswell, Rattlesden and Woolpit that they would be in catchment for Thurston Community College and therefore entitled to free transport. Cabinet accepted7 that they had been insufficiently clear in the SOR consultation and therefore agreed that free transport would be available from 2013 rather than the following year.

• The Schools’ Organisation Review (SOR) has already caused huge disruption to families and schools across Suffolk. The same students who have been in disrupted primary and middle schools are now being affected again and the same schools are being destabilised by anxiety over transport costs. Students who are currently in Year 9 at Thurston Community College were the first year to stay for an extra two years at primary school, the first year to transition directly to secondary school and will now be the first year who may have no option but to change school mid-way through their GCSE studies. This cannot be considered fair.

5 Appendix 3.4 6 Appendix 3.5 7 Appendix 3.6, paragraph 67 9 of 86

Your proposals introduce a new level of unfairness by proposing only to offer the additional choice of transport to a non-nearest two-tier school to children in Bury St Edmunds whose nearest school is a three-tier school. Your consultation does not even ask if respondents support this deviation from the core proposal. Also, you do not apparently see that the same arguments you use to justify this deviation about a choice of a suitable school apply to children in rural areas where the nearest school is a school whose curriculum offers no choice or where the nearest school has a lesser Ofsted rating.

You claim that the proposal to provide all children with nearest school only transport reduces the unfairness of the current policy where some children get transport to more than one school. But this claim is baseless because you fail to take into account the additional inequity that your proposal will introduce through increased rural discrimination, and a failure to acknowledge the additional challenges we face.

The only way to create a more equitable system would be to increase transport provision in rural areas so that those children enjoy the same breadth of choice as those living in towns.

4. Option 1 will cause catastrophic disruption to schools and education

The specific, wilful, misery of Option 1 is that it will force children to change schools part way through their education. In our survey of current parents at Thurston Community College, it was clear that all of them will do everything they can so that they can keep their children at their current school. But for 20% – that is 160 children in our school alone – they will have no choice (based on our survey of parents8). These children are from families where there is no spare money for a bus fare, let alone more than £900 a year. These children will mainly be in families where parents are in low-paid work that offers no flexibility over working hours or shifts to allow them to take their child to school each day. These are the very children already at greatest risk of poor outcomes. Moving school, from where they have friendships and a team of professionals who know and support them, will be catastrophic for many of them.

The Department for Education guidance9 on this, as you know, is clear that you should not make this change to current students. We are appalled that you should consider it morally acceptable to depart from this guidance when you have failed to demonstrate that any significant savings can be made this way.

In practical terms, it is impossible to see how Option 1 could be implemented. You will find that any exceptions policy you introduce to mitigate the effects will end up applying to every single child because there will always be reasons why they cannot change school. Changing school during secondary education is very difficult indeed. For example, a child leaving Thurston Community College at the end of year 10 will

8 Appendix 3.7 9 Home to School Travel and Transport Guidance: Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities, DfE, July 2014

10 of 86 be halfway through their GCSE courses. Other, nearest schools, do not offer the same options that we do. A student who has chosen psychology, sociology, business studies, triple science, child development, systems and control, product design, computing and others would not be able to continue their studies in these subjects at all at their new school. Even in core subjects, such as English Literature, the texts studied, and exam boards chosen, will be different. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any student in year 10 at Thurston Community College would be able to continue their current studies in another local school. A student moving at the end of year 9 would have similar problems. Many other local schools start their GCSE courses in year 9 so any student transferring at this stage will have missed a third of their GCSE teaching. Students transferring at the end of year 8 will have missed the opportunity to choose their GCSE options in another school and will need to be slotted in to classes where there is space. All students will be at risk of the dip in progress that we know occurs when children change school. Outcomes will fall, and students will fail, if you choose Option 1.

Even if Suffolk County Council feels it is acceptable to ignore Department for Education guidance, there remains the issue of how you will practically manage the transfer of so many students. Normal practice is that students who apply to their nearest school but do not get a place will be funded for transport to their next nearest school. You have not explained how this is going to work under Option 1 in September 2019. We have listed just some of the anomalies and problems this will cause: • If every student for whom Thurston Community College is not their nearest school applies to join the nearest school at the end of August in 2019, entry will be decided on the in-year admissions policy of the nearest school, most of which are academies over which you have no control. • We assume that all those who do not secure a place will continue to have their transport funded to Thurston Community College. Since the over-subscription criteria for in-year admissions for the local academies tend to prioritise distance from the school, those children who live furthest away, and hence do not get a place, will be those who retain their entitlement to free transport to Thurston Community College, alongside other children on the same bus who are having to pay because they did not apply to change school. • Will children who apply for a place at the nearest school but do not get one be guaranteed transport funding for the duration of their time at their catchment school or do you expect them to apply to change school again each year to retain it? • Will you change admissions policies? If this policy goes through, parents will have the choice of applying to a school where they are guaranteed a place, because they are in catchment, but to where they cannot get transport or applying to a school where they can get transport but are not guaranteed a place. This is an unsustainable position.

The disruption to schools that are gaining or losing large numbers of students in September 2019 is a significant issue that you must take into account. The detriment is most obvious to the losing schools who will have funding withdrawn for the pupils who move. In the case of Thurston Community College, we anticipate from our 11 of 86 survey that in the first year of this policy we will lose 160 students. That equates to a loss of income of more than £750,000. We will need to make about 20 staff redundant in the first year of the policy. In subsequent years, our roll will continue to fall as a larger proportion of parents decide that they will not choose our school for their children if they cannot get transport to it. Our estimate is that our roll will stabilise after 5 years at around 70% of its current level, representing an annual loss of income of £2 million. We would need to make 60 staff redundant in total. The cost of these redundancies will fall on the local authority.

Our very successful and popular sixth form centre at the Beyton campus will close if Option 1 is chosen. Thurston Community College refurbished the Beyton site at the cost to its own budget of £500,000 to support SCC in implementing SOR. The campus is thriving, it offers the only option for teenagers to attend a rural sixth form and is already a valued asset in Beyton village. Without school transport routes to Beyton, many students will no longer be able to get there. Bus operators have told us that routes to Beyton from rural villages are not commercially viable. Currently, around 43% of students in year 11 transfer to the sixth form for their post-16 study. This gives us a student population of around 250 which is above the minimum 200 specified in guidance as viable by the Department for Education10. If our main school shrinks, as we expect, to 70% of its current size, and some students lose their transport routes to the campus, we will no longer be able to sustain our sixth form numbers. The site in Beyton will close. It is likely that the sixth form will no longer be sustainable at all, as we are forced to narrow our distinctive curriculum we lose the unique character of our separate campus.

This will remove the option of a local sixth form serving students in our huge rural area. The complete closure of the middle school site in Beyton is of huge concern to the village which neither wants it to be sold for housing nor wants an empty site with all the costs of security that this will entail for the County Council. It will be a tragedy if our investment in this campus and the choice of students to attend a rural sixth form is lost because Suffolk CC has rendered it unviable.

Schools that gain students will also suffer huge disruption. Managing sudden and significant gains in students is very difficult, particularly when they occur across all year groups. For 560 of our students, their nearest school is Ixworth Free School (IFS) which currently has capacity for an additional 360 students. From our survey, we estimate that 140 students would move to IFS in September 2019. It is unlikely that they would make this application to move until the summer of that year. How will IFS manage so many in-year applications over that summer holiday? How will it recruit the additional staff in time? Given that it will receive no funding for these students until 18 months after they have joined the school, due to the lagged funding of school finance, how will they pay for the additional costs of this 60% increase in student numbers that could happen from one day to the next?

Such questions also raise concerns about Suffolk County Council’s own ability to plan its bus network. You will not know which schools children will attend until they turn up to class in September 2019. Parents may apply for places at their nearest

10 Making Significant Changes to an Open Academy, DfE, March 2016 12 of 86 school but then decide not to send them there. Parents may decide at the last minute to apply for a place at their nearest school and then expect you to provide a bus for them. Equally, parents may apply for a free bus for one school but then decide not to move their child and leave the seat on the bus empty. You cannot hope to save any amount of money that is worth this degree of uncertainty and chaos.

5. Options 1 and 2 will disrupt the effective catchment system The Thurston Partnership of schools was formed to ensure that during the implementation of SOR in our area, Thurston Community College and all the catchment primary schools worked together to ensure its success. Our key aim has been to improve the transition of pupils from primary to secondary phases to minimise the progress dip associated with changing schools. Our work in this area has been universally praised and we have continued to work together since reorganisation was completed.

As pupils and teachers from schools explained at the TCC consultation meeting on 1 February 201811, these relationships are vital to educational achievement and the well-being of our children. If primary schools find that their pupils are now transferring to a wider range of schools, solely because of transport availability and costs, this progress will be lost as it simply will not be possible to coordinate transition as effectively. With current national concerns about achievement in rural areas, this is not the time to put this work at risk. Standards will fall.

The recently launched Thurston Partnership Maths Project is an example of the difference catchment areas make. Recently, the Thurston Partnership has focussed on maths improvement both at primary and secondary levels. This is a problem in Suffolk generally - out of 152 local authorities, Suffolk ranks 146 for primary school maths. As part of the Partnership plan, Thurston Community College is investing £20,000 in our catchment primary schools to buy maths textbooks and to employ a Maths leader to support teaching in those schools. Such a sum will have a significant impact on the ability of these primary schools to invest in their maths teaching. However, without the catchment link and the confidence that a high proportion of pupils in the catchments primary schools will transfer to Thurston Community College in Year 7, the governors of Thurston Community College would not agree to spend such a sum of money on the education of pupils in other schools. That investment can only be justified when money is so tight because the catchment system means that the College views the pupils in Partnership primaries as its pupils too.

Catchment areas in our part of Suffolk are well understood and work effectively. Children have been coming to Thurston Community College from this area for the past 45 years. Children know TCC as “their” school long before they arrive. In villages like Woolpit, Elmswell and Rattlesden all the children come to Thurston Community College on one full bus even though some of them could get a free bus to a different school under the current policy. They choose not to do so and this contributes to our

11 Appendix 3.8 13 of 86 area being the most efficient in the county for school transport. Disrupting this well understood system will cost more, not less.

6. What will parents do? As we have noted, your consultation does not ask parents the crucial question about what they would do if this policy were implemented that would allow you to make proper assessments of the impact. You cannot make a properly informed decision without this information. In the absence of your evidence, Thurston Community College undertook its own survey of its parents. This has a very large sample for such a survey and can therefore be taken as providing robust information that should inform your wider decision about how to proceed. The report of the survey is included as Appendix 3.7, but the key facts are as follows: • 50% of parents would bring their children to school by car with an additional 15% organising a car share. 544 extra children will be driven to school • 19% of parents would move their children from the College to another school. Our survey of primary parents shows that, in future, 27% of children who would have chosen TCC as their secondary school, will no longer do so. • 5% of parents are willing to pay for a bus pass for their child. With numbers such as this, bus routes that are not needed for the transportation of children who are entitled to a free bus will not be commercially viable and where school transport buses do run there will be many places empty. Suggestions by the County Council that such routes could be opened up to the public show a lack of understanding of our situation – the only people who want to travel by bus to Thurston at 8.00 am are those who need to get to school. It is a village with no attractions or amenities to attract day trippers. Moreover, designating new public routes will require accessible buses that bus companies have told you they cannot afford. There will be no benefit to the general public from this proposal.

If non-statutory routes are not commercially viable, they will not run. This means that even if pupils were willing to pay they will no longer have a bus to take and will have to change school. Bus routes can be withdrawn with 56 days’ notice, so parents will never have certainty that the bus will be available throughout their child’s time at school.

7. Conflict with other Suffolk County Council priorities

• The Greenest County: 52 students currently travel to Thurston Community College by car. Our survey of parents has revealed there would be a seven- fold increase in parent school runs each day if free buses are withdrawn. Almost 117,000 additional car journeys per annum will have a damaging impact on the environment. Such a change from sustainable modes of transport to high rates of car usage is antithetical to Suffolk’s aspiration to be the Greenest County. The College sits in the middle of a residential village, approached from all directions by narrow country lanes. As our parents demonstrated in their “drive to school” day on 9 February 2018, an increase in traffic on this scale will cause chaos in the village and an unacceptable increase in pollution and risk to our students, other pedestrians and car users. 14 of 86

There is nowhere on the College campus or in Thurston village where this number of parents could safely drop off or pick up their children.

We know in Thurston that Highways has already expressed concerns about the increase in traffic from the proposed new housing developments and that most of the junctions in the village are at capacity. The Chair of the Parish Council recorded his concerns at the TCC Stakeholders’ meeting (see Appendix 3.8). It is clear that the addition of extra cars taking children to and from the College will break the current road network.

Suffolk County Council is well aware of the chaos that would result from this proposal. In an email12 to one of our parents as recently as March 2017, Iain Maxwell, Assistant Senior Infrastructure Officer, said in response to a question about bus transport said:

“I have checked with colleagues in School Transport and they have no plans to reduce the school bus service to Thurston. There are nearly 40 buses daily needed for transporting pupils to the college and they realise that if these were reduced the consequences for traffic at the school would be horrendous. I hope this allays your fears.”

• Raising The Bar: It is an established fact that there is a dip in progress when children change schools. This policy change would remove free transport for around 3,700 children who live in the transport priority area of a school which is not their nearest. Many of these children will have no option but to change school mid-way through their secondary education which will have a detrimental effect on educational outcomes. We question how this policy change would support Suffolk’s aspiration to “Raise the Bar” on educational outcomes. Avoiding unnecessary school transfers was the main reason cited by Suffolk County Council to reorganise from three to two-tier. Thurston Community College provides a “Good” education for more 11–16-year olds than any other school in the county. By reducing our numbers, forcing children to change school unnecessarily and closing our highly successful sixth form (top 40% of sixth forms nationally for progress), this proposed policy change flies in the face of Suffolk’s Raising the Bar agenda.

• Free Schools: In July 2012, Prime Minister David Cameron said: “Free schools symbolise everything that is good about the revolution that we are bringing to Britain’s schools. Choice for parents, power in the hands of teachers….” Suffolk’s own policy position is: 1. Support parental choice both to help children find the school that best suits their needs as well as to develop the local school system as a whole. 2. Will work to a presumption of support for the creation of academies and free schools, actively managing their introduction into the existing system of schools.

12 Appendix 3.9 15 of 86

This policy change would remove the very choice which free schools were supposed to create.

Question 3 What are your views on Option 2?

Answer: Strongly Oppose

Question 4 Can you tell us why you think this? Your analysis shows this option would cost an additional £9.3 million over the 7 years of transition. With savings of only £200,000 from then on estimated by the Passenger Transport Team, it would take a further 46 years for you to get back to a point where, on your own estimates, savings could be made. Faced with such figures, the only argument for choosing this option would be a straightforward ideological one of reducing Suffolk services to the bare, statutory minimum. Such a decision would hit the poorest and most vulnerable hardest and, as we have argued in the answer to question 2, is not an appropriate decision in our rural situation.

All the arguments against Option 1 also apply to Option 2 – except that existing children will not have to change school. The main difference is that the disruption will go on for years. Pupil numbers at Thurston Community College and other affected schools will fall every year and redundancies will need to be made every year for five years. Each year, curriculum options will be cut until we end up with the same narrow subject menu as the other small secondary schools like Ixworth Free School. Not only will children have no choice of school, but they will have no choice of subjects when they are there. Our sixth form site in Beyton will still close.

Option 2 will create a new problem for families in that children transferring to secondary school will not be able to attend the same school as their older siblings. This is enormously disruptive to families and relationships.

Do not think that this is a compromise that will satisfy anyone. Every year a new cohort of primary parents will suddenly realise that they cannot afford to send their child to the school their elder children attended or that they themselves attended. Every year, Councillors will face the howls of anger from parents who cannot afford to choose the school that meets their child’s needs.

Question 5 What are your views on Option 3?

Answer: Strongly Support

Question 6 Can you tell us why you think this, and how you think it should be funded? The disruption that would be caused by Options 1 and 2 will save little and result in huge disruption that will cause additional costs to other parts of the Suffolk County Council budget. You have chosen not to publish any assessments of the scale of 16 of 86 these costs. You have not told us how much Options 1 or 2 would save. You have not told us what level of cuts you would intend making to other services, if Option 3 were chosen, or which services they would be. This makes it very difficult to make an intelligent, informed response to the latter part of this question.

Working with the modelling that we have seen from the Passenger Transport Team, we are certain that it would be possible to make a greater saving than Option 1 offers by adopting Option 3 and working with schools to identify ways of making the bus network more efficient.

We suggest that you: • Work with schools to align timings of the school day to optimise efficient use of buses and allow bus sharing where appropriate. We have reached agreement in principle with Ixworth Free School to do this in our area. • Use your new route planning software to model bus services from scratch. • Look at some of the local solutions that we have proposed and work with schools to introduce them across Suffolk. In our area alone, we have estimated this could save £235,000 a year. • Renegotiate contracts, reduce central staffing and overheads to reduce the average annual cost which we believe is far too high. • Use technology to track bus pass use more carefully. Passes should be applied for each year and if they are not being used should be withdrawn.

Question 7 Do you think rights of way should be taken into account when assessing the nearest school? No

Question 8 Can you tell us why you think this? Public rights of way should not be used for this technical decision as they make no sense to parents of children who live more than three miles from a school and so are entitled to free transport in any case. It seems ridiculous to affected parents and children that including a right of way, which they will never use, will change their nearest school. This is an unnecessary technical change that will add confusion and save nothing. Parents will appeal, and routes will have to be assessed where there is no chance that a child will use the route as they will get a bus to one school or another whatever the result.

Question 9 Do you think Rights of Way should be taken into account when deciding the shortest walking route to the nearest school? No

Question 10 Can you tell us why you think this? Our view is that the current arrangements should remain in place to avoid disruption for any children and families. 17 of 86

Your consultation states that including Rights of Way would affect 300 children. You can expect that every single one of these children will appeal on the grounds of safety. It is unreasonable to expect children to walk routes that are unlit, muddy and isolated, as many of our rural rights of way are. We know that the cost of handling a dispute over the safety of a school walking route is very high and this will be an additional cost that will result in very few children losing their bus entitlements. All it will achieve is to create a few empty spaces on buses that will still have to run, and it will save no money.

Question 11 Do you think that schools outside of Suffolk should be included when identifying the nearest suitable school? No

Question 12 Can you tell us why you think this? No Suffolk child should be forced to attend a school in Norfolk because there is no free transport available to a suitable Suffolk school. This proposal would affect the most vulnerable children in our catchment. These children, who cannot afford to pay the fare to attend a school in Suffolk, will be disproportionately those involved with wider professional services in Suffolk, such as social services and mental health support. Our schools have close working relationships with these Suffolk services. This is not the case for the same services in Norfolk and we can assume that Norfolk schools do not have the same close relationships with these services in Suffolk.

It is essential for the well-being of these pupils that they have continuity in the provision of these essential services and that can only be done by ensuring that they transfer to a Suffolk school and to their catchment school where close relationships are established.

Question 13 Should we change the price charged for the sale of empty seats? Other. The answer to this question depends entirely on what decision is made regarding Options 1, 2 and 3. If you remove the free transport from 54% of our students then you must make spare tickets available at a heavily subsidised cost to mitigate the impact of your changes. If you choose Option 3, then you would have more justification to argue that you should charge the actual cost of the route, but you will need to be transparent about how these costs are calculated.

Question 14 Should we sell spare seats…? Prioritise those unable to access public transport Prioritise those who come from a low-income family

Question 15 Can you please give your views on the following local solutions: 18 of 86

We can only support work on local solutions if Option 3 is chosen, in which case we will work with Suffolk County Council on any of the suggested options.

Question 16 Do you have any suggestions/comments on the local solutions? We object to the way this question has been presented. The local solutions are not ways of reducing the impact of Option 1 on children who lose transport – that makes no sense at all. They are, in fact, additional ways for you to save money and they require the co-operation of schools. Schools dealing with the impact of Option 1 or 2 will not be in a position to work with you to save more money.

Question 17 Can you tell us in what capacity you are responding to this consultation? Other: School

Question 18 If you answered that you are a pupil/young person or parent/carer please tell is which school or schools (and if known, postcode)? N/A

Question 19 If you answered that you are a pupil/young person or parent/carer please tell us how your children currently travel to school? N/A

Question 20 What is your home postcode? N/A

Question 21 If there is anything else you would like to tell us, including alternative suggestions or local issues which mean a loss of equality for any groups you know of please use the box below. Options 1 and 2 represent rural discrimination.

We would also like to submit the following comments provided to us by 262 parents in response to our survey to be included as part of the consultation.

• Please consider adding Thetford to the Bus route. There are still many children who attend Thurston and live in Thetford. There may also be family members who work in the Thetford area and could arrange car pooling to drop off children in Thetford. • Yes, policy change should not include free schools in "nearest school" calculation. • It just seems to fly in the face of the whole principle of choice in schooling - preserving that choice only for those able to pay. Disgusting piece of barely veiled social engineering. • As having three children I would certainly not be able to afford the £900 per year!! I think this takes away our first choice of school, forcing us to attend a school in which we are not happy with. Free school buses also means less vehicles on the road each morning. • I am a single parent and currently work full time. I do not have the means to pay for school transport and taking my child to school and collecting each day will have an impact on every 19 of 86

aspect of our lives. In would have to cut my hours at work to do this and it will leave us financially much worse off. • parents working will find it difficult to be able to get drop off times to coincide with working hours and therefore children will be left out in the cold and bad weather for longer and safety issues will become more of an issue. • My car would be one of the very many more that would be polluting the villages and congesting the local roads to school if the free bus is removed. I would never pay the £900 out of principle. • My son will be in the sixth form when the changes take place. If there is no bus to Thurston from Thelnetham he will not be able to get to the sixth form. It is vital the free bus for younger children continues so that the bus is still available - there is no sixth form at Ixworth !!! • I t is very unfair to suddenly change it after all these years! • It is the law that children have to be educated, most parents choose to do this at a school. Understandably parents want their child to attend the school which gives them the greatest chance of success in life. The Government brought in choice of which school you could send your child to, in order for you as a parent to feel you were able to have a say in the decision of which school is best for your child. Now they are taking it away. So in fact, the Government policy is not about every child having the best possible start in life; it's about which start is the cheapest. Pretty much sums this country up. • It's a bloody disgrace charging to send children to school • Ill-planned, short-sighted proposal, directly impacting outcomes for our children. • The whole transport proposal goes against the catchment educational policy, against the environmental policy (most people will take their children to Thurston by car), and is not in the interests of the children getting the best education on offer. If the council chooses to implement it, they will have failed on each of these counts and will have failed the council tax payers & the children of Suffolk. The saving per child per day will be almost immeasurably small, but will come at a huge cost in all the above categories. • So much for free education for all. • I’m astounded that SCC is aiming to attack some of its most disadvantaged rural population both financially and educationally, which will both suffer as a result if this proposal goes ahead, as has happened in Norfolk. Does it want to improve schools or close them? • I would be prepared to make a partial contribution to cost in order for my child to attend his preferred school. • I feel the transport costs are disgusting.That to pay for transport already provided is a complete joke,and could be a major upset to pupils already settled if parents cannot afford this cost or neither drive. If this proposal must go through then i feel that the children already attending Thurston should be able to have free transport to the end of year 11as not to interfere with their current studies. Therefore only new pupils should have to pay from 2018 where they still have a choice of what to do for their own child. • Any proposed changes which are likely to cause an increase in car traffic cause damage to our environment, at a time when an unprecedented number of children are suffering with breathing-related illnesses. This is not acceptable. An increase in car traffic WILL increase the risk of children being exposed to traffic related accidents. Paediatric head injuries not only confer personal suffering but have a negative long-term effect on the economy, and on society (eg higher representation of people in prisons who have suffered brain injuries in earlier life). Increasing the risk of exposing children to traffic related accidents is not acceptable. If a child first went to their nearest school (eg TCC) but since starting there has been a new school built (eg Sybil Andrews) which is deemed to be closer, that child should not be expected to disrupt their education to move to the nearer school, nor should their family be expected to fund the bus to the original school (eg TCC). • I like many people who have children at Thurston have discussed this matter over coffee , and out of 16 of us we all agreed we would move our children to another school as it's not financially 20 of 86

feasible , they are asking £900 a year , in my current job as a cleaner I barely even earn that , and if the government can't afford these bus services the chance of a pay rise any time soon are slim to none and this is the case for many other parents ! It's sad to think that the government is slowly but surely degrading the schooling system (3 tier to 2 tier) just for money , now they have decided to disrupt children in school by basically forcing a parent to move schools , are they forgetting that this is the future generation they are moulding , the people who are due to live ,breath and fight for this country , well what's left after the current government destroys it , let's just hope all this disruption and upheaval doesn't affect the future generations ability to run a government ! • It is outrageous that you propose to change the rules about free school buses when my children are already at Thurston. You are disrupting their education for your small, immoral gain. I would ensure you did not profit on principle • In 2020 I will have two children at TCC.. this will be £1,800 a year to send my Children to a School that I am happy with and where one of them has been attending previously and getting there and back on a free School bus!!.. I would rather take my children to school than pay and seeing as I will have one at TCC in 2019 and one at a primary School.. my eldest child will be arriving late every day , because I will be taking my youngest one first .. • I found it astounding that in my daughters GCSE year, it would be suggested I move her to our nearest school, after four years of dedication and hard work of Thurston Community Colleges teaching staff? I'm extremely concerned about the impact this could have on my child's results and the effect upon her future? The money is of course a concern to us, as to keep her at Thurston, which is undeniably what our first choice would be, but bigger than that is her future. • Unrealistic changes which puts more pressure on parents to either pay up or make alternative arrangements. Such a shame to start changing children's transport just so you can save money. I really can't believe that this could come into force what is happening to our community where we can't get our children to the school they are in or send them to the nearest school which would be Ixworth free school which only holds 600 children maximum so all Stanton & surrounding area children will not all fit in within the school as its not big enough. I don't think this has been thought through. My suggestion is that all parents pay a small amount for bus pass i.e. £25.00 to help towards costs.. There has to be some middle ground. • Choice of school will now not be an option for many families. Children who are already at TCC should be honoured free travel for the duration of their education. • I feel that moving my daughter at the start of gcse and such a crucial time for friendship groups would be totally detrimental but there is little option than to pay which feels like a dictatorship! • At present I have one child at Thurston Community College and another at Ixworth Primary School. If this proposal was sanctioned and went ahead I would be left with the following choices · If a commercial bus service is available, the family may purchase a seat on the bus at a commercial rate; - not possible as there is no direct bus route from Ixworth to Thurston · The family may share travel with other parents; - not possible as there are no other children who live nearby who attend / will be attending Thurston · The student may cycle to school; - not possible as distance too far and dangerous to cross A143 road · The student may walk to school; - as above reasons for cycling to school · The family may seek a place at the nearest available school. - possible as Ixworth Free School nearby but this does not offer choice for the right reasons. It would be considered for economic not educational reasons. Is this what the Conservative Central Government and Conservative led Suffolk County Council want? • for pity's sake, how many more things does the government want us to pay again for that we already pay for through various forms of taxation • I think having to pay for a bus pass is ridiculous. I cannot pick my child up from school as i am a single parent and have work commitments. I dont think it is fair for him to change schools as all his friends are at the same school and he is settled at this school. 21 of 86

• I am furious that Suffolk County Council are prepared to disrupt my childs education in order to make very small cost savings and to feel forced to pay for my childs transport to the catchment school. Ultimately it will create a greater number of cars on the road and environmentally this would be a disaster. I would appreciate it if SCC could attempt to create some stability rather than attempt to make money out of parents paying for their childs school transport. • Please do not change anything. Our children have been disrupted enough with 3 to 2 tier etc.. Money saving shouldn't even be in the equation as the education of our children are our future. Not every local school is right for every child. Stop messing with it and make savings elsewhere - overpaid councillors / MPs etc. • The plans make absolutely no sense. Parents on low incomes will be forced to move their children. • The impact on education at crucial points seems farcical. There are savings of £200000 which could be implemented with far less impact within SCC • I am sure I am with most parents who will not want to upheaval my child's education and move school. However, this will only prove a short term saving for the council as eventually children will go to their catchment school where transport will be provided. We live in a rural community where it is not feasible for children to walk to school - also as the only other alternative is to drive have you considered the environmental impact to having all the extra cars on the road. Also, as a council tax payer isn't this what we pay for. In rural communities we have so much less on offer that those in urban areas but are still expected to pay the same amount of tax. • What the council is doing is an utter disgrace • Don’t change it!! Many of us cannot afford to pay for transport but I would have to pay on days I am working as I work 8-6. I won’t take him out of Thurston as I feel it would disrupt his education. • I work in a school in Bury so although I could get them to school, it would be very hard to pick them up. i would have to ask my elderly parents who live in Ipswich. There is no useful public transport to Rattlesden and I am a single parent £900 a year times 2 is a huge amount of money. • This proposal will further hit finances of families in Suffolk seeking a decent education for their children in a failing educational environment. Families who chose Thurston for their 1st child as the catchment school with a free bus cannot send younger siblings to another school because to do so would cause distress and damage educational attainment further for Suffolk children. SCC change in policy to save money in this way is shameless attack on working class families already struggling to make ends meet. It's not environmentally friendly either as multiple extra vehicle journeys would probably be the result with additional pedestrian safety issues arising at a large school like Thurston receiving hundreds of children by car in a short few minutes before school bell! • I think the traffic will be horrendous, the council need to travel the routes to TCC. I will also have to cut my hours at work, so I can take and collect my children. I think the changes are totally not thought through. • £900 is alot of money and we would have no other option than to send our son to the nearest school. • The proposal seems to be based on scc making money from parents paying for the bus. I can not afford £900 a year as I am sure many other people can't either. To avoid disruption of moving my daughter to the nearest school I would rather drive her but the traffic will be horrendous. I would then have to take my other child to that school too as to get a free bus he would have to go to a different school to his sister which is not practical. The impact of traffic on Thurston village I imagine would be catastrophic • This policy is short sighted and will disrupt villages and families in rural Suffolk. • We will continue to wish that our children attend TCC but we will not pay anything like this amount of money for the bus. 22 of 86

• There would be a lot of cars on the road going to Thurston and back. £900 is too much money for the bus, if I was going to be paying this money I would send my daughter to the Bury schools • I can't afford £900. Car sharing maybe an option but concerns at ability to retain my job if having to leave early for school run. Plus dangers and impracticality/ increased accident risk of putting so many cars in he area. Light charge for school bus maybe but nowhere near £900. • Feel completely tricked and unable to do anything because of a ridiculous system! • The success of rural schools is dependant on maintaining choice. Transport is essential for this and Thurston's quality is proof of this working. • Being a serving member of hm armed forces i move regular so due to this and regular interruptions to my child's education I always try to pick the best school for my children, not the closest for their educational needs. In rolling out this new plan the local council will need to ensure all schools are atleast at the same standard as TCC. Before the proposed roll out al schools would need to employ more teachers and teaching staff would need to make sure that they are able to accomodate the uptake in children as if this is not done before the roll out it will hinder all childrens education in every school. • I can see that this will result in a lot more congestion as patents will drop off and collect their children rather than change school or pay for bus. • The proposals do not have any substance and are based on some pretty abstract assumptions! • Its a disgrace. • I have 3 children, already have 1 attending Thurston and I can not afford the £900+ a yr we struggle to survive now let alone with 3 their!!! If I wanted my children to.go to a free school I would of sent them there but I much prefer Thurston and shouldn't we as parents be able to make a choice rather than being forced into it because they just can't afford the bus fee. If this funding is removed it is going to effect so many children's lives and not in a good way ! • It's a disgrace that a lot children's education is going to disrupted. The richer parents will have choices and the poorest will probably end up with no choice but send there children to the nearest school. • Rosie will be in year 9 in 2019 so this would be a critical time to change schools to the nearest Ixworth school, as she will be choosing her gsces. I cannot afford £900 bus transport so I would seek a lift share arrangement to Thurston to maintain Rosie for best gsce success. In Suffolk we have had SO many changes with the closure of middle schools that has affected my older children. Now it appears Rosie is to suffer the same uncertainty and disruption to her secondary education. • These proposed changes are unacceptable for a range of reasons not least the significant increase in cars in Thurston that this will create. • I think that for thurston cc pupils currently this is outrageous during the school consultation parents were assured that transport to either tcc or ixworth free would be provided. yet again parents have been lied to and it will be the most vulnerable families and children that will struggle to keep their children attending tcc • I have 4 children at three different schools 3 of them I don’t need to take to school as 2catch the bus and 1walks the 4th I have to take to school on my way to work, so if free transportation is stopped I’m stuck • It will add financial strain on our family and due to hours of work it will be costly and we will struggle with the logistics, we are so very stressed about the pending changes and in turn our children and anxious that they may need to change schools, we have through no fault of our own had to move several times over the past few years and any more upheaval with be detrimental to all. • It is shameful that the local council is trying to get money this way from parents. • These charges would undermine parental choice when it comes to choosing a secondary school. Also, potentially incredibly disruptive if children are forced to change school because their parents cannot afford to pay these newly imposed transport costs. 23 of 86

• Bringing my child to school would have a negative environmental impact and I’m sure the price of a bus pass would mean many other parents would also bring their children to school. Surely this contradicts any earlier Green Suffolk policies? The cost to the government and SCC in terms of extra road use and safer arrangements at and around Thurston for all those extra cars would need serious consideration. Congestion on small rural roads is something that needs to be avoided both in terms of safety and our environment and that is why School buses are important. Placing working parents under increased financial pressure to this degree will either force them to move schools or drive their children in. • Whether I wanted to or not, I am unable to afford £900 a year for the school bus so I would have no option but to bring myself and hopefully car share with other parents. My daughter was bullied by a child now at Ixworth do would not send her there regardless of the free bus. She wants Thurston and so do I • It is very unfair that we would have to move our children to Ixworth free school because we can't afford the bus fare to Thurston. Nobody asked for Ixworth Free School to appear, it doesn't have a very good ofsted rating and isn't even run in the same way. Plus I don't see how it could cater for the amount of students that would have to transfer there because there parents couldn't afford the school bus. Thurston is a very good school and at the moment there is no good enough alternative in the area. Children's education will be ruined because of this. • Transport to school should be free and changing parents is just wrong! • Although this does not affect us, I am not sure how this benefits anyone, lots of our friends have children in feeder schools to Thurston and dividing up primary schools is a nonsense and they will still need to pay for them to catch a bus to their local school as they will still be outside the range. I think it will damage Thurston school enormously and am very concerned about the impact of this on the numbers, teaching staff and facilities. • Parents will either move children's school and then in most cases they will still free Transport or more cars will be on the roads which isn't good for the environment or Thurston village or lastly children will have to walk a fair distance on country lanes endangering the children • My child has a paid for taxi as he attends Thurston as a managed move student. When he enters year 12 however, he will not qualify for the transport. Therefore, he will have to attend a different 6th form centre where there is public transport available from Brandon • If the schools are structured in a pyramid of primary to secondary education, the school transport should be set up to enable children to follow the pyramid and not have to divert to another school simply because it is closer. This proposal seems totally disconnected with a rural environment and the school structure that is in place. • No thought seems to have gone into when these changes are to be implemented especially in the thurston triangle these changes affect the education of all the years involved in the school reorganisation. Who then may be moving school again and suffering further disruption. Also it really does not take into account post 16 travel and yes I am aware that you do not have to provide this but in a rural area with the current way schools are organised the nearest sixth form is Thurston! But if you remove transport to Thurston with this reorganisation you will remove that income that you already get from the subsidy that parents pay to get children to school. Therefore you loose money. Your proposed changes have an impact on the local ecomony as many parents will have to change jobs to accommodate driving children to their preferred school as they are half way through their education. This will in turn impact on trafffic througout the area making bury st edmunds less desireable to live in? A change like this has such broad reaching impact that I dont think anyone has thought through all the options. I also object to the council holding an evening to discuss transport and not asking all parents to attend, how is that free democracy? I simply want my son to attend sixth form where he has attended school since 12. Is that such a difficult idea? Also I am aware that the nearest school from thurston would not have enough spaces for all the children to attend that would need to if they went for free transport, therefore many would be bused to...Thurston. 24 of 86

• Another money making scheme from Suffolk county council, they need to look at other ways to save money as education should be high up on the priority list • I think this proposal is absolutely ridiculous, free school buses should remain, we-as working parents-pay enough in taxes to warrant this service for our children! • This is going to cause complete chaos. If we had access to a public transport service such as is available in the middle of a city or town, fair enough, but as a rural community we don't. Therefore choice and affordability are being severly affected and will have an impact on my children and many, many others . NOT FAIR • As we are all aware this yet another stealth tax and I will not pay £900 for a bus. I pay enough taxes already which have been plenty to support areas such as school transport. I am aware that if others chose to do the same as me this will cause congestion in the roads, however that is an issue which the local council will need to seriously consider in making its decision, as well as the impact on the environment. I am also concerned that this is no doubt using up the valuable time for the staff at Thurston Community College when I'm sure their time can be far better spent focus img on the children's welfare and education. Yet again the beaureacracy at the council are looking for ways to achieve central government targets set by yet more beureacrats whilst they continue to feather their nests. Rant over! • Realistic outcomes for SCC: *Gridlock and pollution at TCC as more families takechildren by car *No bus savings as most move school and needs a different bus *Expensive new investment needed in influx schools as they cannot cope with these moves *Expensive appeals as hundreds of families who don't want to either move or drive complain • I feel the council should feel disgraced over trying to implement these changes! It just goes to show the lip service that higher management in the council pays to our children's education. Unfortunately I have had to deal with the transport department before and all I can say is what a complete shambles! There are obvious saving to be made there, it wouldn't be possible in the private sector...no one would have a job! • Sending my children to another school without a transport cost us impossible as we live in a village without a secondary school. I appreciate there will be a cost for transport but feel strongly that this should be subsidised heavily as there is no other choice. Currently we are applying to Thurston for our year 6 daughter. Thurston is our closest school and our catchment school. I do not understand why Stowupland High is being offered as the school we will receive transport to in the future. Last year, I believe Stowupland High was full or very close to full - with additional children from Elmswell sent there would there be spaces? If not, would we have to go to Thurston anyway and pay for transport? Other parents have talked arranging a bus from the village independently, if reasonable transport is withdrawn. I think that's desperately sad that we may have to consider this and I personally will be appauled if we could do it for less cost than the council. • £1800 to bring my kids to school by bus is out of the question • My boys dad lives in Thorpe morieux and he often has them during the week and Thurston is their catchment school too. He would not be able to drive them to stowmarket on a morning. I would certainly not pay £900 for transport per year per child . I wouodnt even pay that for three children .when all 3 of mine attend high school it will be cheaper to drive to Thurston . My feelings most parents can't afford to pay that amount of money to send their child to compulsory education to their catchment school !! Making in and around Thurston community college rather dangerous as the amount of cars that will be there for pick up and collection it's ludicrous to scrap free transport from the surrounding villages. You won't save money by this . Heck you won't even make money from this as most parents won't pay for transport . Why should we be penalised for living too far to walk or cycle !! • My youngest child attends Bardwell, at present there is no transportation even though I have asked. There is no way to walk as the roads are country roads with no path and the other option is walk through the fields. The point of this is that Suffolk council are trying to save money yet 25 of 86

don’t supply to all schools. I think it’s rediculas and only sets children up to fail as some families can’t afford £900 a year • It is appalling and not thought out at all. It is clearly a ploy for financial gain and not in the best interests in helping our children gain a fantastic education. Most people would send their child to school via car, taxi, car share. To imagine the traffic, pollution, danger to other children, the impact on Thurston’s roads, would be utter chaos. If the council didn’t waste so much money in the first place they wouldn’t be in this situation. It is rediculous that they cannot keep any remaining finances from one year to the next. If we ran our homes like that we would all be homeless • Please don't change the free bus especially now when people have deadlines of choosing high school, also if I move my child school which I would to not pay transport it's uniform cost to, it's the most ludicrous idea I've ever heard just to make you money, • It is very wrong to have allowed us to choose a school for our child, get him settled and happy, and then change the rules about transport. We cannot afford to subsidise Suffolk county council, and should not have to. • This may require changes in working hours. Our child finds change difficult to manage so we wouldn't want to change schools now he is settled. • We chose our house to be in TCC catchment 18 months ago and now the catchment has changed! Our children will continue at TCC but we will not be lining the council's pockets by paying up to £900 per year per child, we will have to find an alternative. • The proposed changes are not acceptable. Why should anyone uproot their child from a school which they are happy at and have chosen to attend, and send them to the 'nearest' school instead because of random changes to the transport. Stowmarket has NEVER been Rattlesdens catchment school. Those who live in the country are being penalised and victimised. It would be a ridiculous decision if went ahead and totally unfair! • This is a unnecessary disruption to our child’s education which will effect there final exam results and future career all to save a few pounds for the local council. • I wouldn't have an option to transport my children myself due to work commitments, neither can I afford to pay £1800 per year for both my children to attend TCC. The idea of the creation of the free school system was to give choice to parents. Where is my choice? • My child doesn’t go on the school bus anyway I’ve always taken them to school & picked up so these changes do not affect me • Transport would become more complicated as it would depend on my work as to whether I could drive my child each day. I couldn't afford to pay £900 for the bus each year. • The logic of you financial argument is clear and supports the opportunity of a decent protest. However, we are not answering this logically. We are answering as parents. Who, if fortunate enough to be able, will choose the option of least disruption to their child and therefore drive them or pay the £900. • Allowing my child to walk or cycle is not a good idea there are no footpaths from Ixworth to TCC ,the road is very busy and she would have to cross a busy main road to start her walking or bicycle journey. I don’t wish to receive a call from the police or TCC telling me that my child has been hit by a vehicle on her way to school on the dangerous road she would have to take.Many parents go to work as soon as there children go to catch there bus including me what are we supppsed to do? • When the new Ixworth 'Free' school ( which currently has less than 300 pupils) was set up we were promised that our children would still get free transport to Thurston. My child will qualify for free transport to Ixworth. Why sacrifice her education to save a few pounds? Surely the arrangements needed for so many children changing schools will outweigh the costs? • Both my children attend their catchment school as it was at the time of transition from primary & middle school. When my year 10 child moved up in September of this year it was a not point mentioned that TCC was not the catchment school. Ixworth Free school is an academy and was 26 of 86

seen as an alternative option. It seems like these goalpost are being moved to suit the councils requirements in order to either charge parents for something that had previously had no cost attached. I will therefore not be forced into sending my children to a school with poor performance ratings. As a single parent it is financially out of my budget to pay the £900 per child. I presume there would be some kind of concession/ help on offer? • One bus takes around 50 children to school so that could be 50 less cars on the roads per bus at really busy times on roads which are struggling to cope. Many junctions in and around Thurston are becoming dangerous with the volume of traffic at the moment. Planning for another 800 homes will bring more cars too. Buses are helping to keep the village moving, we need them. • Totally ridiculous, your going to change children’s schools when they have settled in nicely to leave their friends behind and move to a completely different school that didn’t exist when my son applied to his catchment secondary school . Let’s all move the goal posts again ! • By taking my children to Thurston by car my son at primary school will be late for his day on a daily basis. It will Impact on mine and my husbands employer as we will have to alter Work shifts. • This is such an unfair plan. Our son has ASD and it took us a long time to choose which Secondary School he would attend. He does not cope well with change so it really is not an option for us to change his school. I have had to give up work to help support him more and my other SEND children. We simply can not afford the additional money. We would have no choice but to drive him to school but I have no idea of how this would work as we have other children at school in our village. Ixworth is a Free school so should not be considered as our nearest school. • didn't want free school when it was proposed, not happy with its ofsted, or the variety it can offer at gcse. don't want my daughter to have to go there because council has RENEGED on its promise to keep free transport from our village to Thurston. how much did they save on the buses they no longer have to send to middle schools they closed ? This is OBVIOUSLY purely a money making exercise from council - what do we expect from the really ? • Its absolutely absurd that it is proposed to stop free transport to school. • The thurston pship of primaries and high school is successful . The council should not stop pupils from those primaries going to thurston because of transport changes. • I am concerned by the policy as I thought we were supposed be offered choice of school for our children but this policy is causing the opposite particularly for people who cannot afford other options. This does not seem equitable. Has an equality impact assessment been completed by SCC? • Being forced to send our children to a private (free) school, funded by taxpayer money is completely unacceptable. Stopping the buses, and likely increasing the number of vehicles on the road by a factor of 18 - 20 (assuming 3 or 4 children per car that were previously carried on a bus for 70) is complete insanity. To charge £900 per year per pupil is more crazy than rail fares! From our village we would be adding around 6k miles to our car on a school run, (there and back twice a day) costing around £720 in fuel - split 4 ways with neighbours is only £180 per family - call it £200 with wear and tear in a family car - scale this up to a bus of 70 children, and any more than £50 per year would seem excessive... Do it in an electric vehicle and divide by 6 for a true cost maybe £30 per family. • Why add extra costs onto the parent. For health and safety reasons alone this is not great. The children would miss out of extra activity after school hours as we will be unable to collect. They are settled • Would keep child at TCC regardless of what happens • I already pay over £900 a year for a mini bus place .Just such a shame they cancelled the Thetford bus as other children now have to get on 2 buses each way • Why do children from Stowmarket get a free bus, but my child has to get public transport from BSE which is closer? 27 of 86

• It goes back on a pledge made at re structuring andnin granting free school, which despite statistics I consider to be inadequate • Children get settled at a school they like why spoil there education with traveling , I as a parent I have payed my tax etc since I left school 34 years ago , why stop free travel where has all my tax money gone ? • I already take my eldest daughter to 6th form at beyton by car..i cannot afford the current subsidised charge for 6 formers. I most certainly cannot afford to pay £900 a year for my other 2 children to attend compulsory schooling. It's disgraceful for the council to even consider these proposals. It will mean more children are at risk, more cars will be on the roads doing school runs... therefore safety and harm to the environment will be two major issues. • Parents should have the choice to send children to whichever school they want. Transport should be provided for free regardless of whether a free school is built and classed as the closet school. • My child suffers from anxiety and I am SO concerned for her mental health that this disruption may cause if she were to leave TCC because financially I cannot afford to send her via school/public transport. What really alarms me is that mental health within young people is so highlighted now and yet SCC in my mind, if these changes were implemented, will be a BIG cause in decline to children's mental health in Suffolk after all the hard work has been put in place in recent months. Also an added factor that will not be helping is the Suffolk schools 'statistics' on the national achievement table???? My concern it can only get worse for everyone involved. Sadly!!!!!! • I am so disappointed and angry at the proposed changes. It seems clear this is a money making scheme to squeeze more out of hard working families that already have to pay their taxes, money that should help to supply these kinds of facilities for young people in education. • This is proposal is beyond daft! This school is the closest to us it should be free • It's very disappointing that we will be charged to transport our children to school considering catchment schools were changed when Middle Schools closed. It appears families have absolutely no say in either matter. • To send a child, either walking or cycling, along the road from Pakenham to Thurston is asking for an accident to happen. The road is a ‘rat run’ used by vehicles travelling from the Ixworth road through to the A14, Rougham Ind Estate and Moreton Hall. Vehicles include farm machinery and heavy haulage lorries. The road is narrow and it has lots of bends and overhanging trees and bushes which makes the road very dark in places. Parents and students have enough to worry about without the extra concerns of whether the child has arrived at school/returned home safely. • Outrageous that transport would be free to a failing free school, yet chargable ( 3 miles further) to a thriving school where our daughter is happy and thriving. • It's all about them (council) getting more money from us. • Up to £900 per year is shocking: many families will have more that one child at TCC, too. Will it be up to £900 per child? My child is thriving at TCC, both academically and personally. This is why he wanted to go to TCC, to have to move schools will likely have a negative effect; which I don't even want to think about! If payment is essential - could it be a nominal fee/ reduced fare/voluntary contribution? • Thurston is our nearest school in mileage terms and is 6 miles. Walking or cycling is not an option. £900 would put our family under additional financial strain. If Stowupland is identified as nearer, why should my Childs education be destabilised as a result and my family financially penalised. The cost is not £900 per year, that is the cost of profiteering from ill considered policy makers. There is little funding difference between Stowupland and Thurston so why make the change. If finance is an issue, deduct the cost of transport from Stowupland to Thurston and ask for that instead and it wouldn't be anywhere near £900 28 of 86

• The council need to reflect on the promises they made to parents at th time of SOR. Yet again there are proposed changes which are not putting the children's education first and foremost as a consideration. Stability is imperative, long term decisions must be stuck to however hard. Our children have only one chance at their education. • To remove existing bus routes for school children in order to generate money is disgusting! • I do not want my children to attend anywhere else other than TCC but we cannot afford £900 a year for a bus pass. They live too far away to walk and we do not have the means to get them there ourselves. Without free bus transport we would reluctantly have to move them. In 2019 they would both in KS4 which is hugely disruptive to their education. • Under the SOR we were promised free transport to our choice of school. We chose the school best for our children. TCC has worked with primaries to try to improve outcomes. My children's outcomes are at risk because they will have to move school within a vital period of their education which the SOR was meant to be trying to improve. It is a complete shambles on the part of the Local Authority and I am FURIOUS. I feel let down my my Local Authority who seem hell bent on taking no responsibility for the schools in their area, encouraging/forcing them to become academies so they don't have to worry about them any more. • I find that a choice of schools should be given to parents and pupils not for the sole reason of free transport. And if you decide to do it, that is exactly what will happen. • Due to financial constraints we are unable to pay for the transport and due to job commitments unable to take our children to school. We feel it will a detriment to their education changing schools but can not financially afford any other option. • The impact on roads is going to be hideous. With the 100s of new houses being built in Thurston and the potential of over 800 children being driven individually to school it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise this is an ill-thought through, junior employee idea with no knowledge or thought as to how this will work in practice. The savings are ridiculously small and it is appalling to think it's ok to charge parents up to £900/year. Whoever thought this idea was good or could work hasn't got a clue!! Why it's even got through to this point rather than a crazy idea on a whiteboard after a cost-saving brainstorming session is beyond me • We moved house last year specifically so we would be in catchment, so will definitely not be moving again. We are pretty cross that these changes will financially hit our family hard. Surely they should only apply (if at all) to the new intake of year 7s, so parents can make a decision on which school to send their children to right at the outset. Thus not disrupting any of their schooling half way through such an important part of their lives. • A change in the time of the morning train would help children in Elmswell • It saddens me that families will either have to struggle financially to keep their children in their current schools or have to move schools causing disruption to their education • Presumably a lot of parents would choose to utilise the train line between Elmswell & Thurston - will the train company be able to cope with this influx of school children and keep them safe? The current bus journey at least guarantees a safe door to door service. If lots of parents choose to drop off in Thurston, this will create extra road hazards and safety risks. • Even tho my children walk to school.... why should other parents who have children who have to use puplic transport buses pay for thier child to attend school?? • Disappointed that the schools review promised free transportation for those that moved to a different school and now they are taking it away when we had no option what our catchment school was and they’ve changed the boundaries. • I find it discriminatory to children that live in villages! We were assured that there would be no changes to the transport arrangement when the county council completed the SOR. • This will be very upsetting for my son to have to move school, the £900 for a bus pass could not be met and as we are remote in location a car share would not be possible. Such a shame as he is doing so well and so happy at Thurston. 29 of 86

• I would not want to move my child from Thurston as this would be hugely disruptive to her education. But I would have no choice as we cannot afford £900 per year on transport to school. • For Great Barton the nearest school showed that it was either TCC or Sybil Andrews in an earlier communication it said it was just Sybil Andrews is there a choice? why has it changed? • Due to the introduction of the two tier schooling that the County Council introduced, in September 2015, we had no other alternative for a State Upper School than TCC, therefore, now that our son is settled into TCC, we do not believe that he should now have to transfer to another school, if it deemed nearer, merely to get free transport. The route from Great Barton is unlit, unpaved and unsafe. He would also have to be provided with a bus pass if he attended Sybil Andrews, surely this makes NO sense! • It has taken me a whole year to settle my son into Thurston Community College. It's a fantastic school and changing schools would be detrimental to his wellbeing. So I would have to take him myself until I could move house so he could continue going there. I don't want him to go to the free school. • I am disgusted with the County Council to use children's education as way to cover short falls in their budget. Going back on promises they made when changing to two tier system. County are not considering the hardship this can cause, education should never be held to ransom. • The cost of £900.00 a term is more than it would cost to send my child on public transport however there is no public transport that he could get to the school. The distance is worked as the crow flies but that is not the way they travel. I’m Sure the councillors wouldn’t Accept their mileage payment as the crow flies. Also even if they were able to walk, even to the closer school (which hasn’t got the infrastructure to take the number of children estimated to attend) they would not be able walk as there are no pathways on any of the roadways to the school. • As a single father with 3 children I can ill afford to pay for the bus once all 3 are at TCC. • Education should be free for the good of society. • Another expense for parents! • Furious at the latest scheme to extort money from the lowest income individuals in the country - families! Once again attacking the vulnerable, and this time children, just trying to go to school- something they are legally obliged to do! Despicable. • It’s ridiculous what the council are proposing. We took our daughter out of Ixworth Free School because of the poor education she was receiving and promosies that were made weren’t met. We would do our upmost to keep our daughter at Thurston but if all the other parents drive their children to school it would be an absolute nightmare, especially as I would have to travel to work directly after the school drop off. The traffic is heavy enough at Thurston and with this not being the only problem with their proposal it is a major issue for us. • Proposed schemes such as this will always hit those who cannot afford it the hardest, i.e. those not on benefits or earning more than £40k/year. We are already looking to send our second child to Sybil Andrews who won't qualify for transport because the distances are calculated "as the crow flies", not along the single track roads the would need to be walked or cycled, that are used by commuters as a rabbit run to avoid the traffic in Bury. It's always about money, not child safety!! • I think that this is a terrible plan by the county council. It seems that education now becomes a source of funding. The money spent on the new free school would have been better spent on continuing to fund transport. I do wonder what has happened to the idea of parents having choice. The cost that they propose for anyone outside their nearest school certainly would mean many families would no longer have a choice. It is a terrible move and one I hope they will re consider. • I’ll thought out decision by the council that is detrimental to children! • This is a disgrace, a money-making exercise attacking rural communities, children and parents. Our children would still be closest to TCC so should qualify for free transport, but if they didn't we would need to rely on the train or lifts or driving them ourselves. The five-mile cycle ride is 30 of 86

along country roads along which drivers go at up to 60mph. How do you expect parents to cope? We were told during the schools reorganisation that we were part of the Thurston pyramid and that if we wanted our children to go to another school we would have to pay for transport....what has changed except for the apparent chance to squeeze more money out of already cash-strapped Suffolk villagers. Shame on you. • Bought a property in Thurston catchment when prospect of Ixworth Free School was not on the table. Feel very let down by recent educational changes locally and disgusted by this proposal to withdraw free transport to preferred, established and frankly better school. • I am a disabled parent and am not always able to drive, and i certainly don't have £900 a year for buses. • The current proposal is a retrograde step that will impact negatively on families, the environment, safety of children (especially at pick-up and drop-off times), traffic congestion, educational achievement, freedom of choice, etc. It claims to be about reducing the cost of transport to school, but actually looks like a revenue-generating scheme for the Council, that takes little account of the broader interests of the community. Given the disruption it is very likely to cause, I wonder if it will save any money at all in the end. Put more simply, this is not in best interests of the people that the Council is supposed to represent and therefore requires a proper re-think. • If we'd have known about this government stealth tax earlier (costs savings do not equate to the charges), we would have selected an alternative school. This would have been a shame. We may still have to disrupt our children's education if our employers cannot accommodate the changes to our life-pattern that this change can force. Why should local employers and parents have to accommodate poor decisions from local government. Shame on everyone involved in developing this awful proposal. • This is ludicrous. The state of the free bus that currently transports my child to and from school is already a cause for concern. No seatbelts for any of the children. I don’t know how they get away with it!And they want parents to pay for that?? Not a chance!! We will clog up the roads with our own cars. • Ridiculous • Just an excuse by the council to make money....as usual • Being forced to send my children to a free school. Nearest school should mean nearest State school. • Apart from disruption, cost and possible detrimental effect on local children’s education, I am worried about safety. I understand that in calculating routes to school Suffolk County Council are including unlit roads with no pavement and footpaths through fields and woodland. If a child is injured (or worse) because they have been forced to walk to school along an unsuitable route I will consider instigating criminal proceedings against the Council. • I am extremely dismayed and disappointed with the proposed policy change put forward by Suffolk County Council. I had been led to believe that free home to school travel would not be compromised throughout my son's secondary education, despite Ixworth Free School being our nearest school. I am also seriously concerned about the impact that such a drastic policy change could have on my son's future education and well-being. My son was only diagnosed with Aspergers not long before he turned 12 years of age and followed some difficult years which were understandably very frustrating and upsetting for him at times. Since the diagnosis, much effort has been put into establishing appropriate levels of support and promoting further understanding across the school. Hence, it is vitally important that this mutually agreed way of working continues without interruption to allow my son's confidence to continue to grow within a familiar environment and with teachers he knows. I cannot emphasise how important this will be at a time when he will be preparing to sit for his GCSEs. Furthermore, as a single parent on low income, my family would be further and unfairly disadvantaged if free home to school travel was removed and a council demand for £900 was levied against me. It would be wholly 31 of 86

unconscionable for anyone to expect my son to change to Ixworth Free School, a school that in my informed opinion is not suited to meet my son's special needs, during such a vital period in his life, simply because of a flawed proposal that either puts relatively insignificant savings or has perhaps been specifically engineered to exploit families of school-aged children for unprincipled financial gain, above the best interests of my child, other children, the community and environment at large. Hence, I sincerely hope that this amoral proposal is not passed. • I believe that many parents would choose to bring their child(ren) in by car rather than paying the £900 per pupil to use any transport which might be provided. Many middle income households are already over stretched and cannot afford this extra annual cost. The impact on the traffic and congestion within the communities affected will be dramatic. I would urge SCC to look again at these proposals and investigate the proper environment impact this would have on local communities. I would ask that the revenue spent to rectify these issues, and others that will come about solely because of this proposal be looked at and carefully costed and offset against any extra revenue that the Council expect to receive via travel passes. Only then will the 'true' cost/saving be actually known. • What happens to the poor families who cannot afford to send their children other than the free school transport at the moment. Even car share would be costly and fitting it in with a time to suit parents as most parents work. A very big concern at present • Woolpit Primary Aacademy is part of the Thurston Partnership, all the pupils last year went to Thurston, all transition and integration is with Thurston. The school has no contact / relationship with Stowmarket and has never been part of their catchment. This will potentially devide a community. • Would prefer to keep the current system rather than move my children to another school. • I have other children that are not ready to start school yet but when they are I was hoping it would be to TCC. We moved to the area as Thurston was a catchment school with free bus service and the best school in the area, my son loves it and wouldn’t want to go anywhere else. As working parents we wouldn’t be able to arrange transport ourselves and we certainly couldn’t afford £900 per year per child. There are very few children in our out of the way hamlet so car sharing is out of the question. I hope whoever’s stupid idea this was is sacked, they clearly haven’t thought about practicalities! • Taking away the free school buses would be an absolute disgrace! Money money money is all these people think about. They have absolutely no morals and don't seem to care how much upset and upheavle to the children and their families not to mention the financial implications this would have. Disgusting!! • This would have a huge impact on us in order to get both children to school one would have to be late for school as wouldn’t physically be able to transport both to Ixworth primary and TCC. Have the council considered the environmental impact and infrastructure of all the additional cars coming into Thurston!! • It is laughable and in all honesty despicable that this whole endeavour would reduce the buses required to transport current TCC students from 29 to 28. It is even more ridiculous that the impact on the whole of Suffolk is a reduction of only 5 buses. The Council is forcing parents to have to consider removing their children from where they are settled in their education, some of whom, like our daughter, are undertaking their GCSEs. Such disruption at any time is detrimental, during such critical educational periods it would be highly damaging. Aside from the extremely negative impact on the children's education, it will also break up their social and support networks, tearing apart social groups that kids struggling through this difficult time need so badly. Moreover, it will have destructive implications for the school communities, with pupils being shifted around like pawns in a game - breaking up learning groups and undermining possibly years of work that school staff have undertaken. And for what? The Council seems to be threatening all of this to raise additional revenue - to the tune of £900 per student (because the material savings are so insignificant to be meaningless). That is disgraceful behaviour, the Council should be thoroughly ashamed. Surely there should be a holistic cost - benefit 32 of 86

assessment? Because it quite clear that the costs to the children and their educational communities are not worth any perceived savings benefits. • My comments were made in the previous question. The Council are holding parents to ransom under the guise of saving money while covertly planning a scheme that will generate 15 times more than they currently propose to save. I call this extortion. If this bird-brained scheme ever gets implemented, my child will be educated at home. • In an age of austerity, I have to say that I think this approach is correct. • I would be more than willing to pay a sensible fee that covers the cost of school transport. I am not willing to pay £1800 per year for my sons to go travel to school so that the council can make a profit and use the money for other services. • Yet another stealth tax. Disgusting. • Stupidest idea ever • This strategy raises a significant risk of loss of patronage for existing bus services and could render them unviable meaning that they will be cut to the detriment of other users. This would increase the likelihood of others using their cars (as well as parents taking children to school), which is completely contrary to the sustainable transport strategy of the County Council. The proposals have implications beyond the education system that must be taken into account. It would be wrong to base this decision purely on costs savings. • it is ridiculous. Anyone could open a free school and then it would be all change again. As part of the taxes that we pay, education should be provided within that cost including transport. It is even more ridiculous Post 16 for those living with no public bus service within the village. Parental choice should not be affected by this decision but will be. It is hard enough for families, where typically mum and dad both work - to now organise car sharing and lifts will add danger and the infrastructure of the roads to Thurston cannot support this • Living in Elmwell, I wanted to be sure that the assumption the Stowupland was closer was in fact, true. Whether using a radius from each school or estimating the distance of a bus route using google maps, Thurston Community College is the nearest school for the vast majority of Elmswell. It would be useful to understand the basis of the distance calculations - If they have got it wrong for Elmswell, perhaps the estimates are wrong for other locations too? Happy to share my findings - Andy Stevenson, parent of Alex and Izzy Stevenson • This proposed change to the community school transport policy is a crime in the making, as a military veteran who without question served this country never asking for anything in return except what is reasonable. We live in a rural area it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that removing the free school bus availability is an educated decision by our local council. If it is for financial reasons have they not thought what extra cost will be incurred by several hundred if not thousands of cars being on the roads twice a day that are currently not being used for school runs. To have a child who is happy at their school, face nothing more than a form of social cleansing by the state, to be forced from that school to be placed into a school they do not know with teachers that they do not know, with routines they do not know is unforgivable. The elected privileged few are to be reminded you are there to serve the people as I was there to serve queen and country. And if this change to a fantastic policy is your only option I suggest you resign and let some forward proactive people serve in your place. you are obviously blind to public opinion therefore you are too dangerous to be in charge of anything. Kind regards, Christopher Perrio-Stone (Sgt K8414067 retired) Father of son who attends Thurston Community College. • This is totally unfair & should not be implemented for students already enrolled at the college! If determined to do this it should be rolled Out to earlier years, who have not yet chosen their School. • I would not be able to afford sending one child at £900 per year let alone 2 or more, CRAZY!! 33 of 86

• I would not be able to afford to pay £900 pounds a year on top of all my other bills. And it is not fair on my child to move schools, when she has made all these new friends and doing so well at TCC. • Is it reasonable to request anyone out of catchment area should be accountable for bus funding? • While I appreciate the possible change it should not be retrospective and apply to children already established in their school. If an enforced change is necessary it shoul only apply to those starting secondary school so a true choice can be made. • We chose to send our two children to tcc because it was the best option for them and I don't believe moving them would be positive or a good outcome of there education • Suggest car share obviously. • Strongly disagree the decision. And concerned that while Felsham was removed from the list it appears to now be back on there saying nearest school is Stowmarket- this is false! • Many children's education and welfare will be at risk if free transport is taken away . Even more So do if parents have to cut their work hours to take children to school or unsettle their education by moving schools as they simply cannot afford to pay transport costs • I think it is wholly unacceptable to charge parents up to £900 per child to simply get to school - for the very minimal savings • Would have a massive impact on us as a family with both parents working full time and would have to try and car share with other families to ensure our children get to and from school safely and on time • All school buses within catchment should remain free as it’s parents choice to send their child to a out of catchment school • As the school age to leave as been upped to 18 then a bus should be provided also.. I can bring my kids into school but can’t pick them up because of my work patterns.... I could have sent my kids to the local village school and they could walk there but chose Thurston on the basis they could travel there by bus I was told there wasn’t any rules about catchment areas now there’s no money in the pot school buses cut so kids having distruptions further ...education is key in today’s world and yet more disruptions and complications just to get to bloody school it’s ridiculous! • may consider sending my child who is not yet at Thurston CC to a school on route to work • My child loves thurston she's having a great time there it's rediculous the council are willing to make children's education suffer I am not and I don't no many people who have a spare 900 pounds to spend the whole idea should be scrapped and they should seek a different route • free school bus should continue. • Our child is SEN with an EHCP issued by Suffolk LA. We feel he receives the best support possible at Thurston Community College and the best opportunities to grow & access. We would continue to have him attend here until the end of his school career for continuity of support and education that can be given by the staff & Ms Wilson the Head Teacher. All support he receives is via various agencies with Suffolk who may NOT be willing to give these services across county borders into Norfolk. We feel extremely strongly regarding this matter. • I think that this is a shocking decision. My child attended Woolpit school and the work that the schools put in to make sure that the Thurston partnership is as successful as it is has been amazing. To now change this is awful and could have catastrophic effects to childrens education. If this happens it will divide communities/ villages, and from speaking to parents most will manage to get their children to school which will play havoc with the villages roads • I think it’s a shocking, but sadly realistic, indication of how children’s academic studies and mental well being seem less of a priority in our society than ever before. I am grateful and relieved that all my children are approaching University age. • Ridiculous 34 of 86

• I think it is despicable that you can consider making another change to these children's education. SOR caused the area enough disruption. Although my children will not be directly affected by the current proposals, it will bring instability into their school, through changes of teachers and friends. This cannot be in the long term interests of Suffolk. Further I would urge you to look at the provision of specialist places for SEN children and their transport, out of catchment transportation of children, and look to save money there before affecting the masses. • If we are now forced to send children to school until they are 18 transport should be subsidised. Parents cannot afford more expense. • For a single mother with no transport, to move a autistic pupil to another school to save/collect money is just wrong! This is going to cause such harm to my child! Do they not realise what they are doing to these poor children? Wrong, wrong, wrong! • The council need to understand the potential emotional and financial impact that these changes will have on our children emotional and financial stability. Our children have made friend and started their primary education in Thurston where introduced to their secondar education gradually had to get used to new teachers new system and new friends and being told that all this can be taken from them as their single.parents couldn't afford to pay for the transport is at best traumatizing at worst life changing. Taking advantage of parents already hardly hit by chanhe's in the welfare nd tax system is immoral and outright wrong! • Along side the huge expense, this would cause massive inconvenience to parents, traffic congestion in thurston and significantly worsen the carbon footprint. Shocking if this becomes the council decision. • Although this wont effect our family, I think its a disgrace to expect people to find an extra £900 per year • Absolutely ridiculous .... • My children have already had one major disruption when the schools changed from 3 to a 2 tier system. Are we going to keep getting major disruptions to their education, especially if we want them to do well at school and get good grades! • When these changes were first suggested, it was very apparent that this proposed policy was clearly not thought through properly, and as the process has gone on, it is still very clear that this is still the case. Yet again local council not working for the local community but for a hidden agenda of their own. I don't think many parents can afford to pay £900 a year to get their child to Thurston Community College, in my case it would be £1800 a year for both of my children to attend. We live in Knettishall Heath, so about as rural as you can get so we would take our children to school by car. Thank you to Helen Wilson for keeping us so well informed on the progress. • It's a ridiculous idea. All that will happen is that parents will bring to and pick up from school by car. This will lead to air pollution around schools, congestion and possible accidents. Is there room for 800 cars arriving at the same time to drop off students? Not to mention the parking that would be needed at the end of the school day. I will not swap my children's school at this stage of their education - they've suffered enough thanks to being in the middle of the change already. • It would be very difficult for me to bring them to school as I have another child in a different school and also work commitments but feel I would have no other choice as they can not change schools now they are in such an important stage of there schooling starting gcse work and it would not benefit them to have such a disruption as moving schools, making new friends etc... but I could not afford to pay for both girls to get the bus and pay. It would have a huge impact on us financially as a family. • I think it is being used as a cashcow by the Local Authority. When my child started at thurston his nearest school (Ixworth Free) had NO provenance and therefore i had no evidence upon which to judge if the school was right for my child - UNLIKE thurston. So,m i will be being VERY 35 of 86

environmentally UNfriendly and taking my child to school which time-wise will also affect my business as a set-employed individual. I hope common sense prevails given the amount of money involved for retention of the free school bus. • Children welfare before cost savings!! • The bus service will not gain any further income from us if they remove the free transport. For one it is cheaper for me to drive her to school and two I will not allow for this to have an impact on her choice of where she wishes to attend school. My child unfortunately, will lose her newly gained freedom and responsibility (which she loves), however, because we live on the outskirts of the village, I still have to drop her to and collect her from the bus stop anyway... what's another 5 mins up the road compared to £900 a year!? • How can they justify these proposed changes.? Rattlesden has only benefited from free school transport in the last few years , now the council want to change it back. What a waste of time! • £900 per year is way too expensive!!!! • The policy change is ridiculous. I already know I would carpool, and that many other parents would too. • I am sure this ridiculous policy will backfire on the council. This is one of the most genuinely incompetent and ill thought through proposals I have seen in 27 years in business. Words fail me. • What happened to Elmswell being in Thurston catchment with the change in middle school closure? Stowmarket/ Stowupland is not our catchment school. If this was going to happen we might have considered a different school. I will have 2 going into Yr 10 so am looking at a cost of £1800 for that last year! • I do hope that the council see sense and do not stop free school transport for our children. Although I would drive my children to school it would cause massive disruption to my work. I am not willing or able to pay £900 a year though. When I chose thurston for my children it was our nearest school. The change in the tier system has made it not so. I don't see why my children should be punished and have their education disrupted for this. • I am sure most parents will do thi and the already chaotic school drop off traffic will presumably grind to a halt and create huge amounts of polution and cause real safety issues • Disgusted by these changes.yet again the council out to save more money it's seems that we can't choose the best place for are kids to get the best education.maybe the top cheifs at the council should take a pay cut to save a few quid I think not! Shame on the council utter disgrace yet again.its all about money trying to save a few quid here and there while the white collar staff keep getting bonuses. I would rather to be honest not pay the 900 pounds and home school my kids but that would not happen. • The proposed changes are utterly ludicrous, a classic example of squeezing funds from areas which should be ring-fenced. These changes do nothing other than cause unnecessary and potentially life-chance limiting effects on young people and their families. Targeting those in society that need the greatest help all in pursuit of profit for fat cats. Grim. • I do not believe Ixworth Free School is the best school for my child as I am aware there is a wait list of students transferring from Ixworth to Thurston but as a single parent I cannot afford £75 a month bus fees. I am upset that I would have to pay almost as much as my council tax per month to Suffolk County Council when they forced a two tier system change thus increasing bus requirements from an earlier age. • The scheme is based on making money not the best interests of children, it is disruptive and poorly considered • I would be happy to make some contribution towards the cost of transport (maybe up to £100 a year) but £900 per child is unaffordable. • Ixworth is a free school with a bad reputation. There is no way I would send my children there just because it’s closer. It should not count anyway as it is not a state run school. Thurston has been the upper school for Walsham children for over 40 years. Imagine the chaos and potential 36 of 86

hazards of all the parents who would inevitably drive their children to school rather than pay for the school bus! • As stated previously, my children’s education comes to down me not being able to afford cost of transportation. • Whilst I understand the councils desire to cut costs, proposing charging around £900 per child to get to their catchment school is wholly unacceptable- this is penalising families in rural locations. The vast majority of families simply cannot afford these costs (particularly if they have more than one child to pay for). The alternative of allowing children to walk/cycle several miles along roads with national speed limits and no footpaths would be an accident waiting to happen. I certainly wouldn’t allow my children to make such a treacherous journey (particularly in the dark, fog or ice) Car shares would be impractical for working parents and those with children in primary schools too) Driving your own child to school would significantly increase the traffic around the schools and therefore greatly increase the risk of an accident involving children as well as increased emissions and congestion. It would also result in a need for parents to change working hours hence impacting on their employment Many people will opt to move their children to the school which provides free transport. This would be hugely disruptive to a child’s education. This would also have a significant effect on school numbers, staffing levels. • I’d really struggle as a single parent to pay this, and it may be that I just ant afford it and my current yr10 has to change half way through her GCSEs which would be catastrophic as many of her subjects are not taught at Ixworth Free. • These changes would have a major impact on my family. I would need to work less hours to accommodate the school runs into my working week. With 3 children to pay for, the £900 a year cost would be impossible. • The council should not be allowed to change the transportation for children currently at a school or for students due to attend in the future with older siblings at the school. • We are currently do not have "free" transport as we are out of catchment. We have tried to get on the nearest bus but the cost is too high and there has been no availability anyway!. Public transport timings do not work! Buses and Trains going into Bury arrive after the buses have left for Culford so this is not an option. Taxi is too expensive. If you want parents to have a choice of school then it would be good to have a policy of providing all students with the opportunity to get their by Bus and reduce traffic on the roads. Sybil Andrews have adopted this policy so why can't other schools? Sharing buses delivering students to multiple schools would seem a sensible way forwards. Some public buses do offer this already into County, St Benedict's, KEGS, and Westley. Is a more joined up approach the right answer rather than forcing students to their nearest school when they already made the choice for the school they are at as being the best for the child. Cost of moving I do not see an option either as this has a huge financial burden that most can't afford. • I chose to send my daughter to TCC as it’s a good school. I feel cross that to receive free transport I have to be dictated as to which school I send her to, especially as it’s not a good as TCC. So her education would suffer!!!! Outrageous! • So if say all the parents children that currently attend Thurston from Stowmarket region decided to use their catchment school would that not exceed the capacity of the catchment school? this would deffinity decrease the students ability to learn to the detriment of the child. Going to school should not be a case of those that can afford it can use a school with better education standards. • I would either pay or take by car because as I'm paying now it would be a bit more expensive as I pay 220 a term yet I know someone who is the same and they get theirs free • I am a single mother who also works. I would not be able to afford to pay for my child’s transport to the nearest secondary school, so the council would have to find that. • This would appear to be a fairly cynical, transparent attempt for the County Council to fill their coffers 37 of 86

• Upon first hearing of the changes earlier this year I thought I was just being skeptical but after reading your recent letter, I think it's quite obvious that the council will effectively be imposing another form of rural tax on people who don't live close to their current school. • A poor proposal from the council which stops parents from having a choice. They are also reneging on a promise made when they implemented the schools organisation review to allow parents to have free transport to TCC although Ixworth Free School was in the pipeline to open • I would not move my children to my nearest school because it is not my preferred option and is 'requiring improvement' judgment by Ofsted. However, I could not afford to pay for the school transport for my children either so would be forced to transport by car and if necessary change my working arrangements to fit around the journeys. • The environmental impact of increased car traffic would be immense and it would be a huge safety issue. • Please note: at the moment there is not an option to take the bus some days. you either pay for a bus pass for every day or you don't. if there would be an option to pay as you go my answer to above questions might be different. Also having to potentially drive children to 3 different schools ( beyton site, thurston site and one primary school) it would also depend on the schools being willing to open doors early as i would have to drop off early to make it round all 3 schools. • Does this affect transport to Beyton? Increased traffic to Thurston if parents use a car to transport plus increased housing planned also creates extra traffic issues. Increased safety concerns for kids walking and cycling to school. • Ill thought out major change that will have an affect on children's education based on minimal cost saving and possible potential gain from family income. • I objected to the council charging for collection of brown bins so did not pay the fee and compost my waste. I would object if the council wish to charge me for a school bus service and would arrange for my son to cycle to school and give a lift where necessary. Unfortunately when I do take him by car this will impact the environment of Thurston and the school, but I feel strongly that a free bus service helps to ensure school attendance. • If the change comes into place I don't know what I would do. The proposed costs would be crippling to our family but as a single parent working full time I could not take them to school myself. The distance is too far for them to walk or cycle so what am I to do? Move them from their catchment school and all their friends, disrupt their lives completely just as they head into their GCSEs. • I would be relying on the school to provide after school options as due to my working pattern I would not be able to collect them until 5.30pm. I would look to car share if possible but live remotely and rely on others presents it own issues when illness etc occurs. I feel moving my children to an alternate school would be detrimental to my children’s education and their mental welfare. • It is a very short-sighted approach and I think parents care enough to avoid disrupting their children's education and will pay for transport, which will make the proposal lucrative. It's a big risk in an area which has been under the spotlight for underperforming (Suffolk and Norfolk generally) with relatively little financial gain. • I understand that savings need to be made - I work for the Council - but this seems to be an enormous amount of disruption for a limited financial benefit. Perhaps the Council could publish a list of alternative cuts that would generate similar savings. • We cannot afford to pay for the bus passes, so we would have to move the children to the school where the council will provide free transportation to. presumably this extra income that the council anticipate being generated will only be relevant for the pupils already at their catchment schools, those families looking at secondary schools for their primary school aged children will take into consideration the fact the free transportation so this is a very short sighted plan. 38 of 86

• When Ixworth free school was created we were assured that transport to thurston would not be affected! • Do the council really want an extra 1500 cars coming into and out of Thurston every day? And at rush hour in the morning when people are trying to go to work!? • Surely the disruption and extra school places that the council will have to provide will cost more than the current free bus • It is absolutely gobsmacking that the LA would be so arrogant to expect parents to foot the bill where other LAs pay for school transport from monies given to them by central govt! This service was PROMISED to us if we backed Ixworth Free School bid! Broken promises!! • not having free transport would cause me a lot of trouble in a morning as i have to be at work early. this would also impact on my children as it would make there day a lot longer. the logistics of living in bradfield st george and having to get one child to school ontime and one to college at the same time would be a nightmare one would suffer • Although mostly unaffected by the changes, appreciate impact on this change on TCC in general. Happy to do anything further to help • The free school at Ixworth is not an option for us as they have proven to not being able or willing to meet SEND needs. They put this to us, when free school opened, as giving choice to parents over schooling. How is it a choice if it's the only free transport option??? This is about lining their pockets not meeting needs and obligations of the community. • My youngest is special needs and Thurston is named on her EHCP. I am hoping and assuming she would still qualify for free transport be it the bus or a taxi (which would be more expensive than a bus!). I noticed in the Impact Statement it states that the council wanted to get people and communities working together. How can this be if we are all going different directions and/or taking our kids to school alone in our cars? My youngest would certainly not benefit from going on her own in a taxi. She loves the whole social thing of being "normal" with the other kids at the bus stop and on the bus. But switching schools with her is not simple. And my eldest would be in Yr11 when the change happens so I would definitely not swap her school. I would shoulder the responsibility of getting her to school myself. • It's ridiculous. You won't raise £3 million and our children's education will suffer as a result of these proposals. Here more than ever in this rural community we need to know our children can get to school safely and on time. Also why should the choice of school be dictated by whether or not a parent can afford to pay for travel especially when the alternative catchment school is under standard. Not on and not acceptable. • Our family moved to the village of Rattlesden in order for our children to attend TCC. We are very disappointed with the councils plans regarding the transport policy. This will burden parents with financial strain and increase CO2 levels due to more vehicles dropping off children. There are also health and safety issues to consider. • I feel it is another way to make today’s parents pay and make money for the council itself which is very very unfair especially for the children themselves as this could cause their education to in the same way that councils feel it would if parents took their children away term time. Parents today are being used today to make money for councils • If we all started bringing in by car the roads would be awful. They are at a standstill most mornings anyway add all the potential extra cars the there will be huge traffic jams. Have the council looked at this?? • If the under performing school at Ixworth had not been allowed to open, my son would still be elligable for free school transport • I cannot see that the council have not been able to benefit financially from the change of 3 tier to 2 tier system. For the Council to view a necessity to send my children to school as a potential profit making entity by charging for transport is totally unacceptable. 39 of 86

• If parents have to take their children to TCC the roads will not cope with the increase in traffic. The narrow country lanes are difficult enough to negotiate at pick up and drop off times at the moment • As I am self employed taking my children to school by car would have a significant effect on my income and I would consider moving out of the area.

40 of 86

2. Consultation response: Post-16 Again, you have failed to produce impact assessments or modelling to show how much you expect this policy to save or what adverse effects it may have.

Question 1 What are your views on Option 1?

Answer: Strongly Oppose

Question 2 Can you tell us why you think this? Given the already high cost of transport post-16, you can be sure that any student who is paying for a ticket on school transport does not have an alternative means of transport. We know from talking to our own students that where public transport options are available, these are used as they are considerably cheaper than paying for a school bus ticket.

This means that your 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.

Bursary funding is already used to subsidise the cost of school transport. It will not make a sufficient contribution to mitigate the impact of your proposal.

If Option 1 or 2 is chosen for changes to 5–16-year-old transport. We expect bus routes to close and more sixth-formers to be left without a route to school. The roll in sixth form will fall and the campus in Beyton will close.

Question 3 Can you give us your views on Option 2?

Answer: Strongly Oppose

Question 4 Can you tell us why you think this? Option 2 has all the problems of Option 1

Question 5 Can you give us your views on Option 3?

Answer: Strongly Support

Question 6 Can you tell us why you think this, and how do you think this should be funded? • Do not increase traffic in our local villages • Do not force the closure of our sixth form campus • Do not reduce the opportunities for post-16 study for rural students 41 of 86

• Work with schools to create further efficiencies in the provision of school transport

Question 7 Do you think rights of way should be taken into account when assessing your nearest post-16 provision? No

Question 8 Can you tell us why you think this? Determining something as fundamental as post-16 choice of provision on the basis of a few yards difference on a footpath that will never be used to get to school is incomprehensible.

Question 9 Do you think Rights of Way should be taken into account when deciding the shortest walking route to your post-16 provision? No

Question 10 Can you tell us why you think this? Rights of Way in rural areas will not be safe at all times of year even for post-16 students.

Question 11 Should we change the price charged for the sale of empty seats on closed contract routes? Keep the same.

Question 12 Should we sell spare seats…? Prioritise those unable to access public transport Prioritise those who come from a low-income family Prioritise those who live in a rural location

Question 13 Can you please give your views on the following local solutions: We can only support work on local solutions if Option 3 is chosen, in which case we will work with Suffolk County Council on any of the suggested options.

Question 14 Do you have any suggestions/comments on the local solutions? No

Question 15 Can you tell us in what capacity you are responding to this consultation? Other: School

42 of 86

Question 16 If you answered that you are a pupil/young person or parent/carer please tell is which school or schools (and if known, postcode)? N/A

Question 17 If you answered that you are a pupil/young person or parent/carer please tell us how your children currently travel to school? N/A

Question 18 What is your home postcode? N/A

Question 19 If there is anything else you would like to tell us, including alternative suggestions or local issues which mean a loss of equality for any groups you know of please use the box below. Options 1 and 2 represent rural discrimination.

43 of 86 3. Appendices

Appendix 3.1

44 of 86 3. Appendices Appendix 3.2 From…………………….. Date: 28 January 2018 at 23:01:34 GMT To: "Cllr Ray Gooding, Member CC" <………………………….>

Subject: Re: Essex Against School Transport Cuts Consultation Results

Dear Cllr Gooding,

Once again I appreciate your reply and that you would rather not correspond with me any more which is your prerogative, but I feel it would be neglectful to the Essex taxpayer and the thousands of parents and children directly suffering from your policy not to point out some serious errors in your calculations which I would suggest you discuss with your service chief at the earliest opportunity in the hope that you can avoid wasting any more money on this misguided policy.

Let me explain.

Firstly, in your response you provided me with the per day spend on all school transport. These figures include the government sanctioned removal of age 16-19 'college' transport from all local authorities responsibility in 2012 and therefore don't account for the fact you are not making savings in the much larger 11-16 secondary school children category.

Financial year Spend per school day 2011/12 £144,787 2012/13 £143,154 2013/14 £134,490 2014/15 £134,325 2015/16 £132,862 2016/17 £131,540 If you add some of the other categories of school transport the picture does not look so good from a savings point of view. The £40,000 savings figure you have quoted to me in the past, via FOI requests, is the difference between the Total Spend in 2013/14 which was the last full year of the old policy and 2016/17 (the two cells with red borders):

Your claimed reduction for 11-16 transport is vs 2015/16. The 2015/16 financial year ran from 1st April 2015 to 31st March 2016. This means that it includes April 2015, May 2015, June 2015 and July 2015 under the old policy for 11-16 year olds, and September 2015, October 2015, November 2015, December 2015, January 2016, February 2016, March 2016 under the new policy for 11-16 year olds. Therefore your previous statements are disingenuous because they include accounts for two thirds of the year which were delivered under the new policy. You may remember that I pointed out to you that the 2015/2016 spend was the highest on record. In your response you told me I had to wait for the 2016/2017 where the true savings vs 2014/2015 would be seen. While there was a very small saving of £217.46 per day vs 2014/15 this was achieved by transporting 1,943 fewer children each day. It is therefore not a 'like for like' comparison, as would be used in 45 of 86 3. Appendices any proper statistics account. In our analysis we have previously always used 2013/14 as the starting point at this aligned to the savings predictions presented by the Council. Your figures provided to us are:

I notice that in your response to me you have not given your 'Savings are on track' statement that you repeatedly made on record to both Councillors and the media. You will remember the following table from your Cabinet Paper in 2013 laying out the predicted savings from the policy which formed your advice to the public in the consultation on the issue. Note that the savings were forecast by financial year so the different number of school days per financial year will have been accounted for in the prediction:

Measured against your previously favoured 'cost per day' metric this produces the following result. 46 of 86 3. Appendices

My conclusion therefore is that the Policy has missed its saving forecast by £3,725,673 in the full 2016/2017 financial year or £19,008 per school day and perhaps more tellingly than that gross figure in real terms it is costing approximated 90p per pupil more than the old policy of 'catchment' or 'priority school, when you account for the lower amount of pupils across all secondary schools and fewer school days in the academic year you've provided a comparison for.

I have copied this email into the various media outlets who have been covering this story in the past who may be better able to challenge your assertions and hold you to account over the benefits of your policy which is and continues to discriminate against school children from rural areas compared to their urban counterparts, removing access which was available to their parents and grandparents, since the Education Act of 1944. This is a path I hope the parents and children of Suffolk are not taken down during their consultation in to an identical policy.

I am also minded to further report your repeated misrepresentation of the figures in to me and the media to the National Statistics Authority and Local Government Ombudsman.

Regards

…………………...

Essex Against School Transport Cuts.

47 of 86 3. Appendices Appendix 3.3 Cabinet paper Agenda item 09 June 2014

Agenda Item 9

Committee: Cabinet Meeting Date: 10 June 2014 Lead Councillor/s: Lisa Chambers, Cabinet Member for Education and Skills Local Councillor/s: All Councillors Director: Sue Cook, Corporate Director, Children and Young People’s Services Assistant Director Gavin Bultitude, Assistant Director, Resources and Support or Head of Service: Author: Jan Scott, Senior Infrastructure Officer, 01473 264657

Home to School Travel Policies 2015/16 and Discretionary Charges from 2014/15 What is the Cabinet being asked to decide? 1. To consider the results of public consultation on proposed changes to the Home to School Travel policy. 2. To approve an increase to the discretionary charge from £510 to £540 per year (£170 to £180 per term) in 2014/2015. This would apply to all children who travel on Suffolk County Council contracted vehicles when they are not entitled to free travel. 3. To approve that the cost of a discretionary seat may increase by up to £30 each year (£10 per school term). 4. To approve that the discretionary charge should apply to all students, where applicable. 5. To approve the proposed Home to School Travel policy for 2015/16, as attached to this report as Appendix A. 6. To approve the proposed Post-16 Discretionary Travel policy for 2015/16, as attached to this report as Appendix B.

Reason for recommendation 7. Home to school travel is expected to cost £18.6m in 2014/15 and is the largest budget in Children & Young People’s (CYP) Services. In the context of a 30% cut in council funding the Home to School Travel policy has been reviewed for non-statutory travel. If approved, the proposals consulted upon are expected to achieve financial savings in the region of £65,000 in 2014/15 and £375,000 in 2015/16. They would also ensure the policy is clearly defined, and will reflect the changing educational landscape such as the creation of academies and free schools. 48 of 86 3. Appendices 8. The general Home to School Travel policy for 2015/16 will be published in September 2014. This will enable parents to take account of their eligibility for travel assistance when applying for a school place for the following September. 9. The council must publish its Post-16 Discretionary Home to School Travel policy by 31 May each year for the following academic year. This policy was published as required on the website www.Suffolkonboard.com, with the caveat that it is subject to the Cabinet’s decision on 10 June 2014. As the consultation document proposed that any policy changes would be implemented in 2015/16, the only change for 2014/15, if approved, would be the discretionary charge. What are the key issues to consider? The key issues are: 10. Statutory requirements 11. Cost of discretionary transport 12. Impact of change to Raising the Bar and Raising the Participation Age 13. Views of consultees Consultation 14. A policy development panel of county councillors, headteachers and officers met in autumn 2013 to consider ways in which to reduce the cost of home to school travel. Appendix C sets out the identified options for savings, some of which were included in the Home to School Travel consultation which was held from 10 February to 28 March 2014. Key issues that must be considered are the responses to the consultation, technical and educational issues, and whether the proposals will be likely to receive approval when considered against home to school and post-16 transport statutory guidance published by the Department for Education.

What are the resource and risk implications? 15. It is important to note the risks to the home to school travel budget from decisions made by schools and academies. Regulations for changing school times have been relaxed and the council’s consent is no longer required for a maintained school to do so. This could make it more difficult for the council to achieve cost efficiencies by co-ordinating travel on the same bus. The freedoms academies have to set the length and dates of their terms also have the potential to increase costs for the council, as councils continue to be responsible for the cost of home to school travel. As an example, one school taking a professional development day on a different date to others in the area recently led to an additional cost of £2,400. Another example is where an academy has changed the afternoon session time resulting in estimated additional costs of around £30,000 per year. What are the timescales associated with this decision? 16. If approved, the current discretionary charge of £510 per year (£170 per term) would increase to £540 per year (£180 per term) from September 2014. 17. The proposed changes to the Home to School Travel and Post-16 Home to School Travel policies would be implemented from September 2015. Alternative options 49 of 86 3. Appendices 18. Leave the policy unchanged for another year. 19. Approve modifications of these proposals. Who will be affected by this decision? 20. All students and their families in Suffolk who are entitled to or are seeking home to school travel to schools, sixth forms, or post-16 institutions. Main body of report 21. Travel arrangements for 5 – 16 year olds: There is a statutory requirement for the council to provide free home to school travel to the nearest suitable school for children aged 5 – 16 years of age who qualify on grounds of age, distance and income. In addition, there are further entitlements for children whose special needs require it. 22. The council also provides free travel to catchment area schools when it is not the nearest school. This is not a statutory requirement. Currently, there are no proposals to change this arrangement although it should be noted that some councils now meet statutory requirements only, as shown in Appendix D. 23. Currently, 13,065 students aged 5-16 are entitled to receive free travel to school. This represents 14.6% of the school population. In addition, 88 students currently receive exemption from payment through the council’s discretionary policies either due to low income or 3rd child. 24. Subsidised home to school travel may be available to other groups of children and young people who are not entitled to free travel when seats are available on routes contracted by the council. Currently, families who are in receipt of working tax credits at the maximum level or free school meals (or who are entitled to free school meals due to the receipt of income support or income based job seekers allowance) are exempt from the discretionary charges. 25. However, there is a statutory requirement to provide free transport to low income families when their child is (a) aged between 8 and 11 years and lives over two miles but under three miles from the nearest school; (b) aged between 11 and 16 and lives more than 2 but less than 6 miles and the school is one of the three nearest to the pupil’s home; or (c) aged 11-16 and the school is 2 to 15 miles away if it is the nearest school preferred on the grounds of religious belief. Therefore, as there is statutory provision for low income families, it is proposed that from September 2015, the council phases out exemptions for the discretionary charge as set out in paragraph 24. 26. Parents may apply for a discretionary seat when their child has no entitlement to free travel, including for post-16 students. When seats are available, they are offered at a subsidised rate. Since 2011, the council has consulted upon and increased the cost of discretionary transport by £30 each year. It is proposed that this charge may be increased by up to £30 each year without the need for annual consultation. 27. Travel arrangements for Post-16 Students: post-16 travel proposals took account of the Department for Education’s Post-16 Transport Guidance (2010). However, this guidance has been superceded by the Post-16 Transport to Education and Training Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities (February 2014) which was published after the consultation had started. This new guidance has been duly considered. 50 of 86 3. Appendices 28. The planning of transport provision at a local level should take into account that young people are currently required to stay in education or training until the age of 17 and from June 2015, this will be extended until their 18th birthday. 29. A local approach allows local circumstances to be taken into account. The legislation gives the council the discretion to determine what transport and financial support are necessary to facilitate young people’s attendance. It does not need to be free. It must exercise its power to provide transport or financial support reasonably, taking account of all relevant matters. This includes for those who are vulnerable to becoming not in education, employment or training (NEET), young parents and those who live in particularly rural areas where the transport infrastructure would be more limited. 30. The Discretionary Post-16 Home to School Travel 2013/14 policy operated by Suffolk County Council will remain in place for the 2014/15 school year. However, if approved, the cost of this discretionary service will increase by £30. This policy is one of the most generous offered in terms of the time allowed to reach the establishment compared to other local authorities of similar character across the country. However, it undermines the current post-16 provision in Suffolk. In 2013/14, the majority of local authorities are operating a policy for full-time students to their nearest maintained establishment. In Suffolk, students currently have access to discretionary travel assistance to study at any institution within 75 minutes travel from their home. 31. This policy was devised at a time when Suffolk County Council had considerably more funds available and when there were very limited alternative study options to school sixth forms within the county, often necessitating students to travel to neighbouring counties if they wished to study in a college environment. The funding context for the council and the post-16 learning offer available in Suffolk have both changed significantly in recent years. The council can no longer afford to provide the level of funding for discretionary post-16 transport formerly offered and there are now two new post-16 institutions established in Suffolk: Lowestoft Sixth Form College and Suffolk One. Students can now access the choices they need closer to home and the proposed changes to the Post-16 Home to School Travel policy reflect this new context. 32. The revised Post-16 Discretionary Home to School Travel 2015/16 policy proposes to offer students access to a subsidised travel pass to study at either their nearest school sixth form or nearest post-16 institution offering the course of study they wish to take. This ensures that for any chosen course every student has as a minimum choice of two venues at which to study, and a choice of setting – either a school sixth form style offer or a college style offer. In addition to the basic choice for all students of their nearest school and college settings, if the course to be studied is more specialist the student will be able to still access providers further away from their home on an exceptional basis. Currently, 7916 Suffolk students are accessing post-16 provision. Of this, 11% are travelling outside of Suffolk. Appendix E & F show the geographical spread of all Suffolk students and the Institutions they attend, both in and outside of Suffolk. 33. Whilst this approach will maintain choice for every student and continue to support access to more specialist programmes of study, it will at the same time reduce the number of students the council is funding to travel past their nearest providers to study some distance from home, often out of the county. This policy 51 of 86 3. Appendices does not preclude out of county study where it makes better sense for the student and represents good value for the council, for example in the far west of Suffolk we would expect to continue to support students whose preference is to study at Hills Road and Long Road Sixth Form Colleges, Cambridge when this is their nearest institution. However, Suffolk County Council currently funds 399 students to attend East Norfolk Sixth Form College, most of whom live south of Lowestoft Sixth Form College. Similarly in the south of Suffolk, 258 young people are subsidised to travel to Colchester, when for many there is good provision in Ipswich. The new policy will therefore reduce unnecessary travel subsidies while ensuring that all students have access to choice of institution and choice of course. 34. Young people should have a reasonable opportunity to choose between the courses available to them at 16 and be supported to access their choices. Reasonable choice should also include enabling young people to choose an establishment of education or training that is not the closest to where they live if it makes sense to do so. Therefore, for students wishing to study more specialist subjects or courses which are not available at their local school or college, applications will be considered on an exceptional basis to the nearest centre offering the programme, where this is needed to enable the student to progress. 35. It should be noted that students from low income families may be able to apply through their school or college for a government bursary of up to £1,200 to meet travel and other costs associated with their studies. In 2014/15, Suffolk School Sixth Form Institutions will receive total bursary funding for 16-19 year olds of £309,000 as shown in Appendix G. 36. Transport Priority Area: Currently, catchment areas are used to establish a student’s (aged 5-16) eligibility to free or discretionary home to school travel, based on the fact they are attending their catchment area school. However, an academy or free school is able to change its catchment area or priority area without consultation with the local authority. In these circumstances the council will continue to use the former catchment area for transport purposes and will not provide free transport to the extended area, unless it is the nearest school. To avoid confusion, it is recommended that the terminology to assess eligibility for free home to school travel is changed from catchment to transport priority area. This will be either (a) the area that the council has traditionally used as the school’s catchment area or (b) when a new school is established the area for which it is the nearest school. 37. In Suffolk, home to school travel for mainstream pupils is provided at a current average cost of £825. About one third of the cost of home to school travel provides travel for children with special education needs (SEN) at a current average cost of £4,078. The most recent benchmarking data from the Association of Transport Co-ordinating Officers (ATCO) shows that Suffolk compares well with its statistical neighbours. 38. Seeking efficiency of procurement is an ongoing effort against the background of fuel costs and other inflationary pressures. 39. Consistent application of policy can also be undertaken as part of normal business. A flow chart to establish entitlement to transport has been developed as shown in Appendix H. 52 of 86 3. Appendices 40. A review of policy is justified on three grounds; to achieve financial savings, to ensure the policy is clear and easily understood, and to reflect the changing landscape such as the creation of academies and free schools. It was therefore agreed to consult on the following proposals. 41. Catchment Area: In Suffolk, priority for admission has been mainly based on whether or not children live in a catchment area. The council currently provides qualifying children with free travel to their catchment school, even if it is not the nearest. Some schools have become academies and have chosen not to use catchment areas to prioritise their admissions which leaves some families without a catchment area. 42. The first proposal was to change the term “catchment area” to “Transport Priority Area”. This means that each school will have an area for assessment of entitlement to free travel, even if a school doesn’t have a catchment area or decides to change it. The transport priority area will be the catchment area last used by the county council to prioritise admissions. 43. Discretionary Seats: If there are empty seats on a school bus which has been contracted purely for children eligible for free transport, current policy makes them available to families living on the route who do not qualify for free travel. These families currently pay £510 per year (£170 per term) for each seat. This works out at £2.68 per day or £1.34 per journey. Some students from low income families receive discretionary transport and are exempt from payment. 44. The second proposal was to increase charges for discretionary seats by £10 per term, £30 per year for the school year starting in September 2014, which represents an increase of 16p per day. For some longer journeys the charge is £190 per term and it was proposed to increase this also by £10 per term each year. 45. There are currently 615 (figures taken October 2013) students who purchase surplus seats which generates approximately £260,000 to offset the cost of travel to the council. In recent years the charge has been increased annually by £10 per term. If this were to continue it would generate an estimated additional £18,450 in the first year, £36,900 in the second, £55,350 in the third and £73,800 in the fourth, a total of £184,500 over 5 years. 46. Families with more than two children who purchase discretionary seats currently benefit from these charges only applying to the first two children, subsequent children are not charged for discretionary seats. The consultation proposed that this benefit should be withdrawn. Based on the current offer, this would affect 88 families and generate a further £44,880. 47. Post-16 Travel: There is no statutory duty to provide free home to school travel for students attending school sixth forms or FE colleges, other than for some students with special educational needs. The council currently spends £1.4m on post-16 travel for 2,364 students (figures taken October 2013). In recent years the charge has been increased annually by £10 per term. Based on the current number of students and if this were to continue it would generate an estimated additional income of £47,280 in the first year, £94,560 in the second, £141,840 in the third, £189,120 in the fourth, a total of £472,800 over 5 years. 53 of 86 3. Appendices 48. Currently, where students qualify, help with travel is provided to any school or college funded by the local authority or the Education Funding Agency within 75 minutes travel time from home. 49. It is proposed to limit the offer to provide assistance with travel to either the nearest school sixth form or post-16 institution. For students wishing to study more specialist subjects or courses which are not available at their local school or college, applications will be considered on an exceptional basis to the nearest centre offering this programme, where this is needed to enable the student to progress. It is estimated that this would save £200,000. 50. The current charge for post-16 transport is £510 per year (£170 per term). It is proposed that the charge is increased to £540 per year (£180 per term) for these seats, in line with increases in other charges set out above.

51. An Equalities Impact Assessment has been carried out and was approved by the Policy Clearing House on 26 March 2014.

Consultation Process 52. Consultation began on 10 February and ended on 28 March 2014. The council wrote to all schools, sixth forms and post-16 providers asking them to direct their students, staff, parents and governors to the consultation document on the county council’s website. The consultation document was also sent to trade unions and Essex, Cambridge, and Norfolk County Councils. 53. Responses to the consultation could be by questionnaire, email or letter. All consultation responses are available for county councillors to inspect. 54. There were 437 questionnaires returned. The majority of the respondents were parents. 55. There were also other letters and emails from 22 individuals or organisations. Appendices I and J set out the quantitative and qualitative representations made to the consultation. 56. Question 1 asked if consultees agreed with the term Transport Priority Area. Of the responses, 37% were in agreement, 28% disagreed and 35% did not know. 57. Question 2 asked if consultees agreed to increase the charge by £10 per term, £30 per year. Of the responses, 33% were in agreement, 52% disagreed and 15% did not know. However, this should be considered in the context of the need to make financial savings. 58. Question 3 asked if consultees agreed that exemptions should be phased out for those on a low income as they are covered by different statutory entitlements. Most of the responses were in favour with 43% in agreement, 35% disagreed and 22% did not know. 59. Question 4 asked if consultees agreed to phase out exemptions for a 3rd child and subsequent children. There was a split opinion with 30% in agreement, 51% disagreed and 19% did not know. 60. Consideration of the responses to questions 3 and 4 should take account of the small number of families affected, which is currently 88. 54 of 86 3. Appendices 61. Question 5 asked if consultees agreed with the proposal to restrict support for post-16 travel to the nearest school or post-16 provider unless students were studying a specialist course. The majority of responses were not in favour of this proposal with 18% in agreement, 71% disagreed and 11% did not know. A key factor concerned the quality of education and facilities available. However, this should be considered alongside the need to maintain choice for every student, support access to more specialist programmes of study and at the same time reduce the number of students the council is funding to travel past their nearest providers. 62. Question 6 asked if consultees wished to make further comment. These are outlined in Appendix J.

Sources of Further Information You should include documents relating to the subject matter of the report which: - Disclose any facts or matters on which the report, or an important part of the matter is based, and - Have been relied on to a material extent in preparing the report. As well as any published works or legislation. Background papers used in preparing the report must be kept for four years from the date of the meeting. If you have nothing to add in this box, please do not delete the box. A suitable phrase might be: “No other documents have been relied on to a material extent in preparing this report.”

Home to School Travel and Transport Guidance (published by the DfE) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/home-to-school-travel-and-transport Post-16 Transport to Education and Training (published by the DfE) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27 7016/Post-16_Transport_Guidance.pdf Home to School Travel Consultation http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/your-council/decision- making/consultations/consultation-home-to-school-travel-policy/

Statutory Guidance on the Participation of Young People in Education, Employment or Training https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/26 8972/participation_of_young_people_-_statutory_guidancev3.pdf

Post 16 Discretionary Home to School Travel Policy 2013/14 http://www.suffolkonboard.com/home-to-school-transport/discretionary-travel- post-16-students

Home to School Travel Equality Impact Assessment http://pandp.suffolkcc.gov.uk/index.aspx

55 of 86 3. Appendices Appendix 3.4: Letter to parents from Simon White, Director of CYP 2012

56 of 86 3. Appendices Appendix 3.5: Email from Jan Scott August 2013

Dear Helen

Thank you for your email. Apologies for the delay in replying to you but I have been on leave.

We are not planning to carry out a consultation on transport arrangements in the Thurston area for September 2014. This is because we will continue to provide transport to Thurston CC for all pupils living in your catchment area. We will also meet the statutory requirements for transport to Ixworth FS, i.e., we will provide transport when it is the nearest school and pupils meet the relevant distance criteria.

Also, for your information, we are taking a further report to The Cabinet on 10 September relating to transport for those pupils who currently live in the part of Stowupland High School’s catchment area that will become your catchment area from September 2014. We will be asking the Cabinet to consider if they would wish to approve the provision of discretionary free home to school transport in the 2013/2014 to the new Year 9 students who live in that area. This is on the basis that those families may have applied for places at Thurston in the belief that they would be entitled to transport this September and not when the new catchment is implemented in September 2014.

I hope this clarified the position but do let me know if you would like any further information.

Kind regards,

Jan

Jan Scott

Senior Infrastructure Officer

(Admissions & Transport)

Suffolk County Council

Children & Young People's Services

Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road,

Ipswich, Suffolk, IP1 2BX

Tel: 01473 264657 or 07920 466310

57 of 86 3. Appendices Appendix 3.6: Cabinet Paper Agenda Item 08 September 2013

Agenda Item 8

Committee: Cabinet Meeting Date: 10 September 2013 Lead Councillor/s: Councillor Lisa Chambers, Cabinet Member for Education and Young People Local Councillor/s: Councillor Jane Storey, Thedwastre North Councillor Penny Otton, Thedwastre South Director: Sue Cook, Director for Children and Young People’s Services Assistant Director Phil Whiffing, Assistant Director, School Organisation and or Head of Service: Infrastructure Author: Phil Whiffing, 01473 892030, [email protected]

Home to School Transport Arrangements in 2013/2014 for students who live in Elmswell, Rattlesden and Woolpit What is the Cabinet being asked to decide? 63. To consider whether it would wish to approve the provision of discretionary free home to school transport in the 2013/2014 school year to Year 9 students who attend Thurston Community College and who live in the part of the Stowupland High School catchment area which is being transferred to Thurston Community College from September 2014.

Reason for recommendation 64. On 9 July 2013, cabinet decided not to approve discretionary free home to school transport in the 2013/2014 school year for 13 -16 year old students who attend Thurston Community College and who live in the part of the Stowupland High School catchment area which is being transferred to Thurston Community College from September 2014. 65. This decision was subject to a call-in and was considered by the scrutiny committee on 22 July. The scrutiny committee was concerned about the decision-making process and it therefore decided to refer the decision back to Cabinet for further consideration. 66. Restricting the provision to the year group starting at Thurston Community College in September 2013 rather than all students living in the affected area has two benefits. It significantly reduces the cost to the council and focuses the benefit on the group of students whose parents may have reached the interpretation that the catchment area change came into effect in September 2013 and made a choice of school on that basis. What are the key issues to consider? 58 of 86 3. Appendices 67. The possibility that parents living in the affected area might have reached the interpretation that the change in catchment area would come into effect in September 2013 and would have made their choice of high school on that basis. 68. The cost of providing discretionary transport to Thurston Community College for all students in the area is estimated at £ 103,740. The cost of providing this to just Y9 is estimated at £ 37,620

What are the resource and risk implications? 69. The additional cost is limited to one year and falls to home to school transport budget. What are the timescales associated with this decision? 70. The students affected will have started at high school at the beginning of September. 2013. Temporary arrangements have been made to allow them to travel to school pending cabinet’s decision. Alternative options 71. Cabinet could decide to uphold its decision of 9 July, or it could decide to provide discretionary transport for all students for this year. Who will be affected by this decision? 72. Families of students who will attend Thurston Community College in the 2013/2014 school year, and who are not currently entitled to free home to school transport to this school but who would be in 2014/2015 when the catchment area is redrawn to include the entire catchment areas for Elmswell, Rattlesden and Woolpit primary schools. Main body of report 73. Children living in Elmswell and parts of the Woolpit and Rattlesden primary school catchment area lived in the catchment area for Beyton Middle School and Stowupland High School. Almost all of these children progressed to Thurston Community College at age 13 with their peer group from Beyton Middle School. 74. Beyton Middle School closes at the end of the summer term 2014. During consultation on school reorganisation in the Thurston area, which took place in autumn 2011, parents in the affected villages were concerned that as they did not live in the Thurston Community College catchment they would not have high priority for places at the College and may have to attend a middle school in Stowmarket for one or two years before transferring to Stowupland High School. There was support for changing the catchment area to help ensure these pupils had a clear progression route with their peers from Beyton. 75. Catchment areas are part of admissions arrangements and as such are consulted on and set each year. The admissions arrangements for 2013 were set in April 2012 before the reorganisation of the schools in Thurston was approved. 76. There had not been any intention or need to change the catchment for September 2013. That change only became necessary on the closure of Beyton Middle School in 2014 and was duly consulted on and approved by cabinet on 19 March 2013. 59 of 86 3. Appendices 77. It is accepted that some parents may have thought the high school catchment change came into effect in September 2013 along with the first changes to the organisation of schools when Year 5 pupils remain in their primary schools. 78. It is possible that some parents might have made decisions about Year 9 high school places on the basis that they thought they were already living in the Thurston Community College catchment area and would be entitled to free home to school transport. 79. Students in Years 10 and 11 already in attendance at the College would have applied for their places before changes to the catchment area arrangements were mooted and would have done so in the awareness that free transport was not available. These families will benefit when they fall inside the catchment area in September 2014.

Sources of Further Information

Cabinet, 9 July 2013; Agenda Item 9; Home to School Transport Arrangements in 2013/14 for students who live in Elmswell, Rattlesden and Woolpit; Available from: http://committeeminutes.suffolkcc.gov.uk/meeting.aspx?d=09/Jul/2013&c=The%2 0Cabinet Suffolk County Council’s School Transport Policy; Available from: http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/education-and-careers/schools-and-support-in- education/general-information/school-transport/ Cabinet, 24 January 2012; Agenda Item 5; Consultation on School Reorganisation in the Thurston Area; Available from: http://committeeminutes.suffolkcc.gov.uk/LoadDocument.aspx?rID=0900271180 5ddc05&qry=c_committee%7e%7eThe+Cabinet Cabinet, 17 April 2012; Agenda Item 5 – Thurston Schools Reorganisation; Determination of Statutory Notices; Available from: http://committeeminutes.suffolkcc.gov.uk/LoadDocument.aspx?rID=0900271180 6fdab2&qry=c_committee%7e%7eThe+Cabinet Cabinet, 20 March 2012; Agenda Item 6 – Arrangements for Admissions to Schools in Suffolk; Available from: http://committeeminutes.suffolkcc.gov.uk/LoadDocument.aspx?rID=0900271180 6a7dfd&qry=c_committee%7e%7eThe+Cabinet Cabinet, 26 February 2013; Agenda Item 5 – Stowmarket and Stowupland Schools Reorganisation – Determination of Statutory Notices; Available from: http://committeeminutes.suffolkcc.gov.uk/LoadDocument.aspx?rID=0900271180 bafaea&qry=c_committee%7e%7eThe+Cabinet Suffolk County Council – Applying for a School Place; Available at: http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/education-and-careers/schools-and-support-in- education/applying-for-a-school-place/ Scrutiny Committee 22 July 2013 http://committeeminutes.suffolkcc.gov.uk/meeting.aspx?d=22/Jul/2013&c=Scrutin y%20Committee 60 of 86 3. Appendices Appendix 3.7: Thurston Community College transport survey report Thurston Community College Parent Survey

Thurston Community College asked all its parents to respond to an online survey In November 2017.

Response: 547 responses from parents, of which 368 (relating to 475 children) live closer to another school and currently use a free school bus to get to Thurston Community College and would therefore lose transport if Option 1 were chosen.

This represents 58% of the 812 children in the affected category currently at TCC.

324 respondents (representing 486 children) will still have children at TCC in September 2019 and this is the base used for the rest of the survey analysis.

What would parents do? We asked parents about the choices they would make if they were to lose free transport for their children in September 2019. The results from those who are in the affected group are in the table.

If you had to pay up to £900 every year for each child to get a bus to % Thurston Community College in September 2019, what would you do on most days? Keep my child at TCC and bring them to school by car 50% Send my child to my nearest school (not TCC) so they get a free school bus 17% Keep my child at TCC and pay up to £900 per child for a school bus 5% Keep my child at TCC and arrange a car share with other parents to bring my 15% child to school Keep my child at TCC and get my child to walk or cycle to school 1% Send my child to the nearest school (not TCC) so they can walk/cycle to 2% school Keep my child at TCC and move house so that it is my nearest school 1% Keep my child at TCC and pay to send them on a public service bus (where 2% available) Other 7%

What are the consequences of these choices? Looking at these decisions based on the number of children each respondent represents, we can summarise as follows

In 2019, parents would… % of children Use a car (including car share) 67% Move child(ren) out of TCC 19% Pay for a school bus to TCC 5% Find another way to TCC 9%

61 of 86 3. Appendices Scaling up the survey to the full sample of 812 children, we can make the following estimates: • 544 additional children will come to school by car • 317 additional cars will visit TCC morning and afternoon – 634 additional car journeys every weekday (for context, school SIMs data shows 52 cars/104 journeys per day at present) • 38 children would pay to get a school bus to TCC – raising £36,890 annually (at the rate of £960 per year quoted by SCC as the average cost) • 154 children would leave TCC, reducing its income by more than £700,000 annually on current funding levels. To reduce in proportion, the College would need to lose about 13 teachers and 9 support staff. The redundancy costs would fall on Suffolk County Council and have been estimated at £2.4m.

What would future parents do? To find out what future cohorts of parents would do if either Option 1 or 2 were implemented, we asked our primary feeder schools to send out a similar survey in November 2017.

Response 169 parents responded to the survey. Of these, 141 would like to send their children to Thurston Community College and are in the affected category. Their responses relate to 213 primary age children.

The table shows the responses of these parents to similar questions to those asked of existing parents.

If you had to pay up to £900 every year for each child to get a bus to % Thurston Community College in September 2019, what would you do on most days? Take them to Thurston Community College by car 43% Choose to send my child to my nearest school instead of TCC so they get a 24% free school bus Pay up to £900 per child for a school bus to Thurston Community College 5% Arrange a car share with other parents to bring my child to TCC 19% Get my child(ren) to walk or cycle to Thurston Community College 0% Choose to send my child to the nearest school instead of TCC so they can 5% walk/cycle to school Move house so that Thurston Community College is my nearest school 0% Pay to send my child(ren) on a public service bus to TCC (where available) 2% Other 2%

Summarising by the number of children: Future parents would… % of children Use a car (including car share) 62% Move child(ren) out of TCC 27% Pay for a school bus to TCC 7% Find another way to TCC 4% 62 of 86 3. Appendices

So in future years, TCC’s roll would fall by more than a quarter and there would still be a huge increase in car traffic while revenues from bus pass sales would remain low. Detailed breakdown of car movements by village

Based on the survey of current parents for children who will be in Y7-11 in 2019. There are additional car movements only, i.e. villages where TCC is not the nearest school but are currently entitled to a free bus. Each family is assumed to use one car. Car shares are assumed to involve two families – this results in odd numbers of daily car journeys. In this table, numbers have been scaled up to reflect all those affected and calculations have been rounded.

Total average daily car movements to and from Thurston Badwell Ash 14 Bardwell 23 Barnham 23 Barningham 42 Brettenham 5 Coney Weston 5 Culford 3 Elmswell 139 Fakenham Magna 2 Gedding 3 Great Ashfield 7 Great Barton 20 Great Livermere 8 Hepworth 13 Honington 15 Hopton 13 Hunston 3 Ingham 3 Ixworth 58 Knettishall 3 Langham 3 Livermere Heath 3 Market Weston 2 Pakenham 30 Rattlesden 40 Rushbrook 3 Sapiston 3 Stanton 38 Thelnetham 8 Troston 7 Walsham-le-Willows 47 Wattsifield 3 Woolpit 40 63 of 86 3. Appendices

Appendix 3.8: Transcript of Thurston Community College Stakeholders meeting 1 February 2018

Transcript of Thurston Community College Stakeholder Meeting 1 February 2018 at TCC Meeting began 19.00 Helen Wilson Hello, my name is Helen Wilson and as Principal of Thurston Community College, I am delighted to welcome you all to our stakeholders meeting. I would like to extend a particularly warm welcome to our County Councillors who have travelled from across Suffolk to listen to our students, our parents and other members of our local community, all of whom are going to be affected if the home to school travel policy is changed so that it is transport to the nearest school only. So that is what tonight’s meeting is all about. Now I am aware that many of us have got very strong views about that particular issue, but I would like to ask for your support, please, in making sure that this meeting remains a dignified occasion. So, there are two parts to tonight’s proceedings. First of all, there is a presentation that will last for approximately an hour and after that we are going to open to the audience for your comments or your questions. Your will be very welcome to ask questions of any of tonight’s presenters and you are also welcome to make comments for the public record. On that note I just want to make you aware that we are recording tonight’s presentation and the comments afterwards. We are doing that to capture all the comments that are made at the meeting and that recording will be sent to Suffolk County Council as part of Thurston Community College’s response to their current consultation. In case you don’t get a chance to have your say this evening, can I remind you that it is very important for all of us to log our views through the official channels which means completing the questionnaires and you can get the questionnaires by following those links [on screen]. They are also on the front page of the Thurston Community College website so if you don’t get a note of them tonight, look at our website later. Ok. Let’s begin the presentation then. There are three sections to this presentation. Firstly, I will explain why the nearest school only travel policy will not achieve the aims that it has set out to achieve; Secondly, I’m going to hand over to our stakeholders who would like to tell how the policy will impact on their lives; And finally, I would like to present to you our alternative solution. So, having been heavily involved in the pre-consultation meetings, alongside the Suffolk County Council Officers who are leading this proposal, I was made aware that there are three aims to changing the current policy to that of nearest school only. Those three aims are to save money, to create more equality across Suffolk in home to school travel and thirdly to avoid destabilising schools. So, I would like to talk about each one of those aims individually and explain why that won’t happen if we change the policy. Saving money then first of all. Initially a figure of £3million was presented to the county councillors as a potential saving if the transport policy was changed. Now, 64 of 86 3. Appendices that’s because there are currently, across the whole of Suffolk, 3,700 children who are obtaining free transport to a school which is not their nearest. Each child costs the County Council £900. So, you can do the maths, 3,700 children, £900 each - a figure of £3 million. That sounds brilliant doesn’t it? Let’s stop providing this non-statutory transport, the Council aren’t required to do it, so stop doing it and we can save £3million. So that was the initial figure quoted: £3 million. However, once the Suffolk Passenger Transport Team, who are the team who actually run the transport infrastructure across Suffolk, once they properly looked at those 3,700 children, once they looked at where they live, what is their nearest school and is there a safe walking route to that nearest school, suddenly that £3 million became £200,000. OK? This is really key. It is one of our key points tonight - this will not save anywhere near the money that was initially presented. So where did that figure of £200,000 come from. At these pre-consultation meetings that I was attending, after one of these meetings, I was sent by email a copy of a flow diagram which the County Council Passenger Transport Team themselves had produced. So, I have reproduced it across two slides here this evening. The first important figure here [on slide] is this figure of 3,700 students. This is the figure I have just mentioned - the number of children who are getting free transport to a school that is not their nearest – so beyond the statutory requirements of the County Council. However, if you follow that flow diagram down, 2,400 of them would still need to be put on a bus but just to a different school. So, it is still going to cost the council £900 for those 2,400 children to get transport to school. So, we’re not going to save any money on those 2,400 children. It’s a bit mathematical, so stay with me! That leaves 1,300 children who could, in theory, walk, because they live closer than 3 miles if it is a secondary school or closer than 2 miles if it is a primary school. So, in theory all these children could walk, and we could save some money. Great. These figures have all been rounded up, by the way, on the next slide 1,300 becomes in reality 1,346. So, I’m guessing that this was an approximation [point to 1,300] and then they went on to a more precise figure here. So, of those 1,346, in theory they could all walk to school. We then have to ask ourselves these three questions: Do they have a safe walking route to school? Well, we know, because we live in rural Suffolk that the answer for many of them is no – in which case the County Council will still have to transport them. So that narrows it down. 501 secondary children and 207 primary children have got a safe walking route. Let’s carry on, because we can still save some money! But then there’s the question – is there capacity in their nearest school? So, in the case of our young people, here tonight, a lot of them could walk to Ixworth Free School but there’s no capacity there. That school’s full [the school does not have capacity for all of the children for whom it is their nearest]. So, they’ve got a safe walking route but then they get there and there is no space for them. So that rules out another tranche of numbers. And then finally even if they could walk there and there is space in that school, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you could collapse a bus from the transport network. So, the Passenger Transport team who shared this document with me have concluded that in the primary phase – look it stops here – and that’s because they can’t take any buses off the roads at all. And in the secondary phase, they think they 65 of 86 3. Appendices can take 5 buses across the whole of Suffolk. Five buses, £40,000 each bus, £200,000 total. That’s where that figure comes from. It’s not my figure, it’s a transport team figure. And I’m astounded that this document was not published in any of the consultation paperwork. You can’t find it on the website; you can’t find it anywhere. Councillors, I don’t believe were shown this. I’ve shown it to them, but I don’t believe they were shown it. The second reason I was told that the County Council wants to introduce this is to create equality. Well, here’s my take on that. 88% of Suffolk’s children live in an urban part of Suffolk where there is an existing transport infrastructure that would enable them to get to one of several schools, so they have choice. 88% of children in Suffolk don’t need a school bus because they are in an urban area and they already have choice. If the County Council move to a nearest school only policy, then the remaining 12%, that’s our children – that’s the children who live in rural parts of Suffolk, they would have their choice taken away and they would be the only children in Suffolk with no choice. So how is this policy making things more equal? In my view, it is causing more inequality not more equality. The third reason that I was given in changing this policy is that we do not want to destabilise schools and I thought, that’s great, you don’t want to destabilise schools at a time when Suffolk is trying very hard to raise educational standards – I’m sure we’ve all heard about the Raising the Bar agenda and we are all working hard to make sure our children have the best chances in life as well as others in other counties nationally. So, we’re not going to destabilise schools, ok. If we think about all these children, if we think about all 3,700 of them moving to their nearest school, we’ve got an awful lot of children changing school in the primary phase and also in secondary. Here’s the figures. In the secondary phase, you would have 21 schools losing children and 18 schools gaining children. And of those 21 and 18, I have just printed the big hits, really. There we are, top of the league table. 8 secondary schools would lose 10% of more of their children with the associated budget cut. And all of these schools would gain 10% or more of their children with the associated budget gain. I’m just going to talk about us because obviously I know a lot about Thurston. As far as we are concerned, we currently have 300 children in a year group, if this policy change were to come into play and all of our children were to go to their nearest school, that would drop to 140. One of the main reasons that our students and our parents choose this school is because of the curriculum choices, the breadth, we have more than 30 different GCSEs and A-levels on offer. If that 300 year group shrank to 140 then we would have to cut our curriculum in half. I’d also have to make about 100 staff redundant – we have got just over 200 staff, here at Thurston, and I would have to make over 100 staff redundant. Now the redundancy bill for that, I’ve estimated at £2.4 million. We are a County Council school. We are not an academy, we are a County Council school so that £2.4 million would come back on the County. At primary, it is even worse. We’ve got some children here tonight from Norton Primary who are going to speak to you in a minute. Norton is top of the league table on the primary scales but there are even more primary schools affected. We’ve got 72 primary schools across Suffolk that are going to lose children and 52 are going to gain. And gaining a large number of children is also not necessarily a good thing. It’s very hard to manage. I’m talking from experience because we gained 960 children in one go when we moved from three-tier to two-tier. I know what it’s like 66 of 86 3. Appendices to employ all those extra staff and embrace all those children at one time. It isn’t necessarily an easy thing to manage. So, across the whole the whole of Suffolk we’ve got 163 schools many of whom I would argue will most definitely be destabilised by this transport policy change. Not only will schools be destabilised but for those children having to move school midway through their education? It could be disastrous for them. So that is something that we think is really, really important in this whole exercise. So, I hope that has made sense to you. The three things that I was told the policy is trying to achieve: to save money, initially £3 million – I don’t blame anybody for thinking great let’s go for it, £3 million. If that’s what everyone was told, who wouldn’t? But it’s not going to be £3 million, it’s going to be £200,000. Any additional financial gain would come from parents being prepared to pay for a bus and our parents have told us that most of them would not do that. We’ve surveyed our parents, 5% of our parents said they would pay for a bus. So that’s not going to happen. So, financial savings, no; equality, definitely not, rural discrimination is what I would term it as; and thirdly, in terms of disruption to schools, there will be huge disruption, therefore disruption to children’s education. That’s enough from me, I am going to handover to a number of different stakeholder groups. I would just like to say that everyone who speaks to you now has written their own speech. What they are about to tell you is in their own words. So much so that I was asked today by a journalist to give a copy of what all our main school students are going to say tonight, and I said “I can’t, I really can’t. They’ve written their own words and I haven’t got a copy of what they are going to say.” Because I trust them to talk to you about what matters to them. And that’s true of all of these stakeholder groups. I don’t even know what some of them are going to say. I’ve not heard what the primaries are going to say, and I’ve not heard what the Parish Councillors are going to say. That’s going to be news to me too. They are going to tell you how this policy change will impact on their lives. Thurston Partnership Primaries, if I just explain, are 16 feeder primary schools. We have three of our primary schools here tonight. Norton Primary School, who I have already referred to. We’ve also got representatives from Rattlesden Primary School and we’ve got the headteacher of Barnham Primary School. So, I’m going to invite you all to come on stage together, if that’s ok, and then you can all take your turn. [Applause] Sam Sharma – Rattlesden Primary Academy Hello, my name is Sam Sharma. I am a mum and a teacher. As a reasonable person, I understand the council has been asked to make savings, but I don’t think they have fully considered all of the seriously complex and detrimental impacts of their proposals. I personally have children at Rattlesden Primary and at Thurston Community College who will be affected by the proposed changes and I’ve no idea how, in the future, I will get my own children to school and simultaneously be at work teaching. And I haven’t got a spare thousand pounds a year to spend on getting my children to school. But I know you’ve heard the overwhelming arguments against this proposal from angry and frustrated parents many times and I know that many very clever people - whose job it isn’t- have been spending huge amounts of time and energy trying to find solutions to this problem. 67 of 86 3. Appendices So, I’m mainly here this evening because I want you to understand how these proposals affect me as a Year 6 teacher and some of the children in my class who right now are having to make the choice of which Upper School to go to in September. In fact, they are so worried that a couple of them are with me this evening to voice their concerns and they have brought letters from their friends explaining how these cuts will affect them personally. Our school, Rattlesden Primary, is just over 6 miles from Thurston and about 5 miles from Stowmarket. So, there’s hardly anything in it. We are in the catchment area for Thurston Community College. The children at our school, their siblings, their friends, their families and in some cases even their parents have been going to Thurston from Rattlesden for years and years. But now, due to the newly redrawn Transport Priority areas, most of the children at our school no longer qualify for free school transport to Thurston because Stowmarket is very slightly closer. But only in distance. Not in any other way - and I think this is a massive point these proposals are missing: The links between a primary and secondary school are not just geographical. As a year 6 teacher, I know how strong our links with Thurston are. We are in the same multi- academy trust as Thurston Primary and all of the other schools in our MAT link to Thurston Community College and we all have very strong academic and social links. We are involved in many liaisons visits here. Mr. Chubb comes to visit us regularly, sometimes he brings with him Thurston Community College children to have question and answer sessions to work out any concerns children might have about making the huge jump from a tiny village primary to a huge secondary school. And being in the Thurston School Sports Partnership, we also have numerous sporting events that the year 6 children have the opportunity to come and get to know the children they will be going up to year 7 with before they get here. We have even sat in this room and sung Christmas Carols together. So, then they get to have the feeling of their new school. And this is all so that the huge academic, social, personal and emotional change that these children are about to go through is as smooth and worry free as possible. The children in my class are expecting to come here. They are ready to come here. And they want to come here. But they’ve been told that due to a financial government decision, our full school bus that runs the 6 miles from Rattlesden to Thurston isn’t going to exist anymore because it is apparently drastically cheaper to run the bus 5 miles to a school which nobody goes to from our village. The Stowmarket bus will be empty. How is that saving money? It is just creating chaos. And it’s even more complicated than that. Because of our location – we’re equally between these two High Schools, so in my class of 19 children some will still qualify for free transport to Thurston and some won’t. And of those that don’t, some will be left with absolutely no option but to go to Stowmarket whether they want to or not because they just won’t be able to afford the ridiculous £960 per year (and where that figure came from is a whole other issue). And I can tell you because I know my class very well, it will be the ones who can least afford the personal, social, and academic upheaval - that will be forced to go to a school which they know nothing about, have never been to before and have no friends at. I personally worry enough about some of my more vulnerable children going from year 6 to year 7 and making the leap to upper school but sending them off to a school they are totally 68 of 86 3. Appendices unprepared for and splitting up their life-long friendships could do irreparable damage. Please do not underestimate what you are forcing some of these children to do. So right now, when they are choosing which upper school to go to and the children and parents are asking my advice, what do you recommend I should say to them? Should I send them to a school which they know nothing about or one that one they are fully prepared, ready and want to go to? There is a huge amount of time and work which goes into the liaison between primary and secondary schools and there is absolutely no way I could liaise with two different upper schools at once. I cannot adequately prepare my class for two different schools, but I also can’t send them off unprepared. We simply have no connection whatsoever with Stowmarket High School and we are too inextricably linked to Thurston not to recommend our children come here. You denying these children access to their own catchment school, I think, really shows an extraordinary lack of understanding about how schools actually work together and interconnect. This proposal simply cannot work in isolation. Unless you’re planning a hugely complex overhaul of the whole catchment system at absolutely vast expense, this change can never make any sense and certainly isn’t supporting a quality educational provision. In the last few years, schools, teachers as Ms. Wilson has said, and pupils have had to put up with the huge upheaval of changing from the 3 to 2 tier system. For many, the chaos of becoming multi-academy trusts not to mention the endless changes to the curriculum and to testing at all levels. I cannot tell you the amount of distress and work these proposals are causing and the amount of extra hours teachers, headteachers and parents are having to put into coping with these proposals and fighting it. These proposals are poorly considered and hugely damaging on so many levels. Even people in your own party are now telling you that. And right now, I want the children in my class to be concentrating on preparing for their SATS, enjoying their last couple of terms of primary school and preparing to make one of the biggest transitions in their lives. I want them to leave my class feeling happy, confident and optimistic. Not frightened, anxious and destabilized about their future. The one hope I have for the way this process is affecting them is that they might learn that voicing their fears and concerns and fighting for what they see as an injustice, will mean that they see the change that they are asking for. That will empower them and make them feel strong and independent. But if this is a white-wash and they are not listened to and they see all of this resistance by all of these thousands of voices ignored, not only will they be hugely adversely affected by the changes but they will lose their faith in their own voices and they will certainly lose faith in any form of democracy. So please listen carefully to these children because these are the lives and the stories behind the statistics that you are playing with. [Applause] Jono My name is Jono and I am in Year 6 at Rattlesden Primary School. My family moved to Rattlesden a few years ago and we have settled in and made lots of friends. I have three brothers - two at Rattlesden and my older brother is already at Thurston and I am also about to move up to Thurston. My dad is a social worker and my mum is training to be a Primary school teacher. If there is no school bus next year, there is 69 of 86 3. Appendices no way my mum and dad can get us to Thurston because they will both have to be at work earlier than us. And in a few years when me and my 3 brothers are all at Thurston, it will cost our family nearly £4,000 per year to get the bus and that just isn’t manageable. We obviously can’t walk the 6 miles each way every day and we can’t even get a lift because no one will have 4 spaces in their car. We are happy and settled and doing well at Thurston and Rattlesden and none of us want to move schools but if we can’t get there, I don’t see what else we can do. Despite this proposal, I still chose to go to Thurston because my brother is here, and we’ve spent so much time at school coming here and becoming familiar with it. I know nothing about Stowmarket so I didn’t even think about applying there. I’d rather be home schooled than be at an unfamiliar school with no friends. I haven’t been worrying about these proposals so far because I just can’t believe they’re going to happen. Whenever I’ve worried about things in my life before, they haven’t turned out as bad as I thought they were going to but if these proposals go ahead, it really will be awful because I can’t see a way out. At school we have talked about trying to provide constructive alternatives to a problem, so I think in this case, the Council should cover the cost of the bus as far as it would have gone if it went to Stowmarket. If the difference was fairly worked out, we might be able to pay the difference to get us to Thurston. It’s not that we don’t understand the problem. It’s just that what you’re asking us to pay is too much. I know so many people in the same situation as me and there has to be a better solution than causing so much chaos to so many lives. [Applause] Georgie My name is Georgina and I’m also in Year 6 at Rattlesden. My brother Thomas is already at Thurston and I am planning to come here next year. I’ve chosen to come here because I’ve always known Thurston was my catchment school. Even when I was little I used to come to the library with my mum and she’d say that will be your school when you’re older. I just can’t imagine what I’ll do if I can’t come here in the future because of these transport proposals. But there is no way my parents could get us here in the morning. My mum is a primary school teacher and my dad works off shore so he’s not around much. And there’s also no way we could afford the extra £2,000 per year it would cost to get me and my brother here. Also, I came to Rattlesden School in Year 2 and it’s taken me quite a while to make friends because other friendship groups were already established. The thought of having to go to a different school I don’t know and being split up from my friends and having to start all over again makes me feel nervous and vulnerable. I can’t see a way out with the current proposals; there are just no good options for me. I’m also confused about how the council can put children and families in this position when they’re meant to be supporting us. We’ve been thinking about better solutions and my suggestion is that there’s hardly any difference in distance between where you can take us for free and where our catchment school is. If the council can’t afford the whole journey, you could drop us off in Thurston at a safe distance from school and we can walk the rest of the way. If there are safe, well-lit footpaths and crossings then we don’t mind walking a bit of the way. We just can’t walk if there are only roads and fields because it’s too far and too dangerous and we’ll arrive at school late, exhausted and muddy. If we get there at all! 70 of 86 3. Appendices We’ve brought letters from us and our class mates, which we hope make our points clearly and so that you can remember us. After hearing our stories and suggestions I hope you are able to listen to us. We are the future workers - and voters. We need a good education which we can safely get to and if you hear us now but still choose to take that away, you’ll lose our trust - and you won’t get it back. [Applause] Norton Primary School Hi, my name is Harry And my name is Katy. We are Year 6 pupils from Norton Primary School who will be directly affected by the proposed changes to home to school transport and we are against them. In class we discussed the pros and cons of the policy and we were unable to think of anything positive and lots of negative things. If these proposals are agreed, then our school will be greatly affected; we could lose 52 pupils. This is a shame as all the children like going to Norton and the school has just had two new classrooms built and a new playing field. With these new changes, many people will have to pay lots of money, either on paying for a bus passport or petrol. Some children may have to go to a different school. This is bad because it’s unfair to have to make new friends and it will interrupt children’s education. Also, the nearest school might not have enough room for more pupils. So where would the pupils go? If they had to go a different school then that means two buses would have to be used, one bus to take the children to their nearest school and one to take children to a school which had spaces as the other school is full. This sounds like extra money will be spent. Secondly, it is already chaos to find anywhere to park at the start and end of the school day, and if these plans come through, then it will be impossible and dangerous to find a parking space. With more cars, there will be more people walking around congested roads. An accident is waiting to happen. Would you be happy if you lived on School Close and were blocked in every morning and afternoon? Our last point is that we have already done a lot of work with Thurston Community College in preparation for our transition there in September. We have enjoyed sports and Christmas events and we have met other Year 6 children from different schools. We are looking forward to going. Suddenly having to switch schools, to one which we had not planned or chosen to go to; well, it seems incredibly unfair to us. For all of these reasons, we do not think these plans should go through. [Applause] Amy Arnold - Barnham Primary School Hi there, my name is Amy Arnold and I am headteacher of Barnham Primary School and I wanted to share with you this evening the situation that these proposals will put our primary school in. All of the villages that are within the catchment area for my school and indeed also in catchment for Thurston Community College would come under three different high schools none of which are Thurston. So as a school it would be virtually impossible to liaise with and provide continuity for primary to secondary education with three different secondary schools. However, there is something that is so exceptionally sad about this. One of those high schools isn’t in Suffolk. You are quite happy to pay to transport pupils to Norfolk. So not only would my children go to two different Suffolk secondary schools, they could potentially go 71 of 86 3. Appendices to Norfolk. They live in a Suffolk village, they have had a Suffolk primary education, they have been involved with wider professional services in Suffolk which do not carry on through to Norfolk and if they do there will be an exceptional degree of turbulence at a vulnerable point in young lives and the saddest thing – this is predominantly driven by the need to save money – we are going to lose the money from central government. The DfE is going to fund Norfolk schools to educate Suffolk children. So, it is a double whammy – that the money is not going into education in Suffolk, it is going into education in Norfolk. Norfolk schools are gaining Suffolk pupils. Their schools are growing, they will have extra provision, extra money that Suffolk schools desperately, desperately need. So not only is it unmanageable to liaise with Ixworth Free School, King Edwards School and Thetford Academy all in totally different directions, not only is that unmanageable for us it is absolutely detrimental to the lives of our children, particularly our most vulnerable disadvantaged children at such a critical stage in their education. That’s what I wanted to say. Thank you. [Applause] Helen Wilson: Thank you very much indeed especially to year sixes for your very brave presentations. Our next stakeholder group is our very own Thurston Community College students. So, we have representatives from our College Council who are going to speak to you first and we also have representatives from our sixth form which is in the village of Beyton which most of you will know is two miles from the village of Thurston. So, let us welcome on stage our main school students. [Applause] Hello, my name is Luke Green and I’m Chairman of the Thurston’s College Council. This is Ash and Lily and we are going to be talking about school, curricula and facilities. Currently we are able to choose the school we go to depending on distance and subjects they provide with no worries as to cost. If this policy were to go through, we would not have this free choice of school. I have a huge passion for science and I came to Thurston because of its science facilities. We have 19 labs and all of them have gas taps. At my nearest school, there are only six labs and only two of them have gas taps. This could jeopardise my future science career. My name is Ash and if this policy happens my future career could be ruined. This is because my nearest school does not offer two of my chosen GCSE courses which I need to pursue the profession I want to do. Good evening. My name is Lily and I am in year 7. This will affect me because I will miss the chance to choose my GCSEs by one year because at the free school they choose in year 8. They do not teach sociology, psychology, business studies or triple science. This is horrific. It will take away my choice and will make me take whatever they offer which is none of things I want to do. This is now beyond transport and about our education. Hi, I’m Rebecca and this is Georgia and we are talking about loss of choice and how they choose who attends free schools. G: We originally attended middle schools that closed down four years ago. Because of this we had to make a decision about what school we were going to attend. We chose Thurston. R: I originally came from Ixworth Middle School that was closed down to make Ixworth Free School. I got the choice of whether I wanted to attend Thurston or 72 of 86 3. Appendices Ixworth Free School and I chose Thurston. But, what was the point in me choosing if they are just going to send me back to a school that I didn’t choose. Despite Ixworth being our closest high school, we both live in different villages. There won’t be enough places at Ixworth for all the new students so how will they decide who goes and who doesn’t and what happens to those who don’t get a place? Hi, I’m Charlie and this is George and this is Josephine. We all live in split communities which means that the primary schools we went to would feed two different high schools. G: If the changes go ahead, it will mean that there are children the other side of my street who would go to a totally different school. J: I could walk three hundred metres down the road and catch the free bus to Thurston, but I am not allowed. C: It is like a postcode lottery. The boundaries make so little sense that friends will often be split apart. G: Furthermore, since I am currently in year 9, I will be forced to leave this school halfway through my crucial GCSE stage. Coupled with how I was affected by the change from a three-tier to a two-tier system, my outcome will be far lower and far more limited than it should be. J: Finally, there will be lots of strain on primary schools if they are channelling to two different high schools Hi, I’m Adam and this is Rosie and Bethan and we will be talking about how we will get to school if the buses stopped. If the buses stopped, I would cycle to school and I have timed myself and it took my one hour and three minutes just to get to school each day. Now safety. Safety is a key factor. Because there will be lots of agricultural vehicles, lorries and buses and cars on the road. It is scary for young cyclists and I who have never been on a road like this. Now weather. Weather is unpredictable, and I don’t know what time to set off because it may vary if it is icy, cold, wet or windy and I won’t know what time to leave because this will delay me. My name is Bethan and when this policy gets put into place, my younger brother will be moving to secondary school but he is going for a scholarship to St Joe’s for his rugby. So that would mean I have to go by bus. This is a huge problem for me and my family because there is no chance of us coming up with £900 every single year. I will then have to leave Thurston after a year of working on GCSEs which will completely mess up my future because my nearest school does not offer the option I need to pursue my dreams of becoming a forensic scientist. Hi, I’m Rosie and by the time this policy is introduced I will be hopefully well on my way to sixth form. Now to get to sixth form, yes, I will have to pay £900 a year anyway but the difference is there might not be a bus. If there isn’t a school bus, I will have to leave my village on the earliest bus at 7.41. But, I would still miss the train from Bury and then I would miss the bus to Beyton. This would mean a two- hour journey just to get to school. Hi, I’m Brad and I’m the Vice Chairman of Thurston College Council. And I was just wondering. Does the Greenest County Policy ring any bells with you? [Applause] Making Suffolk the UK’s greenest county is an aspiration that involves us all. Currently, 52 students travel by car to Thurston. However, cars as we know are huge polluters to this community. And we would want to reduce pollution at all costs. However, Thurston staff have done an independent survey and found that another 73 of 86 3. Appendices 300 cars would be travelling each day to Thurston equating to 117,000 journeys every year. Think about that. How is that going to affect the greenest county policy? And as a great man once said, children, we may only be 20% of the population but we are 100% of the future. [Applause] HW: It’s now the turn of our sixth formers who are currently students at our Beyton campus, Thurston Sixth. Hello. We are students at Thurston Sixth. My name is Ryan and I’m in year 13. Two of my siblings are already at Thurston and my youngest brother is due to join in September. That is a total of nine school years at Thurston, so the introduction of a £960 bus pass will incur a loss of £8,640 in the next five years. As if it wasn’t already enough to have to fork out for me to start at university this year. Alternatively, my parents could drive in every day, incurring around £4,000 in petrol costs in the next five years and that’s excluding any other trips in the car and any changes to their working days that they have to make. Hi, I’m Zoe and I’m a Year 12 student. This policy is an act of indirect discrimination, not only in location but also in terms of wealth which will severely impact the mental health of young people. My friends, along with the whole school, come from diverse backgrounds. If this proposal goes ahead, the ones who can afford to go to their chosen school will be able to learn in a safe and happy environment. The less fortunate of my friends will be pushed into the position where that environment isn’t guaranteed because they are forced to go to their nearest school with no financial escape. Even if someone can afford these fees, if not enough people choose to board that bus it will be cancelled with one month’s notice. If parents can’t find a solution to keep their child at their chosen school, then one month is a tiny amount of time for that pupil to prepare for the huge amount of social and mental stress that changing schools will mean. Such a diverse selection of situations, you simply can’t offer one solution. Equality does not mean equity. My name is Amber, and I am also a Year 12 student at Thurston Sixth. As, previously mentioned one of the most affected years are not only on the precipice of their GCSEs but they were also the most affected when changing middle schools. By changing from school to school so abruptly, so frequently do you not think this will completely impede their results? Not just by their GCSEs but socially, psychologically. Put yourselves in our shoes. What if you changed office, changed co-workers, changed bosses? What if you refused and by doing so you limited your transport opportunities critically? Would you be fine walking an hour to work every single day? Would you be fine if this were your 10-year-old? It is not just the initial commotion for affected students. If a child chooses to remain at their school, not only to they have the upheaval of rebuilding their entire social network, but they also have the added stress of parents having to find over £900 for parents to let them have that choice. We are not blind to financial issues. We know that everything we do will add to our parents' stress, whether it is our problem or not. Hi, I’m Matt and I’m also a Year 13 student at Beyton Sixth. My first point is in relation to the environmental issues associated with the proposal that you are putting forward. Without school buses bringing children to school, our small village will be very strained with approximately 600 cars coming through on a daily basis picking up and dropping off their children from school, as Brad said – but he’s done a bit more calculations than I have done! Naturally, this will have a massive impact 74 of 86 3. Appendices on the environmental footprint of our area, making the air dirty and not an opportune learning environment for students. While considering the number of vehicles that would be in the village, the safety of approximately 1500 students on this site alone is impacted with cars parking on nearby streets, cars parking on the school site, cars parking at the train station and other places making the place more dangerous for students trying to travel to school as well as causing significant disruption to the residents of Thurston who are trying to go about their daily routine. On top of this it will be considered that the safety of children at Thurston Primary School will be affected as some of them travel independently to school on their bikes or on their scooters. Is the risk to their safety really worth taking? A potential alternative to this is the use of the train station for those students who live in Elmswell, such as my brother who is in year 9, however the train closest to GCSE start time at 8.45 leaves Elmswell at 8.43, assuming it’s on schedule, therefore it would make my brother alongside a number of other students late for school on a daily basis. While an earlier train is an option and is viable, would you want your son or daughter on a train, in the dark at such an early time through areas potentially unfamiliar to them? My brother will be going into Year 10 in September, starting his GCSE studies and the added stress of having to get up exceptionally early, if a school bus isn’t available, wouldn’t help. Think about the new Year 7s, currently Year 6s who are extremely stressed at the best of times, now having to brave public transport alone. It isn’t optimum for their learning – turning up to school tired and apprehensive five days a week risking an impact on their motivation to attend school. We hope that overall, our individual concerns with this proposal will help you to understand the extent of the impact that will be created by implementing it. And while some of our concerns are theoretical for us, they will be very real situations for students younger than us and they will be the ones that will have to face them on a daily basis, epitomising why we feel this course of action may not be a wise choice. Thank you. [Applause] HW: Our next stakeholder group who would like to tell you about the impact on their lives is our parents. And we have one very young parent! Tim Coe Hello, I haven’t scripted this bit, but I would just like to place on record my admiration for the youngsters who have spoken tonight. [Applause] My name is Tim Coe. I currently have two children in full-time education, one in Year 9 at Thurston Community College and one in Year 12 at Thurston Sixth. Both use school buses, albeit we finance my eldest daughter’s transport as she is post-16. School transport, buses in particular, have been an integral part of education for me as having always lived in a rural location, they have been essential since boarding my first school bus back in 1973. They continue to be highly significant for my family as my children continue to work their way through the school system. The proposed policy changes will come in as my youngest daughter starts the final year of her GCSEs in September 2019. We have been told that we will have a choice at this point – I do not believe this to be a viable choice as the options available are in no way similar. We are faced with choosing between the following: 75 of 86 3. Appendices Option 1 - pay nearly £1,000 to continue transport as it currently stands – this would effectively be a 60% increase to our Council Tax Option 2 would be to change schools – this would be incredibly disruptive to her education, particularly as this will be the year during which she takes her GCSE exams. The current school she is rated as “Good” by Ofsted, the alternative that she would need to move to is rated as “Requires Improvement” – to my mind, that does not constitute a choice. Three, would be to drive our daughter to and from school. Again, this is not really a choice for us as both my wife and I work, and we cannot reduce our hours to fit in with the school run. During the Schools Organisation Review we were told that a choice of school was important. We were also told that moving schools was highly detrimental to child’s educational achievement. These proposed changes seem to be in direct conflict with these principles. Carol Grimsey Hello, I’m Carol and my family lives on the east side of Woolpit. When my eldest son was coming through the then three-tier system the majority of Woolpit would have naturally progressed to Thurston Community College which is Woolpit’s catchment high. But where we lived, SCC policy would only fund to Stowupland High. During School Organisation Review we fought long and hard, explained how crazy it was to split communities and friendship groups so, following a Scrutiny call-in, and helped at that time by Councillor Jane Storey - the Cabinet meeting in Sept 2013 agreed to fund all Woolpit, Elmswell and Rattlesden children to Thurston Community College. But now, unbelievably, Suffolk say they will only fund ….not to Stowupland, not to Thurston....but now to Stowmarket High! -and we haven’t even moved! So, under their proposals, there will be 2 buses arriving at the end of my drive- one going to Thurston and one going to Stowmarket- how is that going to save anything? My youngest is coming up for GCSEs so we will not contemplate moving schools. And we will not pay the County Council fee, so will have no option other than to drive him to school, like all the other parents in a similar position. With untold consequences on the congested local road network. I bet the Council has not factored into its cost generation calculations the fact that parents simply won’t pay. And they’ll only end up having to put on extra buses, in different directions, to serve the new ‘nearest’ schools! Jonathan Sturman and Grace I am a Parent living in Elmswell with a daughter in Year 7 at Thurston Community College and a second daughter, Grace here, in Year 4 at Elmswell Primary School. Suffolk County Council’s policies rightly promote school choice to parents and we’ve heard a lot about that here tonight. From our perspective, we are in the catchment area for Thurston, we are in a pyramid primary school for Thurston and we are not in the catchment area or feeder school system for Stowmarket High School. So, the council has now decided, actually none of that counts when it comes to actually getting you to school. 76 of 86 3. Appendices My choice is to apply to Thurston, a good school, where I will get a place, but will have to pay more than £900 a year for transport. Or, apply to Stowmarket High School, which requires improvement and has done for a long time, where I am not entitled to a place, but I can get free transport. How is this schools' choice? How will this raise the bar for all of our children’s education? And, really, how has this policy come about in the first place? Hi, I’m Grace, I’m 9 years old and I go to Elmswell Primary School, I would like to know: Why will my class be split in half and go to two different secondary schools? And why will I not be able to go to the same school as my sister? Helen Geake Hello, I’m Helen. I have three children in Year 10, Year 8 and Year 5, they are all at different schools in Suffolk. My middle son has a problem with anxiety. He is in Year 8 here at Thurston and over the last 18 months Thurston Community College has done an amazing job helping him enter school in the mornings. I still have to drive him in, but he gets the bus home. My son currently has a free bus pass, so it’s there for him, when he feels he can use it. One day he will manage to get on the bus in the morning, and that day will be a huge celebration both for us and for his support team here at school. If we did not have this free bus, it is unlikely that we would choose to pay over £900 a year for a bus that he might use. If we did, we’d end up paying twice – once for the bus and once for the petrol that we’d use when he couldn’t manage to get on it. And he would end up feeling extra pressure to use the bus, which would increase his anxiety. If this plan goes ahead, he will of course still be entitled to a free bus, just to another school. But we couldn’t move schools now; we don’t want to have another year of disrupted education while we settle him in at another school. So, we would be left with no real choice other than to use our car, both morning and afternoon. There must be many, many other children across Suffolk, especially in the first year of secondary school, who, like my son, need a gentle introduction to the school bus. Without a free bus, to the right school, they will stay dependent on their parents and the car, without the freedom and personal growth that being able to get on the bus with their friends gives them. Fiona MacCauley Hi, I’m Fiona and like many others I am a single working parent with two children. I have one child who is already at Thurston, and my son is in Year 6 at Woolpit Primary Academy and we live in Elmswell, so split communities hits us twice. We are not unique, and the morning routine is similar to a military operation to get the children to school and me to work. Part of the reason I chose to live in Elmswell, having moved there when both children were at primary school, was that it is in the Thurston catchment and transportation is included. There is no surplus cash in my budget to pay for the potential £960 per year per child, therefore if these proposals are introduced I will be forced to take my children to school by car travelling in the opposite direction I go to work. I have no intention of changing their education and their schools, because I have done this already once, 77 of 86 3. Appendices which set them back six months and especially as in 2019 my daughter would be in her final year of GCSEs. Having attended the cabinet meetings, scrutiny committee, pre-consultation workshops, Have Your Say meeting and then this morning with Nikki, we went to the council to present the petition, I have listened to the ideas of others, we have been asked to create ideas to come up with savings. The way I see it is that these ideas that we have presented – it is the job of the Council, it is the job that we have actually elected them to do. I have the words ringing in my ears from Cllr Jones that any suggestions that we come up with would be more than the legal minimum requirement. So, I question how much the Council is really listening and do you understand your own proposal. I have been completely disappointed throughout this period from September until now, in that my job is to bring up grounded and responsible children who feel loved, cared for and provided for, and not to find solutions to plug the gap. This is the job of my council representatives which shouldn’t be at the detriment of the people who have elected them. Suffolk County Council should be fighting our corner. The minimum legal requirement does not fit the county of Suffolk and I would ask my councillors to challenge this with central government. Tim Coe The personal stories that we have heard tonight have shown us that these proposals will affect all manner of people. Without exception they tell us of the fear of expense and disruption to education – neither of these are acceptable to most people. But what about the money to be saved? The likely savings from option 1, as estimated by Council’s own staff, £200,000. This is 1/50th of one per cent of Suffolk’s overall budget of £900 million. To put it another way, this year the council aims to save £30 million from its budget. The savings for reorganising the buses to the nearest school would be less than 1% of these savings. The disruption caused to the education of a huge number of students, and their parents, is in no way offset by this miniscule cost saving. What about the potential income of charging parents nearly £1,000 per child per year. This is unlikely to be realised. Survey shows that less than 5% of Thurston parents would be prepared to pay this. The major impact would be a build-up of traffic rather than an accumulation of funds. I would urge the councillors to consider people first and balance sheets second in this instance and drop these proposed policy changes now. HW: This is an issue that doesn’t just affect schools, parents and children it also affects the villages and the communicates in which we live. For that reason, I have invited the Chair of the Thurston Parish Council and the Chair of the Beyton Parish Council – these are the villages that we occupy – I have invited them along tonight to give their perspective. Thank you very much. Graham Jones – Beyton Parish Council We are very proud of our school. You will see in here [Beyton Parish News] that they really are integrated into our community. An example last year in terms of safety. The school and some its pupils came to us and said, maybe we should have a defibrillator in the village because they knew of an event when someone had died last year. So, we worked together, and we got a lot of help, and one of the students and others got the money and we were able to buy a defibrillator. So, we also then able to give some further training to the school and to the people who live in the 78 of 86 3. Appendices village. So, we are really integrated with the school and they are integrated with us. I would simply say, they are damn good neighbours. And today we are in a data driven society. Everyone wants numbers, everyone wants ticks and you make decisions that are based on fact. One the things I heard about is that there is a suggestion that students that are currently at Thurston which I understand currently has a “Good” rating from Ofsted would go to schools that don’t have “Good” ratings. Well I don’t see that as progress and if I had children that were still in the schools I am damn sure that I wouldn’t want that to happen. We also see that many people don’t want to pay the £900 and we see that a lot of people will start to bring their children by car. Apparently, this will mean 600 more car movements a day in Beyton. Right now, we have 7,000 movements a day in our tiny village and add in 600 to something that already can’t cope with the numbers makes no sense. We’re talking about safety here; this is not the direction of travel. Also, many people in Beyton feel that actually there is a hidden agenda. That is to close Beyton school, sell off the land and build houses. I don’t know but where is transparency? So, if this is really in the back of the mind of people who want to do something with regard to schools, where they go to – if this in the back of your mind, please tell us. One thing that saddens me is, I look at television, the papers, politics is so polarised. You have people out here, people out here – they are so far apart. But actually, most of us are swilling around in the middle here. And what I hear tonight from the children, from the parents is a willingness to work together to try to find a solution that is not left and right, this way and that way and I’m sure that working together we can solve this problem. But number one is the quality of the education of our children. [Applause] Chris Dashper – Thurston Parish Council Just a few points from me really on the impact the village is likely to see as a result of this change. Firstly traffic. It has been mentioned a number of times this evening, but unless you have been abroad for three or four months you cannot have failed to have seen that Mid Suffolk District Council has decided to approve 818 houses to be built in Thurston. If you add that to the 230 houses that already have planning permission in the village, we have just over 1,000 houses in the next 5-10 years in Thurston. And the issue of infrastructure was a key point in the debates around whether that development was applicable here or not. At the end of the day, Suffolk County Council themselves determined that the infrastructure we have at the moment is suitable and at sufficient capacity to allow the development to go ahead. But in the discussions around this we did make the point that each development would be impinged upon by the existing capacity of the junctions. And I read this, and this is Suffolk County Council’s own words: there is no further capacity at the A143/Thurston Road junction (that’s the Bunbury Arms), no further capacity at Thurston Road/Fishwick Corner and no space to improve that junction, there is no capacity at Thedwastre Road/Pokeriage Corner junction and no capacity to improve that junction, and the Barton Road railway bridge is already at capacity. If the school transport policy was changed and the additional movements of people bringing their children to school was added to the current traffic system, the additional 600 movements a day would place all of the junctions I’ve just mentioned over capacity in terms of the ability to absorb the traffic volume and more importantly for safety. 79 of 86 3. Appendices We also have an issue with the railway station. Network Rail has determined that the crossing is dangerous. It isn’t gated, it is what we call a barrow crossing where you can make the crossing at any time whether there is a train there or not. There are sirens, there are lights, but it doesn’t make any difference, people still try and dodge the trains. If the volume of users on the railway station is increased, the ultimate possibility is that the Cambridge railway platform will be closed because of the mitigation to make that crossing safe. So again, the more the increase in use of these things, the worse the situation gets. In terms of the impact on the pupils in school, a lot has been mentioned here this evening about what that means in terms of the school itself, the quality the impact on the children. The Parish Council is very concerned about the impact a fall in pupil numbers could have on the school, on the children, what that would mean to the resources and the opportunities it could offer. The loss and reduction in the curriculum and the closure of the sixth form centre at Beyton are all unwelcome impacts of the policy. The College is a vital resource for the parish and the surrounding villages. New residents, ironically, moving into the new developments are probably expecting a high-quality, high standard school. What they may find is a school with half the pupils than we have at the moment. So, the rationale for having so many houses is obviously predicated on having a quality service in the village and the Parish Council has a responsibility to ensure that the needs of all residents are met now and, in the future, so we would be failing in our duty if we did not consider the long-term implications of such a decision on the village. Finally, just a note on the residents – as it stands at the moment and on the safety issues, the College grounds were obviously designed to safely manage school buses and not to accommodate parent drop-offs, the surrounding area is generally not considered safe for drop offs, Norton Road is not safe; it’s on a blind bend. You can expect large numbers of cars to stop, drop off, turn round and as far as we know there is no budget for a drop-off point anywhere in the village. At the end of the school day, as we know with the movement of the buses, it is already congested, they are already issues with residents in terms of parking in other areas of the village, a problem that can only get worse. I will just mention about parking at the railway station, there are only 12 spaces at the railway station, so it will quickly fill those up! Thank you. [Applause] HW: And our final stakeholder group is our governing body and I would like to welcome them on stage. Rachel Gooch – Governor Hello everybody, I will try to be brief, you have been very patient listening to all of us. I’m Rachel Gooch, I’m here to represent the Governing Body of Thurston Community College. I’m also the Thurston Partnership Co-ordinator which you have already heard about from our fantastic primary school representatives and I’m the parent of three children who all came to this school and all came on a free school bus. I mainly want to amplify what others have said about what it means to have a school catchment and why our catchment is a good thing and something that we should be trying to preserve. Councillor Jones, the Cabinet member who has proposed this policy change, I’ve heard him say many times in council meetings, and in the press, that catchment areas are a thing of the past. 80 of 86 3. Appendices As an aside, he has also said that all secondary schools will be academies by 2019 – well, as a governor, I can confidently say that we have no plans to become an academy, we are a local authority school. And we would be mad, frankly, to become an academy because as Helen has said academies have to bear the costs of redundancies themselves. But we’re a local authority school and Suffolk County Council would have to pay that £2.4 million if those changes go through and we have to make staff redundant, we would. But back to catchments. We have heard how much the catchment primary schools value the transition work that the College does with them to make sure that when those primary pupils arrive here in Y7 they are ready to start to their secondary education. The College can only justify the depth of its work with those primary schools because at the moment around 80% of pupils in our catchment primary schools come to us in Y7. If that proportion drops – and remember that will not be because those pupils have made a positive choice to go to another school but because they actually can’t get to us – if that proportion drops, we won’t be able to support the catchment schools in the same way. I can give you one specific example. Recently, as a Partnership has focussed on maths both primary and secondary levels. It is a problem in Suffolk generally - out of 152 local authorities, Suffolk ranks 146 for primary school maths, so it is a priority for Suffolk County Council as well as for us. As part of the Partnership plan, Thurston Community College is investing £20,000 in our catchment primary schools to buy maths textbooks and to employ a Maths leader to support teaching in those schools. £20,000 is a lot of money. It will make a big difference to those primary schools and their ability to invest in their maths teaching. But, without the catchment link – without the confidence that a high proportion of pupils in the catchments primary schools will transfer to us – the governors of Thurston Community College simply couldn’t spend such a sum of money on the education of pupils in other schools. That investment can only be justified when money is so tight because, as we see it now, they are our pupils too. That is what a catchment is. It is a community where we rely on each other, support each other and work together for the benefit of all. So, Councillor Jones is wrong. Wrong that catchments are obsolete. He is wrong to remove free transport to catchment schools. I hope that the Councillors here tonight and the Cabinet will understand this when they come to make a decision on how to proceed. Finally, and briefly, I want to talk about Option 2. Option 2 in the consultation would phase in the changes. It might be seen as a compromise. Councillors might think it neutralises some of the opposition because existing pupils won’t be forced to change school. It might be the way they can claim they have listened to us. Well it isn’t. In some ways it is even worse than the big bang Option 1, where all the changes come in at once in September 2019. This is because all the awful consequences of this policy will still happen. But the disruption will go on for years. As we heard from young Grace, current primary pupils won’t be able to go to the same schools as their siblings. Pupil numbers in schools like this will fall every year; there will be redundancy consultations every year for five, maybe for seven years. Each year, curriculum options will be cut until we end up with the same narrow subject choices 81 of 86 3. Appendices as the other small secondary schools around us. So not only will you not have a choice of school, but when you get here, you won’t have a choice of subjects either. Every year a new cohort of primary parents will suddenly realise that they can’t afford to send their child to the school they themselves attended; that children in their village have always attended; and the one that has the strong links with the secondary school which will ensure a smooth transition for their child. And every year, Councillors will face the howls of anger from parents who can’t afford to choose the right school for their child. So, Option 2 is not a compromise we can accept. You parents know what it means to be able to choose this as the secondary school for your child. So, we here today, have a responsibility to the cohorts of children in primary schools to insist that this opportunity is available to them too. And I do urge you all to make sure that your friends who have children in primary school understand that this matters to them too; please encourage them to complete that consultation. We, who have benefitted from free transport for our children, owe it to our successors to take a stand and say that Option 3 is the only one we can support. And our Council representatives owe it to us to make this clear to their colleagues in Cabinet. Thank you. [Applause] Helen Wilson OK. I would like to thank all of our stakeholder groups. I’m sure you will agree that between them they have given us a hugely comprehensive and thorough insight into what will happen if the “nearest school only” policy goes ahead. And I return to the question, is a potential saving of £200,000 per year really worth all of this disruption and all of this upset? And as Rachel has very eloquently explained, Option 2 is no better because those same consequences will still happen, just in slow motion And Option 2 will cost the County Council, by their own estimates, it will cost them £9.3 million over the seven years it takes to transition from the current system to the new policy. The young man from Norton Primary School explained that beautifully when he said there would be two buses arriving at his village. One to take the older children to their existing school and one to take the younger ones coming through to their nearest school. So, £9.3 million extra cost of Option 2. So, in conclusion, and this will take me two minutes, so bear with me: If what the County Council is proposing isn’t going to work, then what might work? We have got an idea which involves two separate parts. Part one – do not change the current home to school transport policy. Do not remove that choice from our children. Do not cause all this upheaval, all this upset. So, keep the home to school transport policy as it is. Coupled with that, and I think it was Graham on behalf of Beyton Parish Council who talked about working together, we have already spent extensive hours working with Suffolk County Council Passenger Transport Team. And we have worked out how we could make our current transport provision more efficient just within our catchment area. And we calculated that in one year, we could save as much as £235,000 just in this catchment area by making what we do already more efficient. That’s more than this policy would save across the whole of Suffolk. And if other schools worked with the County Council to improve efficiencies than those savings could be replicated across Suffolk. So that is our proposal. Don’t 82 of 86 3. Appendices change the policy but work with us to improve efficiency by local solutions. Our alternative solution has four benefits. Firstly, it will save the County Council more money than the current proposal; Secondly it will maintain choice for rural children and their families; thirdly, it will continue to support established successful schools in Suffolk; and finally, it will uphold Suffolk’s aspirations to be “The Greenest County” and also to “Raise the Bar” on educational attainment. Thank you very much indeed for listening. [Applause] It is 8.30. That took rather longer than I anticipated because our stakeholders had so many amazingly valid points to give. I would just like to give you a brief opportunity – if anyone would like to ask a question of any of the presenters tonight or anyone would like to record their own comment for the public record, now is your chance. Yes, please: Cllr Guy McGregor My name is Guy McGregor and I am the County Councillor for Hopton and I represent Hartismere school and sixth form which is probably one of the best schools in the country. The issue we are really faced with is, are the savings worth it? The point you all need to understand, please, bear with me, is this – a local authority is obliged by law to reach a balanced budget. We’re not like the Ministry of Defence with spending overruns or the NHS who run deficits, or the Highways Agency who are incompetent. We in local authorities have to balance our budget and that is the issue for us. The other point I would like to make frankly is this, unfortunately, Suffolk for whatever reason receives less money for its schools than the average English authority, we actually receive less money than Norfolk for our secondary schools. So, we are really up against it in terms of funding education and all that goes with it in Suffolk. It’s not through some malevolence that we are trying to do this. It is because we are trying to run this authority in an efficient and competent way. I am particularly proud, reflecting on my own patch, I have two particularly fine schools Stradbroke Academy and Hartismere which I am very supportive of. Thank you. HW: Thank you Councillor McGregor. Is there anyone else who would like to have their say? Bob Jeffries. Can I just say, in response to that, we’ve just seen that £235,000 here will save more than the £200,000 you want to save. We understand that you have to be efficient to save money but there is a plan there that will save you more money than you will save by pursuing this policy. Thank you very much. Someone over there with their hand up. Helen Geake: it was me, but Bob made my point for me. HW: OK. Is there anyone else? Audience member: Can I ask, has anyone from the County Council actually been out to see the footpaths. When it’s dark, in the mornings, after school? Councillor Graham Newman: I can honestly say that I have. Because I am the Chair of the Education Transport Appeals Committee and that is what we do when people like yourselves say this is not a viable route for my child. We go out and we walk the routes. And, in fact, I have myself just changes the system. We now walk those routes at the times school children walk them rather than at the times when Councillors would like to get up. 83 of 86 3. Appendices [Applause] Audience member: But have you liaised with the school transport people? Cllr Newman: I have not about this, but we do try. Audience member: I’m not at Thurston, my son was at sixth form here. I’m actually from Stoke Ash near Hartismere and it’s not safe to walk. In fact, none of the children from Stoke Ash could walk anywhere. [inaudible] HW: Thank you for making that point. Yes? Audience member: I’m lucky enough to have three children here at the moment. One has just chosen A-levels, going on to Beyton, hopefully they will manage to do two years there without that being closed. The other one is just choosing GCSEs and the third one is here after rehearsals for Oliver (get your tickets now) and hopefully will have the same choice of GCSEs to my Year 9. If we take away those 25 options plus their core subjects, these children who have all these options at the moment will lose that if we don’t have those numbers, the bums on seats that will bring in the money to fund that and it seems strange that if Suffolk is wanting to Raise the Bar on our educational standard within the country that they take away choice that allows children to blossom. HW: Thank you. Would you like to go next? Fiona MacCauley: There has been a lot of media coverage and one thing I noticed from Councillor Noble was that you have to balance this against all the vulnerable children. My question really is, as a Council are you happy to make more children vulnerable because this is what these proposals will do? You are going to put more children in a vulnerable position where they have to change schools which will affect their mental health and their education. We are in danger of increasing that figure. We don’t want to be having to support more vulnerable children. HW: OK, thank you very much. Yes? Neil Holloway: Would I be right in thinking that we’ve been told there will be a choice you can either pay or go to your nearest school. But am I right in thinking that in Barnham, there will be no buses? So, you can either go to school in Thetford or someone will have to drive them here or of not Thetford the nearest school is Ixworth Free School but why when there is not a sixth form there. Why would the council have a policy that forces children out of local education authority schooling into free schools? What right have they got to force people to send their child to a free school? HW: OK, thank you very much. Yes, young man? Primary pupil: I think it would be very unfair for my mum. She would be put under a lot of pressure because she works full-time because she has to work while me and my sister are at school. So, if the buses stopped being free it would be harder for her. HW: OK, thank you very much. [Applause] Yes, sir David Webdale: In an already quite stressful profession of teaching, speaking as one of the staff here, do we really think it is sensible to have the looming chance of potentially 100 redundancies arising when we are already doing our best to provide the best education we can here. [Applause] Anselm Gurney: My question follows on from that. Has the Council actually worked out the likely cost of redundancies across schools in the whole of Suffolk? If the cost of redundancy in this school is £2.4 million and the savings are £200,000 that’s 12 84 of 86 3. Appendices years pay back on one school. So, what is the payback period across the whole county? [Applause] Helen Utteridge: Just to follow that, it is not as easy as people think to say, oh, schools always need teachers because schools are not obliged to take on teachers if they lost their job because of school organisation so don’t think oh they can go to another school with space. HW: Yes, absolutely right. Yes? Audience Member: One of the things that we haven’t really heard about is that really the only free school bus in my village comes to Thurston so what I was wondering is that it is about a mile to the next village that has a free bus to Thurston obviously I don’t see any consideration of that I would be happy to drive my child to the next village. Obviously, that would solve all of the cars having to come to Thurston, but that there has been no consideration of other alternatives or flexibility about that. HW: Yes, good point, thank you very much. Yes? [inaudible] we choose to be in catchment to get our child to Hartismere. We chose to move to the area to get them to that school. Now you say we have to go to Diss. Diss doesn’t have any capacity, so you’ll have to send us back to Hartismere, if we can then get in. I don’t understand how it can save anything. HW: Thank you very much. Anybody else, yes? Audience member: I have got two children at Thurston, a son in Year 10 and a daughter in Year 11. We are out of catchment so theoretically they are not affected by the changes. But they are. We chose Thurston. I made that choice because the breadth of the curriculum, the absolutely outstanding pastoral support – may daughter is quite vulnerable and the impact on her of a 54% budget cut if those pupils leave will be immense. It affects every single child, not just those that can’t get free transport. It affects every single child that stays here. [Applause] HW: OK, we’ll take one final comment, sir. Audience member: Do the County Council accept the figures that we are hearing. This policy was brought in to save £3 million and I believe has been shown by your own committees to save only £200,000. Your presenting an alternative solution that could £230,000. Do the County Council accept those figures or are they contentious figures and if they accept them, why the hell are we still having this debate? [Applause] HW: OK, I think that’s a fine way to end. Thank you for that. Can I just say I am incredibly grateful to the County Councillors who have come to listen to us this evening. [Applause] I suppose we should let Penny speak as she is the County Councillor who represents Thurston. Go for it, Penny. Councillor Penny Otton: Only to thank you Helen, to thank you for the fantastic amount of work you have put into coming up with sensible, worked out solutions, information, contacting the parents, contacting the carers and contacting all of the local Councillors and all of the Councillors on the County Council. I think that the campaign that you have done has been exemplary and on behalf of my colleagues, whatever decision is made, I have to say by very few councillors, we thank you for this opportunity to hear your views. [Applause and standing ovation] 85 of 86 3. Appendices HW: My goodness. Those of you that know me well, know this doesn’t happen but I am lost for words. Thank you. I have never had a standing ovation in my entire life so that is hugely appreciated. So, thank you all for coming, thank you for your support and let us continue to fight this together because I do believe we will win. Thank you very much. Audience member: I think I want to ask Helen to leave and I don’t want to embarrass her. There is something I want to speak to everyone about and I need Helen to leave. [Helen leaves the auditorium]. There has been a lot said tonight about the environment and green effects. What I would like to propose is why don’t we try and organise a drive to school situation? As we know only 5% said they would use the buses and majority said they would drive to school, so let’s try and see what effect that would have here in Thurston. [Hear, hear, applause]. What we’d probably have to do is, er, circulate people? Set a date now? [Set a date, set a date]. [Next Monday. Next Friday] Er, next Friday? Ok, if you can circulate to as many people you know who are parents here, if we all drive our children to school, I know that maybe you will have to change your working habits, but take them off the buses and drive them to school and maybe we can see what effect it would have on the environment. [Applause] Meeting closed at 20.41pm

-ENDS-

86 of 86 3. Appendices Appendix 3.9: Email from Iain Maxwell March 2017 From: Iain Maxwell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15 March 2017 15:07 To: ……………………………………….. Subject: THURSTON SCHOOL BUSES

Hello ……….

It was good to see you the other week and that you are enjoying your work again.

I have checked with colleagues in School Transport and they have no plans to reduce the school bus service to Thurston. There are nearly 40 buses daily needed for transporting pupils to the college and they realise that if these were reduced the consequences for traffic at the school would be horrendous.

I hope this allays your fears.

Regards

Iain Maxwell

Assistant Senior Infrastructure Officer Schools Infrastructure Suffolk County Council Endeavour House 8 Russell Road Ipswich IP1 2BX

01473 264631