Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received on behalf of Councillor Val Smith (Councillor Brighouse substituting) and Councillor Michael Waine (Councillor Wilmshurst substituting).

Following the resignation of Councillor Newton the Chairman welcomed Councillor Stratford to the meeting on his appointment to the Committee.

The following requests to address the meeting had been agreed:

Sue Moon -   Oxfordshire School Bus Action Group (OSBAG)

Angus Wilkinson -  OSBAG

Chris Fyfe - OSBAG

Councillor Anne Purse, local Councillor

John Cochrane, Member of the Public

Dr Annabel Kay, Head Teacher – The Warriner School

Mr James Pilgrim, Deputy Head Teacher– Burford School

Sue Moon, OSBAG, asked that the Committee when listening to the presentations today to consider whether you are convinced that the savings are genuine beyond any reasonable doubt. She asked this in view of the real damage she felt that the proposals could do if voted through. She also asked Members to consider why they became involved in local politics and if it was to serve the local community. She understood the financial challenges but asked Members to consider the broader picture and if in any doubt to pause and look at other options and pilots already in place elsewhere. Responding to questions she highlighted that partnerships had been identified as a powerful tool for raising attainment. Transition was vital and again evidence suggested it worked best when it worked simplest with one to one one or long standing cluster relationships. 

Mr Wilkinson, OSBAG, speaking as a parent and governor stated that the proposals had no educational advantage but did carry educational risks. There were a lot of unknowns with the risk of some schools being unable to deal with the capacity of children wishing to go there. Other schools would lose pupils with the effect this would have on their budgets. It would be hard for schools to plan with the unknowns. He added that he believed there were errors of fact in the financial proposal such as buses being cut in Kennington but no consequent additional cost where additional service might be required.

Responding to questions from Councillor Brighouse he explained that the educational disadvantage was around aspects of the particular partnerships schools had developed. In response to further questions from Members he acknowledged that he had no empirical evidence of the disadvantage caused. However he commented that the move away from current provision was very new and by few County Councils and queried how Members could equally be certain that there was no risk to education.

Chris Fyfe, OSBAG, referred to a sensitivity analysis he had carried out and presented his findings in chart form for members’ information. He stated that a small change in parent’s behaviour would have a large impact on the savings to be made. Chris Fyfe responded to a questions from members and indicated that the lower saving figure of the model did not represent the worst case  in terms of savings to be made. He had not looked at the impact of safe routes and took no specific account of alternatives modes of transport. He had looked at demand and the effect on savings only.

Councillor Purse, speaking as a local Councillor, referred to the particular difficulties faced by the villages in her Division who currently sent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2/14

Jim Leivers, Director for Children’s Services, Roy Leach, School Organisation and Planning Manager and Neil Darlington attended for this item. Jim Leivers set the proposals in the overall context of the Directorate’s and the County Council’s financial position. Incredibly tough decisions were needed. Savings had to be made here or elsewhere. The changes were the result of necessity not desire.  He stressed that the current position was not sustainable with the rise in academies that set their own catchment areas. This would leave the Council exposed to financial risk in the future. Roy Leach in presenting the proposals emphasised that no-one currently receiving transport would be affected by the proposals. He explained the concept of split villages and that such proposals had to be applied across the County. He gave examples of the level at which a split village could be defined ranging from 15 – 25%.

During detailed questioning and discussion the following points were raised:

1.       Concern was raised over the potential of a blank cheque being made available to academies in terms of transport and the view was expressed that Option A1 removed this risk, although it was unclear whether Option A2 did the same. 

2.       Members felt it was important to go to nearest school and supported the extension of this to the nearest school in Oxfordshire

3.       There was concern about the split villages, as the percentages in future years might change and this would make it complicated.

4.       Members in supporting the proposal relating to split villages commented that it would enable children from the same village to attend the same school, but may make the issue unnecessarily complex.

5.       Some Members commented that the case for Option A2 was emotional, and the issue was not one of splitting villages, but of providing free transport.

6.       The statutory walking distance of 2 miles did not appear to be “rural-proof” and there may be difficulties in walking an 8-year-old 2 miles in winter across fields and bridle-ways.

7.       It was emphasised that Option A2 may prove cheaper, as there was no need to transport in 2 directions

8.       It was noted that split villages only spoke about the rural aspects and this had not been explored for the towns.

9.       Some felt that for simplicity the policy should only use nearest school.

10.    Would it be worthwhile to hold off until the new Department for Education guidance comes out.

11.    There was concern about the links to the policy and the admissions team given the budgets will be in Environment & Economy.

12.    Schools had a wide discretion for spending on improving education outcomes and transport would be no different.

13.    There was concern about the amount parents would have to pay and the problem if parents had to pay this up front.  It was noted that the payment is currently payable in three instalments, but officers were considering 12 monthly instalments.

14.    There was some concern about the consultation not including extended transport options. It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3/14