The school bus crisis.

political analyst

The following article was published late last August.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/schools/school-bus-system-in-chaos-but-minister-says-he-is-powerless-36074734.html

The parents of as many as 2,000 children are still waiting to see if they will get seats on school buses this year amid claims that the system is in "chaos".

As schools begin the new term this week, Junior Education Minister John Halligan said he was powerless to solve the issue this year.

Mr Halligan said legislative change and substantial funding would be needed to provide more buses to provide extra seats for pupils who weren't automatically eligible.
"You hold your head in your hands sometimes as a minister. You get in there and you find it's so difficult to change things," he said.

Mr Halligan is to hold talks with affected families from Tipperary and Laois. "I'm not going to bring people up to an office and pretend I can do things that I can't," he told the Irish Independent. "I just can't change it and I wish I could."
The issue of bus places has become fraught in recent years after a 2011 change in how they're allocated. The previous arrangement involved school catchment areas. Now seats are allocated based on the nearest school to a pupil's home.

Halligan is a junior minister. Therefore, he's not the person the parents should be talking to. They should take it up with the education and transport ministers.

Parents who live near a vocational school but send their children to voluntary schools because of the ethos and who are not well-off shouldn't have been put in this position.

Could it be argued that the discontinuation of the allocation of bus seats to pupils on the basis of catchment areas violates parents' constitutional right to make crucial decisions about their children's education?

pjohnson

Tbf its lucky if there ARE school buses. The bus drivers are due another strike after the rail lads get back to work.

suicide_circus

Is it me or is everything a CRISIS now? it's very draining.

WoollyRedHat

suicide_circus wrote: »

Is it me or is everything a CRISIS now? it's very draining.

Can they not rollerblade to school, the lazy feckers.

One eyed Jack

political analyst wrote: »

Could it be argued that the discontinuation of the allocation of bus seats to pupils on the basis of catchment areas violates parents' constitutional right to make crucial decisions about their children's education?

Anything could be argued.

Whether it's taken seriously or not, is another matter entirely.

Hitman3000

political analyst wrote:

Could it be argued that the discontinuation of the allocation of bus seats to pupils on the basis of catchment areas violates parents' constitutional right to make crucial decisions about their children's education?

The parents constitutional right is not being infringed, the state is just not going to transport junior to the parents choice of school outside of existing catchment areas.

political analyst

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The parents constitutional right is not being infringed, the state is just not going to transport junior to the parents choice of school outside of existing catchment areas.

That's the whole point! Before the economic crisis, whether or not a pupil got a place on a school bus depended on the school being in the catchment area. It has since been changed to being on the basis of the school nearest to home. If parents who are not well-off want to send their child to a voluntary school because of the ethos rather than the vocational school nearby, why should be be financially disadvantaged because of their choice?

Fr_Dougal

political analyst wrote: »

That's the whole point! Before the economic crisis, whether or not a pupil got a place on a school bus depended on the school being in the catchment area. It has since been changed to being on the basis of the school nearest to home. If parents who are not well-off want to send their child to a voluntary school because of the ethos rather than the vocational school nearby, why should be be financially disadvantaged because of their choice?

Because parents need to take some responsibility for their own children.

Hotblack Desiato

Hold on a second. Why should the taxpayer be put to expense because some people decide the nearest school isn't good enough for them?

If I wanted a place in an ET and it wasn't the nearest school I wouldn't expect free transport - and wouldn't get it either.

Are Am Eye

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzUkXJpezyI

greenflash

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hold on a second. Why should the taxpayer be put to expense because some people decide the nearest school isn't good enough for them?

If I wanted a place in an ET and it wasn't the nearest school I wouldn't expect free transport - and wouldn't get it either.

My daughter goes to an ET school. She was rejected by the closest school to us (80 metres), with no reason given. I can't believe baptism was an issue, after all it was the only the first section of the application form after name, DOB and address.

LirW

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hold on a second. Why should the taxpayer be put to expense because some people decide the nearest school isn't good enough for them?

If I wanted a place in an ET and it wasn't the nearest school I wouldn't expect free transport - and wouldn't get it either.

If I send my child to the nearest Secondary I have to pay Bus Eireann almost 400 quid for the year, which I think is a flat rate. Not particularly free.

Hotblack Desiato

OK scratch out 'free' and replace with 'heavily subsidised' then...

Hitman3000

political analyst wrote:

That's the whole point! Before the economic crisis, whether or not a pupil got a place on a school bus depended on the school being in the catchment area. It has since been changed to being on the basis of the school nearest to home. If parents who are not well-off want to send their child to a voluntary school because of the ethos rather than the vocational school nearby, why should be be financially disadvantaged because of their choice?

You're wrong the catchment areas have remained the same. Concessionary seats no longer apply.

stimpson

political analyst wrote: »

why should be be financially disadvantaged because of their choice?

Eh... because it’s their choice? Give them a place in the nearest school. If they don’t like it then get the chequebook out.

end of the road

pjohnson wrote: »

Tbf its lucky if there ARE school buses. The bus drivers are due another strike after the rail lads get back to work.

no they aren't. there are no further bus strikes planned.

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Because parents need to take some responsibility for their own children.

that's not a valid reason, as 99% of parents already take responsibility for their children.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hold on a second. Why should the taxpayer be put to expense because some people decide the nearest school isn't good enough for them?

If I wanted a place in an ET and it wasn't the nearest school I wouldn't expect free transport - and wouldn't get it either.

because thats it's job to do so until such time as schools only ethos is education, and religion does not have a hold over schools. if the tax payer doesn't want to have to pay to transport children further, it has to stop pretending to be of a religion it isn't of.

LirW

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

OK scratch out 'free' and replace with 'heavily subsidised' then...

Question: Why should school transport not be subsidized? I mean, I'm not saying it shouldn't be free but every child needs to go to school, I currently live 5km away from my boys primary and the next secondary is a bit further away. By now I'm driving him but should parents have to fork out a grand a year per child in transport?
I'm really getting the feeling that people only want the well-off to have children so they can pay independently for themselves. People live in rural areas, their children depend especially on Secondary school transport.
Should children not go to school because transport is so horrifyingly expensive in rural areas and parents can't scrape that money together for that next to uniforms, books and the gadgets every secondary school needs a student to have by now?

People can afford feeding, clothing and entertaining their children but as a society it's an obligation to subsidize the basic education of the next generation. Plenty of other countries have free/very cheap transport to school. Why is always someone crying that taxes subsidize something for every single child in the country which includes the poor, rich and middle-class kids.

In fact, 2000 families paid for a service (got the money back though), need to make other arrangements now which means in the worst case that one parent has to leave the job to play taxi for a moody teenager that lives in the sticks because the Ministry of Transport isn't getting their sh together. For these families it sucks to have drawn the bad card.

EDIT: Some local schools have a very bad reputation and educational standard that people don't want to send their children there, which is a fair point. Rural schools can be very religious, which can be a nightmare for children of other religions or without confession.

Hotblack Desiato

Nice rant but I wasn't saying school transport shouldn't be subsidised. For the relatively few in Dublin taking the bus to school there are fares slightly lower than normal child fares.

It's the OP's contention that people who turn their noses up at the local vocational school should be subsidised to indulge their sectarianism / snobbery elsewhere at taxpayer expense which I was questioning.

Ironically, many vocational schools in rural areas are extremely catholic.

LirW

I can only tell it from my perspective: The local secondary, which is not going to be a topic isn't a topic for me for the next years but it will be soon enough - and the reputation is so-so. In my street the children attend to 3 different primary schools for different reasons. Now a town close to me has a ET and I put my daughter on the list for it when she was 3 months old, she's on the very top. But the place is 20 km away from where we live, the standard of Education a lot better. The transport will be sorted out each year, depending on how many children are on a route, there needs to be a minimum of 10 children. So children that depend on that transport route because they've been to the school can suddenly lose their transport over the summer because the minimum requirement isn't met.
As a family without confession my son goes to a catholic school and has to do the prayer every day because he's the only one and there is no alternative. He couldn't get a place in the ET.

For people living in Dublin it's easier picking from different schools and naturally they'd pick the one that has the best level of education. Some rural schools are known for having a bad standard or certain problems and I understand why people choose to send their children to a different one.

magentis

LirW wrote: »

If I send my child to the nearest Secondary I have to pay Bus Eireann almost 400 quid for the year, which I think is a flat rate. Not particularly free.

€400 for how many journeys,and how does that €400 work out per km?

wakka12

Crisis? Homeless crisis..housing crisis..water crisis..mental health crisis.. its sounding a bit pathetic..none of these are crises

Hammer89

greenflash wrote: »

My daughter goes to an ET school.

Does it get annoying when they always phone home?

LirW

magentis wrote: »

€400 for how many journeys,and how does that €400 work out per km?

Again, why shouldn't school transport be subsidized for every child in Ireland? They need to get to school somehow.

One eyed Jack

LirW wrote: »

Question: Why should school transport not be subsidized? I mean, I'm not saying it shouldn't be free but every child needs to go to school, I currently live 5km away from my boys primary and the next secondary is a bit further away. By now I'm driving him but should parents have to fork out a grand a year per child in transport?

I'm really getting the feeling that people only want the well-off to have children so they can pay independently for themselves. People live in rural areas, their children depend especially on Secondary school transport.

Should children not go to school because transport is so horrifyingly expensive in rural areas and parents can't scrape that money together for that next to uniforms, books and the gadgets every secondary school needs a student to have by now?

People can afford feeding, clothing and entertaining their children but as a society it's an obligation to subsidize the basic education of the next generation. Plenty of other countries have free/very cheap transport to school. Why is always someone crying that taxes subsidize something for every single child in the country which includes the poor, rich and middle-class kids.

In fact, 2000 families paid for a service (got the money back though), need to make other arrangements now which means in the worst case that one parent has to leave the job to play taxi for a moody teenager that lives in the sticks because the Ministry of Transport isn't getting their sh together. For these families it sucks to have drawn the bad card.

EDIT: Some local schools have a very bad reputation and educational standard that people don't want to send their children there, which is a fair point. Rural schools can be very religious, which can be a nightmare for children of other religions or without confession.

LirW wrote: »

Some rural schools are known for having a bad standard or certain problems and I understand why people choose to send their children to a different one.

If I'm reading your posts correctly, you appear to want the same standard of education for your children as those who pay privately for that standard, and you're asking why shouldn't it be subsidised for you?

Because you're not paying privately for it is surely the most obvious answer to that one! You're paying for public transport yes, and you're getting a subsidised service, so you've chosen to transport your children privately to and from the school, that your taxes and everyone else's taxes are subsidising through free primary education.

Of course children should be provided with a minimum standard of education, but if the standard provided in the school closest to you isn't up to your standard, the State isn't violating your rights because you've chosen a standard which you aren't willing to pay for yourself. Who do you think should pay for your children to go to your preferred school?

I'm just... can't get my head around that one.

LirW

Erm, no, you're jumping the gun there. People have different reasons for putting children into different schools, like for example the childcare arrangement requires it and is given long-term (I know one case in the neighborhood), work place, school providing an obviously bad service, child didn't get a place in the closest school because it recently moved there and the school is full - the list goes on.
Surprisingly enough there aren't only people being too precious on this island. Nevermind 25k of them. Choosing another school is one of the reasons but hey, who are we to judge.
The service needs to be paid anyway, doesn't matter if it's the closest school or not, unless you have a medical card, then the child can claim free transport, but that isn't topic of this thread.

I also mentioned that services can be suspended because the routes get assessed every year and if it's under a certain number of regular passengers, that's it, no service on your route for a year when you don't/can't send your child to the local school. These assessments only happen very close to the beginning of the year.


Also there aren't many private schools in rural Ireland where most of the transport happens, so I don't know why you'd compare the standard of rural schools with private schools? In cities the quality of schools vary a lot, if you could send your child to the ET in Glasnevin you wouldn't send it to the local school in South Finglas if you have the choice. There are quite bad schools in rural Ireland too, just sayin'.

Fr_Dougal

LirW wrote: »

Again, why shouldn't school transport be subsidized for every child in Ireland? They need to get to school somehow.

Let the parents subsidize it. Their children are their responsibility.

LirW

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Let the parents subsidize it. Their children are their responsibility.

People certainly house their children, dress them, entertain them and feed them. At the moment, if you're a working family in Ireland, there is no real attraction to having children because childcare eats a good chunk of your income, sending them to school is expensive due to high book prices and uniforms. Should parents pay thousands in school transport too?

See it as an investment in the future generation, we all know that the birth rates are declining in the west because for westerners having children is getting less attractive than ever.
Taxes subsidize so much nonsense in this country, school transport is actually something that makes a lot of sense compared to plenty of other things.

Fr_Dougal

LirW wrote: »

People certainly house their children, dress them, entertain them and feed them. At the moment, if you're a working family in Ireland, there is no real attraction to having children because childcare eats a good chunk of your income, sending them to school is expensive due to high book prices and uniforms. Should parents pay thousands in school transport too?

See it as an investment in the future generation, we all know that the birth rates are declining in the west because for westerners having children is getting less attractive than ever.
Taxes subsidize so much nonsense in this country, school transport is actually something that makes a lot of sense compared to plenty of other things.

If people can’t afford kids they shouldn’t have them. They shouldn’t expect others to fund their lifestyles.

LirW

People can afford them (I'm not going down the route of discussing Vicky Pollard in Coolock with her 5 welfare checks from 6 daddies) but what's wrong with subsidizing the education and what's connected with it? Why in the world is this a bad use of tax money?
Why are other European countries subsidizing the education and transport of pupils even more, some up to a point where it's free, and the countries performance in educational studies are way better than the irish one?

Again, I see the primary education as an essential need for society as a whole, rural areas are disadvantaged in regards of Public transport and infrastructure, some students can't visit local schools. 25k is not a small number.

One eyed Jack

LirW wrote: »

Erm, no, you're jumping the gun there.

I'm really not jumping the gun. I asked you a direct question.

People have different reasons for putting children into different schools, like for example the childcare arrangement requires it and is given long-term (I know one case in the neighborhood), work place, school providing an obviously bad service, child didn't get a place in the closest school because it recently moved there and the school is full - the list goes on.

Yes, I'm quite aware that this is an issue for immigrants who have recently moved into an area. It's also an issue for parents living in the area that they aren't successful in enrolling their children in a school of their choosing, but we're talking here about the subsidised provision of transport to a school which they have been successful in enrolling their children.

Surprisingly enough there aren't only people being too precious on this island. Nevermind 25k of them. Choosing another school is one of the reasons but hey, who are we to judge.
The service needs to be paid anyway, doesn't matter if it's the closest school or not, unless you have a medical card, then the child can claim free transport, but that isn't topic of this thread.

It absolutely matters if it's the closest school or not, because the viability of providing a subsidised transport service is dependent on the numbers of parents who will apply to avail of that service for their children, and yes, that does include parents with medical cards who may qualify to avail of the service free of charge. They would actually increase the viability of providing the service, so you really should include them in your argument rather than exclude them.

I also mentioned that services can be suspended because the routes get assessed every year and if it's under a certain number of regular passengers, that's it, no service on your route for a year when you don't/can't send your child to the local school. These assessments only happen very close to the beginning of the year.

I actually agree with you there, the time it takes to process applications is a pain in the arse, but, if you're successful then you'll only be paying €350 isn't it, per child for transport to and from school for the year. The number of parents who are actually caught in the situation you describe where it is determined that it isn't viable to offer subsidised transport and there isn't a place for them in a local school come September, doesn't even get into double figures, so I'm not sure where you get your 25k from.

Also there aren't many private schools in rural Ireland where most of the transport happens, so I don't know why you'd compare the standard of rural schools with private schools?

I didn't, I'm saying that if your nearest school isn't up to your standards, you have every right to choose another school, but what you don't have, is the right to expect your choice to be subsidised by the State.

In cities the quality of schools vary a lot, if you could send your child to the ET in Glasnevin you wouldn't send it to the local school in South Finglas if you have the choice. There are quite bad schools in rural Ireland too, just sayin'.

If I don't know what I would or wouldn't do in that scenario, you certainly don't. It would depend upon a number of factors rather than just one single factor alone, and if I lived in either Glasnevin or Finglas and I thought there was a better school in either area, of course I'd try and get my child into the best school.

I'm quite aware of the standard of schools both in rural and urban Ireland, and there are far more DEIS and ET schools in urban Ireland than there are in rural Ireland. Just sayin'.

One eyed Jack

LirW wrote: »

People can afford them (I'm not going down the route of discussing Vicky Pollard in Coolock with her 5 welfare checks from 6 daddies) but what's wrong with subsidizing the education and what's connected with it? Why in the world is this a bad use of tax money?

Yowza!! :pac:

Vicky Pollard is entitled to the same rights as you are, and again I would point out that she and her children would actually help your case, not hinder it, in arguing the viability of transport to a school you determine would be a better school than the local school.

end of the road

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Let the parents subsidize it. Their children are their responsibility.

they do subsidize it. it's our responsibility to insure there is quality school transport in place to insure access to education.

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

If people can’t afford kids they shouldn’t have them. They shouldn’t expect others to fund their lifestyles.

they can afford them. they could afford them and things changed. different circumstances for which simplistic rabel rabel statements mean jot.
it's our job to insure access to education for all children and to insure quality transport is availible.

LirW

Okay, to refer to your question:

If I'm reading your posts correctly, you appear to want the same standard of education for your children as those who pay privately for that standard, and you're asking why shouldn't it be subsidised for you?

I honestly don't get the question itself. I'd be happy if you explain it to me, I had the assumption I already answered it for you.

Anyway it happens a lot that people enroll their children in more than one school. Commuters have to be particularly careful where to enroll for a variety of factors: Commute, childcare, support network. I'm just taking a neighbors example: The closest primary school is 3km away. Their children go to a school 20km away because family lives close by and they mind the children after school. Even though the family could successfully enroll their kids in the local school it's in reality difficult to do so because a childcare arrangement that's permanent is elsewhere. They transport the children themselves. If they come to the age for secondary they could either go to the closest or to the one where their current primary is feeder school. If they have an easy way of transport the second option makes a lot more sense to the family due to their circumstances. Happy days if there's even a current bus service. If it happens in one year though that too many children would leave the school taking the same route or there aren't new kids entering route and the service needs to be cancelled, that's bad.
And I really understand why a service would be cancelled if there aren't enough passengers.

I think in times like that it's a bit difficult being on the same mindset of local school, local everything when people can't work local and are a lot more mobile.
Other example: There are 5 primary schools in a 10km radius from my house, but only one of the 5 has an official creche, that also offers ECCE. It makes sense to most of the children going to the school attached to the creche to continue availing of the service.

I get your point though of sucessfully enrolled children in a school suddenly being placed somewhere else because of various reasons, I appreciate the predicament of the transport circumstances.

The choice of schools in urban areas is bigger, but if people have to move out to rural places simply because they can't afford anything else it's often only scenario of "this is the school, take it or leave it". Not so much with primaries but it's a big problem with secondaries.
Children are now only being allocated to the closest school in the system, when in reality they can't visit them, that's what the articles say.
It honestly is a bit outdated and problematic in rural areas in a time where people have to be mobile for work, especially in rural Ireland. But it's a complex issue really and I don't see that becoming and easy one to solve.

LirW

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yowza!! :pac:

Vicky Pollard is entitled to the same rights as you are, and again I would point out that she and her children would actually help your case, not hinder it, in arguing the viability of transport to a school you determine would be a better school than the local school.

I forgot to mention that I really don't care about the social background of children or if their transport is paid by the parents of fully by the state because they are on the bus anyway.

But my point stands, in 2017 people need to be a lot more mobile for work, which means that often the children can't go to the closest school, yet the system at the moment automatically allocates them for a seat to the closest one.

One eyed Jack

end of the road wrote: »

they do subsidize it. it's our responsibility to insure there is quality school transport in place to insure access to education.

No, it isn't our responsibility to ensure there is quality s school transport in place to ensure access to education, and even if by 'our' you mean the State - nope, it's not the States responsibility either.

they can afford them. they could afford them and things changed. different circumstances for which simplistic rabel rabel statements mean jot.

If people choose to live in the arsehole of nowhere, then the State isn't obliged to account for every single one-off circumstance that would place an imposition on them. Reasonable accommodations can be made, but they shouldn't be expected, because the State is only obliged to provide for education as far as is practically possible, rather than expected to achieve the impossible. The obligation on the parents to ensure their children receive a mandatory minimum standard of education.

it's our job to insure access to education for all children and to insure quality transport is availible.

That's rabble rabble really, as neither anyone else nor the State, is obliged to ensure quality transport is available to ensure children have access to schools of the parents choosing. That's the difference between a right and a privilege - there are no obligations attached to privileges.

LirW

But exactly that is a thin line. First off, prices in urban areas are steep, people with modest income choose to buy elsewhere because they can't afford the city. Yet people often have to commute. With little childcare options in rural areas that run with schools people that work and commute have to make different arrangements which often means that the child can't go to the local school.

Ireland has an exceptionally bad public transport system because in many other countries children just take the public services, get a cheap pupil ticket and off they go, even quite rural ones. But since there's oh so little outside of urban areas and the main traffic veins you of course have to appoint services.

Fr_Dougal

end of the road wrote: »

they do subsidize it. it's our responsibility to insure there is quality school transport in place to insure access to education.



they can afford them. they could afford them and things changed. different circumstances for which simplistic rabel rabel statements mean jot.
it's our job to insure access to education for all children and to insure quality transport is availible.

No, you’re just wrong. It’s the parents responsibility.

One eyed Jack

LirW wrote: »

But exactly that is a thin line. First off, prices in urban areas are steep, people with modest income choose to buy elsewhere because they can't afford the city. Yet people often have to commute. With little childcare options in rural areas that run with schools people that work and commute have to make different arrangements which often means that the child can't go to the local school.

Ireland has an exceptionally bad public transport system because in many other countries children just take the public services, get a cheap pupil ticket and off they go, even quite rural ones. But since there's oh so little outside of urban areas and the main traffic veins you of course have to appoint services.

You're absolutely right of course that we really do have massive problems with successive Governments making a pure balls of investment in infrastructure, education and health in this country. That's been down to not just bad but abysmal planning in both rural and urban development. We got massive loans and grants from the EU to develop our infrastructure and it was all pissed away on politicians pet projects. Now we're left with a situation where the State doesn't have a pot to piss in to provide even close to adequate public services, and people are being shafted left, right and centre to make up the shortfall. Funding for every service has been cut, and the Government gives itself a pat on the back for cutting USC and giving people a meagre amount of relief.

Of course people are entitled to raise their eyebrows when there are people demanding that the State fund the cost of providing transport for their children to schools because who is going to be expected to pay for it without an increase in taxation?

Are you willing to pay more tax to fund better services for everyone? I would if I thought I was going to get value for money, but I really don't see that happening any time soon, so I'm doing as best I can to hold on to what income I do have so I can provide for my own childs education rather than hand it over to the State for politicians to fritter it away on their pet projects that will see them elected again and again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LirW

Are you willing to pay more tax to fund better services for everyone? I would if I thought I was going to get value for money, but I really don't see that happening any time soon, so I'm doing as best I can to hold on to what income I do have so I can provide for my own childs education rather than hand it over to the State for politicians to fritter it away on their pet projects that will see them elected again and again.

It's more a case of I'd like if the tax money would be managed a lot better than it currently is. Tax money is spend on so much nonsense here unfortunately.


Also the way it works at least with school transport: BE hires coaches at local companies for the transport. Literally everyone who has a small coach and some bigger ones are hired from BE and paid peanuts for the school transport. No fancy company logo or anything, there's one bus going that is as old as the world itself, so is the driver. That itself is such a mismanagement but at least children get to school in time.