The school bus crisis.

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 wrote: »

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

Can they not rollerblade to school, the lazy feckers.

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 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.

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.

greenflash wrote: »

My daughter goes to an ET school.

Does it get annoying when they always phone home?

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 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 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 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'.