By Calvin Palmer
Once again Britain seems to be following America’s example, with the announcement of a plan to ferry schoolchildren to and from school in yellow buses.
But wait a minute. There is nothing American about this idea. I can remember in the 1960s a bus being laid on to take me to school, not just me but other boys who lived in the same area. The buses were referred to as school specials.
I also thought part of the idea of ending grammar schools was to give the comprehensive high schools that replaced them a local catchment area, thus ending the need to bus children half way across a city to attend school. I remember people moving house just so their children would fall into the catchment area of one of the better state schools.
So why are children being taken the short distance to school by car? The answer is another import from America – parental paranoia. It only takes one child to be abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered for parents to put their children effectively under house-arrest and monitor their movements in ways that could have come straight out of the Stasi training manual.
And just for the record, there were cases of children being abducted and killed in the 1960s. Many people will remember Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, and the Moors Murders. Children have always been vulnerable, and always will be, but they are no more vulnerable now than they were 30, 40 or 50 years ago.
The idea for American-style school buses comes from the cross-party Yellow School Bus Commission, chaired by the former Education Minister, David Blunkett. It also suggests that children living within a mile of their primary school or two miles of their secondary school be encouraged to walk or cycle. I fear that is flying in the face of parental paranoia.
It is estimated the school bus scheme would cut 130 million car journeys a year, saving parents up to ₤92 million a year in petrol costs. I think that might be a little disingenuous because someone somewhere is going to have to pick up the bill for running these buses. Just call it a wild hunch on my part but I would say it would probably be the taxpayer.
Apparently, parents are prepared to pay up to ₤2 a day to have their children ferried to and from school. The rest of the money, up to ₤250 million, would come from education expenditure. Seems I was right. So a parent pays ₤2 a day — I wonder how long it will be before the price rises to ₤3 a day and then ₤5 a day — and on top of that has to pay extra in tax. And if parents are not spending money on petrol, the government will have to make up the shortfall in revenue from the duty it imposes on a gallon of petrol.
But it will be oh so worth it, as Blunkett explains. The investment in the buses is crucial for “the education, safety and security of our children.” Crucial? Safety and security? Has he been watching Republican adverts in Texas?
I am not so sure about the safety and security aspect. Back in Texas, when my two stepchildren were of high school age, they did not ride the school bus. When I asked my wife why they couldn’t ride the bus, I was told that they would have to get up at the crack of dawn and could not ride the bus back home if they took part in after school activites. She also added that it was not particularly safe and our children didn’t need to be mixing with the children who regularly travel on the bus. They tend to be the rougher crowd.
The several fights on school buses in America, which have been shown on network television, bear out my wife’s reasoning. Such a frightening prospect would be sufficient for many parents in England to make sure Tarquin and Emily arrive at school in the comfort of the family SUV. And the children themselves will not relish giving up that comfort to ride on a school bus. Once the genie has been let out of the bottle, it is difficult to put it back in.
Blunkett adds: “The scheme could revolutionize the way we do the school run.” Hardly a revolution if it is simply reviving something that was in place 40 years ago. But politicians do like to dramatize things.
The commission also points out that investment in the scheme would benefit the economy to the tune of ₤460 million a year, as well as giving parents more time at work. I imagine parents will be overjoyed at that.
The Department for Children, Schools and Families has welcomed the commission’s report as a useful tool in developing strategies that will make this a reality. The department plans a detailed response to the recommendations.
The commission was sponsored by a bus company, First Group. Should we be at all surprised that it arrived at these findings? It strikes me that the only people to gain from this scheme will be the bus companies. It’s a bit like Ford sponsoring a commission that comes to the conclusion that children should be taken to school in cars because they are crucial for the education, safety and security of our children. The logic is just as fatuous.
[Based on a report in The Daily Telegraph.]
