Parents’ anger at plans to cut bus services at Manor CE Academy and All Saints’ RC School

Manor CE Academy

Manor CE Academy

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Chief reporter

MORE than 120 pupils face losing their free bus to school and enduring long diversions on public transport, under council plans to save £100,000 a year.

Parents claim the City of York Council proposals to withdraw free discretionary transport for church schools, affecting up to 123 pupils at Manor CE Academy and All Saints’ RC School, are “discriminatory against Christians”, said York Outer MP Julian Sturdy.

“Some parents have expressed grave concerns over the safety of their children, particularly those with younger children, in making two journeys to the city centre every weekday in order to change buses,” he said in a letter to head of school services, Mark Ellis.

Conservative MP Mr Sturdy said a number of constituents had raised their concerns with him about the cuts, which would affect children from communities including Copmanthorpe, Dringhouses, Clifton Moor, Skelton, Hessay, Rufforth, Askham Richard and Askham Bryan.

He said Copmanthorpe parents had pointed out that many other village children received free transport to Tadcaster Grammar School and Fulford School.

Manor head Brian Crosby said children who currently got to school in as little as 15 minutes on one free bus would in future have to travel on two, possibly three buses, into the city centre and then back out again to Manor, on journeys taking up to an hour and a quarter and at a cost of £2 a day.

He expressed concern about the stress caused by such long daily journeys, and claimed the change would place an undue burden on people in rural areas.

He believed some parents would take their children to school by car, adding to already severe rush-hour congestion on routes such as the outer ring road.

A report by Mr Ellis will be considered this afternoon by Coun Janet Looker, cabinet member for education. It says the council is facing considerable financial pressures and must reduce expenditure.

It says a phased withdrawal of denominational transport had been agreed in 2012 after a report concluded it was unfair and gave an advantage to pupils attending such schools.

Now Coun Looker was being asked to consider the option of beginning consultation on an acceleration of the withdrawal of the free service to this September, except for pupils with parents and carers on low incomes.

He said it was recognised the decision could lead to more cars on the road at peak times and for Manor pupils, public transport routes would not be as direct as the current service, although the new A59 Park & Ride Service would improve public transport.

A bus which transports pupils to St Wilfrid’s RC Primary School from a wide area at an annual cost of £35,000 could also be hit. The report suggests one option would be to keep it going but charge parents £420 a year towards the cost, with an exemption for those with free school meals.

Another option would be to scrap the bus and only provide transport for pupils with parents on low incomes.

Coun Looker said there would be no immediate decision and if the council proceeded with a consultation, it would be in contact with parents to gain their “much valued” views.

She said York, like all local authorities, was having to make increasingly tough decisions on services in the light of having to make savings of £65 million by 2015/16, including £11 million next year alone.

There was no statutory duty to provide free transport to faith schools and York was one of few councils still providing it.

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:21pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Yeahbutno says...

I have to say I have little sympathy with parents who send their kids to school a long distance away in preference to their local "catchment area" school. I would think strong religious conviction is a motivator in very few cases; the vast majority just want their kids to go to what they perceive to be a better (more middle-class) school than the one nearest. That's fair enough - I'm all for free choice, but please don't expect me as a Council tax payer to pick up the bill for that - it was their CHOICE to send their kids to a school miles from home.
I have to say I have little sympathy with parents who send their kids to school a long distance away in preference to their local "catchment area" school. I would think strong religious conviction is a motivator in very few cases; the vast majority just want their kids to go to what they perceive to be a better (more middle-class) school than the one nearest. That's fair enough - I'm all for free choice, but please don't expect me as a Council tax payer to pick up the bill for that - it was their CHOICE to send their kids to a school miles from home. Yeahbutno
  • Score: 32

12:32pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Yorkees says...

The council have already introduced bus charges for all new pupils going on the bus for St Wilfrid's RC Primary School at a cost of £420 per year per child.
The council have already introduced bus charges for all new pupils going on the bus for St Wilfrid's RC Primary School at a cost of £420 per year per child. Yorkees
  • Score: 29

12:39pm Wed 15 Jan 14

greenmonkey says...

Yorkees wrote:
The council have already introduced bus charges for all new pupils going on the bus for St Wilfrid's RC Primary School at a cost of £420 per year per child.
Accept that the council cant afford to fund this any longer but surely would be better to bring in an annual charge than scrap it altogether? Most parents would rather pay a reasonable fee for the service in preference to having to deliver children by car or pay for multiple bus journeys, even with an All York pass.
[quote][p][bold]Yorkees[/bold] wrote: The council have already introduced bus charges for all new pupils going on the bus for St Wilfrid's RC Primary School at a cost of £420 per year per child.[/p][/quote]Accept that the council cant afford to fund this any longer but surely would be better to bring in an annual charge than scrap it altogether? Most parents would rather pay a reasonable fee for the service in preference to having to deliver children by car or pay for multiple bus journeys, even with an All York pass. greenmonkey
  • Score: 13

12:48pm Wed 15 Jan 14

BL2 says...

Yeahbutno wrote:
I have to say I have little sympathy with parents who send their kids to school a long distance away in preference to their local "catchment area" school. I would think strong religious conviction is a motivator in very few cases; the vast majority just want their kids to go to what they perceive to be a better (more middle-class) school than the one nearest. That's fair enough - I'm all for free choice, but please don't expect me as a Council tax payer to pick up the bill for that - it was their CHOICE to send their kids to a school miles from home.
So where is the catchement area for Copmanthorpe then? No-where you could travel except by car, bus, etc. Same for most villages around York!
[quote][p][bold]Yeahbutno[/bold] wrote: I have to say I have little sympathy with parents who send their kids to school a long distance away in preference to their local "catchment area" school. I would think strong religious conviction is a motivator in very few cases; the vast majority just want their kids to go to what they perceive to be a better (more middle-class) school than the one nearest. That's fair enough - I'm all for free choice, but please don't expect me as a Council tax payer to pick up the bill for that - it was their CHOICE to send their kids to a school miles from home.[/p][/quote]So where is the catchement area for Copmanthorpe then? No-where you could travel except by car, bus, etc. Same for most villages around York! BL2
  • Score: 17

12:48pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Yorkees says...

greenmonkey wrote:
Yorkees wrote:
The council have already introduced bus charges for all new pupils going on the bus for St Wilfrid's RC Primary School at a cost of £420 per year per child.
Accept that the council cant afford to fund this any longer but surely would be better to bring in an annual charge than scrap it altogether? Most parents would rather pay a reasonable fee for the service in preference to having to deliver children by car or pay for multiple bus journeys, even with an All York pass.
I totally accept it and totally agree the council can't afford it, was only stating the charges have been introduced!
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yorkees[/bold] wrote: The council have already introduced bus charges for all new pupils going on the bus for St Wilfrid's RC Primary School at a cost of £420 per year per child.[/p][/quote]Accept that the council cant afford to fund this any longer but surely would be better to bring in an annual charge than scrap it altogether? Most parents would rather pay a reasonable fee for the service in preference to having to deliver children by car or pay for multiple bus journeys, even with an All York pass.[/p][/quote]I totally accept it and totally agree the council can't afford it, was only stating the charges have been introduced! Yorkees
  • Score: 22

1:11pm Wed 15 Jan 14

DB_4_Me says...

So, the council is facing considerable financial pressures and must reduce expenditure. And yet they managed to find several hundred thousand pounds to paster 20mph signs throughout the city in streets where there has never been a speed problem, many of which are so short that it is all but impossible for most vehicles to reach 20mph.
It seems that the council can find money for its pet projects but then uses the excuse of financial pressures when it suits their political ends.
So, the council is facing considerable financial pressures and must reduce expenditure. And yet they managed to find several hundred thousand pounds to paster 20mph signs throughout the city in streets where there has never been a speed problem, many of which are so short that it is all but impossible for most vehicles to reach 20mph. It seems that the council can find money for its pet projects but then uses the excuse of financial pressures when it suits their political ends. DB_4_Me
  • Score: 54

1:11pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Yorklass74 says...

will no doubt mean more inconsiderate parents parking anywhere they can get a space in the streets around the school which makes it nigh on impossible already for people who finish work at 3.30 in the surrounding businesses to get out of the work car park.
will no doubt mean more inconsiderate parents parking anywhere they can get a space in the streets around the school which makes it nigh on impossible already for people who finish work at 3.30 in the surrounding businesses to get out of the work car park. Yorklass74
  • Score: 0

1:24pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Stevie D says...

It's absolutely right that council money should not be spent on transport for kids who go to schools other than their local schools. Every kid has a catchment school that they are guaranteed a place at, and for which they are guaranteed free transport if it's far enough away to warrant it. If parents choose to ignore that school and go elsewhere, that's their choice, but choices have costs attached. York High and Millthorpe are both good schools, so there's no reason for going past them to get to Manor.

So Brian Crosby is concerned that kids might have to be brought to school by car, or get two or three buses into town and out again? Scaremongering, nothing more. The vast majority of kids that go to Manor live close enough to cycle there. If parents don't want them to cycle, they can get together, through the PTA or however they want, and hire their own coach or minibus to take their kids to school and bring them home. There's no reason these kids can't get a school bus to school, but every reason why that school bus shouldn't be paid for out of public money.
It's absolutely right that council money should not be spent on transport for kids who go to schools other than their local schools. Every kid has a catchment school that they are guaranteed a place at, and for which they are guaranteed free transport if it's far enough away to warrant it. If parents choose to ignore that school and go elsewhere, that's their choice, but choices have costs attached. York High and Millthorpe are both good schools, so there's no reason for going past them to get to Manor. So Brian Crosby is concerned that kids might have to be brought to school by car, or get two or three buses into town and out again? Scaremongering, nothing more. The vast majority of kids that go to Manor live close enough to cycle there. If parents don't want them to cycle, they can get together, through the PTA or however they want, and hire their own coach or minibus to take their kids to school and bring them home. There's no reason these kids can't get a school bus to school, but every reason why that school bus shouldn't be paid for out of public money. Stevie D
  • Score: 16

1:33pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Stevie D says...

BL2 wrote:
So where is the catchement area for Copmanthorpe then? No-where you could travel except by car, bus, etc. Same for most villages around York!

Kids living in Copmanthorpe have "catchment" places at Millthorpe. There's no safe walking route under 3 miles, so they would all be eligible for a free school bus to get there.
[quote][bold]BL2[/bold] wrote: So where is the catchement area for Copmanthorpe then? No-where you could travel except by car, bus, etc. Same for most villages around York![/quote] Kids living in Copmanthorpe have "catchment" places at Millthorpe. There's no safe walking route under 3 miles, so they would all be eligible for a free school bus to get there. Stevie D
  • Score: 16

1:37pm Wed 15 Jan 14

YorkPatrol says...

DB_4_Me wrote:
So, the council is facing considerable financial pressures and must reduce expenditure. And yet they managed to find several hundred thousand pounds to paster 20mph signs throughout the city in streets where there has never been a speed problem, many of which are so short that it is all but impossible for most vehicles to reach 20mph. It seems that the council can find money for its pet projects but then uses the excuse of financial pressures when it suits their political ends.
That's Labour for you.....
[quote][p][bold]DB_4_Me[/bold] wrote: So, the council is facing considerable financial pressures and must reduce expenditure. And yet they managed to find several hundred thousand pounds to paster 20mph signs throughout the city in streets where there has never been a speed problem, many of which are so short that it is all but impossible for most vehicles to reach 20mph. It seems that the council can find money for its pet projects but then uses the excuse of financial pressures when it suits their political ends.[/p][/quote]That's Labour for you..... YorkPatrol
  • Score: 19

1:52pm Wed 15 Jan 14

JHardacre says...

Yeahbutno wrote:
I have to say I have little sympathy with parents who send their kids to school a long distance away in preference to their local "catchment area" school. I would think strong religious conviction is a motivator in very few cases; the vast majority just want their kids to go to what they perceive to be a better (more middle-class) school than the one nearest. That's fair enough - I'm all for free choice, but please don't expect me as a Council tax payer to pick up the bill for that - it was their CHOICE to send their kids to a school miles from home.
So what if your local school was rubbish - would you persevere with your blinkered thinking. Why would you not want your child to go to the bestschool possible? Have you no ambition for them?
[quote][p][bold]Yeahbutno[/bold] wrote: I have to say I have little sympathy with parents who send their kids to school a long distance away in preference to their local "catchment area" school. I would think strong religious conviction is a motivator in very few cases; the vast majority just want their kids to go to what they perceive to be a better (more middle-class) school than the one nearest. That's fair enough - I'm all for free choice, but please don't expect me as a Council tax payer to pick up the bill for that - it was their CHOICE to send their kids to a school miles from home.[/p][/quote]So what if your local school was rubbish - would you persevere with your blinkered thinking. Why would you not want your child to go to the bestschool possible? Have you no ambition for them? JHardacre
  • Score: -10

1:53pm Wed 15 Jan 14

JHardacre says...

Stevie D wrote:
It's absolutely right that council money should not be spent on transport for kids who go to schools other than their local schools. Every kid has a catchment school that they are guaranteed a place at, and for which they are guaranteed free transport if it's far enough away to warrant it. If parents choose to ignore that school and go elsewhere, that's their choice, but choices have costs attached. York High and Millthorpe are both good schools, so there's no reason for going past them to get to Manor.

So Brian Crosby is concerned that kids might have to be brought to school by car, or get two or three buses into town and out again? Scaremongering, nothing more. The vast majority of kids that go to Manor live close enough to cycle there. If parents don't want them to cycle, they can get together, through the PTA or however they want, and hire their own coach or minibus to take their kids to school and bring them home. There's no reason these kids can't get a school bus to school, but every reason why that school bus shouldn't be paid for out of public money.
York High a good school? What planet are you on?
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: It's absolutely right that council money should not be spent on transport for kids who go to schools other than their local schools. Every kid has a catchment school that they are guaranteed a place at, and for which they are guaranteed free transport if it's far enough away to warrant it. If parents choose to ignore that school and go elsewhere, that's their choice, but choices have costs attached. York High and Millthorpe are both good schools, so there's no reason for going past them to get to Manor. So Brian Crosby is concerned that kids might have to be brought to school by car, or get two or three buses into town and out again? Scaremongering, nothing more. The vast majority of kids that go to Manor live close enough to cycle there. If parents don't want them to cycle, they can get together, through the PTA or however they want, and hire their own coach or minibus to take their kids to school and bring them home. There's no reason these kids can't get a school bus to school, but every reason why that school bus shouldn't be paid for out of public money.[/p][/quote]York High a good school? What planet are you on? JHardacre
  • Score: -4

2:55pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Stevie D says...

JHardacre wrote:
York High a good school? What planet are you on?

Welcome to Planet Reality. You might find things a little different from your home land of Planet Prejudice, but it's pretty good here, all things considered.

York High has been judged by Ofsted as being a good school at its last two inspections, and would probably have been outstanding last time if they hadn't changed the criteria just before it was inspected.

Or you can look at the stats: www.education.gov.uk
/cgi-bin/schools/per
formance/school.pl?u
rn=133946
and compare it with Manor. But don't just look at the headline figures that tell you more kids at Manor got 5+ A*–C ... look at the detail.

93% of high attainers at Manor got their 5+ A*–C s ... but 100% did at York High.
50% of middle attainers at Manor got their 5+ A*–Cs ... but 60% did at York High.
('higher attainers' and 'middle attainers' are defined in relation to what kids achieved at KS2 against a national average, and not in relation to the rest of their school)

72% of high attainers at Manor made expected progress in English ... but 90% did at York High. For maths, it was 82% at Manor and again 90% at York High.
56% of middle attainers at Manor made expected progress in English ... but 58% did at York High. For maths, it was 64% at Manor and 89% at York High.

Manor got an overall "value added" figure of 1008.9 ... but York High got 1010.2 (national average is 1000). But whereas York High's was consistent across pupils of all abilities, Manor's figures were buoyed up by a small number of SEN pupils doing exceptionally well, when their high attainers got 998.8 (ie, below average).

Average point scores show the same picture – looking at pupils with comparable prior attainment, York High outshines Manor on almost every measure, but particularly for the more able pupils.

This isn't intended as a hatchet job on Manor – it's a great school and I'm not trying to take away from that. But the days when Oaklands and Lowfield were the lowest of the low are long gone. York High is doing every bit as well as, if not better than, its neighbour to the north. Unfortunately too many people are stuck in the past and refuse to recognise that a school can change, or to admit that a school serving a less upmarket part of the city can actually be doing well. Parents need to open their eyes and open their minds, and put away prejudices from years gone by.
[quote][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: York High a good school? What planet are you on?[/quote] Welcome to Planet Reality. You might find things a little different from your home land of Planet Prejudice, but it's pretty good here, all things considered. York High has been judged by Ofsted as being a good school at its last two inspections, and would probably have been outstanding last time if they hadn't changed the criteria just before it was inspected. Or you can look at the stats: [bold]www.education.gov.uk /cgi-bin/schools/per formance/school.pl?u rn=133946[/bold] and compare it with Manor. But don't just look at the headline figures that tell you more kids at Manor got 5+ A*–C ... look at the detail. 93% of high attainers at Manor got their 5+ A*–C s ... but 100% did at York High. 50% of middle attainers at Manor got their 5+ A*–Cs ... but 60% did at York High. ('higher attainers' and 'middle attainers' are defined in relation to what kids achieved at KS2 against a national average, and not in relation to the rest of their school) 72% of high attainers at Manor made expected progress in English ... but 90% did at York High. For maths, it was 82% at Manor and again 90% at York High. 56% of middle attainers at Manor made expected progress in English ... but 58% did at York High. For maths, it was 64% at Manor and 89% at York High. Manor got an overall "value added" figure of 1008.9 ... but York High got 1010.2 (national average is 1000). But whereas York High's was consistent across pupils of all abilities, Manor's figures were buoyed up by a small number of SEN pupils doing exceptionally well, when their high attainers got 998.8 (ie, below average). Average point scores show the same picture – looking at pupils with comparable prior attainment, York High outshines Manor on almost every measure, but particularly for the more able pupils. This isn't intended as a hatchet job on Manor – it's a great school and I'm not trying to take away from that. But the days when Oaklands and Lowfield were the lowest of the low are long gone. York High is doing every bit as well as, if not better than, its neighbour to the north. Unfortunately too many people are stuck in the past and refuse to recognise that a school can change, or to admit that a school serving a less upmarket part of the city can actually be doing well. Parents need to open their eyes and open their minds, and put away prejudices from years gone by. Stevie D
  • Score: 13

3:13pm Wed 15 Jan 14

JHardacre says...

And how many GCSEs at York High were the low academic ones that somehow count for 2, 3 or even 4 proper GCSEs. You are not comparing like with like - another reason why league tables do not show the full picture.
And how many GCSEs at York High were the low academic ones that somehow count for 2, 3 or even 4 proper GCSEs. You are not comparing like with like - another reason why league tables do not show the full picture. JHardacre
  • Score: 1

3:16pm Wed 15 Jan 14

asd says...

To be honest I didn't think there was catchment area's anymore? I thought this was scrapped to stop people moving to the so called catchment area's to get kids into a school and deny another because they cant afford to move there. I wouldn't like my kid to cycle around that area, have you seen how bad the traffic is!! I think sensible idea is to charge and keep the DIRECT bus for kids. It's not all about me me... I don't want my council tax paying for this or that, tough wait for next lot of useless councilors take your tax and see what happens.
To be honest I didn't think there was catchment area's anymore? I thought this was scrapped to stop people moving to the so called catchment area's to get kids into a school and deny another because they cant afford to move there. I wouldn't like my kid to cycle around that area, have you seen how bad the traffic is!! I think sensible idea is to charge and keep the DIRECT bus for kids. It's not all about me me... I don't want my council tax paying for this or that, tough wait for next lot of useless councilors take your tax and see what happens. asd
  • Score: 8

3:21pm Wed 15 Jan 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

If CoYC have to make all these cuts then why on Earth have they been not only wasting money we all know about but also paying some very high salaries.
We can't afford it, what is difficult about that and now they are turning to compromise the safety of kids transport to schools. We have already seen the reduction in treating icy roads / salt bins etc and come the freeze that policy will be exposed too!
If CoYC have to make all these cuts then why on Earth have they been not only wasting money we all know about but also paying some very high salaries. We can't afford it, what is difficult about that and now they are turning to compromise the safety of kids transport to schools. We have already seen the reduction in treating icy roads / salt bins etc and come the freeze that policy will be exposed too! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 13

3:32pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Mullarkian says...

Amazing that £930,000 can be spent on a useless quarter mile cycle path on the A1237 between the Wigginton roundabout and the railway bridge but they cannot provide this school bus service.
I use that section of the A1237 nearly every day at peak times and have yet to see motre than a handful of cyclists on the ' golden 1/4 mile'.
Amazing that £930,000 can be spent on a useless quarter mile cycle path on the A1237 between the Wigginton roundabout and the railway bridge but they cannot provide this school bus service. I use that section of the A1237 nearly every day at peak times and have yet to see motre than a handful of cyclists on the ' golden 1/4 mile'. Mullarkian
  • Score: 26

4:37pm Wed 15 Jan 14

crocdungee says...

There is a lot of negativity here about people sending their children to schools other than their "local" school. The truth is that if you care about your childs education and development then there are going to be several factors considered when choosing the right school, not just one. Despite what others have said, children and their parents do decide to apply on a faith basis. Given that Manor is several miles closer than Tadcaster Grammar, has very good facilities and resources, excellent teachers and a fantastic ethos, who can say it's the wrong choice? If buses can be laid on for Tadcaster Grammar 9+ miles away, then they should be available for Manor.

The solution of 2 buses from here to Manor is laughable, especially as the first no.13 bus they are suggesting goes once an hour and will likely get them there late most days, especially after changing buses halfway.

If we lived close enough for the kids to cycle then they would do, but we are hardly likely to expect our kids to cycle 5-6 miles up the ring road to school every day. Added to this is the cost they are suggesting of £2 per day, with 2 children to pay for this is quite an expense, and not even good value - I pay £440 per year as an adult for unlimited use of First buses, so why is it more expensive for children?

The suggested plan does not work, is too expensive and is discriminatory.
There is a lot of negativity here about people sending their children to schools other than their "local" school. The truth is that if you care about your childs education and development then there are going to be several factors considered when choosing the right school, not just one. Despite what others have said, children and their parents do decide to apply on a faith basis. Given that Manor is several miles closer than Tadcaster Grammar, has very good facilities and resources, excellent teachers and a fantastic ethos, who can say it's the wrong choice? If buses can be laid on for Tadcaster Grammar 9+ miles away, then they should be available for Manor. The solution of 2 buses from here to Manor is laughable, especially as the first no.13 bus they are suggesting goes once an hour and will likely get them there late most days, especially after changing buses halfway. If we lived close enough for the kids to cycle then they would do, but we are hardly likely to expect our kids to cycle 5-6 miles up the ring road to school every day. Added to this is the cost they are suggesting of £2 per day, with 2 children to pay for this is quite an expense, and not even good value - I pay £440 per year as an adult for unlimited use of First buses, so why is it more expensive for children? The suggested plan does not work, is too expensive and is discriminatory. crocdungee
  • Score: -6

4:44pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Stevie D says...

asd wrote:
To be honest I didn't think there was catchment area's anymore? I thought this was scrapped to stop people moving to the so called catchment area's to get kids into a school and deny another because they cant afford to move there. I wouldn't like my kid to cycle around that area, have you seen how bad the traffic is!! I think sensible idea is to charge and keep the DIRECT bus for kids. It's not all about me me... I don't want my council tax paying for this or that, tough wait for next lot of useless councilors take your tax and see what happens.
Some councils have scrapped catchment areas (I think Brighton & Hove was one that did) but we've still got them in York. They're good because it guarantees that you have a local school that your kids will be offered a place at, and that (where necessary) transport can be provided efficiently. If parents want to apply to other schools then they can still do that, but they will only get a place if all catchment kids who want them have got places and there are still some spaces left.

As a teenager I would have been quite happy to cycle from Copmanthorpe to Manor School, the traffic really isn't that bad – are today's kids soft?
[quote][p][bold]asd[/bold] wrote: To be honest I didn't think there was catchment area's anymore? I thought this was scrapped to stop people moving to the so called catchment area's to get kids into a school and deny another because they cant afford to move there. I wouldn't like my kid to cycle around that area, have you seen how bad the traffic is!! I think sensible idea is to charge and keep the DIRECT bus for kids. It's not all about me me... I don't want my council tax paying for this or that, tough wait for next lot of useless councilors take your tax and see what happens.[/p][/quote]Some councils have scrapped catchment areas (I think Brighton & Hove was one that did) but we've still got them in York. They're good because it guarantees that you have a local school that your kids will be offered a place at, and that (where necessary) transport can be provided efficiently. If parents want to apply to other schools then they can still do that, but they will only get a place if all catchment kids who want them have got places and there are still some spaces left. As a teenager I would have been quite happy to cycle from Copmanthorpe to Manor School, the traffic really isn't that bad – are today's kids soft? Stevie D
  • Score: 9

5:18pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Yeahbutno says...

Stevie D wrote:
JHardacre wrote:
York High a good school? What planet are you on?

Welcome to Planet Reality. You might find things a little different from your home land of Planet Prejudice, but it's pretty good here, all things considered.

York High has been judged by Ofsted as being a good school at its last two inspections, and would probably have been outstanding last time if they hadn't changed the criteria just before it was inspected.

Or you can look at the stats: www.education.gov.uk

/cgi-bin/schools/per

formance/school.pl?u

rn=133946
and compare it with Manor. But don't just look at the headline figures that tell you more kids at Manor got 5+ A*–C ... look at the detail.

93% of high attainers at Manor got their 5+ A*–C s ... but 100% did at York High.
50% of middle attainers at Manor got their 5+ A*–Cs ... but 60% did at York High.
('higher attainers' and 'middle attainers' are defined in relation to what kids achieved at KS2 against a national average, and not in relation to the rest of their school)

72% of high attainers at Manor made expected progress in English ... but 90% did at York High. For maths, it was 82% at Manor and again 90% at York High.
56% of middle attainers at Manor made expected progress in English ... but 58% did at York High. For maths, it was 64% at Manor and 89% at York High.

Manor got an overall "value added" figure of 1008.9 ... but York High got 1010.2 (national average is 1000). But whereas York High's was consistent across pupils of all abilities, Manor's figures were buoyed up by a small number of SEN pupils doing exceptionally well, when their high attainers got 998.8 (ie, below average).

Average point scores show the same picture – looking at pupils with comparable prior attainment, York High outshines Manor on almost every measure, but particularly for the more able pupils.

This isn't intended as a hatchet job on Manor – it's a great school and I'm not trying to take away from that. But the days when Oaklands and Lowfield were the lowest of the low are long gone. York High is doing every bit as well as, if not better than, its neighbour to the north. Unfortunately too many people are stuck in the past and refuse to recognise that a school can change, or to admit that a school serving a less upmarket part of the city can actually be doing well. Parents need to open their eyes and open their minds, and put away prejudices from years gone by.
Well said.
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: York High a good school? What planet are you on?[/quote] Welcome to Planet Reality. You might find things a little different from your home land of Planet Prejudice, but it's pretty good here, all things considered. York High has been judged by Ofsted as being a good school at its last two inspections, and would probably have been outstanding last time if they hadn't changed the criteria just before it was inspected. Or you can look at the stats: [bold]www.education.gov.uk /cgi-bin/schools/per formance/school.pl?u rn=133946[/bold] and compare it with Manor. But don't just look at the headline figures that tell you more kids at Manor got 5+ A*–C ... look at the detail. 93% of high attainers at Manor got their 5+ A*–C s ... but 100% did at York High. 50% of middle attainers at Manor got their 5+ A*–Cs ... but 60% did at York High. ('higher attainers' and 'middle attainers' are defined in relation to what kids achieved at KS2 against a national average, and not in relation to the rest of their school) 72% of high attainers at Manor made expected progress in English ... but 90% did at York High. For maths, it was 82% at Manor and again 90% at York High. 56% of middle attainers at Manor made expected progress in English ... but 58% did at York High. For maths, it was 64% at Manor and 89% at York High. Manor got an overall "value added" figure of 1008.9 ... but York High got 1010.2 (national average is 1000). But whereas York High's was consistent across pupils of all abilities, Manor's figures were buoyed up by a small number of SEN pupils doing exceptionally well, when their high attainers got 998.8 (ie, below average). Average point scores show the same picture – looking at pupils with comparable prior attainment, York High outshines Manor on almost every measure, but particularly for the more able pupils. This isn't intended as a hatchet job on Manor – it's a great school and I'm not trying to take away from that. But the days when Oaklands and Lowfield were the lowest of the low are long gone. York High is doing every bit as well as, if not better than, its neighbour to the north. Unfortunately too many people are stuck in the past and refuse to recognise that a school can change, or to admit that a school serving a less upmarket part of the city can actually be doing well. Parents need to open their eyes and open their minds, and put away prejudices from years gone by.[/p][/quote]Well said. Yeahbutno
  • Score: 6

5:22pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Yeahbutno says...

JHardacre wrote:
Yeahbutno wrote:
I have to say I have little sympathy with parents who send their kids to school a long distance away in preference to their local "catchment area" school. I would think strong religious conviction is a motivator in very few cases; the vast majority just want their kids to go to what they perceive to be a better (more middle-class) school than the one nearest. That's fair enough - I'm all for free choice, but please don't expect me as a Council tax payer to pick up the bill for that - it was their CHOICE to send their kids to a school miles from home.
So what if your local school was rubbish - would you persevere with your blinkered thinking. Why would you not want your child to go to the bestschool possible? Have you no ambition for them?
There are no "rubbish" secondary schools in York. Not any more; that's why the attempt to form a "free" school a few years back failed - there was no need for it.

If hypothetically that was the case though, then yes I probably would want my kids going to the significantly better school further away. I just wouldn't expect YOU to have to pay the extra cost involved in getting them there every day.
[quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yeahbutno[/bold] wrote: I have to say I have little sympathy with parents who send their kids to school a long distance away in preference to their local "catchment area" school. I would think strong religious conviction is a motivator in very few cases; the vast majority just want their kids to go to what they perceive to be a better (more middle-class) school than the one nearest. That's fair enough - I'm all for free choice, but please don't expect me as a Council tax payer to pick up the bill for that - it was their CHOICE to send their kids to a school miles from home.[/p][/quote]So what if your local school was rubbish - would you persevere with your blinkered thinking. Why would you not want your child to go to the bestschool possible? Have you no ambition for them?[/p][/quote]There are no "rubbish" secondary schools in York. Not any more; that's why the attempt to form a "free" school a few years back failed - there was no need for it. If hypothetically that was the case though, then yes I probably would want my kids going to the significantly better school further away. I just wouldn't expect YOU to have to pay the extra cost involved in getting them there every day. Yeahbutno
  • Score: 14

5:32pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Yeahbutno says...

JHardacre wrote:
And how many GCSEs at York High were the low academic ones that somehow count for 2, 3 or even 4 proper GCSEs. You are not comparing like with like - another reason why league tables do not show the full picture.
Well I certainly agree league tables don't show the full picture.

As school like Fulford for example is ALWAYS going to rank higher in the table than schools like York High or Canon Lee simply because of the catchment areas they serve. (not intended as a generalization BTW, it's a well documented fact that pupils from affluent areas always get better grades on average than those from deprived areas).

For me, the measure of how good a school is, is how much value they add to the pupils achievement during their time there. A kid getting an A in GCSE English at Manor who came in from his/her primary school at level 6 - is that a huge achievement? Whereas a kid going into Year 7 at York High School at level 3, and then coming out with a C at GCSE, is a tremendous achievement. The league tables imply that the Manor pupil is a more worthy result; I would disagree.

York High has CONSISTENTLY ranked in the top 25% of schools in the country on the "added value" score, and one year were even in the top 2%. But yeah, it's a rubbish school. Pfft.
[quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: And how many GCSEs at York High were the low academic ones that somehow count for 2, 3 or even 4 proper GCSEs. You are not comparing like with like - another reason why league tables do not show the full picture.[/p][/quote]Well I certainly agree league tables don't show the full picture. As school like Fulford for example is ALWAYS going to rank higher in the table than schools like York High or Canon Lee simply because of the catchment areas they serve. (not intended as a generalization BTW, it's a well documented fact that pupils from affluent areas always get better grades on average than those from deprived areas). For me, the measure of how good a school is, is how much value they add to the pupils achievement during their time there. A kid getting an A in GCSE English at Manor who came in from his/her primary school at level 6 - is that a huge achievement? Whereas a kid going into Year 7 at York High School at level 3, and then coming out with a C at GCSE, is a tremendous achievement. The league tables imply that the Manor pupil is a more worthy result; I would disagree. York High has CONSISTENTLY ranked in the top 25% of schools in the country on the "added value" score, and one year were even in the top 2%. But yeah, it's a rubbish school. Pfft. Yeahbutno
  • Score: 7

5:49pm Wed 15 Jan 14

MouseHouse says...

Why don't the parents pray to their sky fairy or can magic them up a bus?
Why don't the parents pray to their sky fairy or can magic them up a bus? MouseHouse
  • Score: 4

6:48pm Wed 15 Jan 14

yorkiemum says...

Yeahbutno wrote:
JHardacre wrote:
And how many GCSEs at York High were the low academic ones that somehow count for 2, 3 or even 4 proper GCSEs. You are not comparing like with like - another reason why league tables do not show the full picture.
Well I certainly agree league tables don't show the full picture.

As school like Fulford for example is ALWAYS going to rank higher in the table than schools like York High or Canon Lee simply because of the catchment areas they serve. (not intended as a generalization BTW, it's a well documented fact that pupils from affluent areas always get better grades on average than those from deprived areas).

For me, the measure of how good a school is, is how much value they add to the pupils achievement during their time there. A kid getting an A in GCSE English at Manor who came in from his/her primary school at level 6 - is that a huge achievement? Whereas a kid going into Year 7 at York High School at level 3, and then coming out with a C at GCSE, is a tremendous achievement. The league tables imply that the Manor pupil is a more worthy result; I would disagree.

York High has CONSISTENTLY ranked in the top 25% of schools in the country on the "added value" score, and one year were even in the top 2%. But yeah, it's a rubbish school. Pfft.
Well said!! Too many people think they are experts when it comes to schools but in reality know nowt!!
[quote][p][bold]Yeahbutno[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: And how many GCSEs at York High were the low academic ones that somehow count for 2, 3 or even 4 proper GCSEs. You are not comparing like with like - another reason why league tables do not show the full picture.[/p][/quote]Well I certainly agree league tables don't show the full picture. As school like Fulford for example is ALWAYS going to rank higher in the table than schools like York High or Canon Lee simply because of the catchment areas they serve. (not intended as a generalization BTW, it's a well documented fact that pupils from affluent areas always get better grades on average than those from deprived areas). For me, the measure of how good a school is, is how much value they add to the pupils achievement during their time there. A kid getting an A in GCSE English at Manor who came in from his/her primary school at level 6 - is that a huge achievement? Whereas a kid going into Year 7 at York High School at level 3, and then coming out with a C at GCSE, is a tremendous achievement. The league tables imply that the Manor pupil is a more worthy result; I would disagree. York High has CONSISTENTLY ranked in the top 25% of schools in the country on the "added value" score, and one year were even in the top 2%. But yeah, it's a rubbish school. Pfft.[/p][/quote]Well said!! Too many people think they are experts when it comes to schools but in reality know nowt!! yorkiemum
  • Score: 8

7:16pm Wed 15 Jan 14

billy37x says...

Just so you all know that the kids that go to Manor from 2012 do pay for the bus service, its not a free one that the tax payers are paying for. As a parent who has chosen to send their child to Manor as faith is important to us, we don't expect free service but just a safe way to get our children to school. We would be happy with the public bus service but as that was reduced to hourly a few years ago that is not an option either. At present using the no 13 bus it would mean 11 and 12 yr olds to bus into town on one bus, walk over a busy road (Tadcaster road or near the station) and get another bus out again. The journey would take and hour and they would arrive in school 15 mins late. I don't think this is reasonable. We are not sending our kids to a further away school, Manor is closer just not our catchment school which would be Tadcaster Grammer. We just feel there isn't another other reasonable options being provided by the council, I still have children in primary school and we both work so travelling to and from every day is not something we can consider. I feel we are being discriminated against, we are willing to pay but to leave us high and dry with no other transport options is unfair.
Just so you all know that the kids that go to Manor from 2012 do pay for the bus service, its not a free one that the tax payers are paying for. As a parent who has chosen to send their child to Manor as faith is important to us, we don't expect free service but just a safe way to get our children to school. We would be happy with the public bus service but as that was reduced to hourly a few years ago that is not an option either. At present using the no 13 bus it would mean 11 and 12 yr olds to bus into town on one bus, walk over a busy road (Tadcaster road or near the station) and get another bus out again. The journey would take and hour and they would arrive in school 15 mins late. I don't think this is reasonable. We are not sending our kids to a further away school, Manor is closer just not our catchment school which would be Tadcaster Grammer. We just feel there isn't another other reasonable options being provided by the council, I still have children in primary school and we both work so travelling to and from every day is not something we can consider. I feel we are being discriminated against, we are willing to pay but to leave us high and dry with no other transport options is unfair. billy37x
  • Score: -3

7:32pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

So the parents who send their kids to "faith" schools to be indoctrinated into their own version of the Invisible Man In The Sky" will actually have to PAY instead of being subsidised by the taxpayer?
I can hear the tiniest violin in the world playing as I cry into my pint of Aspalls cider.
So the parents who send their kids to "faith" schools to be indoctrinated into their own version of the Invisible Man In The Sky" will actually have to PAY instead of being subsidised by the taxpayer? I can hear the tiniest violin in the world playing as I cry into my pint of Aspalls cider. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 6

8:01pm Wed 15 Jan 14

gwen4me says...

DIscriminating against Christians? Someone's got a bee in their bonnet.
DIscriminating against Christians? Someone's got a bee in their bonnet. gwen4me
  • Score: 7

8:09pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Pinza-C55 says...

billy37x wrote:
Just so you all know that the kids that go to Manor from 2012 do pay for the bus service, its not a free one that the tax payers are paying for. As a parent who has chosen to send their child to Manor as faith is important to us, we don't expect free service but just a safe way to get our children to school. We would be happy with the public bus service but as that was reduced to hourly a few years ago that is not an option either. At present using the no 13 bus it would mean 11 and 12 yr olds to bus into town on one bus, walk over a busy road (Tadcaster road or near the station) and get another bus out again. The journey would take and hour and they would arrive in school 15 mins late. I don't think this is reasonable. We are not sending our kids to a further away school, Manor is closer just not our catchment school which would be Tadcaster Grammer. We just feel there isn't another other reasonable options being provided by the council, I still have children in primary school and we both work so travelling to and from every day is not something we can consider. I feel we are being discriminated against, we are willing to pay but to leave us high and dry with no other transport options is unfair.
" As a parent who has chosen to send their child to Manor as faith is important to us, we don't expect free service"
Good. Neither should it be subsidised. You should pay the full cost if "faith" is important to you.
"Tadcaster Grammer"
That tells us all we need to know.
[quote][p][bold]billy37x[/bold] wrote: Just so you all know that the kids that go to Manor from 2012 do pay for the bus service, its not a free one that the tax payers are paying for. As a parent who has chosen to send their child to Manor as faith is important to us, we don't expect free service but just a safe way to get our children to school. We would be happy with the public bus service but as that was reduced to hourly a few years ago that is not an option either. At present using the no 13 bus it would mean 11 and 12 yr olds to bus into town on one bus, walk over a busy road (Tadcaster road or near the station) and get another bus out again. The journey would take and hour and they would arrive in school 15 mins late. I don't think this is reasonable. We are not sending our kids to a further away school, Manor is closer just not our catchment school which would be Tadcaster Grammer. We just feel there isn't another other reasonable options being provided by the council, I still have children in primary school and we both work so travelling to and from every day is not something we can consider. I feel we are being discriminated against, we are willing to pay but to leave us high and dry with no other transport options is unfair.[/p][/quote]" As a parent who has chosen to send their child to Manor as faith is important to us, we don't expect free service" Good. Neither should it be subsidised. You should pay the full cost if "faith" is important to you. "Tadcaster Grammer" That tells us all we need to know. Pinza-C55
  • Score: 0

10:54pm Wed 15 Jan 14

inthesticks says...

Take the faith angle out of it; how are kids from villages like Hessay, Rufforth, Askham Richard and Askham Bryan actually expected to get to school without a bus? Cycle home in the dark in winter across the ring road then down dark country lanes at 11 years old? What secondary school could they go to that would not involve a bus or car journey to get there? These villages don`t have public transport that they can use to get to school on time - or at all in some cases.
Not all parents select the school because of religion. Not all people who live in villages are wealthy. Not all people who get a low wage are entitled to free school meals or any other subsidy so in reality a single working parent could earn 16k, get no HB, school meals paid or bus pass for the kids and then have to pay the same as the solicitors child down the road towards the bus, even though that Mummy and Daddy are taking home 200k. It`s not just parents who get free meals who struggle.
I do hope you give all this some serious thought Janet Looker.
While you are at it - have a word with the Execs and cabinet and tell them that under no circumstances are they to spend any more of OUR money on fancy paving, arts barges, 20mph signs, bridge closed signs, trips abroad for execs, new fleets of vehicles or any thing else that isn`t absolutely necessary. You get over a grand a year from me and even though I don`t have school children, I want it spending on getting kids safely to school, not frivolous c**p!
Take the faith angle out of it; how are kids from villages like Hessay, Rufforth, Askham Richard and Askham Bryan actually expected to get to school without a bus? Cycle home in the dark in winter across the ring road then down dark country lanes at 11 years old? What secondary school could they go to that would not involve a bus or car journey to get there? These villages don`t have public transport that they can use to get to school on time - or at all in some cases. Not all parents select the school because of religion. Not all people who live in villages are wealthy. Not all people who get a low wage are entitled to free school meals or any other subsidy so in reality a single working parent could earn 16k, get no HB, school meals paid or bus pass for the kids and then have to pay the same as the solicitors child down the road towards the bus, even though that Mummy and Daddy are taking home 200k. It`s not just parents who get free meals who struggle. I do hope you give all this some serious thought Janet Looker. While you are at it - have a word with the Execs and cabinet and tell them that under no circumstances are they to spend any more of OUR money on fancy paving, arts barges, 20mph signs, bridge closed signs, trips abroad for execs, new fleets of vehicles or any thing else that isn`t absolutely necessary. You get over a grand a year from me and even though I don`t have school children, I want it spending on getting kids safely to school, not frivolous c**p! inthesticks
  • Score: 7

1:33am Thu 16 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

As a kid I went to Huntington School... I was not in the Catchment Area, because I was in South Huntington (not Strensall, Warthill, Sutton etc) but we still had a school bus service, which number changed over the years (H5, H6, H1...) and it carried on to Murton. I didn't have free travel, but the fares were subsidised so I'd only be paying 50p for a single instead of £1 for the number 3 (now the 5). Perhaps student transport should adopt that policy, so the council reduces funding for such services but doesn't withdraw them entirely. To say it's "unfair" to provide free schol transport to church schools as an argument for removing them entirely, when schools such as Huntington, Jo-Ro, Fulford etc have numerous free services still in place, simply does not hold any water... if you're going to remove free student transport to one school, you remove all of them to all schools or none at all.

York Pullman runs fairly comprehensive school services, and their fleet does include former service buses - so it's not as if they couldn't have ticket machines fitted and charge fares.

--
As a heads-up for parents who's kids use the current H6 school bus service: don't be suprised if this route has gone by September... currently it is now a duplicate of an extra number 20 bus service to/from Osbaldwick at the moment; and the fact the council issued Transdev notice to run that extra 20 service tells me that they're planning on doing a switch - get pupils onto a bus they have to pay for in order to remove the free bus.
As a kid I went to Huntington School... I was not in the Catchment Area, because I was in South Huntington (not Strensall, Warthill, Sutton etc) but we still had a school bus service, which number changed over the years (H5, H6, H1...) and it carried on to Murton. I didn't have free travel, but the fares were subsidised so I'd only be paying 50p for a single instead of £1 for the number 3 (now the 5). Perhaps student transport should adopt that policy, so the council reduces funding for such services but doesn't withdraw them entirely. To say it's "unfair" to provide free schol transport to church schools as an argument for removing them entirely, when schools such as Huntington, Jo-Ro, Fulford etc have numerous free services still in place, simply does not hold any water... if you're going to remove free student transport to one school, you remove all of them to all schools or none at all. York Pullman runs fairly comprehensive school services, and their fleet does include former service buses - so it's not as if they couldn't have ticket machines fitted and charge fares. -- As a heads-up for parents who's kids use the current H6 school bus service: don't be suprised if this route has gone by September... currently it is now a duplicate of an extra number 20 bus service to/from Osbaldwick at the moment; and the fact the council issued Transdev notice to run that extra 20 service tells me that they're planning on doing a switch - get pupils onto a bus they have to pay for in order to remove the free bus. Magicman!
  • Score: 1

2:44am Thu 16 Jan 14

York1900 says...

when I was a kid me and my 3 brothers went from Clifton to Burnholme Secondary Modern school and we had to get 2 buses to get to school and if we walked or cycle we had to cross Malton road Huntington road and Haxby road My parents had to pay for our bus fares at the full child fare

Too many parents want everything handed to them today and the council to subsidise the cost

The council have every little control over bus services unless they come up with the money and as most of the schools in York have opted out of council control it is up to these schools to subsidise the cost of travel to and from school if required as they get there money directly from the government
when I was a kid me and my 3 brothers went from Clifton to Burnholme Secondary Modern school and we had to get 2 buses to get to school and if we walked or cycle we had to cross Malton road Huntington road and Haxby road My parents had to pay for our bus fares at the full child fare Too many parents want everything handed to them today and the council to subsidise the cost The council have every little control over bus services unless they come up with the money and as most of the schools in York have opted out of council control it is up to these schools to subsidise the cost of travel to and from school if required as they get there money directly from the government York1900
  • Score: 1

8:20am Thu 16 Jan 14

brownsoundz says...

if the schools gone academy then there supposed to fund everything with the money they get from central govenment. not the councils problem anymore. Schools that have gone academy seem to want the lump sum from the govenment and all the services they used to get. They should of thought it through before getting blagged by gove.
if the schools gone academy then there supposed to fund everything with the money they get from central govenment. not the councils problem anymore. Schools that have gone academy seem to want the lump sum from the govenment and all the services they used to get. They should of thought it through before getting blagged by gove. brownsoundz
  • Score: 1

9:37am Thu 16 Jan 14

Stevie D says...

inthesticks wrote:
Take the faith angle out of it; how are kids from villages like Hessay, Rufforth, Askham Richard and Askham Bryan actually expected to get to school without a bus?

If a kid goes to their "catchment" school and it's more than 3 miles by the shortest safe walking route (or 2 miles for primary) then the council must by law provide free transport. If there's no safe walking route (which would cover unlit lanes with no pavements and an uncontrolled crossing at the A1237) then free transport must be provided even for shorter journeys.

That isn't at issue, and there are no plans to cut free school buses for kids that go to their catchment school. The question only arises where parents choose to send their kids to a different school, whether because it's a faith school or for any other reason.
[quote][bold]inthesticks[/bold] wrote: Take the faith angle out of it; how are kids from villages like Hessay, Rufforth, Askham Richard and Askham Bryan actually expected to get to school without a bus?[/quote] If a kid goes to their "catchment" school and it's more than 3 miles by the shortest safe walking route (or 2 miles for primary) then the council must by law provide free transport. If there's no safe walking route (which would cover unlit lanes with no pavements and an uncontrolled crossing at the A1237) then free transport must be provided even for shorter journeys. That isn't at issue, and there are no plans to cut free school buses for kids that go to their catchment school. The question only arises where parents choose to send their kids to a [italic]different[/italic] school, whether because it's a faith school or for any other reason. Stevie D
  • Score: 2

5:51pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Tullio says...

I feel I have to comment to correct some wild inaccuracies being spread around here.

1. Manor is not just a faith School. In fact nearly half of the admissions have to come from non-foundation applicants which includes non-faith students locally in their catchment area. It is many of these students the changes will affect.

2. There seems to be an anti village mentality creeping in here on the assumption that the surrounding villages are full of middle class parents trying to buck the system. Our village does have it's share of middle class families but also many normal working class people who just happen to choose to live in a village. It also has a number of quite poor families who will also be affected by these changes.

3. Not only is York High further away than Manor there is also no public transport available to either it or Manor so irrespective of which School parents decide on the Council would need to lay on a bus. It currently puts on a bus to Manor, for which non-faith students have to pay, but none for York High. This is the primary reason most children go to the Manor. It's the only one they can access without car, not necessarily prejudice.

It always makes perfect sense to me that children should go to their nearest School. There's no 'bad' Schools in York unlike the metropolitan areas. But let's not turn this into a town vs country debate like some do with fox hunting. Some choose to live in towns, some in villages but all of us need our children educated somewhere.
I feel I have to comment to correct some wild inaccuracies being spread around here. 1. Manor is not just a faith School. In fact nearly half of the admissions have to come from non-foundation applicants which includes non-faith students locally in their catchment area. It is many of these students the changes will affect. 2. There seems to be an anti village mentality creeping in here on the assumption that the surrounding villages are full of middle class parents trying to buck the system. Our village does have it's share of middle class families but also many normal working class people who just happen to choose to live in a village. It also has a number of quite poor families who will also be affected by these changes. 3. Not only is York High further away than Manor there is also no public transport available to either it or Manor so irrespective of which School parents decide on the Council would need to lay on a bus. It currently puts on a bus to Manor, for which non-faith students have to pay, but none for York High. This is the primary reason most children go to the Manor. It's the only one they can access without car, not necessarily prejudice. It always makes perfect sense to me that children should go to their nearest School. There's no 'bad' Schools in York unlike the metropolitan areas. But let's not turn this into a town vs country debate like some do with fox hunting. Some choose to live in towns, some in villages but all of us need our children educated somewhere. Tullio
  • Score: 4

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree