Free bus transport to age 16: a mistake?

Posted on July 19, 2026 by John Howson

Rumours are flying around that our new Prime Minister wants to mandate free bus travel for everyone up to the age of sixteen. This would just leave those between 18 and some point in a person’s 60s paying for public transport.

Why do I question whether this policy is a mistake? Not because I think it is wrong, it isn’t, although it suffers from the same issues as any other universal benefit, by including those that could pay for the service, as well as those that benefit. Still, that issue can be dealt with through general taxation, something our previous Prime Minister never seemed to realise when creating the Winter Fuel Allowance debacle that set him on the road to the end of his premiership.

In the case of free bus travel, could this be someone that Mr Burnham has looked at through the lens of an urban mayor, with little lifetime experience of rural areas?

Free bus transport should be extended to age 18, not stop at 16, in order to come into line with the official, but not statutory, learning leaving age. If David Blunkett is advising Mr Burnham, he should be pressing this case as a former distinguished Secretary of State for Education.

If Mr Burnham wants to reduce the number of NEETs, making them pay to travel to college after Year 11 won’t help his case, especially in rural areas, where there may not even be a bus service. If Mr Burnham is to be a Prime Minister for the country, and not just a Labour Prime Minster, then he must understand the needs of all young people, regardless of where they live.

I have suggested before, that 16-18 year olds in rural areas wanting to go to college, where there is no possible bus route, face a real deterrent. My advice was to remove motor Insurance tax from vehicles taxed in the name of a 16-18 year old, and for their sole use.

Mr Burnham should also make it clear how any policy about free bus travel would link to parental choice of schooling? Again, free travel in urban areas means parental choice is not an issue, but it is in rural areas where free travel to the ‘nearest school’ has been the norm since 2014.

The small group that really needs a change in policy to align with the principle of free bus travel to 18 are those young people living in rural areas with selective schools. Kent, springs to mind, along with Essex, Buckinghamshire and Gloucestershire.

In these areas, taking the selection test for secondary school is seen as a parental choice, and doesn’t therefore qualify for free transport. This is an attack on the less well off working and living in rural areas. If Mr Burnham wants to mandate free transport for all to age 16 or, as I prefer 18, anyone living in a rural area and passing the selection test for a selective school should be provided with free transport.

Of course, Mr Burnham could be really brave, and reintroduce the 1976 Education Act, associated with the late Shirely Williams, and require all secondary schools to be non-selective, except in few isolated cases of national schools for certain talents in music, ballet and dance. Mr Blair’s government never saw the need to make that change, but, perhaps, Mr Blunkett might now have his opportunity to make the change with such a large Labour majority at Westminster.

Free transport to 16, is good, but not good enough, please, make it free transport to 18, at least to an approved education facility.

Hope over expectation: my view of today’s report on white working class children

Posted on June 29, 2026 by John Howson

How good are the recommendations into today’s report on the education of White working-class children? Based on my analysis of this one recommendation from the report; not universally very good The Inquiry into White Working Class Educational Outcomes Here is one specific recommendation:

“Government should encourage and support more deliberate action to ensure that the highest performing primary and secondary schools admit and support a fair share of disadvantaged pupils, particularly in areas with significant white working class populations. Too often, the highest performing schools within local areas serve intakes that are significantly less disadvantaged than the communities around them. This should include clearer guidance and encouragement for schools and trusts to prioritise disadvantaged pupils within existing admissions rules, alongside stronger expectations that high-performing schools demonstrate how they are contributing to inclusion and fair access locally. Local authorities should also play a stronger role in supporting fair access, admissions coordination and inclusive place planning, building on their existing statutory responsibilities in this area.”

‘more deliberate action’ – What does this mean, since it doesn’t spell out any actions? Obviously, it means support for selective schools, as they are the highest performing secondary schools, and nowhere are they mentioned, so is the report endorsing the status quo. A selective school currently seeking a new headteacher has less than 7% of its pupils on free school meals according to the DfE website.

‘admit and support a fair share of disadvantaged pupils’ – What is being recommended for school with entry tests? And what is a fair share? Similar to the balance of the catchment area? But the location of schools is often based on history rather than current place concerns?

And for non-selective schools, how do you override parental preference and faith-based requirements? Probably, through the school funding mechanism to encourage change in admissions criteria.

I would have liked to see some specific recommendations. A case study of how a successful school has already used the admissions rules would have been insightful.

‘stronger expectations that high-performing schools demonstrate how they are contributing to inclusion and fair access locally.’ Everyone knows what schools do to ‘expectations from government’.

‘Local authorities should also play a stronger role in supporting fair access, admissions coordination’ Ha, Ha, ha. It has taken two years of a Labour government to get local authorities the ability to control in-year admissions for academies and free schools (Clause 52 of 2026 Act). Will government back closure of faith schools if it is the best outcome for place planning: we shall see.

And what of transport in rural areas? At present transport to selective schools is not free in most areas outside London and the other conurbations, as it is seen as a parental choice, something I campaigned about in the 2024 general election in Weald of Kent and raised in Castle Point about schools on Canvey Island during the previous General Election.

I would have liked a much more radical approach to policy recommendations, as in the section on teachers, where a revision of the apprenticeship system is advocated. Trainees should also understand what teaching in schools in working lass areas is like. Of course, if the recommendation above is actioned, some schools will look very different, as some might lose successful pupils to selective schools and be even less educationally comprehensive. Will teachers want to teach in such schools without more incentives?

Sadly, with an Education Act passed in the last session of parliament, even a new Prime Minister may find it difficult to fsecure time for more reforms, so what will happen will probably only be within the current rules and framework.

I wonder what changes we will see by the end of this parliament: I am not holding my breath, at least for the secondary school sector. In the Early Years field, I am much more hopeful because there is an acceptance that closing chidrens’ centres a decade ago was not a wise policy move.

Still, any report that puts these issues back on the table for a little while and creates discussion cannot be all bad.

What’s in a name?

Posted on April 2, 2026 by John Howson

I was recently surprised to find that a school called John Spence Community High School in North Shields was in really an academy. I am sure the school serves its community, but I wondered how common is it for schools that are academies to use the term ‘community in their name? Well, there is Barnhill Community High School in Hillingdon, part of the Middlesex Learning Trust – itself a name that represent little more than the name of a county council abolished in the 1960s. There is also the Abbeywood Community School’ part of the Olympus Academy Trust in the Bristol area.

So, it seems that is not uncommon for schools to retain their existing name when converting to an academy. Other confusing names for schools that might catch out unwary parents, and even employers reading references include – grammar schools that aren’t selective schools – Enfield Grammar school springs to mind, but it is not alone. Indeed, Enfield is also the home of Enfield County School, located in Enfield that was once part of the county of Middlesex, and a selective school for girls while a Middlesex County Council School. Again, it is not the only school to retain the term ‘county’ in its name. At least the ‘county’ schools in Essex and Surrey can at present claim to be part of a county. Post-local government reorganisation means that they will eventually join Enfield and Edmonton County Schools as representing areas that no longer exist in any local government sense.

High School is another meaningless term for a school. Such schools can be 11-16 or 11-18, selective or comprehensive, depending on where they are located. Even more confusing to anyone moving to the Derby area could be Risley Lower Grammar CE (VC) Primary School. What on earth is a ‘lower grammar school’? Like First school, lower schools are usually school taking pupils up to the ages of eight or nine, when they are not the used to describe a site for the first few year groups of a secondary school, or even, in the case of The Basildon Lower Academy in Essex, a school for pupils in Years 7-9.

If school types are confusing, then hopefully one can assume that all schools named after saints are church schools. Sadly, no. One of my favourite exceptions is a primary school in Watford. The school’s prospectus tell parents how the school acquired its name as follows:

“St Meryl School was built in 1951 and is situated on a large attractive site in a central position within Carpenders Park. The name of the school, St Meryl, does not indicate any affiliation with a particular religion or religious denomination; in fact, “Meryl” was the name of the builder’s wife!” st-meryl-school-prospectus-2025-2026.pdf

I made use of this idea when naming he school in my recent play about falling rolls.

However, it is now the name of schools that worries me most, but that the term ‘teacher’ is not a reserved occupation term like ‘engineer’ or ‘accountant’. Anyone can call themselves a teacher, regardless of whether they have any qualifications.

To me that is an insult to the many thousands of teachers that gave gained QTS, often at great personal expense. There is still time to insert a clause in the Bill before parliament to remedy this oversight and grant legal status for qualified teachers.

Reform of Home to School Transport needed

Posted on July 4, 2025 by John Howson

This week the Local Government Association published an important report into home to school transport The future of Home to School Transport: Report | Local Government Association This is an area of responsibility that always concerned me when I was a county councillor, as the rules of the governing eligibility were set in the 1944 Education Act, in a very different era to that of today.

As the LGA report noted:

“Effective home to school transport plays a vital role in our education system. Fundamentally, it is the safety-net that ensures no child or young person misses out on their entitlement to education because they cannot otherwise get to school. However, current home to transport duties were designed for a different age, societally, educationally and economically. For local government, continuing to fulfil the current statutory responsibilities for home to school transport is becoming increasingly financially unsustainable, posing a real threat of bankruptcy for some, and necessitating cuts to other vital aspects of children’s services provision in many more.”

Much of the report deals with SEND transport, as that costs local authorities the most money, the issue of whether the NHS should bear part of the cost. Sensibly the report concluded that this was a national issue:

“We would recommend that, in the context of budgetary pressures across public services and with health being under no less pressure than local government, this is not an issue that can be left to local negotiation to resolve. The Department for Education and the Department for Health and Social Care should clarify an equitable split of responsibilities, including financial responsibilities, for transport for children with the most common health needs that require substantial and additional support, and set that out in statutory guidance both for local authorities and ICBs.”

With the review of the NHS currently underway, this seems like a timely recommendation.

Surprisingly, the report seems in places to assume that parents must send their child to a state school, rather that state schools being the default position if a parent doesn’t make any other arrangement for their child’s education. Fortunately, this assumption doesn’t affect their arguments.

I think their conclusions are sensible in both being clearer, with less change of challenge than at present, but the authors appear to have missed the opportunity to discuss how to deal with the issue of selective schools and distance. Making such schools ineligible for home to school transport as they are regarded as a parental choice is as discriminatory as any other criteria. It is a pity this wasn’t addressed more fully.

Nevertheless, I think I can agree with their conclusions for a system that:

“In summary, we are advocating that in future children and young people should be eligible for assistance with home to school travel from the start of reception to the end of year 13, based on a simple binary distance criterion: if they live more than 3 miles away (by the most direct road route) from their nearest suitable school then they would be eligible for transport assistance; if they live less than three miles away then they would not be eligible for transport assistance. This formulation of eligibility would get rid of the current link between eligibility and the ability to walk to school for both children and young people with SEND and those accessing mainstream home to school transport.”

Need for new drive on apprenticeships at 18?

Posted on July 26, 2023 by John Howson

Should Labour be focusing more on the challenges within the state school system rather than trumpeting its desire to remove some benefits from private schools? One such challenge is around the chance of a pupil in a non-selective secondary school in an area identified by the DfE as a ‘highly selective area of or secondary schooling’ progressing to a sustained Level 4 or higher qualification from school or college. Level 4 and above qualifications include, undergraduate degrees (a Level 6 qualification); apprenticeship at level 4 or higher; or any other qualification at Level 4 or 5.

The DfE definition of non-selective schools in highly selective area includes all non-selective schools in local authorities with a high level of selection (where 25% or more of state-funded secondary places are in state-funded selective schools). These local authorities are Bexley, Buckinghamshire, Kent, Lincolnshire, Medway, Poole, Slough, Southend-on-Sea, Sutton, Torbay, Trafford and Wirral.

There are selective schools in other areas, but they don’t past this test, such as parts of Essex, Enfield and Birmingham.

The table below is taken from Progression to higher education or training, Academic year 2020/21 – Explore education statistics – GOV.UK (explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk) has been sorted to rank institutions by their outcomes for the type of institution in terms of a sustained Level 4 or above destination. (6 months in a two year period.) The two year period ended just after the covid pandemic started in the spring of 2020, so that may have had some effect on the outcomes.

However, the FE colleges produce the bulk of young people entering the workforce or becoming a NEET (Not in employment, education or training) at the end of Year 13.

Kenneth Baker’s experiment with 14-18 schools, whether studio schools or University Technical Colleges, as a sector produce slightly better outcomes in terms of destinations, but not by much. Slightly ahead of this group is the non-selective schools in highly selective areas, most of which were once known as secondary modern schools.

Institution type	Sustained a level 4 or higher destination	Progression score *
Other FE sector colleges	47.0	-3.1
Total Mainstream Colleges	54.9	-1.2
Studio Schools	55.6	1.2
University Technical College	59.3	1.6
Non-selective school in highly selective area	62.0	-4.0
Total Schools and colleges	66.0	0.0
Sponsored academy	69.4	1.1
Sixth form colleges	73.1	3.4
Other non-selective school	73.5	1.0
Total academies & free schools	74.6	0.7
Total Schools	74.6	0.9
LA maintained schools	74.9	1.9
Converter academy	75.7	0.4
Free 16-19	77.0	3.7
Free Schools	83.1	7.1
Selective school	88.5	2.4

Source: Progression to higher education or training, Academic year 2020/21

Interestingly, Six Form Colleges, academies and free schools as a sector and other non-selective schools had very similar outcomes. Converter academies and the relatively small Free School sector do better than the average for schools, but, as might be expected, it is selective schools that have the highest ranking. Indeed, one might ask why their score isn’t even higher?

For parents aspiring to see their offspring continue in education after eighteen, there are some clear messages in terms of outcome by institution. For political parties espousing the concept of either levelling up or equality of opportunity the question of the value to society as a whole of selective schools probably ought to be at least as important as concerns about the benefits of private education, since it is state funding that is producing the range of outcomes.

My guess is that because of the current teacher supply crisis the next set of data post-covid will have seen the range become even greater than in this study.

* For an understanding of the progression score please consult the DfE documentation where there is a detailed explanation of how the score is calculated.

Home to School transport

Posted on February 22, 2023 by John Howson

What level of transport from home to school should the State provide for parents? At present, this is an area of policy that rarely seems to be reviewed. For instance, when the learning leaving age was raised to eighteen, the rules on free transport to school were not changed. As a result, many pupils that receive free transport up to age sixteen, and the end of Year 11, no longer qualify for free transport in Years 12 or 13, even if they remain at the same school.

Yes, some local authorities do pay for SEND transport for post-16 students, but it is not a requirement to do so. TfL still provide generous free transport for young people resident in London, although the Elizabeth Line beyond West Drayton to Reading isn’t included.

The question must be: if young people in London can qualify for free bus and tram travel, why must those living elsewhere in England depend upon local rules set by the upper tier local authority? The answer, of course, is that local authorities must fund the home to school transport budget, and it needs to compete against all other priorities, whereas in London, the transport authority, TfL, foots the bill for transport costs.

Most authorities now only pay for transport over three miles (2 miles for pupils under eight, but above statutory school age) to the nearest school if selected first at the time of the admissions process. There may be different rules for selective secondary schools, and some authorities won’t pay for travel to these schools if located in the area of another authority despite the fact that most are now academies.

For instance, Essex County Council and Castle Point Unitary Authority state that:

Grammar (selective) school

Children from low income families qualify for school transport if they live 2 or more miles from the selective school.

School transport will also be provided if the selective school is closer than the nearest maintained school or academy and 3 miles or more away. School transport: Who qualifies for home to school transport – Essex County Council

This means that many parents have to pay to send a child to a selective school unless they qualify as a low-income family.

In rural areas there may not be bus services, and local authorities will only pay where a road is deemed unsafe due to traffic. Any alternative route less than three miles, even if an unlit footpath across fields, often doesn’t qualify for free transport unless an appeal panel is willing to go outside the rules.

In their 2023-24 budget, Oxfordshire has a figure of around £30 million for home to school transport, so it isn’t an insignificant issue for rural counties. The bulk of this was for transporting pupils to mainstream schools and not for SEND transport.

So here are some policy suggestions for discussion

Raise the current age level for transport to the same school from 16 to 18
Ensure SEND transport to both schools and colleges
Negotiate student fares with both bus and train operators as similar rates for same journey
Merge school transport with active travel policies to encourage car pooling or use of local community transport
Pay bike vouchers to encourage cycling to school
Review national guidelines on what constitutes ‘safe routes’ to exclude footpaths or bridleways for inclusion and only include roads
Create a national policy for travel to selective schools funded by central government as these schools are no longer ’local’ schools
Prevent state schools from running their own buses
Ensure any child offered a paid for place has the place available for a whole school year.
Amend the mileage rule to cover all sites for split site schools

The present distance rules were set many years ago. Is it still acceptable in this modern age to use a three-mile limit or should it be reduced?

Finally, how should any changes be paid for? Should there be a national scheme, as for the bus pass for the elderly, and should the rules be more favourable for London than for rural areas, especially where house prices may be more expensive in the rural areas than in London, and salaries don’t take this into account?

Please sue the comments section to discuss.

That was The Week That was…

Posted on July 10, 2022 by John Howson

This was an interesting week to have been away from one’s desk. Three Secretaries of State in a week! That’s one for the record books, along with so much else that has happened in Westminster politics during the past seven days.

How much will education feature in the debate over the selection of the next Prime Minister? Will some education journalist ask the obvious questions such as:

If you are going to cut taxes, what will happen to funding for schools, especially in the period before inflation is brought under control?

What are you going to do about the present teacher shortage?

Will you review the way that the apprenticeship Levy operates so that it isn’t a tax on small primary schools?

How important is helping young people recover from the effects of the covid pandemic and what would you do to help boost their mental health?

Do you believe in local democratic control of schooling?

What are you plans for levelling up as it affects the Roma and Traveller communities across England?

Was the EBacc a mistake?

How important do you see the youth Service and other out of school activities?

Will you offer Free School Meals to all primary school children for free?

I am sure that readers can add to this list with this with their own priorities. I am also pretty certain that most of these questions won’t be asked of the candidates.

Education, and schooling in particular doesn’t often feature in either leadership or general election campaigns. It is possible that there could be a debate about selective education, started by one of the candidates, as it is a topic that appeals to the older generation of Tory voters even if most younger Tories have never experienced it, unless they come from parts of the Home Counties. Faced with rising private school fees, some Tories might also see selective state education as a tax cut for parents no longer needing to pay school fees.

And on fees, where will the candidates stand on higher education, university fees and student numbers? It will be especially interesting to see what the Chancellor says as a former Education Secretary.

Talking of former Education Secretary’s, I wonder whether there was time to take the Ministerial photograph of Michelle Donelan to hang on the wall at Sanctuary Buildings or whether they will use one taken in her previous Ministerial role in the department.

Finally, there is the future of the Schools Bill to consider. This mess of a piece of draft legislation was mauled in the House of Lords and is being reconsidered. The oversight and regulation of academy trusts is an important addition to the legislation on schooling, but I hope that the new team will also listen to their councillors about the importance of both place in the governance of schooling and the need for democratic local accountability. Local Authorities will not accept the need for responsibility without involvement in decision-making and that matters for admissions, pupil place planning and SEND.

Do you want to work in a selective school?

Posted on June 13, 2022 by John Howson

This bog post was first Posted on August 7, 2016 with the title ‘Do you want to work in a grammar school?’ and is now reposted in view of the revival of the debate about selective schools after a reader reminded me of its existence. Although the world has moved on in many respects – a National Funding Formula being one of them – the questions asked in 2016 remain pertinent today.

Grammar schools were a product of the nineteenth century that lingered overlong into the twentieth and have no place in the modern world. We should not ensure the effective education of those gifted and talented in some areas by separating them from the rest of society at an early age. Even where their education is fundamentally different, whether for future ballet dancers, musicians, footballers or choristers, some degree of integration with others less skilled in these areas should be the norm.

Since intellectual ability isn’t fully developed at eleven, the grounds for grammar schools seem more social than educational, even when cloaked in the guise of meritocracy. Scare resources are best employed developing better education for all, not in keeping a few Tory voters in the fold.

Before any decision is taken, and this wasn’t a manifesto pledge, the government should undertake some polling on the effect of the introduction of new selective schools across the country on both the current teacher workforce as well as the views of those that might want to become a teacher.

For existing secondary school teachers, the question is simple: If your school were to lose 30% of its most able pupils, would you continue to teach here?

For potential teachers the question is: would you be willing to teach in a school where 30% of the age range didn’t attend?

For primary school teachers, the question has to be whether they would prepare children for the selection process?

Making a teacher supply crisis worse won’t help the education of those not selected for a grammar school place.

To introduce grammar schools without a comprehensive education plan for every child the State has been entrusted with educating is unbelievably short-sighted: something only a narrow-minded government would contemplate. To cloak the introduction of grammar schools in the social mobility agenda without offering any evidence that such schools create more mobility than the alternative is to pander to the views of the few and to disregard the needs of the many.

What plans do the government have for those left out of a grammar school in a bulge year because grammar school places cannot be turned on an off? Will the government create a system to cope with 30% of the peak pupil numbers in the mid-2020s and allow either a less rigorous selection procedure until then or will it leave places empty? The alternative seems to me to be that it will set the limit on places now and see more parents denied places as pupil numbers increase?

What is certain is that the present per pupil funding formula cannot work within a two-tier system as the redundancies in Kent have already shown. Perhaps this is the real reason why the National Funding Formula consultation has been delayed, to allow for the incorporation of a different method of funding of grammar schools to non-selective schools within the new system?

Will Council taxpayers in areas that don’t want selective education be forced to pay the transport costs of pupils attending such schools and will the government reimburse them or expect them to take the cash away from other hard pressed services?

I am all in favour of local democracy in education, but not in a government sponsored free-for-all.

No room on the bus – unless you pay

Posted on October 30, 2019 by John Howson

What the point of the Conservative Party creating more places in selective schools if pupils cannot get to them? As regular reads know, I am not a fan of selective schooling, but where it exists such schools should be available to all.

After two general elections fighting Banbury for the Lib Dems, I have moved on to fight Castle Point in Essex this time around. This has brought me into contact with the selective system there, and the unfair rules about school transport.

Canvey Island forms a large part of the Castle Point constituency, and pupils living on the island are refused free transport to grammar schools. This is because Essex County Council’s home to school transport policy only pays for travel to a pupil’s nearest school.

As there is no selective school on Canvey Island, parents are forced to pay for transport if their child secures a place at a selective school. Many parents cannot afford to do so.

The rules are that if the journey is more than three miles local authorities must provide free transport to and from school. By restricting the rule to the ‘nearest school’ in a system where selection is in operation Essex County Council discriminates against pupils taking up places at such schools.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that some time ago Southend-on-Sea became a Unitary Authority, separate from Essex County Council, and this is where the nearest selective schools are located. Add in the academy factor, and this is a real mess for parents.

There is no point in the Conservative Party announcing more selective school places and then denying parents and their children the opportunity to attend these schools because of the cost of getting to and from schools.

The approach of Essex County Council to funding home to school transport isn’t unique, but it does demonstrate a callous lack of concern for social mobility as far as many pupils are concerned.

Will the Conservative Party nationally change the rules on transport to make it clear funding should be available to the nearest including any school that offers places following selection test to pupils that the school is the nearest school of that type a pupil could attend?

Of course, making all schools non-selective would be a better option, but that’s not yet on the cards

Who loses in the Education stakes?

Posted on October 27, 2019 by John Howson

Education is likely to play a important role in the sub-plots swirling around Breixt that will underpin any forthcoming general election. The terrible twins of British politics: Labour and the Conservatives, seem keen to make life harder for the many, in favour of policies that affect the few. Both seem keen to inflict damage, one intentionally, the other without thinking, on the private school sector.

Today’s suggestion mooted in parts of the Press of an increase in selective school places in any Conservative manifesto will affect private secondary schools, especially if parents switch from fee-paying schools to fill the additional places in free state-funded selective schools. They can use the savings in fees to ensure success in the entry tests for the selective schools.

Labour’s plan for the abolition of private schools will create extra costs for the state system and seems likely have the same effect as the Tory proposals of driving pupils into state selective schools and state comprehensive schools in the residential areas where parents live. For some, it might also mean a move to a new house, unless the existing private schools were ‘nationalised’ in situ.

Either way, both ‘old’ parties of government seem keen to avoid offering headline policies for the many children in State education at present. What about reducing off-rolling by secondary schools and putting in place policies that confront the reasons why schools have taken that route?

And also abolishing Ofsted in favour of a national light touch oversight of standards and more flexible local quality assurance regimes allied to large-scale professional development of the workforce, including development of future leaders, sadly neglected since the abolition of clear policies and qualifications for headship disappeared under Labour.

To abolish the private sector, Labour will need to revoke the long-held right of parents to choose how to educate their own families. This is a level of state intervention in the lives of everyone, probably not seen outside of wartime. Indeed, Labour haven’t required it of the health service, where private health flourishes in certain sectors of the market.

Will Labour also seek to remove private companies offering after-school tuition and support, lest spending money on an extra maths class gives unfair support to the pupils that can afford it? Presumably, the cathedral choir schools will also disappear if they cannot survive on the National Funding Formula?

All this is of more than passing interest to me as I have been asked to stand as the Lib Dem candidate in Castle Point in Essex if there is a general election in December. Indeed, tomorrow Lib Dems at Westminster will push for one on a Monday early in the month at Westminster. Will Labour support them?

Castle Point includes Canvey Island, where as a youngster from North London, I went on holiday in the 1950s. It is also part of the Essex/Southend Selective School system and less well funded than either of the two Unitary Authorities that split it off from the rest of Essex.

John Howson

Education and the numbers that affect what happens

Tag Archives: selective schools