'Safeguarding issues' caused by timetable changes

[Bertie the bus]

Which goes to show how limited your understanding of the timetable changes is. The changes in Manchester are having many and far-reaching consequences, including the reduction of through trains from Manchester to Barrow in Furness. It's impacting across most of the north of England.

Believing some poor excuse and just stating incorrect information as fact doesn't make it one, even if you believe your incredibly high post count gives your posts credibility. Firstly, there isn't a reduction in Barrow - Manchester services and secondly you initially claimed they had to fit in with times of services on the Ordsall Curve but now have strangely changed that, and are still incorect. Changes to services in Manchester has no effect on train times in Cumbria.

 

[221129]

Believing some poor excuse and just stating incorrect information as fact doesn't make it one, even if you believe your incredibly high post count gives your posts credibility. Firstly, there isn't a reduction in Barrow - Manchester services and secondly you initially claimed they had to fit in with times of services on the Ordsall Curve but now have strangely changed that, and are still incorect. Changes to services in Manchester has no effect on train times in Cumbria.

I'm sorry but you are very much incorrect.

 

[DarloRich]

Firstly, there isn't a reduction in Barrow - Manchester services and secondly you initially claimed they had to fit in with times of services on the Ordsall Curve but now have strangely changed that, and are still incorect. Changes to services in Manchester has no effect on train times in Cumbria.

I am afraid you are incorrect. Changes to the timetable in the Manchester area have had ( and continue to have) massive knock on effects.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course I read it. It still requires consultation as it's a change in working practices. Been there, done it when we altered shift times by 30 mins in another public sector organisation.

In addition there are the rest of Chris M's points.

The public sector does sometimes confound me with its bureaucracy.

We are talking *ten minutes*. I wouldn't expect that to require more than a short period of notice that it is happening, maybe a month, and a request for staff for whom it causes a specific problem to come forward so a workaround could be found.

Five minutes might even be enough given how close the school is to the station. A five minute earlier finish could be achieved by shortening morning break or lunchtime by 5 minutes.

 

[AlterEgo]

The public sector does sometimes confound me with its bureaucracy.

We are talking *ten minutes*. I wouldn't expect that to require more than a short period of notice that it is happening, maybe a month, and a request for staff for whom it causes a specific problem to come forward so a workaround could be found.

Five minutes might even be enough given how close the school is to the station. A five minute earlier finish could be achieved by shortening morning break or lunchtime by 5 minutes.

Indeed.

I was in school as late as 2004. My typical morning as a fourteen year old in 2000 was to walk 1.5 miles to the bus stop, get on a bus leaving around 0710, arrive outside the school (ours was just about the earliest bus) at 0800, and head into the form room. School didn't start until 0845 and in between those times boys would arrive off different buses gradually filling the class. We weren't supervised until the form teacher arrived at 0840 and our classroom was in a corner of the school where no teachers would normally be passing.

It was perfectly safe.

 

[curtly]

I live in Ulverston!

There aren’t 200 kids that get the train home. 50/60 at most.
The station is a 5 minute walk from the school maximum. If rushed can be done in 2.

There is a bus to barrow which is slightly longer. Bus is more expensive too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I live in Ulverston!

There aren’t 200 kids that get the train home. 50/60 at most.
The station is a 5 minute walk from the school maximum. If rushed can be done in 2.

There is a bus to barrow which is slightly longer. Bus is more expensive too.

In which case this confirms that this is actually a complete and utter non-issue.

 

[Agent_Squash]

Believing some poor excuse and just stating incorrect information as fact doesn't make it one, even if you believe your incredibly high post count gives your posts credibility. Firstly, there isn't a reduction in Barrow - Manchester services and secondly you initially claimed they had to fit in with times of services on the Ordsall Curve but now have strangely changed that, and are still incorect. Changes to services in Manchester has no effect on train times in Cumbria.

Bolton electrification is behind, which means the shortage of DMUs is made even larger. Barrow (and the Furness line in general) was meant to have 8tpd minimum to Manchester Airport, and Northern intended to go beyond that with the timetable that was upload in January, but later taken down due to the DMU shortage. Because of this, Barrow services now have a path through the Oxford Road corridor that will be filled.

In other news, John Woodcock has called an emergency meeting of the Cumbria Better Connected board, saying that it not only affects the Ulverston school but one in Dalton as well.

AN emergency meeting will take place to discuss "unacceptable" proposed changes to train times which could see schoolchildren facing 11-hour days.

Barrow and Furness MP John Woodcock will chair an urgent meeting of the Cumbria Better Connected group next week after claims the new timetable would affect the journey to school for 200 Barrow pupils travelling to Ulverston Victoria High School.

UVHS assistant headteacher Richard Butler said the proposals posed a safeguarding concern for the school.

Mr Woodcock said: "I am bringing forward the meeting in response to the new proposals that have, quite rightly, been called 'ridiculous' by Mr Butler.

"It is unacceptable to ask schoolchildren to have their day extended to 11 hours. I have invited staff from UVHS and Dowdales School with parents also welcome to attend."

The meeting, which was originally scheduled for May 4, will now be held at the Coronation Hall, Ulverston, on April 26 from 12.30pm, and is open to the public.

In a joint statement with Northern and Network Rail, the Rail Delivery Group, urged passengers to check before they travel.

Jacqueline Starr, managing director of customer experience for the group, said: "Working together in partnership, train operators and Network Rail are delivering record investment in rail.

"This means there will be new trains, better services and improved stations that will support economic growth and boost communities across the north of England, now and for the long term.

"Whether you are a commuter or travel for leisure, we're asking customers to check before you travel as there will be new and changed services from May 20."

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/barro...osals-d372d931-e3dc-40da-872b-1f06a27003b6-ds

 

[curtly]

Also- the evening mail are one of the worst local newspapers around. Make mountains out of molehills over everything.

 

[Agent_Squash]

Also- the evening mail are one of the worst local newspapers around. Make mountains out of molehills over everything.

They are just a tad overdramatic, aren't they? Quite a high readership though for the area.

From what I've heard, UVHS students are planning to take the 1544 back anyway... don't get why that service has practically been forgotten about.

 

[nr758123]

Also- the evening mail are one of the worst local newspapers around. Make mountains out of molehills over everything.

Can't possibly be as bad as the Huddersfield Examiner with its weather obsession.

To turn to the substance of the argument, as there's a significant passenger flow of pupils from the school using certain trains, it would seem sensible for the school to have been consulted on the timetable, at the very least to make them aware in plenty of time of an issue which might affect them. That didn't happen, and there's little point trying to hand out blame as to why.

As to Northern Rail's response, a generic reply about investment, failing even to refer to the local issue, is the sort of response which does nothing to enhance their credibility.

 

[mpthomson]

Hmmmm. Did you know that working conditions can be changed without consultation.

You just have to give the workforce the statuary 3 months notice !!

Doesn't do much for moral though !

Indeed I did, although public sector organisations tend to be highly unionised so not doing the consultation exercise correctly, particularly if it affects those on flexible working arrangements gets an organisation into all sorts of negative press coverage, so formal consultation it normally is!

Moving a school day 15-20mins to the left is a bigger undertaking than us immediately obvious for all the reasons above (not just mine).

 

[Ianno87]

Hiring buses is a far simpler solution than either continuing with the war of words, or changing the school day, with its own advantages of being able to do local pick-ups in Barrow. If needed be, they can be drafted in from further afield for a short period of time.

No, it won't be a perfect solution, but where is the perfect solution? Bickering is not a solution.

Small matter of somebody, somewhere, willing to put up some £££ to fund/subsidise these buses (or, effectively, take the risk of operating it commercially). Local authorities right now of course being somewhat stretched in subsidising local services generally.

 

[Steve Harris]

The public sector does sometimes confound me with its bureaucracy.

We are talking *ten minutes*. I wouldn't expect that to require more than a short period of notice that it is happening, maybe a month, and a request for staff for whom it causes a specific problem to come forward so a workaround could be found.

As i posted earlier... For an employer to enforce a change in working conditions (i.e. change start / finish times) they must give 3 months notice to the people affected (i.e. employees), that is in law.

If however, the employees agree to the change (via a ballot), the 3 month rule does not apply !!

After having my start / finish times changed twice now by private sector companies i now have a fair knowledge in these matters.

And it goes without saying, i hope the above information helps others.

 

[Bayum]

It depends on the school and its policies regarding to safeguarding and to staff availability/accountability.

At my school, we don't allow students to enter the school building if 'x' amount of staff are unable to make it for whatever reason. There are ratios that need to be followed for a start. Some secondary schools may not have staff arriving until later on, therefore the school may not have the correct ratio of staffupil to allow students into the building safely.

 

[Chris M]

If only there was some way of perhaps starting the school day earlier and finishing it earlier, eh?

n this case, yes, it's tough. Change the school day if such a long day is inconvenient to most of your pupils.

These days, academies can pretty much do as they want. But even for a LEA school, altering the school hours is a very simple thing to do. Although they generally prefer to do it at school term dates rather than train timetable change dates!

You might want to actually read the thread. The consecutive posts by @Llanigraham and myself (I think they're on page 2) highlight some of the reasons why it is not as simple as you seem to think - and not all of them are within the control of the school. Not even all of the ones you might expect to be either as services have been tendered out to the private sector in some cases.
Some sector contracts may allow for changes to working hours at the drop of a hat, but some do not.

I don't know what the answer to this is, other than Northern employing a PR person who can actually comment on the issues at hand rather than just vaguely wave in the direction of some bland generic statement that doesn't actually say anything. Has anyone actually looked at whether running an extra service at school times would be possible (and I mean someone actually looking at unit availability, timetable paths, train crew availability, etc. not just saying "too hard")? However, regardless of whether the railway could or should do anything, shifting the hours of the school day is something that takes detailed consultation, consideration and organisation of many factors. Indeed, think of what you'd say if someone suggested "just run the train 15 minutes earlier", and how much more complicated that actually is than the lay person assumes - and then realise that when talking about school times you are the uninformed lay person making an assumption that is overly simplistic.

 

[Deafdoggie]

You might want to actually read the thread. The consecutive posts by @Llanigraham and myself (I think they're on page 2) highlight some of the reasons why it is not as simple as you seem to think - and not all of them are within the control of the school. Not even all of the ones you might expect to be either as services have been tendered out to the private sector in some cases.
Some sector contracts may allow for changes to working hours at the drop of a hat, but some do not.

But as I explained, my sons school did exactly that-shift the school day, it wasn't a great deal of effort for them at all

 

[Tetchytyke]

You might want to actually read the thread. The consecutive posts by @Llanigraham and myself (I think they're on page 2) highlight some of the reasons why it is not as simple as you seem to think

I didn't say it was simple, although my school did it 20 years ago easily enough. But it is a lot easier than attempting to reschedule the entire timetable for the north west of England to meet the demands of one school.

 

[robbeech]

I had to be in school for 0835, and I usually arrived between 0800 and 0810 as a result otherwise I would arrive on the bus 30 minutes later, between 0830 on time, but only just, and 0840 - late.

Very similar, I was always a bus early (2bph service) as the next one would get me there just in time unless it was late. The later one was also full of school kids which as a school kid I didn’t like. The Small number of kids on the bus I got were generally the ones more willing to work and I got on with them better. I’d often hold back a bus at the end of the day too. Much quieter, it missed out one housing estate gaining 7 or so minutes, and didn’t stop at every single stop to set down passengers. More than once we overtook the previous one towards the end of the (45 minute) journey.

 

[nr758123]

But as I explained, my sons school did exactly that-shift the school day, it wasn't a great deal of effort for them at all

Somehow I doubt it was done with just five weeks' notice.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Somehow I doubt it was done with just five weeks' notice.

They sent home the "Consultation" letter on last day of half term before the May holiday, for the change to take effect from September, so 6 working weeks

 

[eisenach]

At the school I worked at, for years management wished to change the school day timings. They never manged to because of all the groups that needed to be consulted, the local bus company which runs the school buses saying it was impossible for them and the veto of one of the local primary schools that would also have had to change their hours to match (because of the school buses). So, much heat, little light and no change !

 

[Bletchleyite]

FWIW, on the "Safeguarding" topic, this shows how much the "Safeguarding industry" has progressed from actually protecting children from abuse and similar on towards justifying their own existence by "crying wolf" and causing anything that might mildly inconvenience a teenager or cause them to have to experience the big, nasty outside world for more than necessary to be considered a "Safeguarding issue".

Even if these teenagers (old enough to get the train to school themselves in what is a very safe area of the country indeed) have to sit outside somewhere from 0800 to 0830 and from 1530 to 1630, or whatever, they really won't care. They'll enjoy spending time with their friends.

It is not a "Safeguarding issue", it is an issue of mild inconvenience. And those who say it is a "Safeguarding issue" are doing a massive disservice to those who are unfortunate enough to be actually experiencing a real one such as parental abuse (because most of the time it is parents and close family who do that kind of thing).

For using that phrasing the school should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Wombat]

I'm a bit confused. If the train arrives at the perfect time to suit kids alighting at one town, surely kids going to other schools along the line will necessarily arrive at an imperfect time. How do you run a train that gets all the kids to their various different schools at the perfect time without involving time-travel?

 

[Clip]

I'm a bit confused. If the train arrives at the perfect time to suit kids alighting at one town, surely kids going to other schools along the line will necessarily arrive at an imperfect time. How do you run a train that gets all the kids to their various different schools at the perfect time without involving time-travel?

You dont but thats got nowt to do with the kids from a posher school and their 'safe guarding' has it?

 

[Bantamzen]

I live in Ulverston!

There aren’t 200 kids that get the train home. 50/60 at most.
The station is a 5 minute walk from the school maximum. If rushed can be done in 2.

There is a bus to barrow which is slightly longer. Bus is more expensive too.

So if the school finishes at 15:30 there would be a 14 minute window to get to the station, certainly doesn't seem too much of an ask. I know when I was at school the bus specials left no later than 10 minutes after chucking out time so you made sure you didn't hang around!

 

[Starmill]

For using that phrasing the school should be ashamed of themselves.

The school have legal responsibilities in this area. While I agree with your view that in practical terms this is not really an issue, the school must do, or be seen to be doing, everything possible to keep their children safe. In the unlikely event that there were one of their students to come to some harm during this time, even if not actually linked to this change to train times, then you can bet that questions would be being asked of the school about why they hadn't acted. The school have really no choice but to follow the relevant rules and to try to accommodate best practice, to cover themselves from blame either from politicians, 'Daily Mail' types, or parents. So while you are right, I have much sympathy with their position.

 

[Bayum]

FWIW, on the "Safeguarding" topic, this shows how much the "Safeguarding industry" has progressed from actually protecting children from abuse and similar on towards justifying their own existence by "crying wolf" and causing anything that might mildly inconvenience a teenager or cause them to have to experience the big, nasty outside world for more than necessary to be considered a "Safeguarding issue".

Even if these teenagers (old enough to get the train to school themselves in what is a very safe area of the country indeed) have to sit outside somewhere from 0800 to 0830 and from 1530 to 1630, or whatever, they really won't care. They'll enjoy spending time with their friends.

It is not a "Safeguarding issue", it is an issue of mild inconvenience. And those who say it is a "Safeguarding issue" are doing a massive disservice to those who are unfortunate enough to be actually experiencing a real one such as parental abuse (because most of the time it is parents and close family who do that kind of thing).

For using that phrasing the school should be ashamed of themselves.

Safeguarding is not just about abuse. Safeguarding is about prevention, identifying those at risk, and reporting those instances. We don't safeguard children against abuse solely, we safeguard them in school through safe staff: pupil ratios, by having policies in place to prevent situations where children may come into harm within school itself. If the school deem it a risk through one reason or another, if it harms the child it is a safeguarding concern.

 

[transmanche]

They sent home the "Consultation" letter on last day of half term before the May holiday, for the change to take effect from September, so 6 working weeks

That's more than three months. Which a lot more than six weeks - closer to 15 weeks. Or are you just one of those people who incorrectly assume that nobody works in schools when the pupils are on holiday?

It is not a "Safeguarding issue", it is an issue of mild inconvenience.

Thus speaks somebody who clearly has no understanding of what safeguarding actually is...

 

[bb21]

The school have legal responsibilities in this area. While I agree with your view that in practical terms this is not really an issue, the school must do, or be seen to be doing, everything possible to keep their children safe. In the unlikely event that there were one of their students to come to some harm during this time, even if not actually linked to this change to train times, then you can bet that questions would be being asked of the school about why they hadn't acted. The school have really no choice but to follow the relevant rules and to try to accommodate best practice, to cover themselves from blame either from politicians, 'Daily Mail' types, or parents. So while you are right, I have much sympathy with their position.

Yeah pretty much.

Let's see how much the school governing body do in respect of these concerns in the next few weeks, eh? I'm interested in seeing what would be done in the event Northern's timetables cannot be changed, which they can't now.

Time to put words into actions.