Streetlife

As I understood it from a conversation on here about a year back the council were only proposing to cut their funding for lollipop persons because most local schools had confirmed that they had funds available to provide them instead?

And since the schools are funded by the government too this all seems fairly uninteresting and circular to me.

Has anything changed?  Is it actually the case that there won't be lollipop people or just that they'll now be working for the schools whose pupils they serve?

They still work for the council not the schools, but they have been asked by the council to contribute to their costs as the schools have funds available. If the schools refuse, as some have, then the service is withdrawn. The council maintains that schools have had sufficient funds given them and should be able to contribute. I am not giving my point of view on this or my sympathies. These are just the facts as the council has laid down. They say that it is the parents responsibility to get children to school safely. I would have thought that frontline road safety for children is one of the more pressing issues for councils.

Shouldnt parents be responsible for safe crossings ? I mean , cmon.....you need a person to man a pedestrian crossing when road rules say that vehicles have to stop there anyways . And if parents are with the kids , they should be taking responsibility for teaching kids . How are we ever teach our kids to be repsonsible for themselves if we keep spoon feeding them ..

Crossing patrols were essential once upon a time when most children walked to school by themselves. I doubt that many kids do that now, and that their parents would let them even if there was a patrol on every corner. I agree that too many parents ferry their offspring to school by car, and it would be better for all concerned if they all walked, but that's a separate issue and as someone's already said, if parents are with their kids they should take the responsbility for them crossing the road safely, and more importantly teach them about road safety.  The council can help more by introducing (and enforcing) lower speed limits near schools and enforcing school hours parking restrictions, by adding crossing lights in suitable places and adding other speed calming measures.

I think it important we consider the cost - benefit here......not just the ease of cutting spending.

School crossing patrols I think are a big part in road safety training. I also believe they are a fantastic little centre of community (something sadly lacking in London). Good lolipop ladies are loved by kids. I see this at the end of Northcote Rd every day. I reckon it is well worth the (say) 20 quid a day it costs.

the earlier post is right - parents and residents dont care which budget it comes out of - te are paying any which-way.

Easy to cut - difficult to replace.

Responding
to the comments sofar, I would just add:

 1.       Only 14 of the 44 Wandsworth schools
affected have indicated they may be able to make a contribution to the cost of
School Crossing Patrols; that does not mean they can afford to foot the entire
bill.

2.       Almost all school funds from the
public purse is tied money, and may not be spent on non-directly educational
purposes like children getting to school safely.

3.       If Wandsworth Borough were to follow
the dozens of local authorities elsewhere in the country and introduce a 20mph
speed limit on all local residential and shopping streets (ie excluding the
bigger arterial roads controlled by Transport for London), much of the need for
School Crossing Patrols would fall away.

 Robert
Molteno (Wandsworth Living Streets)

In Canada, a 15mph traffic speed limit is in place for several blocks around schools on school days and during certain hours, along with plenty of stop signs (annoying on weekends!) and they are strictly enforced with on the spot fines and points. I know because I was once stopped for going 18mph! In San Francisco, whole residential neighbourhoods (similar to the area 'between the commons') have a 15mph speed limit 24 hrs/day every day of the week! You soon get used to a slower, more careful way of watching out for both the young and old! In this area, where I've lived for 20+ years, I find it amusing to see that lollipop people stop traffic for kids even when their parents are walking with them. I'm not sure what a good solution would be here, but I do think more emphasis needs to be placed on slower, safer driving.

Slow speeds are key to both childrens' safety and the parents' fear of safety for their children (allowing them walk to school or learn and explore independently). Whilst simultaneously lower speeds will reduce the fear of other vulnerable users such as the elderly from walking or cycling, and therefore reduce traffic as well. 

As has been mentioned, sometimes the crossing patrol person has more than a functional role as they become a recognizable and enjoyed part of the local school community. They make a positive contribution to child's well-being whilst reassuring parents of their childs' safety.

Are those who say that parents should take children to school the same people who criticise those who live on benefits?  If you are working normal office hours, how do you take one child to nursery, one to primary school and get to work on time?  You would have to leave work early in order to pick the children up again.  It's fine if you have an au pair to take your child, not so fine if you haven't.

Thanks, Jane - makes sense. Of course each child should know the "stop, look, listen" codes, but I don't understand how parents are meant to be responsible for road safety. This is like the campaign aimed at children which said - "don't let your friend die on the road" - so are teenagers now responsible for road accidents??
 
Speed limits would definitely help. Hope to see alot of you at the Town Hall meeting about this on Wednesday 11th... Thanks, Linda

Hi Linda
Thanks for this. Do you know when the meeting is? I would like to attend as I am a lollipop lady.

7pm, hope to see you there!

In Spain they 'police' their schools logistics. The police supervise the school run. What a splendid  extension of the community police to this

THere's an ePetition at http://ww3.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=55&RPID=2433860&HPID=2433860

Wow! 284 people have signed the petition in just two days!

http://ww3.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=55&RPID=2433860&HPID=2433860 

Jane E, Many schools have school clubs for working parents before and after school which is what working parents without au pair or another form of childcare tend to use.  It depends on the age of child of course but I doubt I would want my child walking to school by themselves below the age of 10.  Lollipop ladies (and men) are a great part of the community and it would be a shame to see them go but I suppose it comes down to what else might have to be sacrificed instead and whether that would be worse than losing the lollipop ladies.  I think in locations where there is quite a lot of traffic and no other type of crossing they are more essential because otherwise the number of children (and parents) waiting to cross could build up on the pavement into quite a crowd before there is a gap in the traffic.  That could get quite dangerous. 

I have just been doing some number crunching to put the costs into perspective.  Wandsworth put their monthly expenditure on line.  Wandsworth claim they need to save £70 million (without explanation).  The savings for taking staff away from Adventure Playgrounds and School Crossing Patrols (keeping children safe) is £460,000 a year.  The cost of replacing the Adventure Playground equipment is £500,000.

To put this into context: in March WBC spent £500,000 on trees.  They spent £2.5 million on furniture and £1.5 million on agency staff and advertising for staff.  The total cost in March was over £450 million. (compared to £17 million in February and £11 million in April).  To me, that would indicate that there are cuts to be made elsewhere and that in March departments were spending like crazy before the end of the financial year.  I have only looked at some headings, not all.

This makes the cuts to the safety of young people look particularly perverse and unpleasant.

Tony Belton has kindly pointed out that there was a one off payment to the Government in respect of housing in March.  This accounted for over £400 million.  However, even adjusting for that, the expenditure in March was £7.5 million more than in April and nearly £5 million more than January.

Unfortunately Jane's analysis of our financial situation contains some very misleading information and some important omissions.

She claims that, according to the information she has gleaned from our website, we spent £2.5m on "furniture" in March.

The figures she cites are freely available for all to see on our website under a heading clearly entitled "Equipment and Furniture"  - and while we did spend £2.5m in March, this included a whole range of miscellaneous items like scaffolding hire, playground equipment, books for schools, spare parts for council vehicles, occupational therapy equipment for the homes of disabled people and many general items needed to repair and renew properties occupied by council tenants.

She also accuses council departments of "spending like crazy" but omits to say that of the £450 million spent that month, £433 million was a single payment to the Government under new national rules ending the old council housing subsidy arrangements.

Wandsworth: your argument does not take into account the increase in the  categories in March.  Whatever is included in the category of "Equipment and furniture" there was a sharp increase in expenditure from £888k to £2.5 million and then a drop to £195k in April.  The increase from February to March is about the same as the annual cost of the School Crossing Patrols.

Well said, Jane E