AFTER sending a request to 12 school headteachers to find up to £8,000 from their budgets to save school crossing patrols, Thurrock Council has admitted it has been considering an alternative plan to bring in volunteers – without telling the schools.

The controversial move to slash the cost of running 'lollipop men and women' at 18 dangerous points across the borough has sparked deep concern among residents.

Last month Nub News revealed that the council had contacted schools and crossing patrol staff and told them the service was at risk.

Thurrock Nub News has now had sight of the letter to schools, which says the council proposes to axe the service unless the schools come up with funds to pay for it.

The letter produces a number of anomalies and contradictions with previous statements, disparities over figures, costs and savings projects and raises a number of further questions.

The letter was sent by the council's Transportation Services Strategic Lead, Mat Kiely.

It says: "Unfortunately the school crossing patrol is a discretionary provision and savings have been identified in the current year's budget which, if implemented, will lead to the service having its funding withdrawn.

"Unless alternative funding is identified the service is currently proposed to be withdrawn from the end of the summer term.

"There may be an opportunity for the service to continue if funding can be secured through alternative sources. Therefore I am writing to you to ask whether you wish to fund the service to maintain your local school crossing.

"In total a sum of £8,000 would be needed per annum to maintain each school crossing patrol site with one officer. This will cover the cost of the officer and any necessary uniform and training costs.

"Since the powers for stopping traffic by a school crossing patrol can only be conducted by the local authority, if funding can be identified, the service would continue to be managed on your behalf by Thurrock Council and staff would remain employees of the council.

"It may be possible that you can identify sponsors who would assist you in meeting the cost of the service. If you can identify potential sponsors, we will be happy to work with you to explore this further.

"I thank you for your understanding, I would be grateful for your confirmation if the school would be able to allocate the full funding to support your school crossing patrol officer of if you are able to identify a sponsor by emailing the Transport Development team."

Mr Kiely - a strategic lead who it is believed is paid between £66,363 and £76,992 according to the council's pay bracketing - makes no mention of the council looking towards the voluntary sector as an alternative means of provision.

And his statement that the cost of £8,000 includes all costs including training and uniform appear to be rebutted by a later statement from the council.

Thurrock Nub News contacted the council for a statement in the wake of the sending of the letter and contact being made with crossing patrol officers, who were told their jobs are at risk.

The patrol officers are paid, Nub News understands, £4,836 a year.

We asked about the apparent financial disparity in costs. In March the council said it was reviewing the service in the hope of making savings in the forthcoming year of £45,000.

There are currently 18 crossing patrol services at borough schools, though four have been vacant for a long time. Two schools have two crossings. If, as Mr Kiely appears to suggest that the cost per person is £8K, that would suggest an annual cost of £144,000. If the cuts come in at the end of July, that would suggest a saving in the current financial year of £96k, but that is not the case says the council.

We also asked for clarity on a previous council statement which said: "No decision on the future of school crossing patrols has been made, any decision will be made through the council's democratic governance processes."

We suggested that was not in keeping with the wording or nature of the letter to schools which suggested the decision was made and the schools were being given an ultimatum – not to take part in any review or consultation.

This was the council's response, in which it admits it deliberately chose not to tell schools all of the possible options:

"The letter, and introductory email, sent to headteachers explains that these are proposals, any decision on the future of school crossing patrols will be made through the council's democratic governance processes.

"The safety and welfare of pupils will be paramount in that decision making process.

"The letter was sent to make sure the 12 affected schools knew about the proposals and ask if they could help with any alternative provision.

"The council is exploring provision by the voluntary sector, so it was not something which it was felt needed to be included in the letter to head teachers at this stage. "Further communication with schools will provide more specific details as proposals progress and decisions are made.

"The £45,000 saving you have quoted from the March 2023 Council paper is accurate, this reflects the 2023/24 savings which are being proposed mid-year.

"The salary you have quoted* is for one specific employee only and does not include pension contributions, training and uniform costs or the costs the council bears for additional administration for school crossing patrol guards.

"As such any attempt to calculate service costs based on a single salary will be incorrect. The figure provided to schools takes all of these other costs into account."

The council added:

• ·        there are 16 schools that currently have crossing patrols, two schools have two crossing patrols each – these are the 18 sites mentioned on our website.
• ·        four of these sites are not currently covered by patrols as those roles have been vacant for a long period, but they are still checked for criteria.
• ·        there are currently 11 school crossing patrol guards employed by the council and three vacancies.

*Editor's note: This is the £8,000 we referred back to the council from Mr Kiely's letter)

COMMENT:

Thurrock Nub News finds the council's response bemusing.

This is an authority that has spoken, from the very top downwards, about how it is now committed to openness, honesty and transparency.

Yet this issue has exposed the fact that the council has deliberately chosen not to tell the story of its options to schools – presumably in the hope they will panic schools into coughing up £8,000 for each crossing.

It is astonishing that Mr Kiely does not disclose the full picture to schools to allow them to make an informed choice.

It is shocking that the council is trying to pretend this is a review and no decisions have been made when Mr Kiely makes it quite clear that the schools have no choice – it's pay up or lose the service.

The integrity of the decision-making process at Thurrock Council continues to perplex and frustrate residents and council-watchers alike.