school 'demanding' voluntary contribution, income sub £16,000

sp1987

The principle of 'voluntary' to me is as important as the principle of ensuring activities go ahead.

I only have a newborn so can't comment on whether at x a time I will be able to afford this activity or that, but I would hope that if I was unfortunate enough to be in a position where money was tight that my child would not be penalised for my financial position, especially in a state school.

If I was in the position to pay 'voluntary' contributions I certainly would do, regardless of legal obligation, if I felt they would benefit my son. However, I would hate to find that my position could affect something as important as my child learning to swim. Pressurising parents who do not know that 'voluntary' means just that is very unfair. I would certainly endeavour to make the point on behalf of other children even if I was able to pay and was paying regardless. If it is something that is designated as needing to be taught, why should poorer children (whos parents are less able to provide outside lessons so are less likely to be able to swim) those penalised for their parents not paying?

DaisyFlower

Its very sad that schools and teachers are being made out to be the bad guys, do people really want children sat at desks all day? Trips, fairs etc all make the children have hands on fun and learning and its saddening to see how many simply dont or wont pay.

Why have children and then expect others to fund them?

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

DaisyFlower wrote: »

Its very sad that schools and teachers are being made out to be the bad guys, do people really want children sat at desks all day? Trips, fairs etc all make the children have hands on fun and learning and its saddening to see how many simply dont or wont pay.

Why have children and then expect others to fund them?

What about those who can't pay? Or those who feel that painting the corridor where visitors to the school sit (no children allowed there) is so important that the school is prepared to refuse part of their obligation to teach the national curriculum (for which they have received funding) in preference?

I can remember back in the Dark Ages that all my music lessons were free, as was the loan of a £500 musical instrument, uniform consisted of 'wear a warm jumper' and we all got milk in the mornings. We also had books and free after school clubs with no 'voluntary' contributions. Practically every parent worked hard for the PTA/benefit of the school, as they did so much whilst asking for so little. At high school, we got paper, books, textbooks, a free calculator, free music and again, tons of free clubs.

These days, everything's got a price. The sweatshirt is worth £2, but costs £18. The tie is £14.

Then we get to high school. There are lists of approved bags, shoes, hairbands, socks, pens, pencils, paper, calculators, everything other than the actual showing up and speaking in front of the class has a price that must be paid in advance. In DD1's school, she never had a textbook - they were mythical prizes kept locked away by the teacher in the Cupboard.

****

The point is that the school is making threats for one of the few things they are not allowed to charge for. Parents pay for everything else these days, so getting snippy about something they shouldn't be charging for is wrong.

poppy-glos

Thanks everyone, particularly skintandsad and spendless. I had penned a letter but it was disjointed, so i have started again with your suggestions and it has helped me keep to the point.

Poppy x

daska

mrcow wrote: »

Key stage 4 follows the national curriculum.

It's not against the law for any child to not follow the national curriculum. It's not even the law that children have to attend an actual school.

It's true that you don't legally have to send your child to school however ALL state and maintained schools have to follow the national curriculum in the compulsory subjects. Swimming and water safety/survival are compulsory parts of PE curriculum between Key Stages One and Two. To prevent a child from receiving education in a compulsory subject would be illegal and Most schools have funds to help families on low incomes pay for activities outside the national curriculum, therefore to demand payment for and to prevent a child receiving education in a compulsory subject due to parent funding would most definitely be discrimination on the basis of low income.

MissMoneypenny

Becles wrote: »

When I first became a single parent, my total income from wages, tax credits and child benefit was aoround £10K.

When I became a single parent, there were no tax credits. Now the welfare state is providing tax credits to help the children, yet some parents seem to see this as their money.

Why can't the swiming lesson money come out of the child's benefit money (tax credit and child benefit)?

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Why can't the swiming lesson money come out of the child's benefit money (tax credit and child benefit)?

Er - because it's illegal to charge for it?

[Deleted User]

deannatrois wrote: »

I was given a letter by my son asking for £3.30 for fares to the Birmingham Bull Ring for Business Studies, a trip that is happening today. Problem is, I have had my money cut, had bought food for the week and nothing was left. Plus its not just £3.30 for fares, the letter directed us to provide money for food.., not sandwiches for a packed lunch.., so that was an extra £5.., and I know full well if I gave him sandwiches, it would make him 'different' so cause yet more teasing at school.

Now I was fortunate.., my benefits mess was sorted out thank gawd, so was able to provide the money but if it hadn't been, the trip would not have been possible.., even tho the school were only asking for £3.30.., I didn't have it at such short notice (3 working days).

From her post, the OP is concerned about not only the amount of voluntary contributions she is being asked to make, but particularly about the little amount of notice a person of limited means is being given by the school. I find the same. Sometimes u are given a week's notice.., but usually its less. A month would make it far easier to budget for anything costing more than £10.

Re my earlier post.., I was a good girl, I sent my son in with the £5 for lunch in one plastic wallet and £3.30 in another. He came home saying that the point of the whole trip had been for them to go shopping and make an assessment of customer services.., for which he needed yet more money (so he could buy something apparently)??????

Is the world insane? A whole day to do something I do most days of the week and take my son with me at least twice a week (to buy things I actually need).., and he had to be taken from Wolverhampton to the Bullring in Birmingham to do it?

An additional problem was that my son is a little autistic.., has aspergers and was totally confused by the whole thing. According to him, 2/3 of the kids, however, were also in the same situation.., no money to buy anything with because they hadn't been told this was on the agenda.

On top of this, they were given no guidance on buying lunch.., how to spend wisely (i.e. not go to Burger King cause its expensive) and he ended up getting a happy meal cause £5 wasn't enough. Good teaching practice would have allowed the teacher to teach some reality economics about where to shop to get something on a limited budget. I sooo wish I had gone with them.

The world has truly gone crazy.

poppy-glos

I wanted to update everyone on the outcome, a letter from the head.

The head said clearly it is a voluntary contribution that was being requested, and my daughter would attend whether i paid or not.

In the same converstation with the teacher where she said i needed to pay, and although it said it was voluntary that was just what they had to write, we also discussed the swimming school being used and if i was happy to use that one (as it is one i have removed my daughter from on the lessons i buy out of school time). The head has clarified that she told me that if i was not happy with the instructor my daughter would be taken and sat on the side to watch (as i may not want the teacher), (this is not my memory of the conversation but may be what she meant). The head added this was incorrect and the school chose competent teachers and if parents are unhappy with the teacher chosen they should be directed to speak with the head rather than the child removed from the activity. Fair enough.

This morning, i have sent in an contribution for the next school fundraiser, and will continue to contribute to fundraising for the school.

When the next voluntary contribution letter arrives, i may ask that the school consider putting a line like
'i enclose/do not enclose £xxx voluntary contribution for this activity' rather than a line that says 'i enclose £xxx voluntary contribution for this activity' as i wonder how many parents are aware that voluntary means just that, and have not the confidence to put a line through that statement but still sign the consent for the child to participate in the activity, provided in school time, as part of their education.

Thanks everyone.

poppy x

Spendless

Pleased to hear you got in sorted poppy. :T Did the HT clarify why parents were being asked to voluntary contribute to something that is part of the National Cirriculum (just nosiness here -lol:p)?