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

blabberwort

Im curious where paying for our children to do the curriculum ends. Does it end at swimming or is this just the beginning? Should all those parents whom children go to a schhol with a pool have to pay for the upkeep of it, should we be paying for sports equiptment in schools because our children use it?

By not allowing the girl to go swimming the school is basically ostrisizing (sp) her from her peers. Thats disgusting and should not be acceptable. To some people it may only be £3 a week to others its as someone rightly pointed out a meal. As for using cb for it no the money isnt given to fund to school activities on the curriculum, it's to pay for things IN YOUR HOMELIFE that your child needs.

Also people are missing the point, it's meant to be voluntary. How is it a voluntary payment if it means that if your unable to pay then your child isnt allowed to participate. What they should have done is at the begining of the year given parents the choice to decide if they wanted to send their child swimming. Oh wait no, it's expected because it's on the curriculum. In which case why the heck are parents being asked to pay for it. The school gets given a budget for different departments, I would assume swimming comes under pe. If so the money should come from the pe dept budget.

That is the point of budgets, to pay and work out what activities can be included and what equiptment can be bought BEFORE donations. If swimming is on the curriculum then it is included in the budget simple as that.

I find it appaling that people who are able to pay are getting antsy about those who cant. Im sorry but when I pay for things like school trips (which are not part of the curriculum) I dont sit there and think well im not paying because fred bloggs down the road isnt paying. What sort of attitude is that. The school has a fund to cover people who are unable to pay for things, if there are more parents unable to pay than there are who can they shouldnt be doing the activity.

School is meant to be free education bar the extras, swimming is not an extra and as such should be free.

bylromarha

I think the school are sending very mixed messages on this.

I agree it's on the national curriculum, so the school HAS to teach her it.

I agree that a voluntary contribution should be just that, a choice.

I don't understand why the school will take her along to swimming pool, but then make her sit out when a class for 1 is the same teacher time as a class for 6?

But, I also don't understand OP, if money is so tight to be unable to afford an extra £3 a week for a few weeks, why is a £20 per month DD for private swimming lessons for her an essential?

Spendless

gingin wrote: »

It seems like you are very unlucky in Gloucestershire.

According to various articles I found, four out of five councils in England fund free swimming for under 16's, however, in Gloucestershire, central Gloucester is the only area to offer this.

It's a shame there is such a disparity between areas in the country. I think it's worth creating a stink, even if only to encourage them to change the "voluntary" aspect of it.

and I think this post explains where the problem is lying. Often it is only when people 'protest' that you ever stand any chance of change. Something that is on the national cirriculum shouldn't be charged for as others have said. I'd be very tempted to stick to my guns on this OP. Your child won't miss out on swimming in itself as you already pay for private lessons, I suppose my own other thing would be what about your child, is s/he going to be ok with not going with the rest of her clasmates? (ie is she of an age to understand what youa re saying or is going to hate your 'stance' on this and possibly be affected?).

mrcow

blabberwort wrote: »

By not allowing the girl to go swimming the school is basically ostrisizing (sp) her from her peers. Thats disgusting and should not be acceptable. To some people it may only be £3 a week to others its as someone rightly pointed out a meal.

It's not in the OPs case though where they are quite happily paying more for private swimming lessons (without transport presumably?) anyway. The opening post started as a plea through affordability, when it's become clearer through the thread that this is less about affordability and more about principal.

In which case, at least be honest about it. There is a difference between being able to pay and not wanting to pay. If the OP shouldn't pay, then why should anyone? And if that's the case, then no one will end up going - the school just won't provide that as part of their offering.

Spendless

mrcow wrote: »

It's not in the OPs case though where they are quite happily paying more for private swimming lessons (without transport presumably?) anyway. The opening post started as a plea through affordability, when it's become clearer through the thread that this is less about affordability and more about principal.

In which case, at least be honest about it. There is a difference between being able to pay and not wanting to pay. If the OP shouldn't pay, then why should anyone? And if that's the case, then no one will end up going - the school just won't provide that as part of their offering.

I don't think it's a case of not being honest, maybe more of a case of not really understanding why they are cross. That only became clearer when people 'picked up' on this aspect.
No, I don't think the OP should pay, for a compulsory part of the cirriculum, especially since 80% of children don't who live in other area of the country (gingins post) and part of the county the OP is in don't.
I'm not even sure it's 'the school' the OP should be getting cross at. I think it's her LA.

shellsuit

I paid for both my children to have private swimming lessons, but they still had to go along with school to learn, even though they could already swim.

Personally, I don't think that is fair on the children who can't swim and who want and need to learn.

We didn't have to pay but I'm assuming that was because the sports centre is right behind the school or maybe because where I live, swimming is free for children in all council pools.

poppy-glos

thanks all, i have read and digested.

Yes, i do have the money to budget it at a weekly cost, but i am also 'cross' at what seems like constant demands for money coming from school, hence deciding to have a think about it and ask for advice on here.

My decision (i think) is i continue with my daughters lessons she goes to out of school time (which i feel are important hence budget for) and if school wish her to not attend their swim classes if i don't pay the voluntary contribution then I'll have a conversation with them about her staying in school and doing something constructive rather than going to watch. I also have no idea apart from the eight weeks this term (next week through to 20th july) what is offered swimming wise at school, i'll check this out as if a year of swimming is offered then perhaps i should stop her swimming lessons we do out of school.

I'm going to ask the school to write to me with information of the manatory and voluntary contribution bills they are intending to send between now and april 2010. That way, perhaps i can have a dialogue with the teacher beforehand and if i do not want to pay for the bills they send me then the teacher will know in advance my daughter will not attend if it is contribution dependant.

I am also considering writing to the school regarding the wording of their charge/contribution letters, as the principle of free national curriculum in school time seems not to be the case here, where voluntary contributions are expected. I'll need to mull over how and when i do this as conflict does cause me stress, but then i get to the point i'm so cross at their practice i can't help myself!

thanks all again, good 'food for thought' in the debate here.

Thanks also for the offers of radicalising my budget so i can afford it, as i noticed in marks 50p experiment people were crossreferencing his posts to his grocery challenge, so if anyone already has, yes, i do spend more than £12 for each of us a week,...
..so ultimately i guess it is a little budget plus more about principle for me today.

tooldle

Are the school providing some transport, and is this what they are asking you to pay for? When we are asked for "voluntary" contributions, it is mainly to cover transport costs. The kids could of course walk, and in my opinion should, however there is an outcry if they are expected to walk a distance that takes more than 5 mins, or any distance at all in the rain. The school budget does not allow extra for the cost of the transport.

mrcow

Spendless wrote: »

That only became clearer when people 'picked up' on this aspect.
No, I don't think the OP should pay, for a compulsory part of the cirriculum,

But since when have coach/minibus rides been part of the curriculum? The school aren't charging for the teachers' time or for organising it. They are asking for the extra costs to be covered. If they can't be covered, then no one can go.

In your argument, the school would be being penalised for not having a pool within walking distance.

In your argument (say there are 90 children per year group), the school would have to pay over £3000 out of their budgets just so 1/7 of the school could go swimming for 8 hours in order to tick a box on their offerings.

How can that be logical?

It's all very well for one parent to dig their heels in, but if everyone does it, who is losing out?

code-a-holic

Id be annoyed at being asked to pay for the swimming lessons in school time. Im used to not having to pay for mine to go, and they travel the 20 mile round trip to the swimming pool by coach. It didnt cost parents when i was a pupil at the school and is still the case. I have learned something new today - that swimming is part of the curriculum. I paid for my son to have private lessons until he was 7 and would go with school. I paid over £200 on lessons and he couldnt swim. 2 years with school - he still cant swim. Poor boy!

Voluntary contributions in general do annoy me as the wording in the letter usually indicates otherwise.
A upcoming event has annoyed me. Children must raise at least £10 for a sponsered walk or they can not take part in the entertainment afterwards. grrr