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

mrcow

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

Doesn't matter whether it's discrimination - it's illegal to refuse to provide a child with part of the National Curriculum,

Under which law is that?

Since when has it ever been against the law to not follow the national curriculum?

blabberwort

mrcow wrote: »

You haven't answered the question.

What's the "discrimination" you've referred to?

If you seriously cant see it then im not wasting my time explaining any further. I feel your deliberately being obtuse and it's boring and adds nothing to the thread.

blabberwort

mrcow wrote: »

Under which law is that?

Since when has it ever been against the law to not follow the national curriculum?

My OH works in a school and has always been told that they HAVE to follow the national curriculum. It's the first thing school inspectors look for when looking at a school. The only exception in his school is key stage 4 as they have chosen their subjects.

mrcow

blabberwort wrote: »

If you seriously cant see it then im not wasting my time explaining any further. I feel your deliberately being obtuse and it's boring and adds nothing to the thread.

No - you just can't answer it that's all. Calling me names may make you feel better, but it hardly props up a decent argument. There is no discrimination here. The parent is choosing of their own free will to make a stand against the swimming lesson costs and that's up to them.

If the child is not then allowed to partake in the activities, what form of discrimination is that?

mrcow

blabberwort wrote: »

My OH works in a school and has always been told that they HAVE to follow the national curriculum. It's the first thing school inspectors look for when looking at a school. The only exception in his school is key stage 4 as they have chosen their subjects.

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.

blabberwort

mrcow wrote: »

No - you just can't answer it that's all. Calling me names may make you feel better, but it hardly props up a decent argument. There is no discrimination here. The parent is choosing of their own free will to make a stand against the swimming lesson costs and that's up to them.

If the child is not then allowed to partake in the activities, what form of discrimination is that?

Okay I will bite one last time but I hold no hope in proving my point simply because you choose not to see it.

Voluntary contribution = given willingly with no repurcussions to those who choose not to. The parent chooses not to give a voluntary contributon, child is not allowed to partake in a lesson because of it. The child has not been asked to pay for it yet it's the child effectively being punished.

I can answer it, I have answered it and thats the last time I will bite
If you cant understand it that is not my fault.

Lunar_Eclipse

mrcow wrote: »

If the child is not then allowed to partake in the activities, what form of discrimination is that?

It would be financial discrimination against those whose parents do not pay for the activity in question. It is clearly discrimination, but in this case, given that swimming is a statutory curriculum requirement for KS 2, I doubt the school will exclude the child.

Interestingly, at our school all children are tested at the beginning of Y5 to check they can swim the 25m, tread water etc as per the requirements and only those who do not pass, are offered extra lessons. A voluntary contribution of £5 was requested for this test.

Additionally, a voluntary contribution is then requested for the extra lessons, since the school say they do not have a 'swimming pot' that is allocated directly to 'swimming', but that they have an overall budget and allocate in relation to their priorities. No-one in the current Y5 at my daughter's school (136 children) needed lessons, which I suspect is why they don't budget for it. Not sure what the LEA would say about it though.

looby-loo_2

What about the child's father? Could he not make a contribution?

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

The Education Reform Act 1988 requires that all state students be taught a Basic Curriculum of Religious Education and the National Curriculum.

Swimming activities and water safety must be chosen as one of these areas of activity unless pupils have completed the full key stage 2 teaching requirements in relation to swimming activities and water safety during key stage 1. (quoting from http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/key-stages-1-and-2/subjects/physical-education/keystage2/index.aspx which seems pretty unambiguous to me)

This states that children must learn to swim in the new curriculum as well.

Swimming lessons are part of the National Curriculum. State Schools must follow the National Curriculum. Ergo, State Schools must provide swimming lessons.

State education is free at the point of delivery. State Education follows the national curriculum. Swimming lessons are part of the national curriculum. Provision of the national curriculum is free at the point of delivery. Ergo, swimming lessons as part of the national curriculum are free.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

rsdiscos

Please speak to the headteacher. The school is trying to make sure the budget balances if possible if people can contribute. You would find it diificult as there is no spare cash in your budget. The conversation you have with the head should be confidential. The teachers attitude is a bit odd, your child should be able to take part whether you are able to pay or not.