Cruel School?

tanmu

I think what this nursery did is appalling and I feel sorry for those poor children being singled out publically because their parents couldn't/wouldn't pay. I agree entirely with other posters who have said that education should be all inclusive and based on potential, not ability to pay.

Just last week there was a school trip which my two children went on. The letter asked for a voluntary contribution of £5 (all fees are stated as voluntary contributions so as not to cause embarrassment to those who can't afford to pay). We recently moved house and paid out thousands this last month - I had just £10 left in my account until I got paid today. I couldn't afford to make a contribution this time (the only time I haven't paid) as I knew that we were low on food and I also didn't want to have not even a penny to my name for the next week. My children were still allowed on the trip and the rest of the parents were none the wiser.

At our school there is a lot of fundraising activity by the PTA and this means that a lot of trips and activities are either entirely free, or only cost a small amount (which is always termed a 'voluntary contribution). The annual trip to the panto is always paid for by the PTA and so is the annual summer BBQ.

Just as I was unable to pay this time yet my children went on the trip, I wouldn't mind if next time there was another child who was allowed to go because his/her parents hadn't paid - for whatever reason. This cut throat, dog-eat-dog attitude is disheartening. Yes, life isn't fair and we should all pay our own way and work hard, but sometimes, however hard we work, however much we do there isn't always enough to go around - and that's when human kindness steps in. I am prepared to do my bit to help, because I know there have been times when I myself have needed a hand.

clairehi

Why should the 3 year olds suffer because of their parents' oversight, meanness or inability to pay?

Taking them out was cruel amd unnecessary.

If this is a state school, questions could be asked about the school denying kids the opportunity to take part in activities which are part of the school day (even if not strictly speaking part of the curriculum).

at our school, all requests for money for trips etc are worded carefully to say they are voluntary, and anyone in genuine financial difficulty can ask at the office to have their contribution paid from the schools emergency fund - but the point is made that the trip will not go ahead if not enough parents will pay.

miss_independent

I understand how it does seem terrible to send just a couple of children out and I'm not sure I could have done it but as someone who works with children, sadly, I can understand why they did it.

If you have sent a letter out asking for £5 so a child can watch a show and the majority of parents pay then you can't just let people who haven't paid have the same privilege. The show was a treat and one that had to be paid for and the trouble is if you let other children in for free then you end up having the parents of the children who did pay coming along and having arguments with you. I'm only young myself but I'm afraid I have become cynical very quickly with regards to parents, it would seem you can't do right for doing wrong and at every given opportunity certain parents seem to accuse you of making money of out them.

I teach at a dance and drama school, other schools ask up to over a £100 for certain costumes and the first year I taught I asked parents to provide a pair of reindeer antlers from the Pound Shop (six weeks in advance) for the christmas show. The attitude from parents was disgusting and shocking. Some would rather pull their child out of the show rather than pay £1 for a pair of reindeer antlers and then I had to do deal with 3 year olds crying because mummy and daddy wouldn't let them do the christmas show. So what did I do? I went out and bought some extra pairs (bearing in mind I was still a teenager myself and really was cash strapped) and gave them to the children whose parents "couldn't afford" the £1 (yet could afford booze, takeaways and holidays to Dubai, Magaluf, Florida etc and designer clothes for the kids). Then what happened? The parents who did buy the antlers found out and several came at the end of the lesson verbally attacking me, "How come they didn't have to buy them but we did. That's not on! We're pulling our child out of dance classes and going somewhere else." So you can see what the staff would have had to face. The parents only have themselves to blame in this case.

Like me, the staff at the school would have had to deal with this thing loads of times. I once was accused of running a money making scam because I asked for the dance exam fees to be paid - I don't make a penny from the exam fees they go straight to the Royal Academy of Dance and if you don't want to pay don't send your child to a dance exam class. I had a mother tell me two weeks before a show that I would have to rearrange the christmas show because her child was going out for a family dinner that night (which had already been paid for). So I was supposed to rebook the venue, tell 70 kids and their parents that the show was taking place another night and re-book stage technicians, volunteers etc because she overbooked her diary? She knew about the show at least two months before and had returned a permission slip saying her child could do the show. And don't even get me started on paying for classes! "I forgot my purse can I pay next week?" goes on for 6 weeks, then you invoice them, they accuse you of trying to make money and then pull the child out the school. Well I'm sorry, I do a job just like you, I work bloody hard, I care about the kids and I'm good at what I do - do you expect me to do it for free? I already do alot for free, lesson planning, research, making costumes, waiting for an hour after class with a child because their dad "forgot" to pick them up plus extra rehearsals etc but I have to eat and have somewhere to sleep too!

If you let the £5 for the show go by the wayside, then where do you draw the line? If you have financial problems then make the school aware so they can give you plenty of time to put the money aside (25p a week?) but the same parents who refuse to pay can't moan when their child can't do the activity.

I can guarantee that when the child grows up, they won't be thinking the school were cruel but (unless they really were in complete poverty) they might see that their parents couldn't be bothered to save up £5 for them. Although I have to say OP, asking for nearly £20 over a two week period for extra activities is a bit much. I'd get hung, drawn and quartered if I asked for that!

tanmu

I see your point miss_independent, but in this instance, the other parents and children would have been none the wiser. The very act of taking the kids out of the activity drew uneccessary attention to those children and their situation. And if it is truly a case of parents not paying because they can't be bothered, then embarassing and upsetting the children won't make those kind of parents pay. And if it's the case that the parents simply couldn't afford it that particular time, then unecessary embarassment and hurt could be caused to both the children involved and the parents. For the sake of a few children and an activity that was going to run depsite their non-payment, this was a step too far IMO

balletshoes

I think you need to get tougher miss independent regarding your dance school etc - my daughter's dance school has been telling us in writing since January about the show this coming October - months ago we had to pay £30 up front with the signed consent form, which commits us to making sure the children are at every dance class for 4 weeks before the show, plus the 2 full dress rehearsals. We've all been told in writing more than once now that if our child can't commit to this, they won't be in the show - end of. Next week we will also start getting billed for the rest of the cost of the show costumes - my daughter is in 4 classes, will have 3 costumes provided by the dance school, so I guess I will be getting billed for around another £60.

None of this is a shock or surprise, as we are regularly informed in writing and by email, and at the end of the day, this is a choice we make as parents, sending our children to this type of activity.

Wish I could say I have the same level of communication with my daughters primary school - they have no website, and we often get circulars home in book bags (and I do check every night) which tell us about events etc coming up, with donations to be given etc, within a couple of days timeframe. Its not great at all, and I can understand why some parents would struggle to get the money together etc. It is my main bugbear with her school - I mention it on every parent questionnaire we get - and it hasn't improved.

Fang_3

vaio wrote: »

Thanks for explaining that, as I said before I don’t regard skiing as part of the education the school should be providing, add in how unpleasant it must be for the poor teachers and I really can’t see any argument for schools being involved.

It doesn't matter what you think. Schools across the country value the trips as beneficial.

vaio wrote: »

If they were stopped then maybe “the best teachers, who go above and beyond what they need to do” could work towards restarting the generally free lunch time & after school clubs which were common when I and my offspring were in school but seem to has disappeared in my grand kids school. All kids could participate rather than just those whose parents are willing and able to stump up three or five hundred quid plus and the bonus for the teachers is they don’t have to work 24/7.

They are common now. In the good schools. I suppose that generally the better schools attract the better teachers, and then the better pupils. You seem to be stuck on the example of the skiing trips, and you seem to have forgotten that other activities very rarely cost more than £10. Very, very few parents could not afford that.

vaio wrote: »

I repeat, if you want a better education than the child sitting next to you in an inclusive and free at the point of use state school then go into the private sector.

Or go to a better state school? Which is how the current system works.

vaio wrote: »

Interesting idea the kids of rich tax paying parents “deserving” better treatment in state schools, maybe we should extend the idea to other basic services like the NHS?

I wouldn't be opposed to it. I do think things that are above what is necessary to save lives should be restricted those people who have paid more into the system.

vaio wrote: »

There’s the “scum” word again, I think it would sound much better if it read “You should remember that state education is not free. Tax payers pay for it according to how rich they are so everyone can use it on an equal basis” as that more accurately reflects the inclusive system I want the state to provide.

That might be what you want, but it's not what the majority of the decent parents want.

vaio wrote: »

It’s a truism that the offspring of parents who get actively involved in their education are going to have a better academic outcome and even more so if the parents are well heeled but it not the job of schools the reinforce these advantages. The schools contribution to the education process should be as linked as possible to the potential of the child rather than the status/wealth of the parents.

It's certainly not the job of the school to counteract these advantages which is what you are suggesting. Which sounds very much like communism and has the same flaw. Very few would go up and benefit from higher standards, the majority would be dragged down by the scum.

Fang_3

tanmu wrote: »

I see your point miss_independent, but in this instance, the other parents and children would have been none the wiser. The very act of taking the kids out of the activity drew uneccessary attention to those children and their situation. And if it is truly a case of parents not paying because they can't be bothered, then embarassing and upsetting the children won't make those kind of parents pay. And if it's the case that the parents simply couldn't afford it that particular time, then unecessary embarassment and hurt could be caused to both the children involved and the parents. For the sake of a few children and an activity that was going to run depsite their non-payment, this was a step too far IMO

The parents were the ones that caused the scene by loudly refusing to pay.

vaio

miss_independent wrote: »

I understand how it does seem terrible to send just a couple of children out and I'm not sure I could have done it but as someone who works with children, sadly, I can understand why they did it........

.......I teach at a dance and drama school, other schools ask up to over a £100 for certain costumes and the first year I taught I asked parents to provide a pair of reindeer antlers from the Pound Shop (six weeks in advance) for the christmas show. The attitude from parents was disgusting and shocking. Some would rather pull their child out of the show rather than pay £1 for a pair of reindeer antlers and then I had to do deal with 3 year olds crying because mummy and daddy wouldn't let them do the christmas show. So what did I do? I went out and bought some extra pairs (bearing in mind I was still a teenager myself and really was cash strapped) and gave them to the children whose parents "couldn't afford" the £1 (yet could afford booze, takeaways and holidays to Dubai, Magaluf, Florida etc and designer clothes for the kids). Then what happened? The parents who did buy the antlers found out and several came at the end of the lesson verbally attacking me, "How come they didn't have to buy them but we did. That's not on! We're pulling our child out of dance classes and going somewhere else." So you can see what the staff would have had to face. The parents only have themselves to blame in this case.

Like me, the staff at the school would have had to deal with this thing loads of times. I once was accused of running a money making scam because I asked for the dance exam fees to be paid .......

.......If you let the £5 for the show go by the wayside, then where do you draw the line? If you have financial problems then make the school aware so they can give you plenty of time to put the money aside (25p a week?) but the same parents who refuse to pay can't moan when their child can't do the activity.

I can guarantee that when the child grows up, they won't be thinking the school were cruel but (unless they really were in complete poverty) they might see that their parents couldn't be bothered to save up £5 for them. Although I have to say OP, asking for nearly £20 over a two week period for extra activities is a bit much. I'd get hung, drawn and quartered if I asked for that!

Miss Independent, nice post & forgive me if I’m wrong but I get the impression that you work in a private dance school.

I this is true than the normal “life isn’t fair” rules apply and if parents can’t/won’t pay then the child doesn’t do the activity

The thread is about excluding a couple of babies from a show in a state school because their parents hadn’t handed over a fiver.

As you expect on an internet forum opinions vary……..

Fang suggests that it’s ok (actually desirable?) to exclude the “brat” offspring of “scum” parents from school activities on the grounds of parental inability/unwillingness to pay and extends that to the idea that the darling children of rich tax paying parents should be singled out and receive better treatment from state schools because their parents contribute more to the system.

I argue that state schools should be fully funded from taxation and treat all children equally with all activities being free. I extended this to say that schools should limit themselves to education only and actively not be involved in non-educational activities where the ability to participate depends on ability to pay. Skiing trips for example.

Having said that I can see an argument for school involvement in “fun” but not particularly educational events but they should be funded either by the school or by PTA/voluntary donations so again participation is open to all and not linked to ability to pay.

miss_independent

vaio wrote: »

Miss Independent, nice post & forgive me if I’m wrong but I get the impression that you work in a private dance school.

I this is true than the normal “life isn’t fair” rules apply and if parents can’t/won’t pay then the child doesn’t do the activity

The thread is about excluding a couple of babies from a show in a state school because their parents hadn’t handed over a fiver.

As you expect on an internet forum opinions vary……..

Fang suggests that it’s ok (actually desirable?) to exclude the “brat” offspring of “scum” parents from school activities on the grounds of parental inability/unwillingness to pay and extends that to the idea that the darling children of rich tax paying parents should be singled out and receive better treatment from state schools because their parents contribute more to the system.

I argue that state schools should be fully funded from taxation and treat all children equally with all activities being free. I extended this to say that schools should limit themselves to education only and actively not be involved in non-educational activities where the ability to participate depends on ability to pay. Skiing trips for example.

Having said that I can see an argument for school involvement in “fun” but not particularly educational events but they should be funded either by the school or by PTA/voluntary donations so again participation is open to all and not linked to ability to pay.

Oh, sorry, but I took it to be a private nursery school rather than one attached to a state school but my mistake .

My parents had to pay for school trips but I can't remember a single child being excluded. However, theatre in education visits were free. Some of my best memories were the trips to the park to release the frogs (hatched from tadpoles) and for the (free) teddy bears picnic for which parents where asked to contribute food or drink (jacob's join style). At that age it was great but as I got older I also enjoyed the trips to the Science Museum, the Ballet, the RSC etc - I do think school trips are incredibly important to children. I can honestly say at least one of them changed the course of my life and gave me something to aspire to in the way a trip to the park could never. There is a huge world out there but sometimes we are limited in what we expose our children to in terms of culture etc and I think that is where school trips and extra activities come into play i.e just because mum and dad never go to the theatre does that mean the child shouldn't? Same goes for holidays (ski trips included ), my parents never wanted to go skiing but I wanted to and never got to go because my parents wouldn't allow it. My school had a ski trip to Aspen and only 20 students went (so no pressure on parents) but the ones who went had a great time, some even ended up being Chalet Boys and Girls whilst at uni.

As for a PP about many teachers not doing voluntary clubs and activities, I know for a fact over the past twenty years that the paper work in schools has gotten to be absolutely ridiculous. Teachers don't just get to go home at 3.30pm and put their feet up, there is marking, lesson planning, schemes of work, extra meetings to see if targets are being achieved and constant assessment and records for every single child. Given the choice between that and running an after school club I would bet most teachers would rather spend more contact time with the children. TBH, if you want to spend more time with the kids and get to do the majority of the rewarding and fun stuff you are better off being a TA or SSA.

janninew

Why the need to keep calling these children 'babies?' I know it makes it sound more emotive, but 3 and 4 year olds are children, not babies!! Sorry to go off topic slightly but it was bugging me a little!!