Cruel School?

pjcox2005

Ok, I'll admit I'm playing devil's advocate a little but I'm intrigued by the point when put against the problems of wider society (i.e. tax system) as well as what my friends and family have to go through with young children.

Andrealm, you say that the costs of my example may be high which I accept (and did in the original statement) but even with small costs I don't know of many schools/nurserys who have excess budgets so something has to go in relation to what they offer kids (I assuming they are being run efficently).

I don't think the alternative of asking other parents to always pay is an acceptable long term policy. What if the additional costs of paying for others pushes parents currently paying for their kids to be unable to afford it? Who pays? (And please don't state it's only a small amount because we've already shown some parents can't afford the basic cost, let alone subsidise others).

Effectivelty should the school request the wage slips of all parents and then get them to pay the proportion of child costs dependent on how much money they have compared with others?

Edit: I should state that with out this info the school would not know who could/couldn't afford it so may put parents in a difficult position (i.e. lack of affordibility to sub others) which you could consider unfair. i,e, how do they know who is willing/able to subsidise others?

andrealm

pjcox2005 wrote: »

Ok, I'll admit I'm playing devil's advocate a little but I'm intrigued by the point when put against the problems of wider society (i.e. tax system) as well as what my friends and family have to go through with young children.

Andrealm, you say that the costs of my example may be high which I accept (and did in the original statement) but even with small costs I don't know of many schools/nurserys who have excess budgets so something has to go in relation to what they offer kids (I assuming they are being run efficently).

I don't think the alternative of asking other parents to always pay is an acceptable long term policy. What if the additional costs of paying for others pushes parents currently paying for their kids to be unable to afford it? Who pays? (And please don't state it's only a small amount because we've already shown some parents can't afford the basic cost, let alone subsidise others).

Effectivelty should the school request the wage slips of all parents and then get them to pay the proportion of child costs dependent on how much money they have compared with others?

Interesting idea re the wage slips!
Most schools and nurseries do fundraising, selling raffle tickets, school fairs etc, charging parents for tickets to watch their children in the nativity etc. So they raise extra money from that.

DaisyFlower

pjcox2005 wrote: »

Effectivelty should the school request the wage slips of all parents and then get them to pay the proportion of child costs dependent on how much money they have compared with others?

That would not work either, many parents choose not to work or work the bare minimum hours to qualify for WTC etc so why should they pay less than those that work and support their own children themselves?

When choosing to have children people should take into account the costs associated with having them rather rely on the state/tax payers/school etc to pay for them instead.

pjcox2005

Last comment because I thinnk the conversation has run it's course (and don't want to upset others) but I'm going to agree with DaisyFlower that those who have children should be aware of the costs. Those that can't afford due to a change in circumstances should be supported e.g. tax credits, those that neglect should be supported by social services.

Andrealm, I had assumed that a nursery has already maximised their fundraising through raffles etc and yet still have to charge some costs for the extras (rather than making a profit which may be the case - I don't know). Obviously if they haven't that would be an option but assuming they have I think the point still stands that a some point a cut off has to exist.

I should state that I do admire the intentions of others wanting to ensure children don't miss out and accept it's probably inevitable. My thoughts were more is it fair on teachers/other parents and indeed sustainable long term.

nottslass_2

What I think is the worst thing about this particular instance is that there must have been sufficient money collected to pay for the entertainment yet the school still chose to exclude nursery aged children !!

I could almost understand the reasoning of excluding non payers if the activity or trip was being charged on a "per person" basis,but in this instance the show would have cost the same however many children attended.

I would be seriously questioning the ethos of any nursery that treated a 3 year old like this and would be putting in a strongly worded complaint.

vaio

As it was a theatre group I suspect the cost to the school was fixed and not dependant on whether these 4 tiny ones watched or not.

To me it just seems mean & petty (welcome to 2010!!) but I can see the other sides point of view too.

My view is if it’s a school/learning event then it should be free to all, if it’s not a school/learning event then it shouldn’t be happening.

Charging for things like this is just another form of hidden tax, much better to make it transparent and fund schools appropriately.

kittiej

Yes pj parents should be aware of the costs to raise a child but when planning children you don't suddenly think omg how much do I factor in for school activities?

I know it's lovely to have people coming into school to do plays or theatres etc but these things are normally organised without consulting parents - we are just expected to contribute - and I don't want to take anything away from schools because they have a hard enough job as it is, but some parents are absolutely crippled atm.

Recently I have been so thankful that I didn't decide to be a SAHM and stuck with my ft job because my DH has been off work for quite a while. If I hadn't have been working then we would have been living off SSP and CB so roughly £100 per week give or take a few quid. There's no way I could have afforded to pay for my children to go to discos etc.

I'm sure when I was growing up we didn't have all of these luxuries, we were over the moon if we could spend the afternoon outside playing rounders instead of being indoors lol

thebaileys

nottslass wrote: »

What I think is the worst thing about this particular instance is that there must have been sufficient money collected to pay for the entertainment yet the school still chose to exclude nursery aged children !!

I could almost understand the reasoning of excluding non payers if the activity or trip was being charged on a "per person" basis,but in this instance the show would have cost the same however many children attended.

I would be seriously questioning the ethos of any nursery that treated a 3 year old like this and would be putting in a strongly worded complaint.

I am thinking about complaining, and I will also be bringing up a recent trip in june for some of the year 5 children, where the school charged a 6 pound entry fee to an attraction, when it was actually free for the month of june!

I wonder where this money has gone!

Fang_3

vaio wrote: »

As it was a theatre group I suspect the cost to the school was fixed and not dependant on whether these 4 tiny ones watched or not.

To me it just seems mean & petty (welcome to 2010!!) but I can see the other sides point of view too.

My view is if it’s a school/learning event then it should be free to all, if it’s not a school/learning event then it shouldn’t be happening.

Charging for things like this is just another form of hidden tax, much better to make it transparent and fund schools appropriately.

So everyone should suffer a basic education regardless or whether or not some parents would like their children to have sponsored extras?

You have to remember that it's often the poorer children that benefit the most from school trips and activities because their parents couldn't afford to fund the entire family to do the trip, but one child is affordable. It's those that choose not to forgo their daily fags or cider and expect the decent parents to pay for their brats, that are responsible for this.

kittiej

Now that is interesting thebaileys

Fang how do you know the parents smoke and drink cider?

I wish I could afford to smoke and drink at least I'd have something to give up then lol.

I think your point about the poorest children benefitting the most is true - but this wasn't a trip it was something which came into school and the children were physically removed whereas a trip the children just wouldn't turn up for school.