Cruel School?

Newly_retired

At this age I don't see taking those children out as "punishing the child" nor is the school being "cruel". The children are still getting what they are there for - education - so are not being punished. it is quite unfair to blame individual teachers. As regards letters home, teachers cannot be expected to check every child's bag. That's not their job. Parents have to take some responsibility for keeping themselves informed.
Difficult decisions about funding have to be made thoughout the year, by both parents and the school. The school cannot keep making exceptions and expecting wealthier parents to subsidise children from other families or the whole thing will escalate out of hand.
I do agree that the situation was badly handled here, however.

cloudy-day

DaisyFlower wrote: »

If a parent chooses to have eight children then they should ensure they can afford them - its not the schools or other parents responsibility to pay for them. Not to mention the mass CB and CTC they will be getting for 8 children.

The end of the school year often brings trips and treats for the chilren, its no surprise and can be budgeted for in advance.

So many people have a huge sense of entitlement and believe that everyone else should pay for their lifestyle choices. Maybe the school are fed up of the mum with 8 children not paying and had already paid for her children on many other occasions.

Harsh.

The Mum with 8 children was given as an example of parents having fork out a lot of money over and above the basic cost.

janninew

cheepskate wrote: »

Why should I as a parent support and subsidice other parents that are not willing to make the financial sacrificies that i do.
Just because I pay for my childs clubs/school activities doesnt mean that I can afford it it just means i take responsibility for my childs outgoings.

I agree totally with you. I wouldn't be very happy paying extra to subsidise children of parents who aren't willing to make any sacrifices, where does it end? Surely in this day and age, with the generous benefits offered to parents on low incomes (CB, CTC) they can afford to save a small amount to cover such events/trips? I do accept there may be a very few exceptions where the parents really cannot pay, this should be discussed with the headteacher/nursery owner. At the end of the day we make choices to have our children and if we want them to partake in fun activities we simply have to pay for them.

The best lesson i learn when growing up is life isn't fair, not everybody can have the same or the best in life, this is a harsh life lesson, but something I learnt from any early age.

vaio

meg72 wrote: »

......I further find some of the posts unbelievable. Teach them a a lesson indeed, they are little more than babies and should have been treated with care, respect and the dignity they deserve, Not singled out and left wide open to comment, it seems by all and sundry, it will surely invite comments from the other little ones.

Cruel, unkind and absolutely uncalled treatment of a vunerable child.

I’m inclined to agree with you but society does seem to be getting more and more mean spirited and petty, you only have to look at some of the posts on this thread.

At 3 years old it would be pretty easy to take them out and entertain them without them realising what was going on which is what I assume happened even though I fundamentally disagree with the reasoning behind it.

If any of them were grown up enough to realise what was going on then is tantamount to cruelty and I was involved I’d be contacting the school governors/LEA

cloudy-day

Fang wrote: »

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.

Fang you seem to live in a very black and white world.

According to you, those that haven't paid (for whatever reason - lost letter, money forgotten or poverty) are 'scum' and obviously spending the money on 'fags and cider'!

Life isn't always as simple as you choose to believe it is.

The facts of the matter are that the theatre group performed despite the four small children not having paid. Its seems petty and small minded to me not to allow them to watch, when they are too young to understand the reasons.

BTW, not everyone who can't afford the extras in life is in that position due to spending all their money on cigarettes and booze, perhaps you could climb down off your high horse and join the real world now?

vaio

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?.......

Happens already, it's called the tax system.

So making all school activities free (or rather transparently funded via general taxation) removes a whole heap of school bureaucracy, sending letters home with 5 year olds (smoke signals would be more reliable than my DS at that age), chasing letters, collecting, chasing and banking money etc etc etc

pigpen

*Louise* wrote: »

Our nursery school asks for £60 funds a year. I pay £15 a term but they let people pay £1.50 a week if that's what suits them best. That covers everything - snacks, daily milk (which would be £23 a year alone), trips and entertainment. Bargain imo.

Milk is free for all under 5's.. here all primary children also get free fruit/veg snack each day. They also have open access to water for drinking not batheing lol.

pjcox2005

I know I said I wasn't posting again but intrigued by vaio's comment.

vaio wrote: »

Happens already, it's called the tax system.

So making all school activities free (or rather transparently funded via general taxation) removes a whole heap of school bureaucracy, sending letters home with 5 year olds (smoke signals would be more reliable than my DS at that age), chasing letters, collecting, chasing and banking money etc etc etc

Vaio, I think you would be hard pushed for the Government to raise more from taxes to fund "extra" (although worthwhile) activities at schools whilst repairing the current economy, NHS etc. Again choices have to be made.

Or perhaps, child tax credits are reduced, that money goes straight to the schools, and the bits that children may not receive in lower income families is the treats decided by parents (e.g. food treats, holiday etc should they have them). It may also prevent issues with those parents that abuse the system for their own gain (hopefully a limited number).

Actually quite impressed with that idea, children get more targeted benefit from the credits, less abuse, less time wasting by schools in sending letters and those that don't have children don't have to pick up anymore of the costs. The only problem is, it still doesn't help those families that already struggle and can't pay the extra fees, as they won't get more money.

It comes back to choices having to be made on extras.

As a separate question, is it worse for a 3/4 year old to miss out on a theatre experience (presumably taken to another room for fun with a teacher) or a 13/14 year old where kids tend to be more brutal? It just shows this isn't going to be a one off for parents.

pigpen

pjcox2005 wrote: »

As a separate question, is it worse for a 3/4 year old to miss out on a theatre experience (presumably taken to another room for fun with a teacher) or a 13/14 year old where kids tend to be more brutal? It just shows this isn't going to be a one off for parents.

the situation and set up is completely different for teens.

At both high schools my children are at they are OFFERED a choice of 3 trips..

A theme park (Alton towers/Pleasure Island usually).. £30 this year!!
Flamingoland.. usually an option at both schools.. £20 this year
Or a stay in school for the morning and go bowling/cinema in the afternoon .. £5

There is the option of not paying anything and the children stay in school and watch a DVD... which is what usually happens to the children with physical disabilities which is another gripe enirely!

The children with 100% attendance can go on ANY of the trips free of charge and the school pay as a reward for their attendance.. which for some is also unfair.. they aren't ill on purpose and hospital/therapy appointments cannot be missed.

there was no option for these children whereas bigger children can choose.

I never went on any trips because I knew my parents wouldn't be able/willing to pay.. I never even asked.

kittiej

"They are optional. You can choose that your child does not go. If everyone did so then the trips wouldn't go ahead. Obviously the majority of parents care enough about their children and so ensure that they get a well-rounded education. "

If the parents cared enough then they'd take their children on trips themselves wouldn't they instead of paying others to do it for them.

Perhaps OP should do a little more digging and find out what the real reasons were?

It might be lack of money, it might be that the children were easily frightened, it might be the parents didn't like the storyline.

If it was through lack of money then that is as the thread name says 'cruel' on the part of the school.

It would be interesting to know the real reason and not just what we all think it is.