Money Moral Dilemma: Should the school have paid?

lincey

No children should be excluded. My son's school, when booking trips, charge the parents a "donation" towards the cost, so children are not excluded for not "donating", but the school states that if not enough parents donate then the cost won't be covered and the trip will be cancelled. I am guessing they would chase up parents that had not paid and would waive the ticket cost in cases of hardship. If large numbers of parents did not/could not contribute, then to be fair they should not be booking the events.

jamboron

The school could start a trend of setting aside a few tickets for any pupils who`s parents are unable to pay to allow them to see a particular play or visit to somewhere, due to cashflow problems. eg low income or out of work through ill health or redundancy reasons. Yes the kids should be allowed to see the play, and not be discriminated against for any reason.

Hezzawithkids

Glosjools wrote: »

Why should INSET days upset anyone? Children have to be in school for 185 days a year - INSET days are on top of this, making the academic school year 190 days. If we had no INSET days nothing would change, you would still have to look after your own children for the remaining 180 days.

Inset days upset me cos it costs me an extra £70 a day in child care, thats why. I am told they are used for "training and admin". Teachers get 12 weeks holiday a year so I dont understand why "training and admin" can't happen during that time. Also as I am self-employed if I take a day off to look after my kids on an Inset day then I dont get paid, end of story. Even employed people get maybe 4 weeks paid holiday a year and 4 or 5 Inset days a year cut into that precious time. There were no such things as Inset days when I was at school and my education never suffered as a result.

BUT I have raised this issue on another forum before and got a complete bollickin from the teaching community as a result. The argument "because its the law" isn't an argument in this case as far as I'm concerned. Teachers obviously exist on a different intellectual plane to me and I will never understand it.

Off topic, sorry.

Ebenezer_Screwj

If you haven't bought a ticket or paid the entry fee you don't travel on buses, trains or planes and you don't go into theme parks or attend shows.

wildthing01

Hezzawithkids wrote: »

Inset days upset me cos it costs me an extra £70 a day in child care, thats why. I am told they are used for "training and admin". Teachers get 12 weeks holiday a year so I dont understand why "training and admin" can't happen during that time. Also as I am self-employed if I take a day off to look after my kids on an Inset day then I dont get paid, end of story. Even employed people get maybe 4 weeks paid holiday a year and 4 or 5 Inset days a year cut into that precious time. There were no such things as Inset days when I was at school and my education never suffered as a result.

BUT I have raised this issue on another forum before and got a complete bollickin from the teaching community as a result. The argument "because its the law" isn't an argument in this case as far as I'm concerned. Teachers obviously exist on a different intellectual plane to me and I will never understand it.

Off topic, sorry.

i think the point that glosjools was making was that you'd be paying for that childcare whether there were inset days or not, as they are not statutory school days. they are extra, on top of the child's statutory school attendance requirement. so they are not taking time out of the child's education, they are extra on top of it.

also, btw, teachers usually spend the school holidays working - planning their lessons for the next term/year, and completing other 'admin' that is required by the government. many also spend their evenings and weekends doing it. i'm not a teacher, but i don't like to see vast swathes of the population criticised by people who don't actually know enough about them.

Hezzawithkids

I take exception to that comment. I am not criticising the teachers (see my original post) I am criticising the system.

Luisa1981

Simple. If the parents didn't want their children to participate for moral/religious reasons, fine, the children should not participate. If it's because the parents couldn't afford to, the children should be allowed to join in. Extra-curricular activities enrich the lives of children and I think really that it's those who often go without that might need it and appreciate it more than those who don't go without. I know that those who have might begrudge picking up the tab for those who have not all the time, but maybe contributing an extra 50p every now and again wouldn't hurt too much, provided the school does not make a habit. Theatre visits to schools are often educational, so it's highly unlikely that this would be for something 'frivolous'...

If you were the excluded child, how would you feel?

Tamster150

I have read this post with great interest.
I am a Primary School Teacher and the post could have been written about my school!
We are in a "deprived" area, around 60% of our pupils are entitled to free school meals. I have seen many trips cancelled because we haven't had enough contributions. We even have to go through a class list when planning a trip, count how many children we know won't pay and then add their contribution to the rest of the classes' contributions!!!!! As a school there is NO spare money to spend on trips - our PTA was dissolved as the parents were dipping into the money and fighting amongst themsleves (and I mean physical fighting) Schools do not have a bottomless budget!

In my experience though, the parents with the least are always the ones that pay up. We have many parents pleading poverty but can afford to smoke, drink and buy their children expensive toys & designer clothes. They are the ones that are on the dole but still think the world owes them.

My head has now got to the point where persistant offenders are told that their children cannot go/attend trips without paying (illegal I know) but in nine times out of ten cases the parents bring the money in the next day.

I don't agree with the children being pulled aside and told that they couldn't go into the show however, the issue is between the school & the parents. I think the school choose the wrong battle to make their point.

supersaver123_2

I was a teacher and still supply teach for a few schools. My understanding is that a school cannot charge for anything that takes place during normal school hours. What they can do, however, is ask for a voluntary contribution from parents which parents are at liberty to refuse.
The school cannot exclude the children who haven't contributed ( nor should they) but, if too many children's parents do not contribute, the activity is either cancelled or goes ahead with the school covering the cost but is not repeated next year.

Penny_Pincher_37

It's been touched on already but like others, I don't think children should be suffering because their parents genuinely can't afford to pay for the visit. However, we have a family at our school who just never bother returning forms and paying for trips and events - it's not lack of money, it's just laziness and lack of care and it's their poor child that loses out. They're always the one in school uniform on a fancy dress day and I often overhear the class teacher telling the sibling/au pair/whoever turns up to collect them that the child's shoes are too small/big or they don't have the right bits of kit on the right day or they haven't returned such and such a form. The parents just don't care and like others, milk the system at their convenience... You have to wonder if the school is wise to these parents which is why they are excluding 4 kids on this occasion. I'm quite certain most schools know which children have less money (often getting free school meals) and are sensitive to how they might feel so wouldn't want 4 genuine non-payers to feel left out - our school certainly wouldn't.