Money Moral Dilemma: Should the school have paid?

BigMummaF

Forgive me for jumping in before reading through, & Apologies if this has previously been noted. I've found some evidence of what I have always believed to be the legal position on this kind of thing HERE & wanted to post before I bodged up the link
OK..it works!..so I'll get my cuppa & settle down for a read...

jkuelrira

Read a few pages but not read all the responses (too many household tasks calling me!!)

IMO, the original message implies that a theatre company were brought in to the school and a 1 off fee was paid. This would be the same if 2 kids watched or if 20 kids watched. I dont see any sense in excluding some children when the cost is going to be no different anyway (obviously, if it was an outing where you paid entry per child or something it would be a harder situation)

When I was in school there was a child who the school were always paying for the trips for because their family couldnt afford it, in the end they had to stop though because it was EVERY time. The school was in a poor area and it wasnt like everyone else found the money easily, and the school did everything they could to keep costs down. Once or twice is ok but sometimes the family can start to just expect it.

If the school do have to exclude kids from a school trip (e.g. the above example where the school just cant keep paying) then I think its important that they give the child something fun to do during the time the other kids are away so that although the child has missed out, they have at least had a sort of fun day. The child shouldnt suffer because the parent cant/wont pay

BigMummaF

Not wishing to make light of this at all, but do you remember the film of 'Please Sir' when 5C went on a week's 'holiday'? The class mates all clubbed together to pay for one lad's trip as his father was an ignorant drunk but they wanted him there & even conned the caretaker into forging the old misery's signature
It's awful to think there are still *things" of that sort of ilk who think it's enough to just donate DNA to be a parent

On the opposing side, my eldest did not want to go away with school one year. The forms came home, we discussed it at length & I tried hard to persuade them to go with their mates. I wrote to the school explaining our reasons & kept getting offers to help with cost, equipment & such & the class teacher phoning me to ask why No1 wasn't going. On the morning they were due to leave I got a very unpleasant phone call from this teacher, accusing me of being selfish & "hell bent on ruining your child's education!" They just could not grasp my [almost 13yo] child was capable of making an informed & argued opinion & I was prepared to support them in their decision :mad: --an awful shame as that was the only fly in that particular school's ointment.

maz2702

I my children's school, nursery and up to to year 4 all trips have a voluntary contribution and the PTA prior to this has set aside funding for those that they know can not pay as the headmaster makes them aware how many children have parents on benefits (which is currently 67% of the whole school from nursery upto year 6) along with a portional amount towards every child.

from being a PTA member and a parent standing in the pay ground there a number of parents who did not pay just because of the wording "voluntary" who can more than afford it, as a result in the past 2 years 5 school trips have had to be cancelled as not even a quarter of the parents who are deemed to be able to afford the £2.50 (example amount) requested have paid.

Year 5 and 6 if the trip is to support the school curriculum a voluntary amount is requested with the PTA paying an amount for every child (usually half the cost) and the balance required to cover children from families on benefits as before. However there are other trips organised through the year whereby your child only goes if you pay, the children who parents do not pay usually know at least a week before hand that they will not be going on that trip are set work for that day and will join another class within the school.

the understanding is, the PTA already uses a lot of their funds to pay for these trips and from year 5 it is understood the child has to learn at some point that not everything is free = some of you shout BUT SOME CAN NOT AFFORD IT = however when parents are told you pay or your child can not go it is surprising how many of those families (apart from a select few) can actually stump up the money!

To answer the question, parents i presume were told you pay or your child will not attend, in which case the school is out of order for not taking the children of to one side before the event not in front of friends and their parents with another activity being set up for them.

plus how old were these children? in which case the school should have arranged their charges eg every one is asked for £6 intead of £5 to cover those who can not pay and any money left over carried over for the next school trip or activity.

Pellyman

This is one of the trickier ones. I would hope that the school had 'followed up' with those parents that hadn't paid, so see if they had a reason for not doing so. Prior arrangements if after school hours, objections in principle, oversight etc.. If they had they would, presumably, have asked the parents to explain to the children why they wouldn't/couldn't attend the show. Equally if it had learned that the parents couldn't afford it then, as it was only four children, surely they could have offered to let them attend (perhaps, not the parents) as it wouldn't have cost them anything to have done so. If the school didn't 'follow up' then they should have - no excuses. What certainly shouldn't have happened is that the children shouldn't have been told at the last minute in front of other children and parents, as is implied in the question.

Middlestitch

If the parents didn't want the children to see the play, then they should have told their own offspring and explained why. To tell kids they will miss a treat because their parents haven't paid (implication being they can't afford it) is horrible. If the group came to the school, they should have been paid a flat fee with the school keeping any 'profit' for school funds.

scorzena

I work in schools in deprived areas in London and I've seen on many occasions teachers pay themselves for children to go on trips so that a trip won't be cancelled.

Fiona_T_3

I'm a teacher and as far as I'm aware, if the performance was in school time, the school was breaking the law by excluding the children simply because they had not paid the VOLUNTARY contribution. We have families where I work who never pay for any trips, some because they can't pay, whom we are more than happy to support of course, and some because they won't pay, despite being able to drive around in big cars, live in big houses and so on. I have never had to cancel a trip because we didn't receive enough contributions to pay for it, but the school budget has subsidised a few. Luckily most parents either don't realise the law, or they pay up because they know the school can't pay for everyone. We have contingency funds for cases of genuine hardship but the ones who most need it often don't apply and it's all handled very subtly so as little stigma is attached as possible. There is NO WAY children would be told in front of others that they couldn't watch when a performance was about to start.

MoiA

It is very unfair to pick children out in this way and it is embarrassing and stigmatising for them. The school were wrong. We do not know the financial circumstances of the parents. It is possible that their choice was one of whether to let the children see the play, or whether to put food on the table that night. When my children were at primary school, i would give the school an amount of money each year to pay for trips for children whose parents could not afford it. I asked that my donation remain anonymous and that the children be told that the money for their trip was from a Council grant. This way they were comfortable in accepting and it meant that children did not miss out on important activities because their parents could not afford it. Had i been that parent, I would have descreetly paid their money and asked the teacher to say nothing. Those who can afford should do what they can to support those who, through no fault of their own, cannot. I recall my own childhood when i was the one left behind in class for a week when the other girls went off to France. Now i am in a position to prevent other kids from going through the humiliation. OK, the parents who did pay up may grumble, but think of the poor children who are being excluded and put their feelings first.

Ten98

This might sound harsh but I think the school were right to take them out. Life is not fair and, in our capitalist society, it's a valuable lesson to learn. If you don't pay you don't get.

This "voluntary contribution" policy sounds great on paper, but in practise the lesson it teaches is "don't worry if you can't afford something, everyone else will bail you out".

This is why we have so many people permanently on benefits, they have grown up considering that it is "fair" that everyone else pays for them to have a comfortable life even though they can't afford to.