Money Moral Dilemma: Should the school have paid?

Simcoaxial

What lessons are we teaching children if they can go for free? There will always be genuine hardship however, parents have to choose their priorities. I have seen examples of parents who cannot afford these trips and similar things but who are able to have Sky, smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol and more. I'm not against any of those things but they have a choice to make. £15 is six drinks in the pub or three packs of cigs. If parents looked at their priorities, I'm sure more could afford these trips.
I'm not saying that everyone can do this and am aware that some people will always need genuine help. In these circumstances, of course the children should be protected in some way but even then where do you draw the line? Should they be subsidised on a school skiing trip? I have seen too many examples of people getting help where they should not. Whilst it is not the child's fault, they should learn that the actions of their parents do affect them at some point.

pineapple

Whatever the legal situation re whether contributions are voluntary or not, given that in this case it was just a minority, I would have said, for heavens sake let them watch. Don't tell me that schools don't have contingency funds/procedures for this sort of thing.
Furthermore, where does it say this was a trip? It sounds as if this was on school premises, in school time.
If it is always the same kids, maybe the school can try and find out why? But it's a nonsense to worry about 'setting precedents'. If it seems to be escalating, you simply apply stricter procedures.

keith26

Of course the parents shouldnt pay, its an important lesson on how to free load at others expense for the rest of your life and just think of the beer and cigs the parents could buy with that little extra. Someone else will always pick up the tab wont they?

antonia1

Of course the children should be allowed to watch. There will always be parents who want to free-load, but children are not responsible for the behaviour of their parents. If they're in a household where parents would rather have Sky / cigs than pay for school trips (or in some cases I've seen, decent food and clothing), surely a little kindness to the children would go a long way. There is a limit, of course, but anything within school hours should be available to those who's parents can't or won't pay.

RuthnJasper

It depends on the situation. Obviously, a school will have some idea of a child's home background. If the school knows that the parents could never afford the £5 for the play, then they SHOULD subsidise the child so that he or she doesn't miss out.

However, if the school is aware that the parents could afford the £5 and chose not to pay it, that is a different matter. It may have been a matter of choice for the parents (my parents are ultra-religious and I was once excluded from a school presentation on Buddhism. Bl**dy embarrassing it was, as well, having to go and wait outside by myself in case my mind was 'poisoned' by non-Christian thought... hey-ho...). Of course, it may also have been that the kids forgot to give the letter to their parents...

Bit harsh to pull the kids out at that moment though, especially in front of others. That should have been handled better by the school. The 4 kids could have been weeded out before everyone trooped into the hall and put in a classroom with a teacher where they could have watched a DVD instead. Bad planning on the school's part.

Interesting question though. Memories of The League of Gentlemen's "Legz Akimbo Theatre Group" spring to mind - "Some of you kids might remember us from a few Christmasses ago, when we came and did a play about homosexuality called 'Everybody Out!'":rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Seakay

Perhaps the parents of the four children did not want to watch the play themselves and so hadn't paid?
The way the situation is given I took it to mean children free and parents can watch if they want but have to pay - NOT that parents have to pay in order for their children to watch. If the latter were the case then it would not be free for children, would it.
If the play is in the school - ie not an optional trip - then all the pupils should be attending.
The notice should be carefully worded to explain that all pupils have to pay £5 to attend a play being performed in their own school, and that parents are allowed to attend if they want but do not have to pay, if that is the case. Then sit back and wait for all the letters of protest. If the situation is as I read it, ie the play is being performed in the school for the benefit of the pupils; parents can attend if they wish but must pay £5, then no pupil can be excluded.
If the play is being performed during school hours, then as a parent I would want to know it's educational value - if none then why is it happening at that time? If there is value then it is part of the curriculum and why should the pupils pay?
Finally - if the teachers cannot send out a notice stating the situation clearly then perhaps they should consider paying for a few tutorials on grammar and communication for themselves?

sharonlz

ShakeyStacey wrote: »

It's a tricky one because I'd hate for any child to be seperated and feel left out because of their parents financial situation. At the school I went to everyone paid slightly more than the cost of the trip and this money went in a fund for underpriveledged children to be able to go. We never knew who these kids were, only selected staff and the kids themselves ever knew, and I think this is a very fair way of doing things. However if the parents don't want them to see the play, that's a completely different matter.
I have been told that by law, schools are not allowed to charge for school trips, check the wording, most schools will ask for a "volountary contribution" towards the cost of the trip, the catch being that if the funds aren't raised, the trip will be cancelled. Of course I'm going back at least 4 years. Things might have changed, but I can't imagine any child being pulled out of a trip because their parents couldn't afford it.

Any letters we get from school have this wording - but the form has to be signed to say the child is allowed to take part. They NEVER ring you up asking for the money but the class teacher might remind the child. It is TOTALLY discrimitiory(sp) to remove a child & the school should not do it unless the permissions are not in place.
the school should know who is allowed & who is not before the event!!

skylight

tabithakated wrote: »

a few years ago my daughter asked for £3.50 to see santa at school, she was lucky i had it as it was that day and no letters had been sent home. when i asked about it later that eve she told me she got a pressent but gave it to a friend who had forgotton her money and was told to sit outside the room while all the other kids in her class went into see him. i was horrified how a school could do this to a child.

What a lovely daughter you are bringing up there.

naughtybunnies

As a parent I find this practice of 'asking for a contribution' really annoying when it applies to actitivies which take place in school hours. I emphasise my views apply to 'in school hours'
I would go so far to say that it discriminates against children of our less fortunate families. Put yourself in the position of one of those children when they are forced away from their friends who are having fun. Confused? Upset? Probably both.
School have funds to manage just like any other business. If they don't have all the money for curricular activities then please just don't do them.

viewpoint

Unless the parents in question are habitual mickey takers then the school should be ashamed of itself. All schools should have a fund to help those pupils who are less advantaged to fully engage with all activities. What's even worse is that the children were taken aside in view of other people - how humiliating and possibly character damaging is that?!!