Money Moral Dilemma: Should the school have paid?

kalababe

Of course the School should have paid, provided it was a state school, parents are right to assume that their child's education should be provided.

Schools have enough issues to deal with, without provoking issues in the playground. It may well be the case that the children's parents were unable to afford to pay for their child to see the play. If that is the case, by removing the 4 children, it is segregating the children. The teachers may as well stick a huge arrow over these children's heads saying "I'm poor"!

Equal Opportunities is part of the world today, employers, companies, services, all must adhere, the same should apply in schools.

If the parents specifically did not want their child to see the play, they should advise the teacher of this separately.

pennypinchUK

At my kids school they ask for a voluntary donation of a fixed amount, but make it very clear that if you can't afford it there's no obligation to pay. Sure, there are likely to be a few parents who try it on and don't pay, but most do. And if you don't pay it's not seen as a derogatory thing. It works, and that's what I'd suggest in this instance. It's hardly the kids fault if their parents can't afford it, and it just singles them out for being picked on by other children - and we know how cruel children can be, both deliberately and not.

Anyway, assuming this is a state school, what is the head thinking of when he/she is creating a distinction between the education of children who can and cannot afford to pay?

Broke_and_sinking_quickly

If the school hires the Theatre Group without informing parents beforehand, then they should allow ALL the kids to watch, and ask the parents for a donation towards the cost.

Not all parents can affprd the extras that schools expect these days, and it is unfair for children to miss out just because the parents are as minted as others!!

fedupofthis40

I don't think the school should have paid no! At my sons school it is always the same parents who don't pay every time but their children still get to do the activities. It's not fair. O.k it is a bit mean to single odd children out but maybe the parents should be spoken too as ultimately it's their fault!!

relaxtwotribes

The school should simply add the £5 to the next term's fee account.

tomcrisp7

The school presumably paid for the performance up front, hoping to make a margin or at least break even by charging parents for admission. The paying parent clients, rather than their non-paying children, are therefore the standard by which admission should be granted.

Admitting the children of non-paying parents would infer that the paying parents had been ripped off, since the performance is principaly aimed at the children and not the parents.

Whether the school should be dealing in aspects such as this is another question; if it is a state school one must accept the contradiction that school activities ought to be a "common good", having been paid for by the taxpayer; with a private school such voluntary schemes would bring forth no such difficulties provided the cost is fully met by the subscriptions and no increase in fees would occur as a result.

The difficulty of the feeling of exclusion on the part of the children of non-paying parents, however, does arise. They are deprived of the value of the show to them by their parents' preference for the money saved over the value of their children's increased happiness. They might also be subject to consequent teasing and lowered self-esteem. However, no one's rights are violated. They would be, on the contrary, if the argument for "equality of results" is accepted, which would lead to the enforced subsidy of excluded children by those who already paid, or by taxpayers or fee payers.

frugal_fifer

As a parent, ex-chair of the parent council and a pupil support assistant in a primary school I found this topic interesting.
I myself am on a low income and at times struggle to find the money to pay for outings, especially at short notice. I do on the other hand know that the annual budget given to our whole school for trips/outings from the local authority is a measley £50. There is no way a school could provide the rich experiences the "Curriculum for Excellence" promotes in the form of outings/experiences. We are based in a low income area where fundraising is difficult as many parents are on benefits or have large families.......should we not provide any excursions? The school cannot afford to subsidise all trips, some people won't even pay the 80p a week milk money but still think they should get it, but the children come in with loads for tuck!
We have never stopped anyone from attending, but sadly as many earlier posts said, it is often the same people who don't pay and more often than not they are working parents who manage holidays abroad during term time (something I will never ever be able to do, as I am restricted to peak times and can't afford it).
The school at the beginning may have made a bad decision, but without a bit of history on the situation it is difficult to say whether they did or did not.

OMG this was at a nursery school with 3-4 yr olds.........very surprised at this!

PartylitePrincess

I'm on the Committee at my daughter's Pre-School and we have a duty to offer an 'inclusion' policy inline with the EYFS (early Years Foundation Stage) Curriculum that we are required by the Government to follow. This means that such events offered as part of their education are offered FREE to all of the children and we hold fubdraising events throughout the year to finance these.

However, additional trips, such as a recent outing to a toddler's theme park were not part of our curricular programme and as such both children and parents/carers were expected to pay the full entry price or not attend. (We were fortunate enough to be able to raise the £550 before hand to finance the coach travel).

I'm not sure if it works the same in schools as it does in Pre-Schools, but even though I'm sure there is a duty for 'inclusion' of all children in such events surely no Parent would expect their child to attend for example the school skiing trip if they hadn't paid - would they?

happytimes247

I am confused about this story, why were the children there in the first place. If it was known that their parents hadn't paid why not deal with it earlier and not at the point where their friends would see them being taken out. The parents may not have realised the importance of this. If they knew their child was to be publicly humiliated they may well have paid. The headmaster/mistress should be taken to task over this. How dare they do this. Would they have liked it? It wasn't the children's fault. never heard of Diplomacy I expect. Hope the parents have written a complaint, if not why not.:huh:

claphambaby

If it was in the school day no pupil should legally be disbarred. The real moral dilemma is if you know this should you try to take advantage of it? I always require a consent form with payment so if no consent form comes in and no money then I disbar them unless the head tells me of exceptional circumctances. If money comes I assume consent!