Money Moral Dilemma: Should the school have paid?

mishkanorman

I think a few things need clarifying here, from the other thread it states that this is a NURSERY not a school and that the children were 3-4 in age, it then states the children were from the nursery year and watching it with the 'other children'

Im presuming this is a pre-school attached to a school, the nursery children involved wouldnt be govenment funded yet and would be paying private fees for their nursery. So even if its during school time im pretty sure the same rules of inclusion wouldnt apply.

Im on the friends of our school, if we had paid for an external company to come in for a performance and charged for the children to view it I wouldnt allow any children who parents didnt pay to watch. The same as they wouldnt attend discos, secret shopping events or play the lucky dip at the summer fete. If however the school organise a trip (like the recent one to an adventure park at £7.50 per child) its a voluntary contribution and no child can be excluded,

Mishka

Glosjools_2

Ask to see the school's charging policy. It is illegal for them to demand payment for educational activities that take place during the school day. They can ask for contributions but not demand (or exclude children) if payment is not made. If the activity takes place after school (or more than 50% of it is after school) they are at liberty to ask for payment, otherwise definitiely NOT.

Glosjools_2

Hezzawithkids wrote: »

I bl00dy hate the way that parents are blackmailed into these things. I've had years of notes home from school demanding a "voluntary contribution" for events happening in school during school hours, and the thinly-disguised threat of "if you dont pay up your child cant take part". The tone is always "We've organised this, that'll be ££ please", it winds me up every time but I always pay up cos I dont want my kids to be singled out and embarassed.

It ranks alongside my other pet peeve INSET DAYS as the thing I most despise about out under-funded education system in this country. And of course I realise that its not the schools' fault (before any teachers start in on me), they are hostages to the system just as much as parents are.

Rant over.

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.

wildthing01

mishkanorman wrote: »

I think a few things need clarifying here, from the other thread it states that this is a NURSERY not a school and that the children were 3-4 in age, it then states the children were from the nursery year and watching it with the 'other children'

Im presuming this is a pre-school attached to a school, the nursery children involved wouldnt be govenment funded yet and would be paying private fees for their nursery. So even if its during school time im pretty sure the same rules of inclusion wouldnt apply.

Im on the friends of our school, if we had paid for an external company to come in for a performance and charged for the children to view it I wouldnt allow any children who parents didnt pay to watch. The same as they wouldnt attend discos, secret shopping events or play the lucky dip at the summer fete. If however the school organise a trip (like the recent one to an adventure park at £7.50 per child) its a voluntary contribution and no child can be excluded,

Mishka

if it's a nursery attached to a local authority school, then it's not private, it's part of the school, and hence funded by the local authority, as the school is (unless an independent school) and if the children are 3-4 years of age, then they are funded by the government. local authority nurseries will only accept children 3 or over, as they are govt funded. therefore the rules that apply in school would apply in the nursery. 3 - 4 year olds who go to private day nurseries are also funded for at least part of their provision (the first 15 hours they attend)

i'm not sure what the rules are, but either way, i think it's a bit unair that the school handled it in this way. it is the children who have suffered, and it's not them that have caused the problem. plus if they are only 3 or 4 years old, they will not understand really why they have been excluded - they won't understnad properly about paying for things like plays yet.

iscamaid

Our PTFA has a fund put aside for cases where families have difficulty paying for school trips and residentials. The money is given to the headmistress each year and she manages it in a discrete manner. No parents or children know who has been given money so there is no stigma for the child. All parents fully approve of this, who knows with the current love cut backs in the government it could be any of the families who will need this next year.

wsheena

that is blatant discrimination.
schools ask for 'non compulsory' fees to pay for these types of things and have to say this for trips etc.
the idea is that MOST pay up and allows for the full cost of the event/visit to be covered.
yes, if the parents also wanted to attend, they should pay, but to single out the children is a complete disgrace.
the teachers should be ashamed of themselves.

wonder1

i work in a school and yes by law they cant ask for money. in 1 class not all children paid towards a school trip which would encorporate what they had been learnig as a topic. the trip was cancelled. schools cant afford to subsidise these days.
there are regular parents who never pay and think they can get away with it.
they could after all, not organise anything, and what a shame that would be.

how many parents cant afford a holiday from 1 year to the next? this can be classed as a treat once a year for them surely.

hrhqc

I agree 100% with what "jenniewb" said.
It is exactly what I would have written.

AmItheonlyone?

Shouldn't kids learn the value of money and that if their parents aren't willing to cough up then they go without? Whilst I agree that those who are real hardship cases should be subsidised I am fed up of seeing many parents at the local shop buying their fags and alcohol and then pleading insufficient funds for this kind of thing.

Perhaps I'm one of a minority these days but people need to get their priorities right!

pilatesmad

Really difficult one here. Sadly, some of the parents who haven't paid will spend their money on fags, booze etc or just choose not to send the money in because they either can't be bothered or don't want to cough up. The school staff probably know who they are. It is unfair if these parents don't pay up as the school can only provide this sort of extra with parental support and they do have to realise the consequences of not paying. There may well be other kids who were paid for by the school from special funds who were genuinely in need, but the casual observer wouldn't know if this had happened as it's confidential. Sad but true. Of course, it would be unusual and inappropriate to leave out children whose parents were in genuine need, but this may well not have happened. In the longer term, you just hope these parents will pay next time which is best for the child in the long run.