Do School Trip Fees subsidise non-payers?

flashnazia

Person_one wrote: »

The message it sends is "Somebody gives a damn about you, and wants the best for you, even if your parents don't."

That's all, and its a good message.

That is a good message but I doubt it's what kids will think. They won't attribute them going on a trip to the benevolence of other parents/the school. I think Its quite damaging actually as they might grow up with a sense of entitlement. Schools shouldn't automatically dish out for non-payers. Rather they should investigate the reasons and reward accordingly. If you've just lost your job you can have the fee waived, if u have become sick u can also have it waived but if you are a Karen Matthews type then no, u can't.

On the other point, free school meals doesn't always equal less disposable income than working parents.

Nicki

flashnazia wrote: »

That is a good message but I doubt it's what kids will think. They won't attribute them going on a trip to the benevolence of other parents/the school. I think Its quite damaging actually as they might grow up with a sense of entitlement.

How damaging might it be to grow up with a sense of injustice though? To remember that at age 6 you were stigmatised by your schoolmates because your parents didn't pay for trips and that you missed out on educational (not fun) opportunities through your whole school career as a result.

Toto

flashnazia wrote: »

That is a good message but I doubt it's what kids will think. They won't attribute them going on a trip to the benevolence of other parents/the school. I think Its quite damaging actually as they might grow up with a sense of entitlement. Schools shouldn't automatically dish out for non-payers. Rather they should investigate the reasons and reward accordingly. If you've just lost your job you can have the fee waived, if u have become sick u can also have it waived but if you are a Karen Matthews type then no, u can't.

On the other point, free school meals doesn't always equal less disposable income than working parents.

Unless people go into schools armed with bank statements and a full SOA this would be based on nothing more than judgement on a personal level. That's a great message to send kids isn't it.

nodiscount

Nicki wrote: »

How damaging might it be to grow up with a sense of injustice though? To remember that at age 6 you were stigmatised by your schoolmates because your parents didn't pay for trips and that you missed out on educational (not fun) opportunities through your whole school career as a result.

I grew up in a household where there was no spare money. I wore my mum's shoes to school and got laughed at....by the teacher.

It was unfair but life is not fair.

The experience taught me to make an effort. If the school bought me shoes and clothes (paid for by other parents) I think that may have made me reliant on charity.

In any case I didn't intend to start a benefits thread. I think the school guidelines about 'voluntary' contributions is wrong and it sends out the wrong message.

nodiscount

piglet25 wrote: »

All these comments directed at parents who receive Free School Meals are uncalled for, and is the reason why lots of people who are entitled to them won't claim them because they will get stereotyped and looked down on.
People on benefits don't have a massive disposable income, and with the vast majority of people thinking they are dossing scroungers it can't be much fun. There will always be the exception, but a large number of people are seeking to improve their situation, and I don't see how catting about their children getting a free meal or a funded trip is going to help anyone. If someone objects so strongly about it, don't pay for your own child and let them miss the trip, then they will at least be able to empathise with the child whose parents couldn't afford to send them.

I don't think anybody directly insulted parents on fsm did they? If I came across that way I apologise.

Nicki

nodiscount wrote: »

I grew up in a household where there was no spare money. I wore my mum's shoes to school and got laughed at....by the teacher.

It was unfair but life is not fair.

The experience taught me to make an effort. If the school bought me shoes and clothes (paid for by other parents) I think that may have made me reliant on charity.

In any case I didn't intend to start a benefits thread. I think the school guidelines about 'voluntary' contributions is wrong and it sends out the wrong message.

So you can see what happened to you as a child was unfair but because it happened to you, you think it should also happen to a new generation of children too. How very enlightened. It is because of attitudes like this that a school didn't help a 4 year old reduced to eating out of bins by giving him free food with the results we've all read about. But at least that child didn't grow up to rely on charity.

Why is it only the kids whose parents don't pay who need to learn the lesson that things need to be paid for? If you feel so strongly that this is a lesson children should learn then why not pick one trip this year, refuse to pay and ask for your children to be ostentatiously excluded and told the reason for this is your refusal to pay. That'll teach them a valuable lesson about the need to pay your way and also that they aren't special and better than other kids because you can pay.

barbarawright

flashnazia wrote: »

That is a good message but I doubt it's what kids will think. They won't attribute them going on a trip to the benevolence of other parents/the school. I think Its quite damaging actually as they might grow up with a sense of entitlement. Schools shouldn't automatically dish out for non-payers. Rather they should investigate the reasons and reward accordingly. If you've just lost your job you can have the fee waived, if u have become sick u can also have it waived but if you are a Karen Matthews type then no, u can't.

On the other point, free school meals doesn't always equal less disposable income than working parents.

How exactly would the school do these investigations? Send out a detailed questionnaire before every trip then pay surprise visits to homes to check whether the parents have a car and a flat-screen television? Or would they just 'know' as an earlier poster said. Because you always 'know' who is trying it on. And because means-testing parents is a key part of the school's educational role

Toto

If we are talking about teaching kids that things need to be paid for, then a better lesson would be to make the kids earn the trip money. So, have a £500 total cost (for example) and then get them to find ways the class can raise this, cake sales, car washing in the school car park on a Saturday, sponsored event. I think that would be a far more valuable lesson than choosing to exclude and single out certain children because their parents can't/won't pay. I'm actually horrified that there are some people who would condone this sort of act.

peachyprice

piglet25 wrote: »

All these comments directed at parents who receive Free School Meals are uncalled for, and is the reason why lots of people who are entitled to them won't claim them because they will get stereotyped and looked down on.
People on benefits don't have a massive disposable income, and with the vast majority of people thinking they are dossing scroungers it can't be much fun. There will always be the exception, but a large number of people are seeking to improve their situation, and I don't see how catting about their children getting a free meal or a funded trip is going to help anyone. If someone objects so strongly about it, don't pay for your own child and let them miss the trip, then they will at least be able to empathise with the child whose parents couldn't afford to send them.

Exactly what I was thinking.

The schools my children have attended have had to send out begging letters pleading with parents to please claim for FSM if they are eligible, with reassurances that it will be confidential and that no-one will know, your child won't be singled out etc.

What a few people here are failing to acknowledge it that the extra funding schools receive for each FSM child benefits the WHOLE school, so those bashing FSM's and benefit claiming parents, YOUR children are benefiting and being subsidised themselves. But hey ho, take away FSM's and I'm sure you'd be happy when the school has less money to spend on your child.


As for those saying 'what message is that sending to children, they'll believe you don't have to work for anything', you really think primary school aged children have a clue that they're on FSM's and getting trips subsidised? I don't know what kinds of areas you live in, but they sound pretty ropey if your school is full of the kind of parents who are going to gloat to their children that they're benefit scoungers and they get everything for free. Back in the real world, most struggling parents have more pride than that and children carry on blissfully unaware that they receive FSM, for the majority of parents pride doesn't fly out the window just because you fall upon hard times.

missprice

Sheesh is this sort of jealousy chip on shoulder thing still going on.

When my kids were at school and I was on those benefits, I paid for all the trips for both kids and except for a few residential mega expensive ones they went on all of them.
In fact pretty much all parents on benefits did to the detriment of something else, food or heating or a bill being missed.
However the ones who did not pay were those who worked as they thought they would be subsidizing all those on benefits. What they always failed to see was that us benefiters subsidized them, simply because we paid because we did not want our kids to be tarred and picked on.
One parent had iirc 9 kids in the same school (whatever you think of having so many kids is irrelevant here for this discussion) and therefore had to pay way more than others. But still they were paid for.

The bashers as usual think that ppl on benefits had no life before and were always on benefits. This is not true and many were married. In that marriage they would take on debt and when they split plenty of that debt would then have to be paid off with benefits. Now I have always said benefits is enough to survive on IF you have a decent home ( that does not cost the earth to run) and no debt. As a hell of a lot of parents start on benefits with at least one of those problems, then its not enough to survive on.

Married could also be living with etc.
Using tablet so find it hard to edit