Do School Trip Fees subsidise non-payers?

supersaver2

missprice wrote: »

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

How on earth do you know which parents pay, which don't and who works and who claims benefits?!

nodiscount

Toto wrote: »

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.

I think that's a good idea.

I think schools should ensure they don't give parents a free ride that's all but if it doesn't work then so be it. It is mean to exclude a child and I don't really condone it but I don't think it should be easy for parents to not contribute either.

nodiscount

Nicki wrote: »

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.

I don't think that's a fair comparison at all!

Do you suggest all the other parents are at fault for that child's death because they didn't subsidise his meals in order to alleviate his hunger?

The school failed to challenge his parents appropriately. In the same vein, schools should not be afraid to question the 'won't pay' parents.

Janepig

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.

peachyprice wrote: »

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.

More hand wringing and accusing. No one has benefit bashed or criticised those on FSM, or mentioned the word "scroungers" - my original point (as borne out by the recent study into poverty undertaken in Wales) is that it's the working parents who are worse off now. That's not having a pop at benefit claimants and I'm not commenting on people's individual circumstances. My own grandmother fooled all her friends and neighbours into thinking she was as poor as a church mouse when she was more like bloody Rothschild!!

Unless you are privy to people's bank accounts then you don't know what people's circumstances are despite appearances or what they might say.

People have pointed out that FSM is a tool that's now used to grant extra money to schools, which is great, but as the "all children should be equal" argument is being used then why shouldn't all schools be given the same money? DD/DS's school is at the bottom of the pile when it comes to handouts from the LEA, but what makes their school less deserving?

Jx

Better_Days

Originally Posted by Person_one 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

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.

As a child I was on FSM after my parents split when I was 10.

I clearly remember being one of 3 or 4 children in the class who didn't go on the school trip. Had the school/other parents paid for me to go I certainly wouldn't have seen it as an entitlement. I would have been incredibly grateful. My siblings and I were already set apart by FSM, never having the proper uniform etc. Listening to all the excitement before the trip and the discussion aferwards and not being able to participate is difficult for children who want to fit in within peer groups.

Children who come from low income families are painfully aware of the way in which they are viewed by others. It seems to me the pendulum has swung too far if parents are querying a small proportion of £8 which 'might' go to 'the undeserving'.

missprice

supersaver2 wrote: »

How on earth do you know which parents pay, which don't and who works and who claims benefits?!

Gossip?

Cos the workers were not there at the school gates so they obviously worked, plus kids tell each other all sorts of info.
Everyone in that school knew I attended college and what course I was doing and how long it was and which day I had someone else pick them up cos college had an evening element.
But I know I never told them all :cool:
People who paid were happy and proud about paying,people who didn't were subsidised. As I was in the parents group it was our efforts that paid the subsidy . so if the school asked for x£ it did not need great math skills to work out how many had not paid and as ppl do talk and will talk anyway regardless we knew who in our group had paid. It was easy to work out who had not paid.
Ergo the workers often did not pay

Will also take this opportunity to repeat this was when my kids were at school.many years ago now

nodiscount

Better_Days wrote: »

As a child I was on FSM after my parents split when I was 10.

I clearly remember being one of 3 or 4 children in the class who didn't go on the school trip. Had the school/other parents paid for me to go I certainly wouldn't have seen it as an entitlement. I would have been incredibly grateful. My siblings and I were already set apart by FSM, never having the proper uniform etc. Listening to all the excitement before the trip and the discussion aferwards and not being able to participate is difficult for children who want to fit in within peer groups.

Children who come from low income families are painfully aware of the way in which they are viewed by others. It seems to me the pendulum has swung too far if parents are querying a small proportion of £8 which 'might' go to 'the undeserving'.

If the cost if really £4 but £4 goes to non-payers that's hardly a small proportion. A National Minimum Wage worker has to work one hour in order to get around £4 in hand (after all tax-free allowances are exhausted).

It's good that children still get to go regardless but their parents should be questioned about it to see if there really is a hardship issue.

Acc72

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 above comment is very interesting.

It would appear that those experiences have affected you - possibly more than you would admit ?

JimmyTheWig

Janepig wrote: »

People have pointed out that FSM is a tool that's now used to grant extra money to schools, which is great, but as the "all children should be equal" argument is being used then why shouldn't all schools be given the same money? DD/DS's school is at the bottom of the pile when it comes to handouts from the LEA, but what makes their school less deserving?

The point is that children on FSM _still_ achieve lower than their peers in school. School is _still_ failing these children. More effort needs to be put into improving their outcomes. That's where the Pupil premium comes in. It is extra money for schools with more FSM children - money that should be spent (and has to be demonstrated how it is spent) on improving the outcomes for FSM children. Your children's school isn't less deserving than other schools, it just doesn't need the extra money as much as other schools.

The idea that "all children should be equal" means that all children should be given equality of oportunity. It doesn't mean that all children should be treated exactly the same at all times.
So one child may be struggling with his reading. So he needs extra help. Another child may be way ahead of her class with her maths and so needs extra "help" to stretch her. Another child may be just fine and not need extra help with anything. Exen though two of these three are getting "extra" and the third isn't they are all being treated equally because they are all getting the help that they need.

nodiscount

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

The point is that children on FSM _still_ achieve lower than their peers in school. School is _still_ failing these children. More effort needs to be put into improving their outcomes. That's where the Pupil premium comes in. It is extra money for schools with more FSM children - money that should be spent (and has to be demonstrated how it is spent) on improving the outcomes for FSM children. Your children's school isn't less deserving than other schools, it just doesn't need the extra money as much as other schools.

The idea that "all children should be equal" means that all children should be given equality of oportunity. It doesn't mean that all children should be treated exactly the same at all times.
So one child may be struggling with his reading. So he needs extra help. Another child may be way ahead of her class with her maths and so needs extra "help" to stretch her. Another child may be just fine and not need extra help with anything. Exen though two of these three are getting "extra" and the third isn't they are all being treated equally because they are all getting the help that they need.

I don't think it's fair to blame the school if these children fail... You can throw as money as you like at children who fail at school but if the parents/guardians aren't supporting them it can mean money down the drain.