Do School Trip Fees subsidise non-payers?

pollypenny

surfsister wrote: »

yes used to work in a school and those that pay do subsidize those that don't. I knew parents that had 3 kids and never paid for any trips but were always first in the coach! Not their fault of course!

guess you could take them to the museum yourself and meet the school party then pick them up again. we had parents do this. so no cost.

Not in any school where I have worked!

graspandsave

OP- why don't you just ask at your school what their policy is,


then decide

Grumpyswife

My husband was once a Chair of Governors. If the trip is part of the curriculum or course then they cannot exclude non-payers. If it not for curriculum purposes then they could exclude them, but would still have to accommodate those children in school by providing work and supervision for them. That also has a cost on it's own.

I think if it really 'can't pay' rather than 'won't pay' then I would like to think if it was me in that position my children would not be penalised for it.

Strapped

DigForVictory wrote: »

ExSchool Governor here. There are usually little pots of money tucked into the accounts that can be used to help top up school trips. We usually required a trip to be wholly self funding, but would use various pots to help specific families. So the school budget subsidised specific unable-to-payers.

Persistent non-payers of various sorts tended to get a personal invite for a chat, which established where the problem was. We had one family who refused to have anything to do with zoos - once we knew, we were able to have either /or options built in.

We would have been utterly sunk without our Bursar!

Outrageous - so much for "voluntary" contributions then.

Strapped

maman wrote: »

If we're going as far down the road of 'taxpayers' money' then the answer is you will be subsidising non-payers. If you're asking, is your £8 subsidising them, then it's unlikely. It's probably just the cost of the coach in round figures to make it easy to collect. Coaches for schools have become increasingly expensive since compulsory seat belts were introduced (remember 3 in a seat?) and the ever increasing cost of fuel.

The way it works is that to make learning more accessible, relevant and fun (;)) schools plan off-site visits or invite groups like drama or dance specialists into school. These things cost money. The LA and the government allocate an overall budget and the school has to spend it as wisely as possible. Although inspectors applaud this way of learning there isn't enough money in the budget to fund these activities so schools ask parents to contribute. IIRC the law says that if a visit is part of the curriculum then children must go whether the parents pay or not. The 'subsidy' for those who can't/won't pay will come from the overall school budget.

In schools in wealthy areas, parents will pay up happily and they probably have loads of extra funds as well from well-supported PTAs etc. In poorer areas, there will be some money available from the pupil premium (generated by FSM)element of the budget but that also covers all learning support too so hardly a bottomless pit.

Too right. Some of us remain committed to the idea of free, universal education.

And, before I get totally slated - I am an active fundraiser for our school. I am the Treasurer of the PTA and always volunteer as a parent helper for trips, or to help with the driving if cars are used. But I do believe that it is wrong to put pressure on parents to pay for trips. Our PTA provides a pot of money to the school which pays for transport etc for trips and this system works well here. We're in an area generally regarded as very affluent but there are some sharp divisions between the haves and have-nots.

Strapped

SingleSue wrote: »

Despite my boys receiving FSD, I have always, always paid for their trips etc at the requested voluntary amount, the same as everyone else. I am a proud person and to have to ask for help in that way would be mortifying plus I have always thought it unfair anyway to expect other parents to subsidise things. No matter how tight money is, I will always find a way to pay for it.

For the more expensive school organised holidays, they do not go.

And this is exactly why I think schools need to be a bit more creative than demanding money directly from parents.

skyeblue

not sure if it's been said already, but how do you know which if any children do not pay for their trips. Do the payers (or the non-payers) have to put teir hands up, so all the class knows who they are? I would hope the payment is made in a confidential manner, otherwise those who are subsidised would be singled out. I would also hope the free school meals kids are treated the same way, confidentially.

Treevo

Strapped wrote: »

And this is exactly why I think schools need to be a bit more creative than demanding money directly from parents.

Demanding? Just who should be paying for your child to go on a school trip then?

Strapped

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.

If I could thank this twice, I would.

Treevo

skyeblue wrote: »

not sure if it's been said already, but how do you know which if any children do not pay for their trips. Do the payers (or the non-payers) have to put teir hands up, so all the class knows who they are? I would hope the payment is made in a confidential manner, otherwise those who are subsidised would be singled out. I would also hope the free school meals kids are treated the same way, confidentially.

I'm not sure that would be a bad thing in the long run. Might make the kids realise that you have to work to pay for nice things.