Do School Trip Fees subsidise non-payers?

bloolagoon

jellyhead wrote: »

Often the schools actually state on the trip letter that those on FSM don't have to pay, so that's why many don't.

Our letter about the residential asks for a small contribution from those on FSM, but doesn't suggest how much. The trip will still go ahead, so presumably there's a pot that pays for those children. The whole class is expected to go, and it would would pretty horrible if somebody couldn't go due to financial problems, at age 8.

Let people miss out if they don't pay when they're older, fair enough, but not at age 8.

Our school has zero discounts for residential. The cost goes up if people don't go. It's common for children not to go, my child wont be going on one this year and he is fine with that. We explained that my drop in income, potential house move, has left us short. He is 9 and fully understands this.

FBaby

just because last year we were in an okay place financially, does not mean that now I am. And I cannot suddenly cancel everything we signed up for back then.

Does this brings up another issue though, that as a society, we seem to have assimilated this attitude of only thinking of the present time and not considering what tomorrow might bring. People take on credits, contracts etc...solely based on the fact that they can repay there and then, not considering that their circumstances might change and yet they will still be attached to these contracts.

It would seem that we believe that it is ok to spend all our income on luxuries...as long as we can afford it. No consideration for savings for the future what if. Then when people are strapped in their contracts/debts, they expect tax payers to help them because it's not their fault if they have debts.

I think we should all take responsibility for the choices we make and if we take on loans and sign up to contract, it's understanding the consequences of not being to get out of them until the end, hence having to make other potentially serious sacrifices and that will be through no other fault than ours.

jellyhead

bloolagoon wrote: »

Our school has zero discounts for residential. The cost goes up if people don't go. It's common for children not to go, my child wont be going on one this year and he is fine with that. We explained that my drop in income, potential house move, has left us short. He is 9 and fully understands this.

Fair enough. The residential has always been completely free for FSM at this primary.

Perhaps because of that, there's the expectation that they will ALL go. A couple of parents who've expressed concern that their children aren't ready for it have been told that theirs will be the only ones not going, and that they might be embarrassed that they are too scared to go, when the 29 others out of their class are going and they will be put back into a younger year group for the week.

School have payment cards so we can pay in bits here and there, so it would be tricky to say actually I can't afford it.

Nicki

FBaby wrote: »

Does this brings up another issue though, that as a society, we seem to have assimilated this attitude of only thinking of the present time and not considering what tomorrow might bring. People take on credits, contracts etc...solely based on the fact that they can repay there and then, not considering that their circumstances might change and yet they will still be attached to these contracts.

It would seem that we believe that it is ok to spend all our income on luxuries...as long as we can afford it. No consideration for savings for the future what if. Then when people are strapped in their contracts/debts, they expect tax payers to help them because it's not their fault if they have debts.

I think we should all take responsibility for the choices we make and if we take on loans and sign up to contract, it's understanding the consequences of not being to get out of them until the end, hence having to make other potentially serious sacrifices and that will be through no other fault than ours.

That is quite a breathtaking patronising post!

Should no one ever take out any contract or payment plan of any description, regardless of whether they can afford it at the time and the fact that there is no warning that circumstances should change? No one should have a phone on contract, or sky TV by your reckoning, even if that is well within their current means?

Just because the poster you are referring to ended up short of money due to changes in the family's employment status, does not imply in any way that they lived beyond their means when they were both fully employed or that they had no savings. It doesn't take very many months of greatly reduced income and having to pay the mortgage from savings, for even quite substantial savings to be wiped out.

I am not surprised in the least that redouble was upset by some of the petty judgmental posts on this thread. I'd rather be poor and unable to pay my child's school trips but generous in spirit, than scrupulously paying my child's own way to the very penny and no more, but displaying a meanness of spirit to others as some have done on this thread.

FBaby

Should no one ever take out any contract or payment plan of any description, regardless of whether they can afford it at the time and the fact that there is no warning that circumstances should change?

But there are often warnings and yet people ignore them. My organisation was under threat of redundancy a few years ago. When we were going through consultation and not sure what would happened, a number of colleagues rushed off work (one even took the day off) to go and get the latest i-phone, came back in the office all proud, showing them off. A number of people went on holidays putting it all on the credit card...because they were so stressed with the situation. One even bought a new car during that time, despite the fact her husband was also working for the organisation. She said that for all she knew they would both be unemployed the next year and they might as well enjoy life now.

Of course not every one reacts this way, but I think many more do. I don't know if it was the case for redouble, hence saying it brought up 'another issue' referring to her post in general terms and using 'we' rather than 'you'.

Dunroamin

Nicki wrote: »

That is quite a breathtaking patronising post!

Should no one ever take out any contract or payment plan of any description, regardless of whether they can afford it at the time and the fact that there is no warning that circumstances should change? No one should have a phone on contract, or sky TV by your reckoning, even if that is well within their current means?

Just because the poster you are referring to ended up short of money due to changes in the family's employment status, does not imply in any way that they lived beyond their means when they were both fully employed or that they had no savings. It doesn't take very many months of greatly reduced income and having to pay the mortgage from savings, for even quite substantial savings to be wiped out.

I am not surprised in the least that redouble was upset by some of the petty judgmental posts on this thread. I'd rather be poor and unable to pay my child's school trips but generous in spirit, than scrupulously paying my child's own way to the very penny and no more, but displaying a meanness of spirit to others as some have done on this thread.

TBF, the poster in question did say that she had a high income but still couldn't afford to pay for trips. I don't think many people would question a family's ability to pay their own way if a family had needed to move from a decent income to living on benefits.

John_Pierpoint

There are very many people who live in our capitalist economy and regard having a cushion of capital as an optional extra.
There are also other people who simply cannot prioritise or manage their spending.
These are the people who end up enslaved by pay day loans, especially when the pay-day fails to come.

nodiscount

FBaby wrote: »

Does this brings up another issue though, that as a society, we seem to have assimilated this attitude of only thinking of the present time and not considering what tomorrow might bring. People take on credits, contracts etc...solely based on the fact that they can repay there and then, not considering that their circumstances might change and yet they will still be attached to these contracts.

It would seem that we believe that it is ok to spend all our income on luxuries...as long as we can afford it. No consideration for savings for the future what if. Then when people are strapped in their contracts/debts, they expect tax payers to help them because it's not their fault if they have debts.

I think we should all take responsibility for the choices we make and if we take on loans and sign up to contract, it's understanding the consequences of not being to get out of them until the end, hence having to make other potentially serious sacrifices and that will be through no other fault than ours.

Indeed. We have a culture where we are so used to the welfare state that we forget to take care of our own welfare.

I don't seem to hear the phrase 'saving for a rainy day' anymore.

Janepig

jellyhead wrote: »

Often the schools actually state on the trip letter that those on FSM don't have to pay, so that's why many don't.

Our letter about the residential asks for a small contribution from those on FSM, but doesn't suggest how much. The trip will still go ahead, so presumably there's a pot that pays for those children. The whole class is expected to go, and it would would pretty horrible if somebody couldn't go due to financial problems, at age 8.

Let people miss out if they don't pay when they're older, fair enough, but not at age 8.

DD/DS's school never mention on their school trip forms, residential or otherwise, that payment is optional, either for those on FSM or otherwise. Doesn't mention a contribution, or that if people don't pay it won't go ahead. You just get a standard form, with the details of the trip on, split into cost of transport and cost of entry (sometimes there's no cost, if they're walking to a local park or something) and a tear off permission slip at the bottom. The only nod to FSM's is if it says a packed lunch is needed, it says that the school will provide a packed lunch for FSM children.

We do have a low number of FSM children though - I couldn't even tell you who in DD and DS's class might be eligible, and I know all the children and their parents. I can't think of any parents that aren't working, although there may be some that get it because of low income. I think I mentioned before, what DD says about the two or three children who aren't going on the up and coming residential trip just don't want to stay away from home or do outdoor muddy activities in November. Although of course they could be saying that when the reason is that of lack of funds. But I genuinely don't think it is.

Jx