Do School Trip Fees subsidise non-payers?

nodiscount

peachyprice wrote: »

Don't pay then, but don't grumble if the trip is cancelled and the school stop arranging further trips due to lack of parent interest.

I didn't mean I didn't want to pay at all. I meant I don't want to pay for others too! (if their parents can't be bothered).

E.g: If a trip is £4 but parents have to pay £8 because half the people in the class have parents who can't be bothered. I personally don't agree with that.

shirlgirl2004

I can't see the £8 cost is subsiding anyone, I'd say that's the cost of the coach split by the number of children going. Coaches are really expensive to hire which I know from hiring one for a school trip. I'd say the school have managed to get a good deal on coach travel.

nodiscount

con1888 wrote: »

When I was at primary school if you didn't pay fully you didn't go.

Only one trip was exempt from this rule in a way and that was the p6/7 week long trip to an outdoors centre, parents who didn't get free school meals paid £110 and those who did paid £40. Again if you didn't pay anything at all, then your child would not go on this trip.

I would be really annoyed about this if it happened to me. There are those on a low income who are not entitled to free school meals.

lushlifesaver

jemb wrote: »

But if it's subsidised then none of the children would need to pay, so you wouldnt be paying for any 'non-payers'?

A subsidy does not mean the school will cover the whole cost for each child, it means that they have paid an element/percentage of the cost either as a whole (e.g. if the coach were to cost £350 the school may elect to pay 25% which is £87.50 leaving £262.50 to be sourced).

I my opinion £8 is rather cheap to consider they have to pay for staff, lose out on teachers/staff being in school and therefore on the additional work teachers put in on those days when nobody is looking (during breaks, non teaching supervisions etc) plus have to pay insurance etc etc etc!

OP I think it's highly unlikely that you're paying for 'non-payers' as as others have said there is more than likely provisions in place for if people do not or are unable to pay. Just think of it from the schools point of view;
30 kids go on a trip that costs that school £400, say that those 30 kids are all in the same year and the school is small with just one class per year group. In a primary school that equates to a maximum of 7 classes and a possible 7 trips. costing them a total of £2800. Now in more realistic terms there's probably a couple of classes for each year in many schools now which could mean the cost could vary between £5600 and £8400 or more especially if entrance fees and food etc then had to be factored in. That money could also be earmarked for an assistant in a class or an SEN assistant for a child with additional needs... granted not the full wages but a good chunk.

Seanymph

How can they know who won't pay when they give out the cost? Of course you cant' therefore be subsidising those that haven't/can't pay!

Ex Governor here too - The school works out the cost of the trip (coaches who will take 30 or so kids are expensive!) - often the staff have to take the trip before the day to do risk assessments, ensure they know where toilets are/they will picnic/what issues they will find/where to go in.

The ACTUAL cost is divided by the number of children and a 'donation' is requested from parents.

Any shortfall is met for those children whose parents do not make the donation from the school budget/PTA.

This can be done for non payers, but parents who do not or cannot pay are encouraged to approach the school and discuss it - the school can offer grants to all children for all trips, but obviously it doesn't advertise that, but it does support those who cannot afford those opportunities for their children.

As one teacher explained to me when I queried that level on the budget 'imagine trying to teach Shakespeare in play form to a child who has never had the opportunity of attending the theatre - that is why we need to take them, in my class of 30 at least 2/3rds will have never been taken to the theatre by their parents'.

Trips are an extension for the school experience for children, and of great benefit, and as a parent I hugely valued the time, dedication and effort that staff put in to allow my children to join them (I even went on several myself as a volunteer when extra adults were needed) - staff do not pay to go, but they give up up to weeks of their holidays to accompany children.

As someone has said, wait for the ski trips! I had three one year and each one cost £800! But I was just grateful that the staff were prepared to take the risks, give up their holiday, and accompany 40 kids to the slopes for a week at half term.

I am in awe of teachers - and for £8.00 - if you can afford it - what a lovely day out they are offering your child.

pollypenny

I have run many theatre trips, longer distance ones were subsidised by the school.

For example, ticket price £11, coach per head £6.50 for 57 seater.

The school subsidy would let me charge £15 to make it feasible for all the class. (
A-level)

Any pupil who couldn't pay that only had to come to me quietly and something could be arranged.

The general subsidy would come from funds raised for that purpose by the PTA. For those who couldn't pay anything, the relevant form was sent to the LEA, who paid.

My prices may seem cheap, but I have been retired for 6 years now,

maman

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.

peachyprice

trinity_enigma wrote: »

con1888 wrote: »

When I was at primary school if you didn't pay you didn't go.

I was just thinking this. We just wouldn't have been allowed to go. And if I remember rightly you would hand in your permission slip with the money- I assume they still have permission slips so why would you sign that if you weren't willing to pay?

Having said that I do believe exceptions have to be made for those that simply cannot afford it particularly when it is an educational trip.

Schools are not allowed to ask for compulsory payment for educational trips and they are not allowed to exclude children whose parents don't pay.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

The Pupil Premium paid to the school in respect of those children who qualify from free school meals subsidises your children's education, as it is used for the benefit of all pupils.

Treevo

OP - you will just have to get used to paying more than your fair share because the school isn't allowed hold the lazy parents to their responsibilities.

It's high time the law was changed to ensure that parents paid for school trips, rather than claiming they can't afford it and then heaping the cost onto everyone else. Frankly if you can't afford £8 to pay for a trip to a museum then you need to reassess your life.

If this means that a child can't go on a trip and has to watch as the rest of the class goes then good. Maybe it'll teach them the value of hard work rather than how everything is given to you on a plate.