Do School Trip Fees subsidise non-payers?

peachyprice

suejb2 wrote: »

Thanks for your response peachyprice.
You're waiting in the queue when the cashier asks for you to pay extra on your shopping because somebody else didn't want to volunteer their total of the bill,would you?

That makes no sense as a response to my post.

penguin83

My daughter is currently on a 5 day trip with the school that cost £300. It is a lot of money but we were told about it a year in advance (they do this trip every year for the Year 6's) and were given the option of three payments of £100 each term or 10 payments of £30. The head did say there was money in the 'pot' to help those that couldn't afford it but to me this is the sort of thing that child benefit is for. x

pollypenny

[QUOTE=Soleil lune;63247560

My friend went on a trip to Cadburyworld last year and was allocated another girl to look after, along with her own daughter, because the girl's mother apparently couldn't make the trip, even though she didn't work.

She sent the girl with no lunch and no money, so my friend had to give 'her' lunch to her, and what bit of money she had to spend on her daughter, she had to share with this girl because she had none, and on the journey, the girl said 'can i sit next to you?' meaning her own daughter couldn't sit next to her own mother.

She spent ten pounds on this girl as well as her own daughter, buying her ice creams and gifts, as well as giving her her sandwiches, and when the mother met the girl at the coach, she said 'where's all the free f**cking chocolate you're supposed to get? Not a thank you for my friend looking after her or buying her gifts or anything.

THIS is the type of person that will not pay towards school trips![/QUOTE]


Your friend should have told the cheeky madam that she needs the money spent on her daughter back. Tell her what she owes.:cool:

I realise that there's fat chance of getting it, but make the point.

alleycat`

I think what this has really established is that we put systems in place to help those less fortunate so they don't miss out and that, as usual, there are some in society that take the proverbial.

This has the unfortunate impact that people end up questioning why they should bother when others are seen to be blatantly gaming the system.

I understand the concept of "no child left behind" but it has some unfortunate consequences.

All this thread does is highlight those sorts of dilemmas?

Person_one

alleycat` wrote: »

I think what this has really established is that we put systems in place to help those less fortunate so they don't miss out and that, as usual, there are some in society that take the proverbial.

This has the unfortunate impact that people end up questioning why they should bother when others are seen to be blatantly gaming the system.

I understand the concept of "no child left behind" but it has some unfortunate consequences.

All this thread does is highlight those sorts of dilemmas?

Better a few 'gamers' get away with it than a single child be left behind.

Its the price we pay, but its acceptable for the benefits.

Janepig

Person_one wrote: »

Better a few 'gamers' get away with it than a single child be left behind.

Its the price we pay, but its acceptable for the benefits.

I disagree. It galls me that the people who really are struggling are the ones who aren't entitled to help. Why should I scrimp to subsidise a trip that someone else could easily afford but choses not to? As someone else has pointed out, what is child benefit for? Surely it doesn't come as a surprise that you may be asked to pay for the odd trip when your child is in school. What about you use some of the £40 a month you've got from not paying for dinners? No, it irks me that it's the ones who really struggle who don't get help, and just because children are involved it gets emotive.

There's lots that my kids' friends have got that my two haven't, but hell, that's life. We can't always have everything we want, we already have free education for all and we've established that curriculum based trips legally should be free for all. So maybe some kids have to miss out on the residential "fun" trips. Not nice, but unfortunately that's how it is. And it's a shame that the people who choose to play the system make us cynical about the rest.

Jx

Person_one

I can't quite believe that you assume not paying for school dinners means that £40 is just lying around as 'spare' cash!

peachyprice

Janepig wrote: »

There's lots that my kids' friends have got that my two haven't, but hell, that's life. We can't always have everything we want, we already have free education for all and we've established that curriculum based trips legally should be free for all. So maybe some kids have to miss out on the residential "fun" trips. Not nice, but unfortunately that's how it is. And it's a shame that the people who choose to play the system make us cynical about the rest.

Jx

I think you're talking at crossed purposes here, other parents don't subsidise residential 'fun' trips for those who don't want to pay, if you don't pay, you don't go, unless it's in exceptional family circumstances where the school has a fund to subsidise such children.

I really cannot begrudge paying an extra £1 if that means a poorer child has the opportunity to go on a trip. If your children go to a school where the better off parents are refusing to pay you need to address that with the school, but to begrudge a poor child a pound or two? No.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

Janepig wrote: »

I disagree. It galls me that the people who really are struggling are the ones who aren't entitled to help. Why should I scrimp to subsidise a trip that someone else could easily afford but choses not to? As someone else has pointed out, what is child benefit for? Surely it doesn't come as a surprise that you may be asked to pay for the odd trip when your child is in school. What about you use some of the £40 a month you've got from not paying for dinners? No, it irks me that it's the ones who really struggle who don't get help, and just because children are involved it gets emotive.

There's lots that my kids' friends have got that my two haven't, but hell, that's life. We can't always have everything we want, we already have free education for all and we've established that curriculum based trips legally should be free for all. So maybe some kids have to miss out on the residential "fun" trips. Not nice, but unfortunately that's how it is. And it's a shame that the people who choose to play the system make us cynical about the rest.

Jx

You don't get cash to pay for free school dinners; it's a credit applied at the school precisely because it's recognised that the level of benefits paid is not enough to cover the cost of the meals.


And I can't speak for everybody, but I know the Child Benefit went on little inconveniences like paying for food, clothing, lighting, heating, furniture, materials for school, school uniform, PE kit and everything else my girls needed, rather than school trips.

Janepig

Person_one wrote: »

I can't quite believe that you assume not paying for school dinners means that £40 is just lying around as 'spare' cash!

It's £40 more than I would have if I didn't send mine in with a packed lunch. It's one less bill to pay, that's my point.

peachyprice wrote: »

I think you're talking at crossed purposes here, other parents don't subsidise residential 'fun' trips for those who don't want to pay, if you don't pay, you don't go, unless it's in exceptional family circumstances where the school has a fund to subsidise such children.

I really cannot begrudge paying an extra £1 if that means a poorer child has the opportunity to go on a trip. If your children go to a school where the better off parents are refusing to pay you need to address that with the school, but to begrudge a poor child a pound or two? No.

One of my friends has had a letter home from her son's comp for a skiing trip with two prices. One full price, another price for the "less well off". Not an educational trip, a fun one. My friend's son isn't going because she can't afford full whack and isn't entitled to the reduced cost.

To me it's priorities. If I didn't have the spare cash to fund school trips or whatever, I would cancel the sky subscription, go without my weekend Chinese, not buy a huge tv, look at budgeting on the food shopping, and a million other cutbacks so that my kids would not go without. I wouldn't expect other families to dip into their pockets to fund them for me when I already get money off the state to help pay for these things.

Jx