Not so voluntary contributions

[awolShmaywol]

I was interested to see this on the BBC today: www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34129659

My DS's school makes it very clear they need this money to cover maintenance costs and sends out reminder letters if you don't pay up. They don't explicitly say it's compulsory, but they don't say it's voluntary either. It sounds like all Voluntary Aided schools are under pressure to raise these "voluntary" funds and that pressure is passed onto parents, even though they're not allowed to put it in their admissions information.

[HeighHoghItsBacktoWorkIGo]

Yes, there is some sort of difference between "aided" and "controlled." I don't understand the ins and outs.

[catslife]

I think it depends on the individual school to be honest. Voluntary aided schools can ask parents for voluntary contributions but voluntary controlled don't do so.
Perhaps it's different as my child is at secondary school, but the school do make it very clear that regular donations to the school fund are not compulsory and where these funds go (to support children whose parents cannot afford uniform and trips etc.). They encourage parents and carers who can afford to do so to contribute but they don't send reminder letters if families don't contribute.
They do also ask for parental contributions for educational activities e.g. theatre trips, course materials for some GCSE subjects such as Art or DT, some sports activities with outside coaches as well and music instrument tuition: but letters always state clearly that this is optional and have details about how to apply for assistance if needed.

[jacks365]

My dd is at a state nursery school attached to a primary school and they make it very clear that the voluntary weekly contribution is compulsory, the newsletter includes how much has been collected that week and how many parents have not paid with a reminder to hand into the office as soon as possible

[HeighHoghItsBacktoWorkIGo]

My understanding is, and I hope someone who really knows will come along, that VC schools get all their money from the state, while Aided schools get 90% from the state and must make up the final 10%. That 10% must be made up by the church, not the parents. The parents can be asked to contribute, but they cannot legally be forced to do so. Churches bear this burden because by doing so they maintain tighter control over the school and its admissions.

This is what I have been told. Is it true?

[awolShmaywol]

HeighHogh there's definitions of VA and VC schools on wikipedia that explain it all really well:

VA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_aided_school
VC: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_controlled_school

I think the point being made in the article is that the 10% which should be made up by the church is actually being met by parents. That doesn't surprise me because Churches don't have much money these days (apart from the ones that have their congregations boosted by parents wanting to prove attendance for a school place that is).

So really they're semi-private schools because they rely on subsidies from parents.

[awolShmaywol]

Oh, and btw, I think it's only 10% of the capital funding, not the running costs, so it's not actually that much in real terms. The contribution we have to make is around £40 per year so most people don't mind paying - but it's just a bit cheeky to imply its compulsory.

[awolShmaywol]

I guess it explains why Voluntary Controlled schools tend to be in less affluent areas than Voluntary Aided schools, because they have found it harder to raise the money. Presumably if a Voluntary Aided school couldn't make ends meet it would have to convert to Voluntary Controlled status and then it would lose its autonomy.

I guess all this will become irrelevant if/when all schools convert to academy status though :-) Then they get to have their cake and eat it - full control of the governing body, plus full government funding.

[meditrina]

The 'voluntary' part of VA and VC refers to those schools being state schools voluntarily (most pre-date the founding of the state school system).

Any state maintained school, regardless of its status, can solicit donations.

The parameters within which they may do so are set out in law: must make it clear that it's not mandatory, must not harass families, must not make it in any way apparent which families have donated or not, must not treat pupils differently depending on whether or not their parents donated.

IME, grammar schools go in for this quite a lot.

[HeighHoghItsBacktoWorkIGo]

Yes, that is what I was thinking. If they cannot raise the money, they need to go VC. And if all schools go academy, it may not matter anyway.

And, yes, I think it is naughty to imply parents have to cover church costs. Churches don't have to cover these costs, so long as they are willing to give up a little control. They want to maintain control and get parents to pay for it.

[mrz]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23467750

[mrz]

churchandstate.org.uk/2013/03/how-rich-is-the-roman-catholic-church/

[awolShmaywol]

Point taken mrz, and of course as the Catholic church owns most of their own school buildings (though not all apparently) they can threaten to close them down completely if they lose control over their governance and admissions, though I expect in practice they would turn as many private as they could.

Hmm, I think I'm starting to understand why it is only new faith academies that have to have 50:50 admissions. The Government would never fulfill its aim of converting all schools to academy status if church schools dug their heels in over that.

Not sure if it would help but perhaps the Gvt should register all VA school buildings as assets of community value.