Do you pay for your child to play on a state school sport's team?

Dd2 competes for the school team.Training sessions off site are free but competitions we pay transport and entries. School fundraise to subsidise costs and have a sponsor but they compete nationally/internationally and can't afford to pay it all themselves.

God I didn't know what Ladymuck dd s school is 1600 pupils. I can see where they would take money

Gosh, you are a bit grumpy today ReallyTired.
I would say that 90/95% of the DC did get to represent. If not at School level then at House level. They all learned that they were useful to the unit (School or House) and valued by them for their talent, whatever it was.

"It wasn't just sport - they took a whole raft of extra-curricular stuff seriously. It was part of the reason why they were so popular and oversubscribed."

90% of kids never get the opportunity to be in the school play, play competitive sport or represent their school because fundermentally they are not good enough. It matters little how they work because they lack the basic talent. They are never going to represent the school in a million years.

A school needs to balance the needs of the top 5% with the less able 95%. The parents of less able children have to pay the full price if they want their children to sport beyond a basic PE lesson. Ironically the unfit children need the extra free/ subsidised sport more than the really fit chidlren.

Who is a school for?

Millymollymama - the OP is in an academy though so the LA doesn't divy up their funding.

you appear to think your kids are irreplaceable.

Doesn't everyone? But, honestly, he was quite good and part of the attraction of his school was that they took his sport quite seriously. It wasn't just sport - they took a whole raft of extra-curricular stuff seriously. It was part of the reason why they were so popular and oversubscribed.

Crikey senua you appear to think your kids are irreplaceable.

"And the school would be left saying "come to us because we pass exams and ... um" whereas the school next door would be saying "we pass exams and play sport and take part in music festivals and art competitions etc etc.""

Someone has to foot the bill. Its not as if extra curricular activites are essential.

"Like I say: own-goal on behalf of the school. There has to be a better way to raise the money. For example, a supermarket bag-pack is quite effective and creates team bonding, too."

I would rather pay the £10 a term and be done with it than accost strangers for money in return for squashing the eggs. I bardly hate it when kids offer to pack my bags badly for money to pay for some poncy activity. If you want your kids to do sport, music or whatever then pay for it yourself.

If you don't want to pay the £10 then tell your kid to get a paper round.

No, he'd play for club instead.
And the school would be left saying "come to us because we pass exams and ... um" whereas the school next door would be saying "we pass exams and play sport and take part in music festivals and art competitions etc etc."

Like I say: own-goal on behalf of the school. There has to be a better way to raise the money. For example, a supermarket bag-pack is quite effective and creates team bonding, too.

Well if your DS wouldn't play for the team then he wouldn't be asked to pay, would he?

Sorry, who do you think should pay for your child to be transported to their hobbies? I think £10 is pretty reasonable. This is extra curricular stuff, and school budgets are being constantly cut. They won't have asked for this contribution without considerable forethought and discussion. Will they be able to continue to fund these activities if parental contributions are not made?

then if you can afford to pay, then why wouldn't you pay?

I wouldn't pay for a mixed ability team. Or, rather, DS wouldn't play for a mixed ability team. At Secondary you play to win, in the appropriate league, or you don't bother.

If your kids are benefitting from being shuttled around to matches by teachers in their own time, then if you can afford to pay, then why wouldn't you pay?

If you don't pay out of principle, then I hope you don't moan when these opportunities are no longer offered.

Whilst I probably wouldn't want to pay it, the sports teams tend to involve the same children in each team. The less able are not given a chance and therefore remain lower achievers. A lot of resources go into improving the sports ability of the more sporting-able which is not replicated, in my experience, in academic or artistic subjects.

The LAs still set the formula for the devolved funding though. The overall budget comes from the Government so all the LA does is divvy it up according to the agreeed formula. The big agenda is "closing the gap" though so more money might go to schools where this is deemed necessary leaving less for others.

Also, no-one ever cites children whose parents have to pay for textiles, art and design materials. Mine were not sporty so never got the near the school mini bus for sports teams. Why can't parents make a contribution if they can afford it? Why is sport exempt? Or, they could get their own car out and make the time to do the match day taxi runs. It is probably cheaper to pay the mini bus charge.

I live in one of the lowest funded Shire counties. Our school budgets are dire - in the bottom 6 nationally. Schools are not supposed to run deficit budgets. I am not aware of LA schools paying loan repayments. Normally the LA supplies the building and the "loans" are their problem because they own the property. Foundation and Trust schools are different and they do own the buildings as do academies.

In our LA every secondary school is in budget deficit. We have 40% PP students, so get a lot of PPG BUT we're still getting £1,500 per pupil less than schools in the next borough, so the PPG gets eaten up pretty quickly. £1,500 per pupil, or £1.5m per year for a small-midsize secondary school funds a lot of extra staff, petrol, photocopying... It means the chances of getting good science, mfl and maths teachers is just that bit harder, when a school 5 miles away has a lot more to spend.

The money is not being mismanaged, but the school is in a new building and the mortage repayments are crippling.There are several schools in our LA with a budget deficit, including mine.

The school is not an academy BTW so gets its funding from the LA.

School funding works per student.

So a 'normal' secondary pupil gets x amount, a sixth former gets less, someone who is pupil premium gets the normal amount plus a bit, someone with a statements gets the normal amount plus a bit.

This can mean that schools in deprived areas (who have high numbers of PP students) get more money. They have to however prove that they are spending this extra on helping PP students.

I've never heard of a state school who cannot spend all their budget. Around 80% of the budget is usually spent on staff - the rest generally only just about covers costs.

"Bunbaker - I seem to recall (possibly from an mN thread) that LEAs deliberately starve schools of funds that have an intake from relatively well of areas because they know that parents are more likely to be willing to make 'voluntary contributions."

really?

Schools in affluent areas are not starved of money at all. Schools in areas of high deprivation get more funding because they have a lot of pupil premium pupils. It is well known that children from low income families are statistically at a disadvantage. Certainly middle class families are not stampeding to the door of these better funded schools in areas of deprivation.

Most secondary schools are now academies and funding comes direct from government. The lea has no power to set funding.

The school hasn't asked parents for any donations so far and, as far as I know, they don't plan to.

However, I think you may be right about the LEA because generally the intake is from a relatively well off part of the borough.

Bunbaker - I seem to recall (possibly from an mN thread) that LEAs deliberately starve schools of funds that have an intake from relatively well of areas because they know that parents are more likely to be willing to make 'voluntary contributions. They know that if they try it in a socially deprived area with less engaged parents that they will get no 'voluntary contributions.

I really do believe some politically motivated LEAs will do that quite cynically.

Bunbaker
It is utter bollux that there are struggling schools that cannot spend their budgets. Such schools tends to have hoards of children with high needs.

Schools are expected to be more accountable and show that the money being spent is making a difference. Should the budget if the pe department go on over weight kids or the gifted and talented? Which group will free coaching make the biggest difference to long term?

It is appalling MoreBeta, but state schools these days are seriously underfunded these days. I know, I am on the finance committee of a successful comprehensive school that is the most underfunded in our LA. The struggling schools in the LA can't even spend all their budget, yet my school is losing experienced teachers and employing more NQTs because they can't afford to pay them.

Yes, good point ReallyTired.

In effect, your dc are getting a whole term's worth of coaching and competitive sport for £10 for the whole term.
Sadly, because my dd's school doesn't provide much of that, we have had to arrange to go outside of school and form a team for her to play in, in a league, on a Saturday morning. this costs £15 per month, plus of course I have to drive her to all the matches (some up to an hour away), week in, week out.
I'd MUCH rather they had a competitive football team at her school so I only had to contribute < £1 per week for transport and not get up every Saturday morning

I don't think it unreasonable to expect parents to pay for transport costs, provided that pupil premium children get their costs paid for. £10 a term is really nothing for what is an extra curricular activity. The activity is still heavily subsidised.

"This would have cost our family £190 last year."

Is that really that unreasonable. Unless your kids are on free school meals, I don't think that its a shocking amount if they do a lot of sport.

Often children who do well at sport, music or acting come from families that are privilaged to start off with. For example Dd got exceeding expectations for PE in her year 1 report. She has the advantage that her parents can afford for her to have swimming lessons, gymnastics and has the time in the morning to walk to school. Children without the same opportunities as her are less fit and less likely to get on the school teams.

I would rather state funding went into sorting out overweight and seriously unfit children. Children who fail fitness tests should be forced to do extra PE after school five times a week. Sorting out obcesity would save the NHS thousands and ensure that these overweight children become adults who are fit to work.