Voluntary donations from parents/ carers

My son is at a state grammar school and they asked for a voluntary contribution of £36 per quarter. There’s also the option to do the school lottery which is £5 per month for 1 ticket. Daughter is at a comprehensive which doesn’t ask for any type of contribution or donation. Primary just had the school lottery.

@OxfordInkling i agree to an extent, but we were discussing this and a colleague who would struggle was very upset at the thought of a request - so I can see both sides

That’s both silly and infantilising of the school. It prevents people from making a choice, under their own agency, and at the same time denies access to funds that the school likely desperately needs.

"It’s disgraceful that schools on leafy areas with parents willing to donate have all these extras whilst those in poor areas struggle and struggle"

@1apenny2apenny Schools in all areas are struggling. Optional extras don't stop the struggle, they are just a spoon full of sugar to help the medicine go down.

"IMO this ‘fundraising’ data should be published."

I disagree. It would create additional bureaucracy and, as the donations can't be relied on as a regular income stream, the data can't be used in any tangible way. If you are suggesting that schools with low/no voluntary income might somehow be compensated then that would be counter-productive because parents would then stop making donations.

Your virtue signalling demonstrates an ignorance of how schools are funded. There is already a mechanism for providing more funds to schools in deprived areas, not only via Pupil Premium, but also via the National Funding Formula's deprivation and low attainment factors. These are designed to ensure that schools serving disadvantaged communities have more resources to meet their students’ needs.

Ours asked for £50 in Y7 which we never paid. When DD left school the "debt" was still outstanding on her ParentPay account. Her dad rang the school and explained it's voluntary and as a lower income family we'll not be paying it. The school said they'd take it off. They also tried to charge us for materials for subjects DD didn't take, the CFs.

I understand the budgeting pressures on schools but rather than asking parents for a VC I think PTAs and Heads should be taking direct action against Parliament for greater funding.

There's a can being kicked down the road here too, in that quite a few primary schools have closed in inner city boroughs like ours, so eventually at least one large comp will close. This can only benefit LAs in inner London in the long run, but puts pressure on LAs where these families have moved to.

Edited for typos

As outlined on the many VAT private school threads there is a greater privilege divide within the state system than private. It’s very lovely OP that you’d be happy to give to the school rather than pay just for your child as if you’re doing some sort of charitable giving however I’m willing to guess that given the choice of a failing school or an outstanding one you would send them to the outstanding one (as the majority would tbf).

It’s disgraceful that schools on leafy areas with parents willing to donate have all these extras whilst those in poor areas struggle and struggle. I’m willing to bet that those mc schools are raking in £££££. It’ll never be exposed though as it suits the government just fine.

IMO this ‘fundraising’ data should be published.

My DC primary and comp secondaries do it (SW London). It was very much optional but with regular reminders. Either via one off payments or monthly direct debit donations. I recently heard of a grammar school putting quite a bit of pressure on parents to contribute.

@smogsvillethe school was reluctant because it didn’t want to burden, alienate or upset those parents who couldn’t donate. It was those that could that campaigned with repeated reassurances (and examples) that it is possible to do it in a sensitive way. I think that in the end the PTA helped write the letter.
Its not raising loads but more than nothing.

edited to correct typo

Absolutely not and I’d be horrified if my head ever suggested it.

@smogsville "I’d rather spend say £200 on a month on contributing to the whole school than on specialist tutors just for my own child"

Your donations won't be spent on Teaching Staff. They'll be spent on optional extras.

Personally I wish everyone who paid for a personal tutor would stop, so that some of the tutors would come back to the teaching profession. I realise it's not going to happen though.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/article/2024/sep/02/pay-as-you-go-schooling-parents-under-pressure-to-fund-essentials

This makes for interesting reading and illustrates the inequalities as a consequence of this approach. And while I understand people who want to be generous in donating, I worry this just enables our government to get away with underfunding schools for longer. Don’t think I’m native either but I understand what needs prioritising.

Not in denial, no, just not naive about the national economy, and I'm pragmatic about how long it will take to turn things around. Feeling optimistic though.

Education isn’t everything though that’s a cop out…. taxpayers benefit from an educated society and taxpayers should pay more everyone would benefit. They are getting a better education/ experience and to suggest otherwise is you being in denial.

They are not getting a "better state education". They are getting the same state education, with some added extras paid for by generous parents. Not everything has to be paid for by general taxation. I'm a school governor so fully aware that schools need more money, but the things that are funded by parents are a drop in the ocean.

When schools were relatively better funded (the "Education, Education, Education" years) it was on the back of a briefly booming economy. We are not there now so we have to make the best of it.

But the cost of suggesting that could be an evaporation of goodwill and parents only able to donate significantly less than that deciding they're seen as not good enough if they can't meet the 'We donate £200 a month per child, it's all about the Children, really' that does emerge in some schools - along with the most disadvantaged completely turned away from the odd fiver here and there if they can stretch to it.

After all, you'd be asking for people to hand over the equivalent of working 16 hours a week if they're on NMW - so many women's (in particular) entire salary for a week a month. Would you hand over 25% of your salary a year to the school? More to the point, would you be indifferent or horrified at the sheer privilege being expressed by somebody who can't imagine what a significant amount it is to some, whilst it is but a trifle to those asking?

They are still getting the education that they are entitled to.

You could say that about the children of parents who are wealthy, who are in state schools. How is it fair that children from wealthy backgrounds are getting a better state education than children from less wealthy backgrounds (as we all know that certain state schools have a much higher proportion of wealthy parents than others - it kind of goes against the whole ethos of a state education in my opinion.

As I said if all state schools were funded properly by the taxpayers then we wouldn't have this problem..

"It doesn’t seem fair that some children get free trips and enrichment from their schools and others don’t."

Within a school, the donations from the more affluent parents supplement activities for children whose parents don't donate. It makes school better for everyone. There's nothing wrong with a bit of philanthropy.

If other schools don't have enough parents able to contribute to make that viable then that is sad for their children, but it is not "unfair". They are still getting the education that they are entitled to.

Another issue is that where state schools receive these voluntary donations from parents, the donations can be gift aided which means between the school and the parent, the full amount of tax paid is reimbursed. This means that the more parental donations a school gets, the more taxpayer funding it gets. With the sums being discussed of £100-200 per month (ie £1200-2400 per year), this is not a trivial addition to schools funding from the taxpayer. Given that the schools receiving the highest donations are likely to have the most affluent pupils, this is a distortion of the funding model.

@WhereAreTheWildThingsNow totally agree and think that should be funded centrally and there is very good argument that it should be universal. As there are saving to be made when buying in bulk etc. that schools could benefit from. As previously said parents shouldn’t be funding this kind of stuff. Very sad really.

@privatenonamegivennot lunch. Breakfast, snacks,food after school to encourage staying in school to revise. That’s not covered by FSM but is pivotal in supporting many of the most disadvantaged.

Wages are (rightly) rising. Revenues not.

Pupil premium is different from an active PTA or parent donations though - PP is linked to the number of disadvantaged pupils and schools need to show how it benefits them.

“There does seem to be a certain squeamishness at some schools about asking parents for fear of putting people under pressure when they're not in a position to contribute which is emphatically not a sensible way forward.”

You could call it ‘squeamishness’ or you could say it’s an ethical stance founded on (a) not putting pressure on parents who can’t afford it, and / or (b) a belief in comprehensive education without skewing more advantage towards schools attended by the children of affluent parents who can afford it.

I’m not saying that’s my standpoint but I think the use of the word ‘squeamish’ is judgy.

Pragmatically, I would support it as long as it’s very very clear there is no implied pressure.