Private companies running classes in state schools, DD can't go because we are poor, AIBU to complain??

[PollyPeppa]

We are below the poverty line as we have 3 DC's and DH and I are full time uni students. We worked in low paid jobs and decided enough was enough and are now hoping to get better ones after university.

DD's school had just started up after school Spanish club. We sent her along to the trial session and she loved it. We had foolishly assumed there would be a concessionary rate (as there usually is with after school clubs) but there is not as it is run by a private company so we can't afford for her to go again.

I feel this is very unfair to offer this as only children whose parents can afford to send them can go, I think it creates a divide in the 'state' system.

Polly, where is the cut off though? There are always going to be those who for whatever reason cannot afford it. What about someone who gets £1.00 per week more than you, yet are above the limit to get subsidised lessons. You are advocating that everything is free.

You are being subsidised in that you are presumably not paying the full cost of university fees that my son will have to meet. Why is it fair that you are more subsidised than he will be?

SCOTT; even at school not all kids are the same. They should all be treated the same way with equal opportunities in class and the same resourcing, but some are cleverer than others; some are less disruptive than others. Whether you like it or not there are differences.

Polly I know you didn't say that no children should be able to take part - others seem to be though.

There really ought to be funds available to allow children like your dd to take extra classes. As I understand it there have been in the past, but they're going.

In the meantime rather than preventing any child from doing this things we should be persuading politicians that these funds are important and bring longer term benefits.

Maypole, how do you know people on the dole have never paid tax?? I have been on the dole before and have paid a shitload of tax, there is an unemployment crisis at the mo meaning many are on the dole who really can't help it.

I never said that children should be stopped from doing classes.

I said that the school shouldn't be subsidising classes that aren't available to all children, regardless of the financial means of their parents.

And that subsidy would include promoting the class in any way.

If the lack of that subsidy means the class is no longer viable, then it was never affordable by anybody.

But the idea of public money being spent to subsidise the "almost poor" at the expense of the poor is revolting.

All children benefit by going to schools that don't allow the financial means of their parents create an obvious, officially sanctioned division between the ones that matter and the ones that don't.

Yes, there should be more money for this kind of thing. But while there is not, there are still choices about how existing money should be spent.

Those choices should be fair to all pupils. All of them. Even if their parents have never worked.

YANBU, all educational facilities at or through a state school should be free. It's a state school; we already paid for it.

Everyone pays tax.

Except for the hordes of hunter gatherers roaming the plains, of course.

I know it's not exactly social in terms of being with peers but what about hiring some langauge CD's from your local library (if they have them) and do some Spanish together. I know it's not the same but if she likes Spanish she might enjoy learning it at home. Maybe there are even age appropriate resources you could get from the library or even special order type things from your library at minimal cost. My local library ordered/aquired some books in for me at only 75p each item. You may also pick up stuff at charity shops/car boot fairs.

But they're not spending any public money that I can see

Every teacher at my school runs a club, some run two.
We have encouraged parents who feel that there should be a club for XYZ to run it themselves, with support from school. Sadly that has not happened.
I would love free clubs for all. Who will be the volunteers?
Or are you advocating total equality OP, so if one parent cannot afford it, the club must not exist?

When I first started teaching, my school ran only three clubs, all sports.

You will effectively then have no private classes at schools, and so limit severely the extra curricular activities on offer. Teachers will not fill the gap for very long, if at all.

The school is a building. They are making money from renting the space. That money presumably either benefits all the kids in extra resources, or is used to subsidise the school trips costs for those who can't afford it. Those who can pay for the classes are therefore subsidising those who can't afford the trips, as well as paying the voluntary contribution for the trip. What is the problem?

If none of the children who couldn't afford it wanted to do Spanish would there be an issue? If there was a free club and it was on a first come first served as numbers were limited, and none of the poorer children bothered to sign up, is that also non-inclusive?

It isn't the fault of the OPs kids that her parents have made the decisions they have, but equally, neither is it the fault of the other kids whose parents have made different decisions and could afford to pay. Incidentally, does the OP pay for a childminder after school, and if so, would the money used for a CM for an afterschool session not cover the cost of the lessons? My lectures sometimes went on well after the end of school.

I'm on the fence with a splintery arse on this one.

On the one hand I'm uncomfortable with inequalities in school but I also appreciate after school opportunities, school trips etc.

I like the idea of concessions for poorer kids too.

The pupil premium is a bit of a double edged sword. My kids school has three children on free school meals. Some parents are wealthy but most are the squeezed middle and now the school is having to belt tighten considerably because funding is being directed into the pupil premium which benefits hugely some schools but not others. Now that is very, VERY unfair and yet I don;t hear many shouts of anger.

The other thing is that some parents choose good state schools over private with the understanding that they " top up" their kids state education with extra activities. If you take those away to be fair to all, those parents will vote with their feet. And in our school it is those parents who raise thousands a year for the PTA which benefits every child.

They are getting a subsidised room rate, and free marketing opportunities to a captive (and impressionable) market.

No private company should be getting those things unless they are offering subsidised places.

Well, I'd argue that no private company should be allowed to advertise to a school's pupils, but if they are being allowed to that, there must be some public service element to their profit-making.

They may well be already offering an all round subsidised rate. You don't know.

OP, sorry but I think YABVU.

I grew up very poor and I had to do without many things that my friends got to do via school. I remember once they organised a visit to a Bucks Fizz concert. It probably cost £10 which was way out of the question for my parents. I didn't go. All my friends did. My parents didn't expect me to get it for free or cheaper.

I find your OP a bit like saying that your kids would love to go to Disneyland, but your can't afford it and you think it's unfair that you are expected to pay the same price as everyone else who goes.

I'm sorry your DC will miss out, but this is an extra-curricular club, not part of the NC. A "treat" in other words.

Your OP suggests to me one of the things I feel is wrong is society at the moment, a sense of entitlement to things, whether you can afford them or not.

No wonder the kids have inflated sense of entitlement.

I think YANBU for feeling the way you do. If it's a private enterprise, and they're making money from it, I don't think it should be advertised through the school (if that is indeed how your daughter came to be interested).

My son attends a martial arts class run by a ccompany who advertise very heavily through the school, by way of leaflets in school bags. My little boy does go, but there are no doubt parents who can't afford it and whose kids come home all excited with their leaflets.

I see the pint about holidays, ponies etc, but I presume the schools don't advertise these on behalf of the providers.

Good for to too, OP (I hope that doesn't sound patronising because it's not intended that way) for working so hard to mprove your family situation.

Can I add another viewpoint here?

Someone I know runs a Music Bugs franchise and she used to hold an After School Club at her local school (where I was on the PTA)

She had to pay to rent the room from the school and the money from this went straight into the PTA coffers BUT she was given a concessionary rate from the Head which meant that she was able to charge parents less for these classes then she would otherwise.

It was an arrangment that worked for her as a business (she used the lower room hire rate to reduce class fees NOT to profit from parents even further), but it also worked for the school (they got a rental income) and for those parents who enroled their children (as they paid less then they normally would).

Sadly, the school annexe burnt down (oops! :)) so the classes stopped but I do think this was a nicer way to do things.

Exactly quirrell, it's quite frightening to think of the sense if entitlement engendered by both school and your parents making sure that you learn the lesson early that "not everyone can afford things", with the crucial corrolary "but we can, so you'll never miss out, darling".

We can afford some activities for ds1. others we can't afford. Agree with EveDallas, her dd had to make a choice, my ds had to choice which one he wanted. We ALL make choices. In our lives. What we spend our money on.
People always joke about Uni students, who can't tie thier own shoelaces. I met some at Uni too. People who couldn't manage their grant ( yes I was lucky, I was there in the days of grants), some couldn't cook. some couldn't do all sorts of things.
I think Op is naieve. I think Op, needs to go to the University of Life.

I sympathise with the OP. I'd like my DS to do many things, including swimming lessons, Spanish club, Tai Kwan do etc... But I cannot afford them either. He only gets to do rugby because my DF pays the fees, and DB sometimes helps out with kit. I think it is bad that some activities aren't subsidised more, as well-rounded children make well-rounded adults. But there you go. The divide between the haves and the have nots just keep getting bigger, and as you can see from this thread, not many people have any sympathy.

There is a big difference between having and x-box and getting a head start in a language or a sport. The latter 2 should be accessable to all. So, YABU, but YANBU.

Is anyone else really shocked by the attitudes on here? I find diabolo and quirrelquarrel views really quite shocking, don't all children deserve equal opportunities?! I know troll hunting is against the rules...

Jillysnooper- the pupil premium is additional to the school central standards fund. The school budget isn't being squeezed to direct it at fsm kids- it used to form part of the disadvantage subsidy (under labour govt) but is now more targeted, but it doesn't come from elsewhere in the school.
And pollypepper- the pupil premium was allocated in april this year for 2011-2012. They should have some left. £431 per fsm child plus a rolling budget. You are entitled to ask what the school has spent that money on...

there is a place for private classes, not in state schools. If they want to run it at a state school they should at the very least lower their fees, if they dont want to do this they can still provide this classes outside of school time and will still make money.

Schools provide a pool of possible customers, that alone they should be enough. Its bad enough the amount of adverts in those primary school aged magverts they send home with kids too young to read yet.

yanbu, they should offer concessions to poorer students. also the comparison between the fee paying clubs (the fun ones) and the ones run by the school (chess club, gardening club) are in different leagues. one type is obviously going to be automatically more attractive to children and the others not so. I fthese private companies and teachers are so great they should be given the task of selling chess.

Maybe that's why the Tories are in power?

Because a significant minority of people in England get a little buzz out of inequality.

And how it makes them feel when they look down on those worse off than they are.