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.

SheWhoMustNotBeFlamed- thanks I will look into that

LtEve - I was wondering the same thing. There seem to be some posters on here assuming that that is what other posters think/feel/mean, and then attacking them for that assumption.

Frankly, if I am going to get flamed, I would rather be flamed for something I have actually said, than for someone else's assumption of what they think I am saying.

Pint - here is some info I found on the scotland area of the CAB website.

www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotland/your_family/education_index_scotland/problems_at_school_scotland.htm#chargingforeducation

Unfortunately society is full of people who have the same disgusting attitudes, I wish it were only limited to mumsnet.

What most of you seem to miss is that those children living on/below the breadline or the working poor like myself are already going without in their home life. No holidays, days out, clothes sourced through charity shops, furniture off freecycle, struggling just to pay the bills and keep a roof over our heads. It's not a case of my dd learning a valuable lesson that she can't always have what she wants, when the case is all that she gets are the basics.

I don't want sympathy or do I believe that anybody else is responsible for my situation but I do want my dd to be on a level playing field when at school and to feel that she's an equal.

Where are all these people who are 'looking down on poor people' ?
I can not see this.
We all make life choices. Op has made hers. She and her dh chose to go to uni at the same time. One could have waited till the other had finished and was in the better paid job, that they hope to get, before the other one started uni. But that was not their choice.
But you can't now quibble.
I'm sure lots of posters on this thread, have leaflets shoved in their childrens bookbags etc. I do. I don't care. I see Football summer school etc etc. If I can't afford it, we can't afford it. End of. why would I mind? Why does Op mind ?
I see advertsiing everywhere. We are going to be in the run up to christmas , in a minute, and the christmas present adverts start in about October , don't they, yuk. do you object to advertising elsewhere OP ?

peanutbutterjellytime - That actually brought tears to my eyes, really well put x

Oblomov - can you not read? Seriously, for the fourth time, we are financially better off now than when we were both working full time. We would be in the same boat financially even if I was working while DH was at uni.

Bit selfish of you and your partner to both be studying, you should have staggered it so that only one of you was at Uni so the other one could work.

You choose to be poor students nobody forced you.

Unless you take decent degrees you won't necessarily earn a decent income.

Sorry but I fail to see how you would not be better off with BOTH of you working than studying.

That's nuts. You could have done an OU degree and worked and studied.

FabbyChic - If we worked and studied at the same time we would not have got a student loan. I don't see how we could both work full time and study full time too, with 3 DC's. Anyway it's not really the issue.

All I can says if after schools clubs had to offer concessions then the only schools that would offer these activities would be schools in well off areas. My DD school there is less than 5% free dinners less than 3 miles away the % is over 30%. I know where I would start an after schools club.

Again, where are these posters 'looking down on poor people', where are the 'disgusting attitudes'?

Seriously, I don't see them.

All I see are people that have said the OP IBU to expect a private company paying a private fee to use a building outside of school time to teach 9 lessons of Spanish to primary school children as an extra curricular activity, to allow her child to attend for a subsidised rate.

I would have LOVED to go to uni full time.

I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Fabbychic.

You could have got full grants with the OU if you were on a low income. You could have both studied, both worked and sent your DC to Spanish club.

Surely you knew that you would be making huge sacrifices in order for you both to study at the same time?

I had to write a cheque for DS's guitar lessons. Its not like its left us without gas money but its still makes a dent.

"but I do want my dd to be on a level playing field when at school and to feel that she's an equal."

See, I don't think there ever really is much equality. someone's always got something you haven't/ more than you.

Someone lives with a parent that abuses them. Someone's dad never sees them. Someone always has the latest ........ someone has a rich grandad that pays for their ...... some children have parents who really care and take an interest in their schooling, reads with them and attends all parents evenings. And even in the olden days there was always one kid whose parents bought them the latest rubber, than everyone drooled at , on the first day back.
And not ALL of these things relate to money. Some are just about love and care.

We have more than some children in ds1's class. We have alot less than some others. I regularly hear tales of 60k cars and Fortnights in Greece. I heard it today. I'm not jealous.

I think you need to open your eyes Op and teach your dd to be happy with what she's got. And that there will always be people with more than her. Ce-la-vie. Don't worry about it.

OP, yes i can read. I got that.
I still don't see the 'looking down on poor people' bit, that you refer to.

Oblomov - I didn't say that, someone else did

FFS
Now I am usually the first to jump the defence of the poor.

I am pretty poor myself as it happens.

Me and OH can only work part time. OH is disabled, I am a carer for him and one of the DCs.

I want my DCs to have as much as we can give them. The eat well, are dressed and do as many activities as we can possibly manage.
But there will always be something that we cannot afford.
Cant afford the therapy DS2 needs for one of his disabilities. Its not on the NHS even though it was them who diagnosed him.

You made a huge choice to both give up work at the same time. It was your choice to do that. YOu did it so one day you two can earn more and pay for the things you cant now.

At least you will have that to look forward to.

We are just going to get poorer.

Yes DD does get free school meals, that is all we get but still, I would personally like to thank every tax payer on here for that

Was that aimed at me, PollyPeppa, as I asked if your children received free school meals? I asked, as I explained in my post, because I thought they might be able to get some free or at least subsidised school activities. I didn't mention anything about having to thank the taxpayer, it was a genuine post offering genuine support.

Oblomov, you're absolutely right that all around us there is inequality and unfairness, but I'm not sure that it logically follows that schools should be allowed to reinforce this sad fact.

I would prefer if private businesses did their marketing outside of my child's school bag. As you say, there's enough advertising bombarded at little children.

Also, I don't think it's right that private businesses use state schools for 'after school' clubs unless part of the fee they pay to the school is then used to subsidise people on a low income who want to take part. School clubs should be exactly that and subsidised in the same way that school trips are.

Poor children have their whole lives to have inequality rammed down their throats. There's no need for it to take place in school.

SD

I thought the OP had said that the classes was given a subsidised room, it's a long thread, so I'm not going back to check, but if she reads maybe she could confirm, or deny?

I'd also argue that it could be a good thing for children to understand that there are people worse off than themselves (not, you note, that there are people who are intrinsically worse than them), because that enables you to discuss the importance of finding ways of leveling out those inequalities, and to show your kids that they can do things to help their friends who are less well-off.

I would argue that too.

But that's a lesson you learn at home, from your parents. It's not something that children should realise at school because there some children can do things that the school is promoting, and some can't because their parents can't afford it.

What I've been objecting to is the strong feeling amongst some that it is important for poor children to learn early that they are not going to have the same chances in life as their better off classmates.

That is not quite so edifying a lesson as the one that you need to be grateful for what you have and gracious about your luck in having it. It's a hard, horrible lesson.

Sure, it's one those children will learn. But it's one that they'll learn every day of their lives. School should be an exception to that. School should protect them from situations where they miss out because they are poor.

And it should also protect wealthier kids from having to face their good fortune placed so starkly beside the lack of opportunities for their friends.

All that needed to happen here was that the school let the £70 Spanish places happen, but didn't hand out leaflets, didn't promote the free class, and didn't offer a cheap room. Interested pupils from families of mean don't miss out, poor pupils don't have their poverty rubbed in their face by their teachers.

I really don't understand why it is seen as so crucial to children's education that schools subsidise lessons that many of their pupils can't afford. That subsidy is effectively taking money from poorer children (who have as much right to school resources as any other pupils) and giving it to wealthier ones.

ILoatheMickeyMouseClubhouse - no it wasn't aimed at you, sorry if it came across that way! It was aimed at all the people who were having a go at us for being at university and poor rather than working and poor

Your child obviously hasn't been in school long!! Wait til they get to secondary and satrt with the World Challenge £3500 trips and pretend to them they can raise the funds for it themselves (at the age of 15 -yeah right) and tell them it will give them UCAS points

Your whole argument rests on their being a subsidy. There has been no mention by the OP that the rooms are offered at a subsidised rate. Numerous posters have stated that in their experience rooms are hired out at the same rate as they would be hired out to brownies or weightwatchers or whomever.

As others have said, you could question the advertising, but the fact that a school is the base for certain activities outside of school hours is not inequality.

I am genuinely flummoxed by this thread.

The advertising IS a subsidy.