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.

This 'class' is in the school premise but after the school finishes. After the school each family does different things - many of them related to income. Nothing new. Some children in my dcs school are collected in Mercedes and go to restaurants for tea every day. It doesn't mean that this is 'unfair' to my dcs.

Op and her dp have 3 children and decided to give up work. Yes, for a good reason (studies) but still.... Whith a choice like this you have to be more creative (i.e. the other options i mentioned earlier). The classes in the school premise is still a good idea for those who work, those who dont drive, those who have baby or disabled siblings, for big families.

I LOVE after school activities on site and my kids do a fair few of them!

It means one less school pick up for a start

yup sorry
you chose to go to University
you both chose to go at the same time

my children are not athletic and can't sing should the school choir and all sports teams should be cancelled because they are not included

this is an after school choice same as so much other stuff

come on Kew those 2 'free' places aren't really 'free'

they are paid for by charging the parents who pay more

Many of whom may be significantly less well off than the OP and her kids.

Agreed
I also don't get the idea that the school should let people use the hall to raise funds to benefit all pupils then use those funds for the OP's daughter to do Spanish after school

We have the opposite problem at my dc's last school the school believed that everything should be free consequently they did almost nothing

I went to a state middle school and had violin lessons which my mum had to pay for. When she was broke I remember her selling her Davenport desk to pay for the extras. I am not saying it's right but I am 37, these things have always been this way

But kew if there are two free places who decides who gets them?

The child with 4 siblings living with a mum with disabilties?
The child who is living in poverty because of DV?
The child who is living in poverty because their mum and dad gave up work to go to university?
The child who is livinging in poverty because their parents are drug addicts?

Unless there are enough places for all who cant afford how is it any fairer to have two free places?

As long as all school activities are accessible to all I dont think we can really complain about private businesses charging what they like.

I would love my DCs to ride. I wont let them within sniffing distance of a pony because I know I could never afford to support the hobby if they fell in love with horses.

I dont understand why the OP feels so aggrieved, that this is such an unfair situation.

Of course its unfair that we are not all equal - rich people are not always hard workers, poor people can still be poor despite working 40 hrs a week.

But I do not think this particular situation is unfair. Its life, its captialism.

"But kew if there are two free places who decides who gets them?" - first come first served MrsDV.

I agree its not perfect (though in fact there is generally a problme in our school persuading those who qualify to come so its not a problme of excessive demand). Our school don;t have the resources (very small school) to provide the after school clubs themselves - the compromise they have made if the two free places one.

The prices are set prior to knowing whether anyone is going to avail themselves of the free spaces and the calss is provided however many they have signed up so no extra cost to add two more. Classes are rarely fully subscribed and the two free places are rarely both taken (I understand) so I think its a zero marginal cost (accountant!) and no-one is "paying" for it.

I think its something. Am I wrong? Isn't it nicer to make an opportunity avalable to kids whose parents otherwise couldn't afford it. Some of you seem to think this is not a good thing - why not?

'but no advertising in class.' is what you said Scott, hence the comment about exam boards, and text books, which clearly have exam board names emblazoned across them in many cases and are a form of advertising.

I was being no more ridiculous with that example than you are being about a school hiring out empty premises in the evening after school has finished, and getting some revenue in. School budgets are very tight; teachers spend money from their pockets on items they want for their classes as the budget won't stretch that far; so if a school is getting money that will alleviate that pressure and benefit all the kids, then fine. Your basic reasoning is definitely off if you can't see that. It's all very well spouting on about ethics, but they my dear don't pay for the all the things needed in a school, and a revenue stream from private after school clubs might. It might well fund a breakfast club so that those who don't get FSM, but whose parents are hard up, get a decent meal to start their day with, which is of more benefit I would suggest that the OPs DD getting a Spanish lesson which won't really teach much Spanish.

State education doesn't exist in a vacuum, and neither do kids. I'm sure there will be plenty of advertising on the TV, in magazines etc in the run up to Christmas for the latest toy, and the OP may have to say no to that. I really can't see what the difference is here.

As to letting me into a classroom, yes they do, and I have the pieces of paper to prove it!

I dont think its wrong and I feel pretty strongly about all children having chances.

I just dont think this OP falls into this catagory TBH.

If her kids were missing out on swimming lessons at school or a school organised trip or even music lessons provided by the school because they were at market rates - then I would get it.

But the OPs kids are going to be in the majority in this case, not the minority.

Most families would struggle to pay private prices for language lessons. If they offered them in my area I doubt if anyone would be able to take them up.

"My children have none of these things... and? Will they die for want of them? Will they suffer motional trauma because, shock, horror, some families are more affluent than others and for some the divide is huge? "

Actually, yes they are at higher risk for future mental problems because of the divide in society. Read the Spirit Level, ffs. Even richer kids in unequal societies are at greater risk of mental health problems.

Oh FGS.

Society is more equal now than it ever has been.

I'm only in my forties and I can remember kids with holes in their shoes and sweaters. My dad remembers kids with no shoes.

Everyone has enough for a roof over their heads and food in their bellies. At no other time in history has that been the case .
The irony is that the real poor are often those in work who don't have free this and bloody that and demanding subsidised after school activities.

No kid ever died because they couldn't have a fucking Spanish lesson.

By the way, if you want to learn it for free, try watching Dora.

I guess we're all doomed, then, WibblyBibble.

Jilly, I totally agree that the workers are far often worse off than those that dont but then expect everything handed to them on a plate.

Life isnt fair but what lesson does it teach children at the moment? That if your parents done work you all the extras? No wonder most children brought up on benefits go on to claim themselves.

Yup.

Family at our school, she's pregnant with number seven, full benefits and if I'm honest, I would be fucked off to fuck street to subsidise things for them when I have friends working two jobs and sticking with one child.

Jilly, no not all children have 'food for their bellies' you obviously didn't watch 'Poor Kids' where some of the children had a swig of milk for their lunch and that was it.

Electra, no child in the UK should not have food or a roof over their heads, our benefit system is overly generous and most parents get CB and millions get CTC. If a child is not being fed, its not due to being "poor" but due to the money being spent elsewhere.

Indeed happymummy

The systems in place are adequate, how the money is spent is up to the parents and it isn't always spent wisely, as we all know.

And that goes for working parents too.

Not necessarily. Some of these parents might have had pre-existing debts. You can't possibly know what everyone's situation is.

Also it's not just about money it's about education. You can cook a healthy meal cheaply. But some people don't know how to cook or have the intelligence to handle their spending efficiently. That isn't their fault - it's what comes with being socially disadvantaged sometimes.

Which brings us back to the point of poor children being helped to get educational opportunities which will enable them to get out of the cycle of being poor and to acquire the resources they need to help themselves.

Lots of people can't cook, sadly.

Which is why I'm glad they do teach all kids the basics in school now.

A school with a strong commitment to equality of access could make the permission to use the premises contingent on concessionary fees for parents on benefits, but then you introduce a whole new administrative layer and cost, requiring you to prove your income etc - and without negotiating an overall cap on cost per parent, how do you stop the cost of the concession being passed directly to other parents through higher fees?

Really, they should be offering Spanish within the curriculum. That is the basic problem here.

'We have the opposite problem at my dc's last school the school believed that everything should be free consequently they did almost nothing'

That's the very likely consequence.
Very few parents will give their time, and will have a dozen reasons why the school should.
I worked in a school that regularly got input from Children in Need, for basics. We had children that had never been to their nearest city less than 8 miles away, who had never seen the sea and who slept 2+ in a bed, often without sheets or pillows. We ran clubs for free because of the sheer scale of the need.
Two free places is tokenistic and almost worse than useless, 'apply in order of need' Victorian.