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.

YANBU in my opinion.
I think if advertised by the school and clearly linked to the school should have similar pricing/ concessions to other school clubs. If not it is divisive and creating inequality. As you say - state school not private. Complain - schools have 'equality' criteria to meet and are supposed to promote it.
If they don't the school should distance itself from this course and not link it to the school in any way.

I also pay tax. I also can't afford to pay for everything I want. I have also had to repay my student loans. This course has nothing to do with taxpayers money as it is private, not government funded. It is run by someone who is earning not much money from it, probably trying to fit in part time work around her own kids. It would be no different if you had never paid a penny of tax in your life.

I think the school should have made it clearer that the taster session was a private company and not a free school club. It's not nice if lots of kids have got their hopes up. Although perhaps you could have asked.

What is the solution then? Schools no longer allowed to let out their premises to private activity providers because not everyone can afford every club on offer?

I think people are being a bit hard on LtEve - she's already said that she misworded her initial post, and didn't mean that children have to learn that they are intrinsically unequal - she stated she believes all people are intrinsically equal - but that people are materially/financially unequal, and that that is a fact of life.

If your child asks you why their friend can't come to ballet classes, what do you tell them? You could say you don't know, or you could do as I assume LtEve did, and say it's because they can't afford it (though this does risk your child blurting that out in front of others and causing upset or hurt). Certainly as a child gets older, I firmly believe you have to be honest. Our dses know that there's a certain amount of income coming into the house, and that there are things that have to be paid out of that, and they know that the disposable income that's left isn't enough for them to have everything they want - in fact, I think we say no far more often than we say yes - and if they say that it's not fair that X can have this, that or the other, and they can't, then we tell them that that is the reality of life.

The flip side of this is that they understand that there are people who are a lot worse off than they are, and are generous in giving to charity from their own money (from paper rounds, so earned by their own efforts). There also seems to be an easy cameraderie amongst them and their friends that whoever's in funds shares their sweets etc with those that aren't.

It has everything to do with public money, since it is a class being held in buildings paid for with public money, and supported by a school paid for with public money.

If it is the case that pupils were given a free taster for a private course that some wouldn't be able to attend, and that the invitation to this class was issued using school facilities (including being mentioned by teachers) then that is an abuse of public funds IMO.

We are not poor, but I do not want my children attending a school where pupils are treated differently based on income.

If I wanted my kids to learn that the more you have the more you're worth, I'd send them to private school.

I wouldn't send my child to a taster class for something if I knew that I couldn't afford the whole course, I assume the OP wouldn't have either.

Whether it was badly thought out on the part of the school/organisers, or whether it was a cynical move to increase numbers through pester power, it is just not the right way to do things.

Having a "first session free", hooking people in and only then telling them how much it will cost is a well known sales ploy and I do not think it is right to be using those type of promotions on children.

SheCutOffTheirTails - if the company isn't paying for the use of the school buildings, or is paying a reduced rate, then I'd agree with you. But if they are paying the full commercial rate (covering rental, utilities, caretaker to lock up etc), then it doesn't have anything to do with public money and is, in fact, bringing in money to the school that it otherwise might not have had, and can now spend on all the children.

"If your child asks you why their friend can't come to ballet classes, what do you tell them? You could say you don't know, or you could do as I assume LtEve did, and say it's because they can't afford it "

You would tell your child that another child wasn't doing a class because their parents can't afford it?

SERIOUSLY?

That is appalling. You have no idea what other families can and can't afford.

You can teach your children that there are things that YOU can't afford, but not about what their friends' parents can and can't afford. That is none of your business.

"But it's not a sense of entitlement when you're 9 years of age and come running out of school all excited about an after school club that most of your classmates are attending and you can't because your family can't afford it".

That excited 9 year old would be just as let down if they could not go because of some other reason (going to other parent that night, regular physiotherapy appointment, need to pick up siblings elsewhere meaning later finish impossible etc). Yes, if course it's horrid when children cannot do what they want to do, for a reason that is beyond their control. But it's going to happen, and just has to be dealt with.

My DS's school has after school clubs, some of which are free, most of which we pay for. This is quite common for schools. Our school PE dept is "outsourced for key stage 2,(which, by the way, is great, as they get far more choice etc considering we are a small schoo) but they also run 3 of the after school clubs which they charge for. We were told this after the taster session, Our boys wanted to do them all, we had to say pick one, as we could not afford anything more.

I think you have a point - I agree with the poster who said that if the company benefits from free premises this subsidy should be passed on to poorer children in the form of a subsidy- at the moment it just reduces all fees equally which is not fair. To echo the OP to a degree we have enough money to pay full cost and would do this even if it meant more opportunities for others - who aren't responsible for the choices their parents made. I have too many painful memories of being the poorest child in the class and unable to do many things because of money

I also think a school offering after school clubs in academic areas is blurring the lines between what it should provide in its role.

And surely, even at private school, there are going to be some pupils whose parents can afford all the extras, some who are struggling just to pay the fees and can't afford any extras, and all the stages in between.

SD - I'd go along with that if the school weren't subsidising the marketing of the class by promoting it to their pupils.

If it's just something that happens to take place in their building, but that gets NO preferential treatment AT ALL from the school, then fine.

But that doesn't seem to be what happened here.

SheCutOff - it is very interesting that you chose not to finish that quote from my post where I said that telling your child that X can't afford ballet classes risks your child blurting that out and causing hurt/upset.

If you read carefully, you will also see that I did NOT say that I would tell my child that X's parents can't afford the classes - I merely presented it as one of the options, then qualified it by saying why I thought it wasn't a good option.

I've seen a lot of classes that offer free tasters and would always find out the cost before I let my kids go to the taster, personally. It's up to the parent to check these things, or else risk disappointing their kids.

"Yes, if course it's horrid when children cannot do what they want to do, for a reason that is beyond their control. But it's going to happen, and just has to be dealt with."

Well, sure it's going to happen.

But this is SCHOOL - a place where children should be treated equally and taught that they are all equal, where the wealth of their parents shouldn't make a difference to how they are treated, what they learn, what they get to do.

That is really, really important (to me at least).

Just because life isn't fair doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make school fair. School is not "a capitalist society", it is a place for children, where they are protected from the realities of life and taught to exercise their mind while they are small.

I chose to leave it out, because it was so obvious it was barely worth saying once, and also isn't the only reason why you shouldn't be speculating to your children about what their friends' parents can afford.

I'm quite shocked, and a little upset, to find that schools are promoting free taster sessions for classes run by private companies.

:(

The public sector is completely compromised.

Did I say it was the only reason? Did I say it was the option I would choose? No I did not. You quoted only part of my post, and then assumed I would take the second option in order to get all [horror] at me - something that I think is not reasonable.

Can I just say the reason I am so bothered is because it is through school. Fair enough there are private classes and lessons she cannot have which are run on private premises in the evenings and weekends but this is advertised and facillitated through a government (tax) funded school ..

'I agree with the poster who said that if the company benefits from free premises this subsidy should be passed on to poorer children in the form of a subsidy- at the moment it just reduces all fees equally which is not fair.' So, how do you choose which of the poorer children will be subsidised? Someone will always lose out. The company is not a charity, and if there are too many subsidised places, it won't turn a profit and will not run.

Mmmmm, I'm a bit on the fence on this one.

I guess it depends whether the school is charging them for the use of the hall; if not, then the company maybe ought to fund a lower-cost place...but even that would still exclude families on benefits, no?

But why shouldn't the school promote it to their pupils if it will benefit some of them?

It's a good thing for the children who can access it. The children who can't access it probably can't for a variety of reasons, not just money.

All our children should be given opportunities, and that's what this is, an opportunity. If OP's dd can't go because OP has chosen not to work, how is it fair that her choice not to work means that other children miss out on an opportunity?

There is a boy in my ds's class that has a problem with his joints, meaning he can't do too much sport. He can't go to the free football club that my ds goes to, so you you think the school should cancel that as well? Afer all, there is a child who can't take part through no fault of his own, so why should others have an opportunity that he doesn't have?

I give up. This is outside of school. When I was at school there was a swimming pool in a sort of wooden shed like construction. If you wanted to go to extra swimming lessons AFTER school hours then you had to pay, just like you have to pay to go to the council pool.

If the school has been doing some promotion on this club then I agree, that might have upped the pester power and is somewhat unfair. It is normal for these clubs to have a taster session because parents don't want to pay for the whole term and then find out their child doesn't like it after the first day.

Lets just stop all these clubs then shall we? Unless people pay for them then they simply won't happen.

On the one hand, schools are encouraged to be part of the wider community. Allowing the community to use their buildings is part of that (and a welcome source of revenue to pay for equipment they need in school). But on the other hand, they are getting all this criticism because not everyone can afford the activities.

Can I ask if the cost of the club, and the fact that there were no subsidised places, was made clear before the taster session, Polly? As others have said, if this was the case, it is very shoddy practice indeed.

Regarding the use of the school - as I've said earlier, if it is bringing in income to the school, then this will benefit all the children, and that should be a good thing - but I am not at all sure of the ethics of advertising it through the school - that does seem wrong to me.