To think families on free school dinners should not be expected to make voluntary contributions to school outings

[reallytired]

I think that schools should use the pupil prenium for children on free school dinners to pay the costs of a child who is entitled to free school dinners to pay for school outing costs.

I think they should get rid of voluntary contributions. It is wrong the current system where someone on 50K can refuse to pay for the cost of an outing, but their child still gets to go, but someone on a low income will struggle to find the money.

We need a fairer system for funding outings.

Dreamingofsun uni education is free.

not where i live, its going to be 9k a year for tuition

Right. You are aware that my reply about getting more back than what is paid in taxes was in reply to being asked how these things are funded in Sweden, where I live, aren't you?

As far as I was aware, 'free' music lessons apply for one term only, after which the parents have to pay.

I dont thinks its always a fair indicator of finacial hardship tho.
I was on my own with 4 dc's worked part time and recieved tax credits but was still extremely poor due to the mortgage payments ex had kindly left me to pay so no hb as would have done if id been renting and also no maintainence which would also have helped as is disregarded by tax credits.At one point i was on minus 90 pounds a month,lived off my overdraft untill could reduce the mortgage and work more hours. I didnt qualify for school meals tho but struggled massively to pay for extras like trips.

no sorry missed sweden. i did wonder a bit about the sick leave for kids. sounds great, espec if uni education is free. here we pay tonnes in tax and get very little back unless you are out of work or on low pay. i don't mind providing a safety net - as thats obviously part of a civilised society, but it does annoy me when unemployed people can have things that working people can't get.

"At our school there is a bake sale every Friday at the school gates"

Oh, I hate those! DH and I are childminders and collect from several schools altogether over the week. It's either cake stalls, ice cream stalls, work-that-the-kids-have-done-being-sold-back-to-the-parents stalls, toy stalls, fair days...

The kids have never brought any money with them so we have a choice between being mean and telling them they have to go without, or spending a small fortune subsidising schools that our own DCs don't even attend

YABVU, those on benefits can have far more disposable income than those that dont so why shouldnt they pay. They get child benefit and tax credits to help with the childs costs. They can always ask to pay over a few weeks if necessary rather than simply not pay at all.

What good will it do for a child if they see by not working you dont have to pay for anything in life?

Most schools will have money from a discretionary fund to help. Ours did and sent a letter out but we didn't qualify as I was getting WTC at the time.

haven't read the whole thread but one reason why trips are expensive (in secondary school) is because often the trip has to be self funding INCLUDING the cost of supply teachers to cover the ones on the trip. NUT guidelines say that members should not have to cover for colleagues whose absence is known about in advance and these absences must be covered by supply. Last time I was involved in this which was several years ago, it was £140 per day per teacher that the school had to fund. On a 1/10 teacher/pupil ratio that's a min. of 3 teachers so £420 just on supply costs plus then the transport, insurance, entry fees etc. It soon stacks up. As ever there is no real fair way. Should no-one go because some can't? Should the better off pay twice? If the school funds it that's less to spend on other things. We can't just say schools should get more, they can't and won't in the current climate.

I think that it's great that our school takes Y2 to the pantomime. Without that trip some of those children would never get to go - the price for a family is horrific whereas school trips are a lot cheaper. Parents are pleased that the children get the experience. And if it really is too much the school would never dream of excluding. It does take a quiet word with the head - I don't think that's unreasonable.

Paying for school trips can be a cheaper way of giving your kids experiences that you can't afford as a family.

But Florida science trips...

How many kids really go on the abraod trips?

As children we were told to choose one during our comp yeras; I expect the same will apply to my boys tbh, well the NT (ish) duo.

Local school has a relatively high income intake (and some very poor areas but as a percent very few children)- to do all non curriculum trips would cost £6K over the full comp span.

'when unemployed people can have things that working people can't get'

like disabled kids, terminal illness and the like?

COz it's all one way isn;t it?

Disclaimer: we ARE a working family.

At my daughters school three people in her class pay for dinners, i know this because the envelopes are handed in inbthe morning and only 3 familes pay. We really struggle to pay the £20 a week (10 per chld) plus we pay for milk. However when we get letters about school trips it always says people on free school meals are not expected to contribute (and again theres only 3 envelopes) . I often wonder how they fund the trips tbh with so few people paying. The trip we recently got asked to pay for was a one day one night thing which was £100 and we had to ask to pay monthly .

"assume you live off your dp do you?"

peachy - if you do business studies in the sixth form at my son's school you are expected to go to new york. thankfully he changed his mind and is doing a different subject. My niece at a different school went to NY because she did art in the sixth form. And of course trips to spain and france if you take the language options - though i can see the sense of this.

I have no idea of happymumofone's history with regard to telling people to get a job or her circumstances. But even if she is a housewife with a rich husband that's no reason to say that she is 'living off him' as if she is some parasite attached to him. Their personal arrangements for division of labour within their family is irrelevant to a certain extent. 'living off him' is a very derisory way of referring to a sahp (which I'm sure you were well aware of when you posted). And it was that phrase that prompted my

TSC, feel free to check back through my posts. I've never said I am a SAHM and have worked since leaving education.