To Be P***** Off at yet another expensive school trip

[meah]

Hi, my ds has is now starting yr 9 & dd yr 8, in yr 7 a school trip was offered but cost was in the £300s (i forget exactly how much) being so expensive i couldn't afford it and it left both kids gutted when well over half of the kids in their yr got to go. ive just recieved another school trip email (not sure which yr not that it matters) offering a ski holiday trip, abroad for 6 nights for £680. which would be fantastic if i where loaded!! Why cant schools offer school trips that are affordable to all like they're supposed to instead of making those whos parents cant afford it feel left out!!!

You're presuming the people who went on none did so because they couldn't afford it rather than they just weren't interested. Like i mentioned earlier the one trip that was heavily subsidised and would have been free to some wasn't any more popular than the others, 10% of my year only went on that.

'It's when you don't provide these opportunities that your aforementioned cycle of social inequality continues into future generations.'

outraged I could not agree more.

So what about the families who can't afford to send their children on the trips? Just 'providing' the opportunities is meaningless if the people in most need of them do not have the means to ACCESS them (due to lack of funds).

Then maybe their children will aspire to send their children, and will be motivated to try for a better future.

Just providing the opportunity is not meaningless to the children that do get to go though is it? They won't all be the children of rich parents that have a two week holiday in the sun every year.

Then maybe their children will aspire to send their children, and will be motivated to try for a better future

YY ^ this

And you seem to be ignoring the point that the children that can't go will not have to be left alone singled out for being unable to go. There are lots of people that won't be sending their children on every school trip going, the ones that don't go aren't going to be anything worse than a bit disappointed.

I know friends who paid for their own trips from paper round wages. There was also a hardship fund for those in genuine need.

This thread displays really well why British society is getting closer and closer to social meltdown.

It has become a society of the haves and have nots. The haves may have earned their money in ways probably best not discussed. Many of the haves are definitely not bothered by any form of morality.

Is it immoral for mr and mrs smith to take their ff on a skiing holiday? If no, why is it immoral for mr jones the maths teacher and miss brown the geography teacher to take 20 students on a skiing trip?

*dd

The haves may have earned their money in ways probably best not discussed. Many of the haves are definitely not bothered by any form of morality

Complete and utter bollocks.

We are talking about school trips here - costs in the £100's not drug dealing and £000000'00s

I remember a school trip with a large number of poor kids (South Downs Way Trip) in a posh comprehensive.What was interesting was how all the outdoor "Duke of Edinburgh" type kids never went near the "we take the dogs hunting at night" kids normally. By the end of the holiday the two types were talking (if perhaps the divide was too large to overcome long term). Members of both parties still remember it 20 years on (school reunion) .

Had it been expensive only the same friends would have been present.

What if you do not have "disposable income" or it is limited?

No - you can do what you like with your own money. What is not on is offering skiing to all, knowing full well that a large proportion cannot go. That is NOT the business of STATE education.

Then maybe their children will aspire to send their children, and will be motivated to try for a better future.. Yes, wouldn't it be lovely if this were true for the majority of the 'have nots'. But this is not reality. Reality is that the 'have nots' become more polarised from the 'haves' and their situation becomes more and more entrenched and hopeless, (sorry for stealing your words dikkertjedap).

LtEve - I think what she is getting at is that if you have the cold hard cash, you stop caring about those with lazy, feckless parents who spend all their cash on gel nails and spray tans.

Why is it immoral for mr jones the maths teacher and miss brown the geography teacher to take 20 students on a skiing trip?

Because they aren't paying for them.

Hence poor students are left discussing how in half term they climbed the carpet display's in Carpet Right (true story) because they had nothing to do.

The parents are paying in both cases, so it's immoral to let other people take your children on holiday?

I think you are being a bit extreme SoSweet, we are only taking about school trips.

And what do you even mean by have nots?

I can't get my head round the argument that keeps cropping up, that over half of children have taken up the trip, so that makes it perfectly legitimate that they get to go and the minority don't.

Within school when does the fact that over half are able to do something make it acceptable that the minority don't?

Over half are able to read and write, a minority can't, but hey that just reflects society.

Over half are able to access the curriculum, a minority can't due to their SENs, but hey that just reflects society.

Over half the children are happy at school, a minority aren't due to being bullied, but hey that just reflects society.

I admit I'm picking inflammatory examples, but I don't think the argument that over half the children's parents can afford to send them on trips and a minority will never get the chance but hey that's real life, is a million miles from these other examples.

I don't think financial inequality is acceptable in school.

the range of what people got up to at half term will be present with or without school trips.

You are being extreme too ovenchips, you are talking about basic needs from education. A school trip isn't something that children have to have to get a good education. They are an optional extra. Like piano lessons.

ovenchip - exactly. The key words are - IN SCHOOL. State school is the ONLY avenue left for social mobility, the only avenue for clever kids to get on if they don't have good parental support, or lots of cash. The only avenue for the less able to get a good education that meets their needs. And all the kids who fall in the middle.

What should not matter AT ALL in state education is HOW MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE. Opportunity should be equal for all children, and I am shocked at the number of posters who said, well I WORKED for my money....

What should not matter AT ALL in state education is HOW MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE

This^^

Why Porto? What's wrong with saying you worked for your money? Is there a reason why people should feel that they cant spend their money on their children?

spoonsspoonsspoons talks sense.

Interesting that there are such opposing views: Optional school trips widen opportunities available to students VS not everyone can afford to go so optional school trips shouldn't be offered at all.

I am so grateful for the opportunity to go skiing that was available to me, through school. This has led to a life long passion for skiing / snowboarding and I've been away nearly every year since school (excluding the years at Uni). I think it's sad that people would like to stop those opportunities being presented to kids.

Bronze D of E was free at my school. You could borrow everything from school for free (apart from boots, and we were told trainers were fine if you didn't have boots). All you had to pay for was your food and we were positively encouraged to take pot noodles as they are light and easy to cook. Guess how many people out of the 250ish in my year went? 30. And it was basically the middle class kids anyway. School could not have done more to make that opportunity open to all and most people didn't want to take advantage of that offering.