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!!!

Maybe many of you think schools should start offering other additional services just for those pupils whose parents can afford it too??

Or limiting access to some other activities for children whose parents cant pay for it?

Maybe they should charge for school sports clubs? Those parents who value physical exercise, the experience of team work, building leadership skills, and working to be the best you can, could save to send their children.

Those children whose parents may also value these things, but just can't find the money because it isn't there, well they'll have to just learn its a hard old life.

Other examples welcome...

If every child got what they wanted in life without paying for it then work aspirations would go out of the window. We should be teaching our children a good work ethic and budgetting not expecting everything handed to them on a plate.

If people have more than one child then they cant moan that school trips, extra music lessons are out of their reach as thats the lifestyle choice they made. The same as if you choose to work fewer hours, have a parent a home etc. children are at primary school for 11 years, if you want them to have trips etc in high school then there is more than enough time to save for them or take on extra work to cover them if important to you.

Love how if you can afford to send your children you are living off your husbands salary, wheres Xenia to put that statement right.

Agree with Oh Sienna. my kids get to do wonderful holidays with the family, that's life and can be unfair. Don't see why the schools have to underline that fact and rub those who can't afford these trips noses in it. Of course some schools will have a majority of pupils who will never be able to afford these trips and some schools have a majority of pupils from comfortable backgrounds who can. Tis a hard one, just hate to see the same kids always ,iss out who are probably the ones who would benefit and appreciate these school trips more than those who jet off regularly.

Some people can afford trips, some can't. That has always been the case (I was at Grammar School in the 60s). My parents couldn't afford the trips, my friend's parents could. I didn't go abroad until I was 43. So what. That's life and I lived to tell the tale.

I actually think music lessons should be available to all children in schools if offered, subsidised for parentsnwhincant afford it.

If not they should be organised by parents out of school.

AND I have 1 child at private school and 1 at state if you're assuming I'm some sort communist. I just think within a state school environment opportunities should be equal for all pupils.

Of course you can choose to pay for special smaller classes, better facilities and other little extras, it's called Private Eduaction.

Obviously I'm not against private education but I am against the choice for paying for optional benefits for your child within the state sector when other children in the same stte school can't access the same opportunities.

So if you can't afford the leotard or your parents haven't got a car to get you to rugby matches should you not be chosen to represent your school then LaQ?

Your argument seems to run that school trips are only like these other financially discriminatory activities?

If a child could not represent the school at gymnastics because her parents could not afford the equipment and the school therefore allowed girls only with wealthier parents to represent the school, as you seem to be suggesting, I'd find that utterly sickening.

Totally different of course, if parents have chosen to send a DD to private gym club.

The difficulty here you nunderheads, is its to do with SCHOOL, where opportunities should be open to all and equal. Yep outside school it's a hard old world where the rich can buy what they want and you can't, but it shouldn't be like that in a STATE SCHOOL.

OhSiena I agree with you about music tuition. It was free at one point, but was one of the first things to go when cuts were made. My DS got brass lessons at Primary school at a cheaper rate than a private teacher, but the lessons were short and we had to go to a private teacher when he changed schools.

Yes children learn to live with it, most areprobably quite resigned to it and very unscathed.

Doesn't mean its right.

Learning that one family can go to Florida for a family hols and skiing at new year, whilst yoursnis lucky to scrape a weeks camping this year, is the reality of life.

Schools who should be striving to ensure equal opportunities for all pupils regardless of income, organising financially discriminatory trips, is wrong, and to compound the wrongness unnecessary.

So, is it really just tough titty if you can't afford to represent your school at sport because your parents can't buy the equipment?? Really??

Streuth.

Maybe only children whose parents can contribute to the costs of production should be allowed to be in the school play?

Or given the main parts at least, eh?

If people have more than one child then they cant moan that school trips, extra music lessons are out of their reach as thats the lifestyle choice they made

^^ This

I take the point that things that are offered in "STATE SCHOOLS" should be available to all, but I don't think it's a strong enough reason for extra curricular things not to be offered to children.

There are plenty of things offered in state schools that aren't available to all children and I really don't think that this is different just because its to do with money. I don't understand why money is such a dirty word in the UK. There will be children that can't access the football team because they aren't good enough and there will be children that can't access the football team because their parents won't take them to the training and matches, then there will be children that can't access the football team because their parents can't afford the kit or the car to take them to matches. The end result is the same for all three children, they will all be disappointed, they will all get over it. I don't see why the third child is so much more worthy of sympathy and consideration just because his reasons for not being part of the football team are to do with money. It makes no sense, and it is exactly the same when it comes to school trips, except that no child will be excluded because they aren't good enough. Which is actually better.

Only those children with parents who can afford instrument lessons get to play godawful clarinet solos in the school concert.

The other thing that people like to ignore about STATE SCHOOLS is that they are there to cater for all of the children they educate. Not just the poor ones.

You want to bring up Every Child Matters Hully, well yes, every child does matter. That includes the children who could afford to go but their parents can't travel because of illness, disability, having to look after siblings with disability, having elderly parents to care for, and children whose parents struggle to get time of work during the school holidays to enable them to take trips abroad. Every child matters, whether they are rich, poor, or like the majority somewhere in the middle. They all deserve to be offered opportunity at school.

LaQueen at our local Junior School there was a time when no child was allowed to progress to cursive writing until everyone was ready!

Don't be silly LaQ, we are taking about financial barriers to taking part in the activities offered by schools, specifically trips, so spuriously throwing in a remark about differentiation for ability levels within the classroom makes you look like you're not following the argument.