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!!!

I don't think schools should put parents in a position where they have to deny their DC the chance to go on a trip. I think whether parents decide to spend their money on trips or something else should be a matter for them and schools should not make them have to choose.

Besides not all trips are optional are they? We paid £170 in Y5 for DD's residential and were still paying that off when the bill came for the Y6 trip. We had less than 4 weeks to pay the deposit and DH had to suffer the humiliation of having to go into school to say we couldn't afford it. They were lovely about it but said they really wanted DD to go. In the end we had no choice but pay for the £255 trip or DD would have been the only one not going.

I resented the position that put us in and the expectation that we have a spare £255 to spend on DD unless we go in and tell them that we don't.

It is a totally different argument about access to activities due to ability and finances. It is possible to support one and not the other.

It's just poor logic to extrapolate from this discussion abut financial barriers to ability barriers, the arguments involved in each are totally independent and vastly different.

One of my friend's has a twin sister with severe CP, he was never going to have the sort of family holiday he craved as a sporty teenager, a school trip gave him that opportunity.

Another had a father and step-mother who just weren't interested, no family holidays (not through lack of money), no interest supporting their children in anything they weren't interested in, she saved up herself to go on a school trip. How else would she have been able to do that as a 15 year old if not through the school?

They aren't that different Siena. Both end up in a child being a bit disappointed, and that's all we are talking about here.

I think we need to put it into perspective and realise that the children who won't go on trips will be left behind with plenty of other children that won't be able to go. They won't be singled out, and they won't suffer a fate any worse than children who can't do things for reasons that are nothing to do with money.

That's just more idiotic than the first statement LeQ.

I can't be arsed explaining all the unfounded premises, illogical conclusions and irrelevancies to this discussion that are in that statement. I'll just hope they obvious to most reading.

I do think it's very nice of yu to agree that there can still be school sports teams even though the poor children won't be able to be in them. You are much nicer than I previously presumed.

Some on this thread can't seem to see the differnce between the unfairness of parents taking children on different holidays (fact of life) and a state school doing that (unequal opportunities within school).

To me there is a world of difference.

Outraged I've never mentioned disappointment.

Children can live with disappointment.

Children can live with the unfairness of life.

My argument is that in a state school the inequality of educational opportunity due to finances has no place.

Trips outside of term time aren't 'educational' in the traditional sense, so nobody is denying anybody an education by not making these trips available to all. They are providing an opportunity that some would otherwise not have, but it's a holiday in school holiday time. The fact that it's run by the school means it's more affordable for many than that sort of trip would otherwise be.

It is pointless to say that in a state school the inequality of educational opportunity due to finances has no place.

Finances will always have an effect, and its silly to try and deny that, its just not realistic. but either way, Parental income is far from being the thing that has the biggest effect on children's educational outcomes. Parental support is much much more important and has a far bigger effect on children than finances ever could.

I work in a state primary. From the day children start in reception you can tell the ones who have a lot of support at home and the ones that don't. Surely that matters more?

Why is it that when things are do do with money so many people object? It is not wrong for parents to have money and to want their children to benefit from that.

If its not educational why are schools wasting their valuable time and resources planning them?

As someone said earlier in the thread, if it's not to do with education why are schools becoming travel agents? Why are teachers spending time planning kids holidays?

If there's a gap In the market for group holidays for adolescents Id rather some other agency took this opportunity whilst the teachers concentrated on educating all pupils regardless of the parents bank accounts or where they are going on holiday. And then I'd agree with all those saying its tough luck if your parents can't afford it.

Youll see though in this thread, that as they're being organised by the school many parents do believe they are educational and scrape to pay for this additional educational experience whether the educational advantage is perceived or not.)

Of course in reality travel is nearly always educational and schools should strive to provide this for ALL pupils and thier parents who wish them to partake whenever they can.

Yes out of school children have different levels of support and money but in school that should be disregarded and all children treated equally with equal opportunities WITHIN SCHOOL.

I find this such a basic premise, that it shocks me that others Continue to argue 'life's unfair so school can be unfair'.

Schools should be striving to be fair and insuring that in every way they can all children have equal opportunities regardless of their parents income (IN SCHOOL).

OK, if you don't believe in this premise, and think its ok for schools to give parents who can afford it the chance to buy extras for their children THROUGH SCHOOL because that's what life is like. Then our belief systems are so different it's really not worth engaging and we are wasting our time.

"If its not educational why are schools wasting their valuable time and resources planning them?"

I can't speak for other schools, but certainly at ours it wasn't the school but rather individual teachers giving up their own time to arrange these trips, planning was done by an outside company, teachers just handed out letters, took money.

My argument is that in a state school the inequality of educational opportunity due to finances has no place.

I think it does have a place otherwise we all go down to the level where they don't do anything at all extra. It is hardly fair if a family without money have worked extra to pay for it and then are told' sorry it is off-X's family cant/won't pay. Someone on another thread is complaining because they are asked to pay 50p for an art book!
I can't think that people would be any happier if you went back to my school days where the education authority paid for a lot more than they do now. e.g. we got 5 days in an outdoors activity centre, relatively near to where we lived. It was free and we all had to go in year 7 and we all had to do all activities. It wasn't a problem in those days-I imagine it would these days. We also had a free weekend camping in the rain and the whole class went .I can imagine the fuss now -along the lines of it is the weekend-he plays football/sees his dad/is going to a party/doesn't like camping/I don't think it safe/he is a fussy eater/has never been away from home etc etc etc
You can't please all the people all the time.
If I had scraped together the money for private education I couldn't have afforded the trips-I think that I would rather have done that than settled for a bog standard secondary where nothing extra was offered. I am all for state education because our comprehensive wasn't bog standard.
DS won a bursary from a local public school to attend an Outward Bound course-he heard about it in assembly and went for it. I think that he was the only one to enter from his school. There are these opportunities if you look for them. He did however have to go off more than 200 miles away with 2 people he didn't know to mix with everyone else -who were complete strangers. He had a wonderful week for free.

I don't really believe that a holiday within the school holidays that happens to be arranged by the school is WITHIN SCHOOL

I have no problem with teachers arranging school trips in their own time at a reduced cost with the payoff for them being a free holiday (albeit one where they have to supervise a coachload of kids) . The alternative is anyone who wants to go skiing for example will have to pay more to make their own arrangments, this excludes even more on the basis of finance and many on the basis of personal circumstance (parent's not interested/disabled family member etc.)

State schools would suffer badly if we all went down that road LaQueen because I really would work all hours to earn the money for private education and then do without the extras. My DCs have had wonderful opportunities through the comprehensive school.

I am trying to imagine the fuss on MN if all trips were financed by the LEA-with 'your DC will go-it is compulsory and he will go caving-10 mile hikes etc'-that really would be fun!!

Good for the DC though LaQueen-especially for the ones with over protective parents.

thats right some parents pay thousands every term for their childs school.
its a state school parents are only expected to pay for their trips and moaning .people never use to travel abroad years ago now it is a way of life so we have to move on trips to the countryside are very dated.
people spend money on eg car repairs household repairs/furniture.
so way are they complaining at spending money on their childs future? i have saved a tiny amount of money for my children since they were born for things such as this.