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!!!

Parents could be given a choice and no one who wanted to go is excluded from the school activity due to low income.

Of course there will always be other reasons for pupils not taking part in activities, but it is just illogical reasoning to say because of this it's OK to exclude poorer children from some activities.

Not everyone has to be in the school play but everyone has the same opportunity to be regardless of income.

Not everyone has to be in the chess club but everyone has the same opportunity to regardless of income.

Some children may not be coordinated enough to gain much from trampolining after school club but they are not exclude due to income.

Excluding on the basis of income are the objections on this thread, not going on trips for a variety of ther reasons does not in any logical way negate that argument. Even if you disagree with it, this is just very silly extrapolation as Portofino said.

You don't have to go on a trip: your parents may not want you to, you may not want to, you may be off school that day, a specific trip may cause you difficulties for personal reasons, these may be valid/not valid, we could debate each one separately, but still: you shouldn't be excluded because your parents can't afford it. Or not. That's the argument on this thread.

Some very odd arguments being put forward here.

People on this thread have spent quite some time banging on about wanting school trips to be accessible to all, whereas what they actually mean is accessible to poor kids and screw the other kids who can't go on trips.

If they'd been clear on this from the start perhaps there wouldn't have been such a long thread.

Yes outraged it matters if children are left out due to money.

Maybe this isn't the only reason that would matter for children being left out, but it is the one that is the subject of this thread.

I think 'is it right to allow over protective parents to prevent thier children from going on school trips' is a whole new thread and whatever the views on that, either way, it would/could still stand that leaving children out of school activities due to low parental income is wrong. Or right.

They are separate debates and a view on one does not automatically indicate a view on the other. That's why this argument has become illogical and nonsensical.

Oh don't be silly giraffe, where has anyone arguing for poorer kids said they don't care about any other type of kids?

You've just invented a set if illogical premises and then triumphantly pulled a unrelated conclusion from the remnants of that.

It's ludicrous.

claire clearly they aren't bothered about other kids not being able to go on trips or they would be calling for pretty much all trips to be banned and not just expensive ones.

If it's only expensive ones they want banned, then logically it is only the feelings of the poor kids who are excluded from those trips that they deem important enough to count.

It's Ok to exclude poor kids because some parents wouldn't want their kids to go anyway.

This now stands for reasoned debate on MN?

I've been here 9yrs, and for the first time ever , I'm going to declare: Mumsnet ain't what it used to be.

Why should everything be available to everyone (assuming these trips are optional)?

It seems that at ds's new school all the mums get together and meet for coffee during the day. Proper organised meetings. Of which I can have no part unless I take a day's holiday. I don't because I'd rather spend my precious holidays with ds. Maybe I should contact them and tell them they must not meet during the day as they are discriminating against all working parents?

Yy only logical conclusion is to ban all school activities as not everyone chooses to be involved. This is obviously a logical conclusion.

OR we could just ensure all activities are open to all pupils regardless of income.

OR we could have an elitist system where some activities offered are only available to children whose parents can afford it.

Bisjo that is about parents not about about finanaces or school activities for kids and therefore the fairness or not of it is utterly irrelevant.

I will leave you now to pursue your life's not fair so the poor kids at school have to just suck it up arguments, and go and bang my head on the wall.

Goodnight.

Has anyone else answered my question about music tuition yet?

No? Thought not.

It's Ok to exclude poor kids because some parents wouldn't want their kids to go anyway.

There are more reasons than that as to why some kids can't go on some trips, but you have chosen to ignore them.

Nobody has yet answered my question about the elite. 7% of the population use private education. In the 7% are the who range from the people with millions in disposable income down to the people who have less than me, who struggle to pay the fees or have a bursary. It appears that they can be offered cricket tours of Sri Lanka, ski trips and the rest. No one on here seems bothered that some children can't go on any -because the parents have chosen to send then into that sort of environment.
The other 93% have a huge range of backgrounds - from those who struggle to pay the rent to those who could afford the private education, with extras, but don't. They are all relegated to what the poorest in the school can afford.
I think it entirely unfair that my DH with his bursary to a good private school could be offered anything but his brother in a secondary modern can't have anything. To my mind it is DH who should make do with the basics because he was already getting the superior education and BIL who should have had any extra money spent on him to compensate.
I can see that it suits those at the top - how lovely to be in the 3% who have it all - top education and school trips and great home lifestyle!
For those who can't afford it, it is often a godsend to have the opportunity to send one child when they couldn't afford the family - and to send them with staff and children that they know.
I also resent the fact that choice is taken away about how you spend your money. The family who bought brand new prams, designer gear for toddlers, laptops for 6yr olds may well not afford it - I had my neighbours old pram, second hand clothes etc etc so have saved the money for when I want to use it which is later on. (Babies couldn't care less what they have, as long as they are loved!)
Schools offer choice. When I was at school some trips were paid for all ( not likely to happen again)and some were for parents to pay for - my parents didn't have a lot and I went on only one. My DCs have been on a lot, we have had to say no to a lot - it is life. I understood that my parents couldn't afford it- it was no big deal.
It leaves me in a position where my children could never have a trip. It wouldn't be offered in the state sector and if I went private I couldn't afford it!
I am very thankful that we were offered the extras with the state system and took advantage of those we could afford. I can't see it changing- schools have to market themselves these days and that means supplying over and above the basics.

I'm deeply jealous of people that get school trip options around £300 odd.

Iirc the cheapest school trip any of my kids has been on was £550, and the one I have just finished paying for is £850.

The skiing trip is I think around £900, but neither of my kids have gone in this - although I think the youngest one might want to.

Apparantly I should be loaded to afford this. I'm not. I'm a single parent with a part time job and I get no money from the kids' dad. I am however lucky that I pay a reasonable rate of rent and live close to my work, so some of my costs are lower than average. For a lot of families I think it depends on the worth of the trip. This £850 trip is directly related to a subject my child is taking and it can make a huge difference to the results. It's not essential to go, but it's of such benefit to them that every family that has a child in that class has found the money. That wouldn't be the case I suspect if it was a trip to Disneyland or going skiing.

I don't think it would matter what price trips were - there would always be some children whose parents wouldn't want to spend that money on a school trip and there would always be some that just would not be able to find enough money. Personally I can't afford to take thd whole family abroad - but school trips are a great way to be able to send one child at a time at a price that is just about manageable.

A skiing trip for one is a lot less than for a family! It is an easy one to turn down because it isn't educational. It isn't as if many will go from the school year.

Exoticfruits, no one has answered it because if they did they would have to admit that they are being stupid.

It suits some posters to bang on with their 'it's not fair if some parents can't afford it', it makes them feel like that have some kind of moral high ground because they are thinking about the feelings of those poor deprived children who don't want to have to hear the word 'no'. At least not when it's about money anyway, a no for any other reason is fair game. It doesn't matter that the end result of a disappointed child is the same, it doesn't matter if the reason a family appreciates school trips because its their only chance for a child to travel because of other caring responsibilities, it doesn't matter if we have whole generations of young people that have never been further than the next county, it doesn't matter that children learn and benefit from these trips. All that matters is that a child doesn't have to be told no because their parents don't want to save the money.

Exoticfruits, if you were telling me specifically that skiing for one costs less than skiing for a family, - can I ask why you needed to impart that blindingly obvious piece of information? Read my last paragraph if it was aimed at me.

Apologies exotic fruits, woke up grumpy - my last post wasn't fair.

Exotic - we have been talking about STATE schools. That all children should have the same opportunities in STATE schools. The Elite don't come into it. Parents can choose exactly how they spend their money - they can purchase advantages for their children in many different ways in terms of private education, holidays and extra-curricular activities.

My only point has been that children in STATE schools should ALL have equal opportunities that are not dependant on their parent's income. If you are going to run a trip you should ensure that all children can go - even if that means fundraising. There is plenty of time for children to realise that life is not fair - but think the period of time they spend in education should not be included in that.

But Porto, you aren't explaining why you think that children at state school all have to have the same opportunities when it comes to money. You aren't explaining why parents don't have to take some responsibility if they want their children to be able to go on trips, or to not be in a position where they have to be told no.

Why do you think it's ok for parents to say no to trips for any reason other than money when the end result is the same?

Porto, why do you keep insisting that it is merely fundraising that is needed to ensure that all kids can go on a trip? It isn't.

Exactly, Jeezy .

I'm not so stupid as to think that £800 is a small sum of money but nor do I believe that one has to be particularly wealthy to be able to find £800 once in a child's school career, and certainly not given the notice we generally get.

And once again; why is it acceptable for schools to offer instrument tuition costing hundreds, but not skiing trips?

Oh and @ Jeezy's morning grouchiness

Private schools provide a number of outsourced parenting services (homework supervision etc) which are not educational. This is what you are paying for. I would include arranging holidays for the students as being part of that outsourced parenting.

I dont think that anyone has said that children shouldnt be allowed to go on trips just that if the trip is educational it should be available to all. If the trip is a holiday then the state school should not be involved in arranging it.

The companies who arrange trips are commercial operations. They dont arrange these out of the goodness of their hearts. They can offer the trips at slightly lower prices to schools:

a - because they are group bookings so offer less choice individually. Any group can get together and take advantage of group discounts

b - some of the chaperoning duties are taken on by school staff volunteers meaning that those same staff are less willing to volunteer to accompany other trips.

If you want your child to go on a non educational trip then IMO this is your job as a parent to arrange it yourself.

Jenai - I dont think that the expensive music tuition is acceptable either

My DD1 is absolutely crap at sport. However, through skiing with school she has learnt a sport which we would not and could not do as a family.

On this year's ski trip she will be assessed as part of her PE GCSE, and stands a chance of getting a reasonable grade (5-6 maybe even 7-8) rather than the 1-2 her PE teacher says she would get if being assessed on say rounders performance.

OK, we're lucky that we have been able to fund her going skiing with school to give her a chance - but its one that I am personally very happy to have been able to give her, with the school's support and effort.