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!!!

So the schools offer holidays that most pupils can't go on and the teachers get to go for free? I can't imagine why this continues......

You have a problem with the fact that the teachers go for free??

Have you ever organised and led a group trip before Porto, let alone one where you are responsible for a large number of other people's children? Been on duty 24/7 even when you don't get paid a penny?

Your last post has shown how ridiculous your opinions on this really are.

Teachers are not being paid to look after your kids and now you want them to actually pay for the privilege?

Maybe my childminder should start paying me seeing as my DS is such fun to be around.

Gnome, the teacher who taught my 2 sons to ski and then years later my dd devoted his whole career to ensuring that every child possible could afford to go on at least one of his trips.

He fund raised and spent hours planning and researching them ( not in school time) he put the children's happiness above all else and they absolutely loved him and the trips.

He was killed in france when the coach crashed on the way back from his last trip before retirement in feb. you may remember it on the news.

On behalf of me and my dd your post is disgraceful, hurtful and insulting to thousands of good teachers.

No my opinion stays the same. That children in state schools should not be deprived of opportunities because of their parents income. My last point is about the fact that I think that the range of destinations is dictated more by the staff/marketing rather than educational need.

So clearly I was right, and you have no experience.

Portofino, I don't recognise any school in your post. Certainly not around here. Working class kids, payment plans, cheapest holiday deals, fundraising.

.. Kids that don't go are the kids whose parents choose not to send them. Their rightful choice of course but a choice.

But you're happy for children in state schools to be deprived of opportunities because of other parents' income, Porto, if these trips are cancelled. How can you justify taking these opportunities away from those kids?

I never said the trips should be cancelled. I said that they should be available to all. Maybe each parent wno CAN afford it, should stick a bit extra in to pay for those whose can't. Or the school should have a fund. Or a payment plan should be in place from the beginning. You are saying these trips are good, and that kids gain something from them. Well then - the poor kids deserve that too.

Actually no - I lie - I did say at the beginning of the thread that if these were holidays that were not educational and took place out of school time, then it should not be the school that offered them.

Noble - but you are obviously happy for YOUR kids to have opportunities that are denied to others. How very dare I suggest that YOUR kids are denied. It is the same thing surely. Children in STATE schools should not be deprived of the same opportunities IN SCHOOL as their friends because of their parents.

Ha - I'm sure you'll have lots of success convincing the better off parents to pay a bit more to subsidise those who can't afford it? I can see the thread title now...

...and you can bet anything that it'll all be the fault of those dirty, lazy, shagging teachers who are just doing it to get a free holiday (with 40 odd kids in tow)

Yes, poor kids do deserve it too. But they are their own parents responsibility, no one else's. If their own parents can't provide for them, I don't see why anyone else should be expected to.

Ha - well of course, whereare. These trips are beneficial and a GOOD THING, unless you are the child of the feckless alkie who lives at number 36, whereby you deserve NOT TO GO as your parents should have been saving for that ski trip since birth and it is ALL YOUR FAULT that you cannot therefore go.

but you are obviously happy for YOUR kids to have opportunities that are denied to others.

Porto, who the fuck are you to bring my 'kids' into this? What makes you think that you can assume what opportunities my 'kids' will and won't have?

Seriously, don't make this into a personal row if you can't win the theoretical one.

Extreme example maybe, but these are children we are talking about - who are in no way responsible for their parents wherewithal. I would say that they were MORE deserving of a school trip if anything, not to be the ones who never get to go.

I don't assume anything - but you mentioned YOUR children being deprived if these trip don't happen.

Outraged - of course. Why should any of us think of other people's children - the ones who are poor for example? And think they should get a fair crack at life.?

This seems to have become "How very dare poor people spoil my precious child's opportunities?"

Where, Porto? I don't have 'children'. I have one DS and he's too young for school. Fuck knows whether he'll be going on any ski trips in a decade's time. I'm not particularly bothered if we can't afford it, as my parents couldn't and it really didn't matter.

Ok - maybe not YOUR child. But that was your argument. That children should not be deprived because some parents can afford it and should therefore be entitled to go. I have only ever thought of ALL the children in a class.

Why? Because I have to put enough effort into being able to afford these things for my own children without having to find money for other people's.

I see where you are coming from in that some parents might have illnesses or be abusive and those children I wouldn't mind contributing too. But I don't see why I should have to subsidise parents who made different choices. Like those who chose to have children when they are on benefits, or these who choose to spend their spare money on games consoles, or those who could afford it if they didn't have four children, or those who would rather pay to have an extension on their house or whatever.

I would have no objection to schools using some of the extra money they get in Pupil Premiums to send these children on trips, where schools can know about genuine hardship circumstances that don't just come from parents making choices that prevent them from paying themselves. But apart from the few and far between genuine cases where parents really cannot take financial responsibility for their own children, there is no reason why one child should be subsidised but not another.

But there aren't even enough spaces for all the kids who can afford to go. The school would not be able to run a ski trip with provision for all kids to go. Your school in Belgium might, but we are not talking about Belgium.

No Porto, you are kidding yourself if you think you are thinking about ALL the children in a class. You are only thinking about the poor children and what they are missing out on, not the children who would benefit for other reasons, or the children who go without other things because their parents value the trips.