to think that expensive school trips should be banned

[Nicola10]

Year 8 pupils have, today, left for a school trip to France. Very exciting for them, yes, considering that they will be going to a theme park, as well as educational stuff. But, for the rest of the kids, whose parents could not afford it, including my twins, they have to do normal lessons.

The cost for each child is £400 each!

It's very easy to say no to a £1,600 trip to New York or a £1,900 trip to Japan. It's not so easy to say no to a £300 3 or 4 day residential in the UK which most of your children's friends are going to, but we have said no on many occasions.

Having three DC, we've budgetted long-term. We allowed DD to do the ski-ing trip (£800), which she thoroughly enjoyed and was worth much more than a number of cheaper trips. DS1 and DS2 will be allowed one similarly priced trip whilst they're at their secondary school.

DD paid for a trip to Berlin(£500) herself through a paper-round. She manages to earn £80+ a month this way, and additionally can top it up with baby-sitting.

The DC know they can't do all the trips, and they understand the need to choose carefully what they'd like to do, rather than having an expectation that they will do everything.

Ok I haven't read all this thread. We have been lucky in that we have managed to afford the trips to France etc - usually about £380. However, the children that don't go have days out here. I think last year they had a trip to London and activities in school - they don't have normal lessons. I think this is a great way to manage the situation.

My dd1 is in year 4. She has a 3 night residential trip in a couple of weeks. She is going about 2 hours drive from home....it cost nearly £300! So it starts early for us. Everyone is going. I think the school helps any who need it.

Our school does take the majority on the trips from y2-y9. The choice is for parents to either

pay up for an often fairly pointless trip-annoying
ask for financial help-awkward
Make a stand and refuse -awkward

Meant to add none of them have gone on the £1200 skiing trips, but then only 20-30 go in a year group of 240. I do know there is an expensive A-level history trip to New York. Typical that both boys want to do history a-level. Not sure what we'll do with that one.

But when you fundraise, most of the money comes from parents anyway. It's just sugar-coating it.

We are supposed to live in a meritocracy. Turns out I was wrong. Poorer families simply cannot afford the same opportunities as richer ones. If it's so enriching and educational, why should child A go over child B? Ah, but child A's parents can afford it! Even if child B would learn more, or works harder, or child A would treat it as a holiday, it all comes down to money.

So much for teaching kids that we can do anything if we work hard enough. We still live in a class system.

So let me get this straight:

Life is unfair so schools should be too?

And no one should try to make life better for everybody, not just the few?

Are these good things to teach your children?

I'd really like those who want the poor to suck it up to answer this.

Okay, this attitude really grates on me! Why do you assume that coming from a rich family means that a child doesn't know that's life is unfair? Unfair does not just refer to material disadvantage, it can arise in many different ways.

I didn't assume. I was applying the argument that poor kids suck it up to rich kids sucking it up.

I am sure that poor kids are more than aware that life is unfair. School is not really the place to reinforce that surely?

Agree with Hully, as usual.

Thinking about it (my kids are only young yet) yes it is unreasonable. Yes some have more than others and shouldn't miss out on extra educational activities and trips but then that's their parents job to take them and enjoy it with them. It's not the sole responsibility of a school to educate kids it's parents too. We could afford trips for ours when their older but I'd much rather take them myself and show them theatres/museums etc.
There are lots of ways to socialise in school or the area without going abroad.
I remember going to spain in high school and can't remember learning any Spanish or culture just that the teachers supposedly got drunk and we had a disco!

Trips should take place during holidays, not lesson times. Excluding something vital to your subject such as geography field trip, French exchange etc. Anything like that should be done as cheap as possible (but to go to the Op I think £400 for a weeks trip to France IS quite cheap!)

Schools should not stop running ski trips or other expensive exotic trips. This kind of trips are usually the minority, and why should everything be pulled to the lowest common denominator? Many people do have a decent amount of disposable income!

Life is not made better by going on expensive school trips - they are optional...

Mine don't go on everything going simply because we don't want them to - it is not compulsory. New York for £1600 - noooo , Spain for £400 - nooooo, France for a night for £100 - noooooo, skiing for £1300 why noooooo.

Everyone knows life is unfair - there are lots of reasons not to go on school trips - not having the money is only one of them...

Let me have a go at that one Hully.

Life is unfair. On that I think we all agree.

But by banning school trips you are not making any practical difference. There are many other factors in a 'poor' students life which have more impact.

What you are doing though is making it unfair for those who can afford it. Most of whom are not rich.

All in the name of fairness?

No read the thread fully but disagree.

OK some kids may not go, but it's rare these trips are "essential" education. THe "essential" is the weekend to dovedale for geography. Or possibly to the theatre re the play for english GCSE

THe rest are enrichment/horizon broadening etc. And when you look at the insurance/accom/food/24hr childcare/activities (and the risk assessments and other admin type stuff that school shaev to do and usually now buy in as part of the package to avoid being sued, or cover being sued because a child fell in a river or what ever). They are generally fair value.

If your child wants to ski for instance and you can support that then the school ski trip is the cheapest way to do it when you take all the extras into account.

Pretty much all the " holiday" type school trips- fancy choir tours/rugby tours /history to america etc are in holiday not educational time too. So, at least at our school it's clear that's what they are.

But you ARE making a practical difference.

You are saying very clearly that education is a privilege to be enjoyed equally by all regardless of income status and you are encouraging a meritocratic and caring approach.

School is not really the place to reinforce that surely?

I think there is line between re-enforcing unfairness and taking a 'lowest common denominator' approach. I did say in my first post on here (last night) that there would be an argument for a cap on costs. I don't think any one group's situation should be able to dictate the opportunities of another entirely, finding the balance is key.

As for rich kids 'sucking it up', been there and done that...but in the emotional sense as opposed to the material sense. My point there is that just because rich kids don't miss out financially, it doesn't mean they are unaware of having to 'suck up' unfairness already (like the poor kids, just in a different way).

What you are doing though is making it unfair for those who can afford it.

I disagree. It's not unfair to cancel something which shouldn't be happening in any case, i.e. a trip that isn't open to all regardless of money.

Also, let us be really honest, these trips are a laugh. At my dcs school there was a trip to south America for...£4000.

Now, can you hear the teachers in the staffroom: So, Aberysthwyth (sp) or Chile?

Where would you choose?

Educational my arse.

And I can afford them btw.

And it's a state school.

It's all very well saying those who can't afford it should "fundraise". But what would this actually involve?

Say there's a trip costing £1000, and 10 pupils whose parents can't afford it.

Coffee morning - £200
Jumble sale - £200
Cake sale - £100

Ok, fine... but that only raises £500. You'd actually need 20 coffee mornings, 20 jumble sales and 20 cake sales, presumably in a relatively short space of time, to fund the 10 pupils who couldn't otherwise go on the trip.

If they are GENUINELY educational: language/geog/history then it is vital that every child can go.

If they are not, they have no place in a school.

My sons trip was not "educational" at all,
It wasnt meant to be.
It was meant to increase confidence and self discipline prior to r move to middle school, and in that sense has worked very well for my ds1.
Not all trips should be "educational" IMHO.
Sometimes it's nice just to have fun with your friends.

So the parents who can't afford it go our fundraising and ask for donations yes? While the children whose parents can afford it sit back and do nothing? What kind of message does that send out?

Can't see many people contributing either, why would they want to?

LuisSuarezTeeth I agree.

Maybe there should be a proviso that the trip only takes place if enough funds are raised for everyone to go. That would certainly give an incentive for everyone to fundraise.

I don't pretend for one minute these trips are educational in the academic sense.

I looked at the agenda for my DD's trip to Germany and there was not a lot of learning German involved! There seemed more visits to theme parks than anything else.

So hully, you say that schools should be forced to cancel such trips because it's sending out the wrong messages. That education should be equal for all. Yet at the same time you say these trips are not educational at all (and I agree btw).

So if said trips are not educational, what is your objection?