Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

To not pay for a compulsory curriculum activity?

49 replies

Souredstones · 04/09/2013 17:02

School have sent a letter home today stating they want payment for the terms swimming classes - they get 6 lessons a year for two years, not enough IMO if you can't afford for your child to go privately.

AIBU to not pay this fee of over £30 as swimming is a compulsory curriculum activity?

OP posts:

slurredlines · 04/09/2013 17:03

6 lessons a year???

slurredlines · 04/09/2013 17:03

Sorry, and no I don't think YABU.

Original poster

Souredstones · 04/09/2013 17:03

Yup. They get half a term of classes in year 3 and 4 and no more.

OP posts:

OddBoots · 04/09/2013 17:04

Would you be paying for the swimming itself or for the transport to get there?

slurredlines · 04/09/2013 17:06

So they get 2 lesson a term? That sounds like a complete waste of money to me. Is the £30 to cover the year?

BrokenSunglasses · 04/09/2013 17:06

I think YABU.

Do they have to hire a coach to get the children to the pool, or maintain their own pool? These things cost, and schools don't get given as much money as they usually need.

If you don't pay, other parents are effectively subsidising your child. If lots of parents don't pay, the they school will have to take the money from somewhere else in the curriculum.

grubb · 04/09/2013 17:06

£30 for six lessons (presume this is a yearly fee) is a very poor deal and I would raise this with governors or the head. At our school they do lessons every week for two years, with a £1 a week charge for the bus there and back.

I think our charge is very reasonable and it irks me that some parents won't pay - after all, the school pays for the lessons and where else will you get a half hour swim for a pound??

You need your school to be clear about what this charge is for, and why they are levying it.

Original poster

Souredstones · 04/09/2013 17:06

Classes, entrance to the leisure centre and transport.

Not sure why its at the leisure centre we used to walk to the local secondary school when I was a kid!

OP posts:

slurredlines · 04/09/2013 17:07

Brokensunglasses - the OP should have the right to not pay and withdraw her child from the lesson? Surely they can't just spend parents money? This is a compulsory lesson in a state school.

(OP - how do you know it's compulsory btw?)

grubb · 04/09/2013 17:08

You should not be paying for classes as this should be funded by the school as it is a compulsory part of the curriculum. Ask them for more details.

Original poster

Souredstones · 04/09/2013 17:09

Because children are required to have swimming lessons free of charge at junior school and be able to swim 25m unaided. Not sure when it was brought in but it's been around for years now

OP posts:

slurredlines · 04/09/2013 17:10

We pay £50 for 14 weeks of lessons so agree it sounds like a bad deal.

slurredlines · 04/09/2013 17:11

(thats private lessons btw)

Original poster

Souredstones · 04/09/2013 17:11

here we are!

OP posts:

slurredlines · 04/09/2013 17:18

Oh yes, that's interesting.

"Schools can ask for a voluntary contribution towards swimming trips as long as they make it clear that it is voluntary. Schools must not exclude any child because of unwillingness/inability to pay."

I think it's fair enough to refuse - it's a voluntary contribution.

BrokenSunglasses · 04/09/2013 17:20

I agree that the OP should have the right to remove her child from the lessons, as long as she can show that she has provided her child with an opportunity to learn to swim.

But I think it's really cheeky to try and get out of paying while still expecting lessons. It's a compulsory part of the curriculum because its something that children do need to learn, it's not just the government trying to screw parents. Having children costs, so I think parents should either have to pay for the swimming through school, or ensure their child is learning elsewhere.

Whether its a bad deal or not depends on the length of the lessons and the teacher to student ratio.

Lorelai · 04/09/2013 17:24

Our school brought in a charge last academic year (at very short notice!), they have their own pool, but the charge was either for maintenance or for a specialist teacher (depending on which of the two contradictory letters you believe). They said that if not enough people paid, then they would stop maintaining the pool and meet their statutory obligations by taking the kids to the local leisure centre for one term of one year (ie year 5s would go for one summer term or whatever). In the end, they got most people, but not all, to pay and so they did the lessons in school only for those who had paid, the rest stayed in their classroom. Not really sure what the fairest option is in that circumstance.

Pantone363 · 04/09/2013 17:27

We pay £5 for six lessons a year. 6 in Yr3 and 6 in Yr4.

None of the non swimmers come out of it able to swim, 30 kids in a pool with two school teachers and a TA for 30 mins

annie987 · 04/09/2013 23:32

Schools cannot charge for swimming lessons but can for transport to them and coaches are blooming expensive!

epic78 · 04/09/2013 23:41

Wow thats more than we got. Our dcs school go in year 3 or year 4 for half a term. Dd went twice. So glad we didn't have to pay.

Lilacroses · 04/09/2013 23:42

That doesn't sound right at all. I don't blame you for not wanting to pay.

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius · 04/09/2013 23:50

Souredstones - if you don't pay, will you be withdrawingnyournchild from the swimming lessons? If so, YANBU. But if you still intend your child to attend the lessons, then YABU because, as others have said, the parents who do pay will be subsidising you.

I wouldn't mind a part of my payment going to subsidise someone who couldn't afford the £30, but I would be pissed off to be subsidising someone who just didn't want to pay.

SoWorriedPleaseHelp · 05/09/2013 04:53

I didn't pay as it was of no benefit to ds1 as he was already a competent swimmer and I paid for private lessons.

I would MUCH rather he had been able to stay at school and concentrate on the subjects he doesn't find as easy but this wasn't allowed.

redskyatnight · 05/09/2013 06:52

You see - this is why DS's school doesn't do swimming lessons at all (so it's actually not compulsory). The cost of transport to swimming was more than the cost of private lessons, lots of parents at school are on low incomes so couldn't afford it anyway and the school budget couldn't cover it, so the school made the decision that rather than charge they would just not do swimming at all.

I guess if the OP and other parents aren't prepared to pay then then they will also end up in a situation where swimming lessons aren't offered by school at all. Depends whether OP thinks this is important or not I suppose.

KatyPutTheCuttleOn · 05/09/2013 07:01

I feel the same way about having to pay as well, however for different reasons.

My DS will be having swimming lessons this year but I am reluctant to pay for them as he doesn't need them; he's already got his 800m badge so I don't see much point in having lessons for him to learn to swim 25m. However, I will pay and he will go as it's a part of school life. It helps that the swimming teacher that the school use is the same one who taught him to swim so she knows what he is capable of and has explained that they will do advanced stuff with him and a few others.

Flip

1 2