This incident aside, I'm interested in the idea that lots of you just wouldn't pay.
Do you refuse to give the asked for voluntary contribution because you cannot afford it? Is it because you don't value the activity that is being offered and so don't think your child should join in? Is it because you know they will get to join in whether you pay or not, and you'd just rather spend the money on something else? I am genuinely interested.
I understand some people cannot afford to pay for all the different things. However,some people seem to refuse every request for voluntary contributions even if they can afford at least some of them. I just do t really understand why.
Schools could just offer what the government budget allows them to offer. Children would be educated but it would be a bleaker, duller experience, with a lesser range of experiences as a result. Things like a visiting theatre company might be beyond what they can afford as a school, but means every child gets to see theatre.....and a number of children won't get to see it any other way. So yes, it costs £4 and there are people who cannot afford £4, but there are equally those who could afford it and decide not to pay. Why is that? As other posters have said, when not enough people who can pay, do pay, it simply means the school don't offer those things. And the childrens experience is bleaker and less broad as a consequence.
I don't think we are talking about the ££££ trip to Iceland here, but just the yearly school trip, or perhaps the Christmas panto show. Yes, they can mount up, but what do you think it IS reasonable for schools to ask parents for across a year? And are you willing to pay that amount if you can afford it? I don't mean people should go without food in order to make their voluntary contribution, but what about being willing to sacrifice a coffee and cake (which costs more than the £4 for this show) or a magazine.....or is the school asking too much?