School trips which are only affordable to a minority of parents - just why?

[Mintyy]

Why do schools do this?

If someone can explain, I am all ears!

I am talking about non-leafy state comprehensive schools here.

School trips are like after school activities - some can afford, some can't. Last year, we couldn't afford any, this year we can. It is an accurate reflection of real life.

Oh and it's not patronising at all to assume they are all stupid and need intervention to catch up to their peers is it?

It's great that your child got the opportunity because the school paid, Parrot.

What isn't great is that if you wanted to pay, you would have been banned from doing so, patted on the head and given a free pencil case.

Can you not see how some parents would feel totally patronised by that?

And btw, I was a single parent to my eldest for many years.

If I thought for one second my DCs PP money was being spent subbing holidays, I'd go ballistic.

I dont think sandwich boards are available with PP...

I'm surprised the argument about poverty is being talked about when a) that is obvious to children regardless of trips- we're surrounded by images of extreme wealth every day and b) the take up of these trips by the poorer students is common in comps I've taught in as they can't afford the whole family holiday.

There is always value in travel, the world is such an interesting place, why would you not want to see it?

Mintyy, I think these trips are offered for a combination of reasons:

1. as a form of paternalism from the school. I dont think that this is a good thing. Lots of bleating about trips/experience of a lifetime. I actually think it is quite arrogant, as though the only way that the person will get to India/Iceland/Wherever is if the school offers the trip. Nonsense of course as there is no particular benefit to going to these places while a teenager.

1. there has been a kind of inflation in school trips so perhaps there is a perceived push to offer ever more exotic trips

1. some parents like to boast that they have paid for their child to go somewhere exotic

parrot.
schools can subsidize day trips with pp money but they are not allowed by law to fund some parts of a residential trip with PP money.

It is possible they are using another pot, eg PTA funding to cover the gap, but it isn't all PP.

My kids are PP, they have had subsidized trips. Without the subsidy they wouldn't have gone.

But ds is now at secondary and none of the trips are subsidised, and they are all very expensive. He isn't going on any of them at the moment.

Yes, this is what I don't understand Gnome.

I guess my dd would enjoy a week ski-ing at age 14, but I don't think it will harm her in any way not to have the experience. And I'm sure she'd get a lot more out of it in her late teens/early 20s when she isn't hemmed in by the experience of being closely supervised and heavily restricted by her teachers!

My geography field trip was to the Snaygill Industrial Estate (I got to spend two days there). I'm glad DD will get to go somewhere more interesting.

I went to a selective school very middle class . Most of my friends went on all of the trips (skiing/Amsterdam/Russia/Germany/France etc). I went on a 5 day outward bound trip to Wales which I paid for with money I'd earned .

Dd never wanted to go on any of the school trips but if she had it would have been a struggle to pay for it.

I think most of these trips are unnecessary.

I agree with Gnome, particularly the second point. Now that schools market and sell themselves, trumpeting about the fabulous trips offered is a common sight at open days.
I'd feel a bit happier about it if low cost alternatives were offered, so those who can't go on the fancy trips could still have the experience of going away from home and having fun with their mates (which, let's face it, is the main perceived benefit by teenagers.
But I suppose it'd be more difficult to get staff to volunteer to cover a camping trip in Wales than ski-ing at Lake Tahoe with a stop-over in San Francisco.

I think the issue is that alternatives arent offered. Why not twi nights youth hosteling in sunny wales??
Close to home, and cheap as chips

DS who is in year 6 may be going on a language trip to France next year. It will cost over £400 and regardless of whether this is good value (in itself it might well be), it is a lot of money. In the class some children have affluent parents, some (I imagine, but don't know) will have help with the cost. The majority will be people who can't claim any assistance, but for whom £400 is a lot of money.

That's a good point, Sally.

Or why can't they at least offer one trip a year that doesn't cost a fortune?

Cross posts Sally! The cynical me suspects not many hands would go up in the staffroom volunteering for a week in the Brecon Beacons.

What Worra said in the very first reply.
My dc have had some fantastic experiences between them, by being able to go one at a time with the school (or with Scouts) that we'd never have had the money or inclination to do as a family.

parrot I don't see anyone saying they are all stupid and need intervention to catch up to their peers

Nobody thinks that. But if you look at the data for PP kids as a group then on average they usually are behind their more advantaged peers. Of course, within that then individual children will be doing very well. If that isn't the case in a particular school, then brilliant, the school can spend it on what they like. But the money is given to the school specifically to close that gap and the school is required to demonstrate that they are spending it effectively to achieve that.

PP is exactly because this is an easy way of identifying children who are likely to need intervention to catch up with their peers. That's the point of PP.

Are they though,only affordable to the minority of parents?

I went to a very mixed comp (2000-2007) in terms of backgrounds, the kids who wanted to go on the trips did, regardless of background.

There were a couple of wtaf trips though, such as the one to Australia (total jolly in school time no less, it was already by then v frowned upon to take time out of school for family holidays) and the New York trip for the drama kids to "see Broadway"...because the London West End just doesn't have enough theatres y'know?

So um...yanbu I suppose.

This is one of my bugbears. YADNBU! Ridiculous. Something for a few days that costs a couple of hundred pounds then, yes. Something that costs more, why???

minty are you talking about the unbelievably expensive trips, rather than, say, a 3 day trip to France which, whilst still expensive could also be considered reasonable?

For example 2 years ago both ds1 and dd came home with a letter about a drama trip. To New York.
Which came at a cost of £1200. Each. So that would have been £2400 plus spending money.

I laughed.

Compared to ds2 who is going to France for 3 days at a cost of £210.
Now, I still think that's expensive and out of reach of a lot of parents given that the school is in a not so nice part of North London but when you compare it to £2400 it's a fucking bargain.

And no, PP wouldn't pay for residential trips at our school either, primary or secondary.

There is a school near us that is offering a trip to the west coast of America for £1850. I work very hard but I wouldn't be sending my children. I'd rather us have an non-cultural trip to Spain with that money.

How does it work with regard to teachers, do they have to pay for themselves too?

While it might be fun to go on a school trip, many of these trips don't sound cheaper than budget travelling when you are 18+.