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.

May I suggest that my PP children will probably do better educationally than someone whose parents cannot understand how statistics work?
^^

thanks for that.

Worra you're an absolute

Local schools state on their websites that PP kids will not pay for school trips.

Parrot, before you get your hopes up that this applies to ALL trips, including residential trips abroad, you may find that it applies only to curriculum trips within the school day (tbh no parent has to contribute to these, all money parents are asked for for such trips are voluntary contributions, although schools are allowed to say that if insufficient contributions are received then the trip may not be able to go ahead).

I have worked in schools where if there was a curriculum-inked trip (e.g. a day trip to a museum to enhance History work), we used to calculate the cost per head, use PP money to cover that cost for PP children, and ask for a voluntary contribution to cover that cost from other parents. However, we found that many PP parents found that very difficult, and would often find that they contributed anyway.

Because we get working tax credits we don't qualify for the pupil premium. The working tax credits just about cover the bills, I still owe £18 on school meals because I can't afford to pay it back. I'm dreading the DC going to secondary school and having to find the money for even one cheap trip.

Bathsheba, there may well be educational charitable trusts in your area that can help with the cost of trips - it's where my current school directs parents who may find it hard to cover the cost of the end of primary residential. Try Googling 'charitable trusts to help with school trips', or ask the school for help.

My only school trip was to the local sewage plant (!) as my parents couldn't afford for me to join in with the others and go on fun jaunts abroad. The first time I travelled outside of the UK was in my late teens when I was working and paid for a package holiday to Spain.
It's really crap being a kid from a poor family.

I tend to agree that comprehensive schools should cater for all students and should not just have to consider the poorest ones when making decisions because that can let lots of other children down.

I believe there is huge value to ba gained from schools trips. My DD was not so bright at school but won the girls' race on her skiing trip. One thing she could excel at. My children gained immensly from different experiences, and they gained from doing them with friends. The trips were often imaginative and supported the curriculum, although not skiing obviously! Skiing in the USA is a luxury and France is just as good, so that is definitely one where a school should consider the cost. I would hate to think varied and interesting trips were not part of school life and I am truly gateful to the teachers who arranged them. I, and my children, always sent personal letters of thanks to the teacher in charge.

PP children are not necessarily poor children. They can be forces children or looked after children. PP is not just about family income. PP money should ensure the curriculum is taught to these children in the same way as others so they do not miss out. If that is doing coastal geography on a residential, then they go. If it is skiing then the school does not have to pay. Doing a curriculum based residential IS closing the gap. Without it, the child would not be completing the curriculum and not have the same teaching time as the other children. Secondary schools are multi million pound businesses. The Heads of plenty are now in excess of £150,000, especially if they are an Exxecutive Head employed by an academy chain. Most schools can afford to subsidise the children they need to.

"I paid nearly £3000 for my daughter to go on a trip to India with school. Paid in instalments over18 months or so. We could never afford to go as a family. She got an immense amount out of it."

We went to India for £2200 for a family of 4....

Ah FluffyNinja that's just shit. Ba boom

I think that some of the trips are a great opportunity for a child to visit somewhere or try something that they wouldn't have a chance to otherwise with their family. The prices sometimes belay that though. ED went snowboarding last year with school and it cost 200 more than an equivalent PGL trip to the same resort.
Her school has a brochure of about 10 big trips: some overlap so no-one could do them all, but at least you have an idea when you start at the school what may be coming. We had years to save for her snowboarding, for example, because we had always known it was on the cards and it would never be an option for all of us to go.

My very ordinary comprehensive school in the 1970s/80s did geography field trips to Wales, the Lake District, Swanage and Slapton, all staying in youth hostels and field study centres. All affordable to everyone. It also ran a skiing trip every year which was out of our family budget but was always oversubscribed.

DS's state school now has an "activities week" with trips varying from local days out, camping in The Highlands, theatre weekend in London, water sports in France etc, and costing between £200 and £900. No geography field trips at all.

What happened to proper school field trips? There's nothing quite like eating a soggy sandwich in the rain half way up some god forsaken mountain whilst trying to keep your notes dry. Not sure why the kids would prefer playing volleyball on some Mediterranean beach.

I don't agree it's as simple as "if you only do trips all children can afford, you'll never do any".

I don't think in a state school, participation on school trips should exclude large numbers of pupils, and certainly not on the basis of income.

In our secondary school the trips are class trips and the cost is kept down so cost is unlikely to be the dissuading factor (if a family really couldn't afford it then the money would be found). Enormous amounts of effort go into ensuring that the trips represent value for money and are accessible for all pupils in the class who want to go.

Littleredsparke, are your kids older teenagers? I could not pay £2200 upfront for a holiday - I could only afford this because I paid over 18 months and I doubt you paid that for older teens or without staying with friends or relatives. DDs trip included trekking in the Himalayas paying for a guide, cook and pack horses. Also internal travel. You are not going to get that for 4 adults for £2200. It is fine to sneer but it was the trip of a lifetime for DD. I made sacrifices so she could go. She is not going to go anywhere for a few years as she is doing a 5 or 6 year degree and then into a relatively low paid job (vet) with a mountain of debt. Why shouldn't she have had the opportunity when it was on offer.

" the real luxury ones. At secondary school. And with no discernible educational aspect."

totally agree - what educational benefit does taking a few privileged children on a skiing trip to America have? (my twins' year 8 trip)
Quite honestly it just alienates parents and is socially divisive.
FGS we live in an area where an awful lot of people don't even have passports.
In my more far fetched moments I even wondered if the actual point of it was to identify the 'nice' children.

FFF - i wasnt saying she shouldnt/couldnt go, but if you can pay £3,000 for one person to have a holiday in India you could have done the same for not much more for a family

Yeah, ok we didnt have 2 adults with us, we were a family of 4 (DCs 4+7) but doing stuff out there is very cheap and if we wanted to other stuff then we could have, and it cost us £2,200. We stayed in a hotel, not with friends or family (we dont know anyone there)

At what point was I sneering?? I must have missed that bit

and of course, are you saving up for the other DCs to go?

Jeez, I'd be really pissed off to have my "trip of a lifetime" at only 14 or 15 yrs old. I'd have nothing to look forward to for the next 70 years.

My friend's son had a school trip to NYC, it was 5 nights in December, in term time, very mediocre hotel and it was £1500. Why on earth was it soooo expensive.

Am I old fashioned or is it reasonable to think that schools aren't there to provide the "trip of a lifetime"?

I'm all for educational trips, especially field and language trips, but for "experience" trips I don't see why parents who want this type of holiday for their kids and can afford to pay for it can't book with one of the many organisations who specialise in taking groups of teenagers on this type of trip.

Life is never going to be an equal playing field, but it would be nice if schools at least made some pretence of offering all students equal opportunities.

I would also be really gutted if a school trip was my 'trip of a lifetime' tbh

Mistigri: Life is never going to be an equal playing field, but it would be nice if schools at least made some pretence of offering all students equal opportunities.

Exactly this. Schools bang on about uniform being there to stop the differentiating between rich and poor then go and offer a skiing trip which only a few can afford. Not consistent at all.

I am deliberately avoiding a well regarded comprehensive school that is just a touch up itself in all areas, not just trips.
But as we are talking about trips- a 4 night trip to Iceland- approx 1000 pounds. An Italy trip for 4 nights about 800. But its fine! PP children only have to find 800 and 600 respectively... So inclusive- NOT....

personally i think they should go back to the camping in the rain stuff like we did in my school day - a LOT cheaper

Our DCs are going on a 2 night PGL trip for about £200.... 2 flaming nights, so one full day there, £200....!!! Apparently they always go there.... soooooo???!!?!?!

It's fine if people want to avoid schools that offer enriching extra curricular trips. But that doesn't mean that schools who do offer these opportunities shouldn't exist, because lost of us appreciate them.

Again, the comprehensive system has to cater for everyone, not just those who qualify for PP or those just above the threshold.

Schools do offer equal opportunities, but parents aren't all the same. All students have the same opportunity to go on these trips from the schools perspective, it's down to parents whether they can actually go or not.

Been thinking about this, and have been wondering whether it would be better for schools to be able to 'signpost' people who wanted, e.g. group teen adventure trips, to appropriate suppliers, rather than aiming to be the suppliers themselves IYSWIM?

It is a bit like teaching in general - schools should provide for all levels of ability in the 'academic' subjects that they teach, and should be able to signpost pupils or their parents on to specialist providers if (exceptionally) needed - e.g. a school should cater for virtually all levels of ability in Maths, use 'externally provided' Maths extension such as the Junior and Senior Maths challenges, and also be able to signpost exceptionally able mathematicians to e.g university outreach. However in other areas, for example say a minority sport, their primary role may be in signposting pupils to external providers.

Equally for trips, schools could provide appropriate day trips to deliver and enhance the curriculum, use appropriate providers for 'necessary for the curriculum' residential trips such as language exchanges and geography field trips, and then be able to signpost interested pupils / parents to reputable suppliers of 'non-curriculum' trips