Schools Demanding Money from Parents.

[caringcarer]

AIBU to think this primary school is going too far in expecting parents to cough up money. DS's special primary school has asked parents for £1.50 every week additional contribution, since January they have had 5 separate sponsored events which were carried out in school time so compulsory to participate even if child not sponsored, a singing assembly every child had to pay £2 to listen, an indoor fete, 5 coffee mornings with child, 2 book fairs, children had to pay to take part in Easter bonnet parade and World Book Day dressing up as character and to top it all 6, yes 6 separate non-uniform days where instead of sending in a pound they wanted a toy or a bottle and a Valentine Disco. I have probably missed some things there are just too many to keep track of. Oh yes and 4 trips away including 3 day residential. AIBU to think this school is asking parents for too much money to be sent in to school. It is hard to say no you won't sponsor child or let them dress up or they can't wear no school uniform. We can afford it but I know many families are really struggling. Are other schools asking for this many handouts by parents or is new head B bloody U?

That jars thing is completely indefensible, whatever the pressures the school are under.

I wouldn't mind a larger class for my child. I liked being in a larger class as it gives more chances for friendships.

Yes thinking about it it is the sheer volume of request we get that I find most frustrating and amount of time he spends out of lessons. His school also does other fundraising for children in need/red nose day/poppies/breast cancer cake day etc. The ones I listed in original post are all since January 6th so all in about 6 months. . In addition we paid for his swimming for 1 term. It just dismays me that even though DS has learning difficulties he is away from lessons a lot for example he had to sponsored walk around a running track that took 30 mins to drive to and 30 mins to drive back and at least 1 1/4 hours walking round and round track and having drinks. I also hate that he is learning that some children are poor. He has casually told me his best friend is poor and asked if we can pay for him to go on trip before. He will be moving up to High school in September so I shall be asking if we can just make one contribution at beginning of each term.

Are you happy with 60 though? Thats whats up for discussion locally (in KS2 and above obviously KS1 is limited). This will be the reality if nothing changes.

MatildaTheCat

Where do you and the Headteacher buy your Mars bars from?

£40 a month is a lot more than the price of a Mars bar a day where I live.

I was asked for money in the 1990's and going forward too, Direct debits etc. Even in the 1960's my local primary had a "School Fund" that you had to bring money into class for every Monday.

I was annoyed though when I was really hard up and scrimped to pay for trips/workshops etc when my eldest started school by just how much those who paid were being overcharged to subsidise non payers may of whom drove the latest Range Rovers.

No school should have to ask for money. Education should be properly funded. I think super expensive trips should be ditched. My local secondary asks for a minimum £90 DDR a year (on top of endless fundraisers)and are quite aggressive in sending out multiple forms and reminders. The school is in a naice neighborhood so I guess most people pay but it is not so easy for a school in a poor area to do this - it creates inequality ( I know theschool in the poorer area probably gets more FSM/PP money)

I buy bits and pieces out of my small salary to help my students. Meanwhile the principal is on around 120k a year and her deputy 90k. This is in a College in a cheap and deprived area.

Where I live (not U.K.) schools get funding according to their decile level - which is based on the average income of families living nearby. Lower deciles get more funding, higher get less and the parents are expected to make up the difference

I think the UK funding model is not dissimilar. But I don't agree with it.

Because it costs the same to educate a child whether they live in a richer area or a poorer area.

It is a bit tough if you are a poorer parent living in a richer area.

And those richer parents are probably paying more tax anyway.

As for schools asking for money, my son's school has also carried out sponsored activities etc.

TBH though, my school has a school fund back in the 80s so I don't think it's a new thing for schools to ask for money. And PTAs have been around for as long as I can remember.

Belinda Yes, I know a deputy head of a fairly small primary school (150 pupils) who earns just over £47k per year (plus pension) and the head around £62k. I do not for one minute say they don't work hard, but an awful lot of people work very long hours in lots of important jobs and don't get anything remotely approaching that. No wonder a lot of schools can't afford text books if the salary bill for that small school is over £100k just for the two senior staff.

Something's not quite right in some local authorities it seems, when some struggle desperately and others don't.

I think 62k for a head is reasonable - although I know three heads who are paid 10k less. It's not an easy job and has a high level of responsibility.

Squished In which case, as I said before, if we think that's what heads, deputies and teachers should be paid before we even start looking at buildings and equipment, everyone needs to pay more tax. What with this and the NHS everyone wants more funding towards (although the NHS needs a root and branch reorganisation which no Government will actually do), you'd probably need to up income tax by 3p in the pound. I think a lot of people would have an issue with that. So perhaps expecting parents to pay an additional fee per pupil on top of what the state provides is the right way to go about it? Those that don't have children put something in, quite rightly, but those with children pay a bit more? I think a lot of people would have an issue with that, too.

Whatever answer you opt for (and there are probably others), they all involve taxpayers paying a lot more.

I guess it depends whether you want a good head or not. I think for the accountability and responsibilities those salaries aren't unreasonable and everyone has the choice on where to work (do we really want the public sector staffed by those who can't work in the private sector? If not then you have to pay something reasonably similar for someone with a similar education / qualification / experience level. I think being a head / deputy is equivalent to running a company some bigger than others and CEOs are paid at least that).

Yes I do think we need to be honest and pay more. I think this is everyones responsibility as:

1. We were all children once and enjoyed an education.
2. Todays pupils are tomorrows taxpayers and so will pay for your pensions and services in the future.
3. Society benefits from having an educated population. Particularly in the "1st" world knowledge economy that we live in.

In some ways I think having things free at the point of delivery leads people to value it less.
I see that in the student population. When I went to uni, it was "free" and the culture was one of drinking and going out.
Now my DD is at uni and drinking isn't so much of a thing. They are all acutely aware of the cost and be more conscious of getting a good degree...

I disagree and every system which involves paying for delivery is more expensive and less efficient. US Healthcare system anyone? As a civilised society I think we SHOULD have the NHS and State Education.

Also the current way we fund Higher Education is completely unsustainable. Many loans are going to default. It is also exclusive as seen by the drop in nurses starting degrees and the gradual change / shift towards the wealthier attending.

I don't think there's anything wrong with asking parents to contribute. A lot of the things this fundraising supports are 'extras' anyway, such as school trips or extra-curriculars.

As others have pointed out, there are plenty of other countries (Aus, NZ, Ire etc) where parents are expected to provide schoolbooks etc and do so happily. In the UK, people aren't used to this, perhaps, but many appear to expect 'free education' to encompass a lot more than just education itself.

I see this here - and some of the views expressed on this thread strike me as pretty entitled. Circumstances change - especially in the context of Brexit, large-scale population growth and other factors - it is unreasonable to assume that levels of funding from the Brown heyday, for example, would remain viable indefinitely.

Over the past decade, the number of primary school students has increased by more than 100,000 each year. Education spending is the second highest area of government spending after health, and each primary school student costs the taxpayer just under £5k a year. Secondary school students cost more than £6,300.

So if you have 3 children at school, their education alone is costing the taxpayer £15k per year. How much of this will your own tax bill cover?

People make vague comments about increasing government funding by cutting tax breaks for the rich or increasing corporation tax, but the reality is that many of those corporations would leave. Why do you think so many are based in Ireland, where corporation tax is so low?

So Brexit makes us poorer, don't remember that in the campaign! But this is not about Brexit.

As for my tax bill it would more than cover my daughters education twice over! But this is also not about what I earn.

I agree we need to be honest about costs. I think society has a responsibility and we should all contribute. Education benefits children and parents but also society. In the same was as health. That is not entitled particularly coming from a contributor.

So Brexit makes us poorer, don't remember that in the campaign! But this is not about Brexit.

It is, albeit indirectly. Brexit does make us poorer; anyone who listened to Mark Carney et al during the campaign can have been in no doubt about it. We have a current account deficit and are attempting to cut - or at least loosen ties - with our biggest trading partners. That means....slowdown. Recession. Or whatever word for the opposite of growth you choose.

You earn national average income of £21k? You pay just over £3k in tax and NI contributions. You have a child at primary school? £5k cost for their education alone, before we work out your family healthcare, policing, defence costs etc etc. You are not a net contributor. Nothing wrong with that, but you are not. So - where does that money come from? A very narrow group of people and corporations. Can you tax them more? Yes, to a point. But beyond that point, they will leave. Or certainly won't have any incentive to work any more. There actually is no magic money tree. And, unfortunately, as Mark Carney pointed out the other week, economic growth is slowing post Brexit. Britain has been devalued by 20% (fall in the pound). As a country we are going to have to have some very difficult conversations about costs going forward. It's a great shame.

I was being sarcastic. Yes I expect Brexit makes us all poorer.

I am a "high earner" and already a net contributor at least as defined here more than cover my daughters education costs twice over from what I pay in tax.

I would point you towards this blog article in relation to US healthcare reforms but I feel that the same applies here. Even people who are at the top of the income distribution are happy to pay into society. I believe Warren Buffet also has interesting views on trickle down economics and the benefits of tax breaks.

whatever.scalzi.com/2017/06/22/on-that-gop-health-care-bill-and-tax-breaks/

My kids school is the same. It is continual. Their old school was same too.

This is what tory Britain is like. Those voters chose this.

I went to a "State"Grammar School back in the 70's and my parents had to pay a "capitation fee" each term to help with school costs - I think it was about £40 a term so not that cheap back then. We also had to pay for exercise books and textbooks.

The Primary School my son was at a few years back had a good system. They would send a note home listing the workshops and trips they wanted to do the next term with a description, cost and number of volunteers needed for it to happen. You ticked what you were willing to pay for and help with and then got a final list of the most popular nearer the time and an invoice to pay. They held you to it (and the help)

"The Primary School my son was at a few years back had a good system. They would send a note home listing the workshops and trips they wanted to do the next term with a description, cost and number of volunteers needed for it to happen. You ticked what you were willing to pay for and help with and then got a final list of the most popular nearer the time and an invoice to pay. They held you to it (and the help)"

I like that approach. Earmark everything and just treat people like adults. If people want something, it has to be paid for; if people are not that bothered about something, then the school can just choose not to do it.

Edna - agree with that article. Surveys of societal attitudes show that people generally don't object to paying tax for public services. It's the constant references to "the rich" (to mean anyone richer than I am) and the cries of "tax the corporates" that slay me. It's too simplistic. It doesn't work like that. Companies will leave and take their jobs with them after a certain point...and then our tax take will continue to fall further. I just wish that people would understand how complex the economics that steer our politics can be and that so many things aren't neat and separate, but complex and interrelated.

I'm a teacher in a primary school and it's hard because we literally don't even have money for glue sticks or printer paper. We do try to keep it to a minimum but unfortunately because the contributions aren't compulsory it means that the same parents end up giving the money and some don't ever bother. It means the contributions go up because we know so many people won't help out. Your list seems really long though! they are asking quite often!

My point wasn't whether it was efficient edna but whether it is valued in the same way.
similar to payment of water via a meter makes you more acutely aware of how much you are using.
Children and families don't realise just what expensive commodity they are getting. Children in private schools I noticed were acutely aware of the cost that was being spent on them.