That if something is compulsory on the National Curriculum, parents should not be asked to pay?

[TattyDevine]

Our school is asking for £25 to cover the cost of the coach to take them to swimming lessons, which are compulsory under the national curriculum.

This is a state school btw.

I asked whether my child could opt out, as she is already a very competent swimmer who has private swimming lessons at great expense already. The answer was no, it's compulsory.

I get that education cuts put schools in a tricky position trying to balance the books and that coaches cost money but it's not like a school trip where if you can't pay you can not go..

What next, paying for maths class?
Child is in the first year of KS2.

AIBU?

YANBU Op.

We're in the same position, but with bigger numbers. We can afford it, that's not the issue, but the principle of the thing is shocking. (And tbh til we got the letter this week, I had no idea either that swimming was going to happen or that we'd be expected to chip in. I imagine people on lower incomes may have welcomed some additional notice...)

I feel terrible for those who either flat out can't afford it, or who will have to stretch to pay it.

I also feel bad for the school which is wonderful and obviously just trying to balance the books, but to be asked to pay for a service (education) that is meant to be already funded just feels wrong. That said, I've no issue with being asked to pay for school trips or theatre or any of those other things which are obviously 'extras'.

I'm surprised tbh by how many people here think it's okay to be asked to pay (or you know, the whole 'you shouldn't have had children then' thing...)

£25 sounds a bargain, my ds school want £70. I was told if I didn't pay then ds would have to go anyway as there is no space for him to wait at the school in another class and he would have to sit on the side and watch instead. Teacher suggested I find the money and pay up so he doesn't feel excluded. Just like the school, I don't have the budget and will have to cut back even more, gawd knows how.

It's not that people necessarily think it's OK to pay. It's rather that it's been established practice (including under Labour!) and people have accepted it. If the government didn't have the appetite to wipe out the (sharp) practice back in the days we thought we were rich, it's not surprising that it's not gone away when we know that there is far less wealth.

Things that are compulsory must be available free, so they cannot bill for the lessons themselves. Billing for ancillary costs (such as transport) is the area where sharp practice has been rife. You can refuse to pay, and the school will have to pick up the shortfall somehow.

It is the same for every compulsory part of the the curriculum. Though of course that means compulsory (like a field trip without which a geography GCSE cannot be carried out) not desirable/enriching.

Ynbu you shouldnt have to pay, but i would send something if i could afford. So for me thatd prob be 10 pounds.

Is it per child.. what happens of you habe two going for swimming lessons? Or two on different schools? Would it then be 50 quid?
I wouldnt be able to afford it.. nit having just spent 200 plis on two boys uniforms and shoes.

Off thread slightly

But id rarther send a 10 each term to buy resourses such as pens glue etc.

Yanbu.
The only way it will change is if
Enough people know about it
Enough people are aggrieved about it
Enough people don't pay so that costs come from elsewhere.

Propping up the system so it appears ok is the wrong thing to do.

My dd has a pool at her school and we still have to pay £15 for the swimming teacher.

You should live in Ireland...the cost of 'free education' here is astronomical. I've already spent over €500 on back to school (for one) and there's still more books to get.

our school changed pool for this reason.
from a standard 25m pool to a 15m victorian paddling pool.
the kids walk there. but the other pool was definitly better for practicing swimming.

yes, schools should get more funding AND parents should be involved financially more. Win win for everybody.

Yes, this.

School budgets are a mess, but parents who can afford to contribute should. Parents who paid £1000+ a month in nursery fees but then use state school can't afford £10, £20, £30, £50 a month to provide their children, and others, with a better quality of education and, importantly, to support the broader areas of the curriculum? No, this isn't everyone, but there is a significant group of parents who CAN and SHOULD pay something. I'm one of those.

I've been shocked by States-side friends posting the extensive supply lists of essential school supplies they HAVE to send their child in with at the start of the school year. That's the way we are heading unless school budgets are improved. Suddenly those swimming lessons look cheap...and yes, it's the cost of transport.

Did she have swim lessons with school in ks1? Because if the answer is yes then they are not compulsary for ks2!

When DS was at Primary School we were asked to pay voluntary contributions of £2 per week towards cost of the coach when they did the compulsory swimming lessons.

There were a number of parents who didn't pay. But these weren't parents who would struggle to pay, these were parents who could afford it but quite openly saying they were refusing to pay.

I was a parent governor and would see the school budgets. The school always made a loss on swimming lessons which would obviously impact on other areas as the school had a very tight budget. Names were obviously never mentioned but it was always said that the parents who were on very low incomes would always try and pay.

My understanding is that if your child is on pupil premium you can ask for some of that money to pay for trips etc. PTA funds may also be available.

DS used to have private swimming lessons which we stopped when he had the school swimming lessons. £2 a week was much cheaper than his private lessons so I thought it was a bargain.

And yes, Council budget cuts are hitting schools in a big way, not always obvious. Transport costs are one way, swimming pools another, but the charges and rates that schools suddenly have to now pay are just going up and up...so school budgets are one thing, but council budgets are also contributing to this.

so you want the tax payer to foot the bill instead?

Erm, what do you think taxes are collected for? Ah, I forgot, in Tory Britain taxes are collected to give to corporations and the public can go whistle.

people have accepted it

I didn't accept it, I didn't know til this week. I suspect I'm not alone.

We can afford it, that's not the issue, but the principle of the thing is shocking.

Why is that so shocking? We should pay, and should pay more, sorry. I don't believe that school should be about sitting in a classroom all day, it's important for children to do various activities, as much sport as possible.

We do have free education: you don't pay for the teachers, for the school and so far you don't pay for the books or any supplies. Paying a few pounds for "extra", which are completely in the interest of the child is a good thing.

I don't agree with the point of view that school and everything else around is due to us -because we pay tax, so that's it. We should be involved and try to make the school years as rich as possible. Yes, we have to pay for the coach, but so be it. Private swimming lessons would cost an awful lot more. The kids don't swim anywhere near enough as it is.

It's not just swimming, it's other sports and after-school sports, there's not enough. Don't look at how much you are out of pocket , but of what a bargain lessons your kids are given.

"I didn't accept it, I didn't know til this week. I suspect I'm not alone."

I think you're right, and that's a contributory factor to why people think it's a Tory issue, when it long pre-dated either the coalition or this administration.

coddi, it's not an extra though, it's part of the curriculum I believe. I've no issue with paying for genuine extras/after school things (as I said above), though I feel terrible for those who can't afford it (or those who would have to think twice about doing it). Music and language lessons have to be paid for at DC school.

I'd rather it was all paid for through income tax, even if that means paying more tax.

Also be grateful for the parent volunteers who help on these trips to ensure the adult/child ratio is maintained, which also keeps the costs down.

We had to have at least one extra adult on the coach for swimming lessons. I also had to do the trawl through the changing rooms after the lessons to make sure no-one had left any belongings behind.

One of the things that bothers me is the lack of notice. With more notice and planning parents would be able to budget. In the last four days I have been asked for.£218. Thats without school uniforms etc. It is enough to tip even the most careful budget into the Red.

Tricky one..I wouldn't want to pay this either particularly if my daughter could swim but it's really not the schools fault. You not paying won't change the fact she'll have to go and the money will just be taken from other areas of the budget. From a teachers point of view it's really no fun at all taking 30+ children swimming so I have every sympathy for them too!

Move to Scotland. Swimming isn't part of the core curriculum and as there are few very schools with pools, the responsibility for teaching children to swim falls on the parents.

School trips aren't part of the core curriculum either, so if you want your child to go you have to pay, none of this "voluntary contribution" stuff.

I'd rather it was all paid for through income tax, even if that means paying more tax.

I'd rather not!
Not all tax payers have children, so there's only so much you can expect them to pay for - NHS is quite a high priority too.

Not all parents pay income tax, and we should all take responsibility for our children. It doesn't mean school can't have emergency fund to help with families who suddenly face hardship, like losing a parent.

I know it's part of the curriculum, but isn't that a good thing? It's a very positive thing that school put a few "extra" on the curriculum. What's the alternative? "Poor children" sit down in class for a few hours then go home to watch tv or hang in the local mall, whilst the wealthier children spend the afternoons doing sport, craft, music?

The alternative is that it's paid for through tax...

I would rather pay more Taxes and get better services for all. I'd be quite happy with a Scandinavian type system.

but then everyone will have to start paying tax.
I am sure most people are happier to spend money when they see where it's going - swimming, or trip to Europe for example - than to pay generic tax which could be going anywhere.