School splits playground into "rich and poor" zones.

[HelenaDove]

www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/school-splits-kids-playground-rich-14136433.amp?__twitter_impression=true

So much for school uniform being a leveller then.

Sounds like parent scould pay and chose not too. £6 was all that was requested! And it's a ball and a slinky - hardly 'playground equipment'

The head sounds throughly peed off and has put her foot down!!

Given that the requested donation was a mere £6 I think this isn't quite accurate reporting. The ability to afford £6 does not make someone rich. Most families who aren't absolutely on the breadline can manage £6. The vast majority of those who didn't pay are not poor.

Terrible to divide the children. It’s not their fault!

Hahaha some teachers really are power hungry dicks.

Its still not the childrens fault though.

She had GBP300 and only managed to buy a football a rugby ball a slinky two skipping ropes and some tennis balls? No wonder the others didn’t want to cough up.

I might be missing the point, but where did they buy the ‘playground equipment’, Harrods?! 50 parents paying £6 is £300 and they’ve bought a few balls and a skipping rope! I’d be pissed off about how the money had been spent if I had sent my £6 in.

Of some 450 pupils she said only 50 parents had paid the £6, which amounted to just "15 pence per week", and all that was purchased was a football a rugby ball, a slinky, two skipping ropes and some a tennis balls.

So they spent £300 on two balls, two skipping ropes, a slinky??? And some tennis balls?

Xpost 3boys

Well I hope the paucity of equipment is a reporting error, not the worse case of poor VFM I've heard in ages.

And the head must have taken temporary leave of her senses. State schools are simply not allowed to make different provision in the core day based on willingness to pay.

If this is a sort of 'games club' with a subscription fee, it should have been offered to the school community explicitly as such. But if it's just nicer playground stuff for some, as part of regular playtime, that is wrong.

I'd have to check exact wording of the Act (orbwaitnfor prh47 who's bound to know it by heart) but state schools just aren't allowed to ask for anything other than voluntary contributions, are banned from treating children differently depending on whether parents have paid a voluntary contribution, and should cancel unaffordable activities rather than exclude on basis of disinclination to make a voluntary contribution.

This school is an academy if that makes a difference?

But really, don’t school PTAs just do a fundraiser for this type of thing? Bag pack in Asda, bun sale etc?

Parents had 8 months to pay £6- I can not imagine in that timeframe anyone could genuinely say that they couldn’t afford it- and as only 50 parents did, 300 decided not to. I do t really see an issue and think the head is more making a point. Also reckon they should have gotten more than they did for that.

They had 8 months to pay their £6. Hardly rich and poor is it?

Why am I not surprised that the parents who didn't pay were the type to threaten the head.

If the prohibition on excluding DC from activities based on parents' disinclination to pay applies to this at all (for although I'm sure it does in spirit, I might not be right about letter) then it applies to all maintained schools whether academies or not.

Absolutely disgusting behaviour by the head. Even IF you accept her assessment that "everyone could afford it" (I don't and she can't POSSIBLY know that) you don't punish children for the actions of their parents and you DEFINITELY don't set them up to be bullied! Wtaf was she thinking?!?

Why am I not surprised that the parents who didn't pay were the type to threaten the head.

Well the ones that did pay had no need to as they were getting access to the equipment!

My dh used to to teach in this area. High deprivation, many families with English as a 2nd language & generations of parents & grandparents who are disengaged with education having had a poor educational experience themselves.

This is not the way to change things for the current generation.

But our local news says the school has backtracked now.

Why are people assuming that the divide was those who could afford it or not?

It may have been the wealthy who didn't pay. Hardly a case of 'chavs and chav-nots' is it?

The head is unfit to run a state school. It doesn’t matter if parents could afford it, her job is to run the school within the budget she has. She is not entitled to reach into parents pockets for extra when she decides she wants more. If people are willing to voluntarily donate, that’s great. It does not mean the head is entitled to preference the children of those who donate. As a tax payer I’m really outraged that she is in a position to behave so badly. It’s a telling criticism of the state our government has allowed the teaching profession to get to that we need to hire someone so obviously unfit to lead a school.

What the fuck does the timeframe matter? When I was a kid our annual budget wouldn't have stretched to an extra £6. We had no money for heating for my entire childhood. For years, my parents inserted cut up milk cartons into the holes in the soles of their shoes because the waxed paper made them waterproof for a week or so and by then, they'd have another empty carton for a new 'repair.' You think they'd ever piss £6 up a wall by wasting it on 4% of a skipping rope, 2% of a rugby ball, 2% of a football, 2% of a slinky and lets say a quarter share in a tennis ball. Cop on and check your privilege.

I would say that school is on shaky ground wrt the children who are being denied access to the equipment bringing in their own stuff from Home. If I were a disgruntled parent I might encourage all the other 300 odd parents to send their DCs in with whatever balls/skipping ropes etc they had at home. The school has set the precedent that if you paid for it you can use it, rather than it being “the school’s equipment”. So Tom, Dick and Harry can bring their own footballs in and refuse to let joe bloggs and John smith play with them because they haven’t paid anything towards them. Sounds like fun to watch from outside the school gate

What ever happened to collecting Sainsbury’s et al vouchers

Shocking policy and a shocking response from the head. Like others have said how on earth have they spent £300 on that equipment? Maybe parents are reluctant to pay if the school are in the habit of raising funds and there being little to show for it.
And the argument that it’s £6 for the whole year and everyone can afford it would only hold weight if parents weren’t also being asked for money for trips, dress up days, bake sales, raffles etc etc which all schools do. If you’re struggling (and the school is in a deprived area) then it all adds up. I totted up what my kids school asked for on the run up to Xmas and it was close to £200!
I’m sure £6 is nothing if you’re on a headteachers salary but how many of the parents are earning that kind of money I wonder?

I wonder will those who paid get a refund when their Dc leave the school.

Maybe they’ll get a tennis ball to take with them 😂
They all need about £5.50 refunding anyway! I wonder what has become of the rest of the money? About £300 they’ve raised if 50 parents paid and it sounds like they’ve spent about £20!