Pupil Premium fund and ex school trips

[Rebornagain]

After some guidance around the pupil premium fund and ex

I have a friend who is currently in a heated debate with the ex over school trip payments.

The ex is entitled to the pupil premium.

So for example if a school trip costs 450 , 150 is paid by the pupil premium fund.

Should the 50/50 be split at the cost of 300 or the cost of the total trip?

No. It shouldn't be paid 50/50

Those who are saying it's based on the child are wrong - the child is entitled to it only because of that parent's low income. So that £150 or whatever is their contribution. Its wholly unfair to make them contribute a larger share than the other parent not on a low income.

E.g cost £500
£250 but low income parent is entitled to pp £150 so should pay remaining £100

They dont have to give half their council tax support or Universal credit to the NRP and this is no different.

What a bloody cheek

Pupil Premium is awarded to the child, not the parent.

Yes, the discount goes to the RP alone, unless the NRP would also qualify for PP if the child lived with them, at which point you should go 50/50.

Frankly, if you're quibbling over who should get the discount then you're either tight-fisted, or neither of you can really afford the trip!

@AndSoFinally
Well exactly. It’s a very expensive trip and isn’t required for the curriculum at this price. If parents cannot afford the discounted price thd DC cannot go. I bet loads won’t go at that price.

@MMAMPWGHAP

I’d say: Cost of £450 trip split in half gives £225. The £150 pp comes off the qualifying parents half, who then pays £75. Other one pays the full £225.

This.

My children are PP children and I'd never have the cheek to expect the NRP to cover 225 whilst I covered 75 . It should be split in half of what is remaining.

Don't be ridiculous, it shouldn't be split 50/50, one parent is on a low income and as such a discount has been put against their half, the other parent doesn't get to take advantage of this. In what other circumstance would this be OK? One parent given help from a food bank because they don't have the money having to give half to the other parent who isn't entitled? One parent is entitled to the reduction so the reduction is taken off their half. The other parent pays the full half.

@HiJenny35

Don't be ridiculous, it shouldn't be split 50/50, one parent is on a low income and as such a discount has been put against their half, the other parent doesn't get to take advantage of this. In what other circumstance would this be OK? One parent given help from a food bank because they don't have the money having to give half to the other parent who isn't entitled? One parent is entitled to the reduction so the reduction is taken off their half. The other parent pays the full half.

More often than not both parents are low income and for those that aren't then there is child matinence. If I chanced asking my ex to pay 225 and I paid 75 I would be politely told that I also receive £260 a month child matinence and nothing at all has to be contributed. He isn't a high earner either, in fact I would argue my ex is in a far worse position financially than I am because of being in the squeezed middle bracket and needing to pay matinence.

It is rare to have one parent eligible for PP and the other a high earner.

Children also remain PP for the phase of education, so they could be PP for a few months in reception, RP gets a job but the child remains PP.

And the food bank analogy isn't valid either. The NRP would be entitled in their own right to foodbank access if they need food.

PP is attached to a child and the NRP has no means of accessing it in their own right.

It all depends on the financial circumstances of your friend and the ex. If they have the same financial situation, then they should pay 50:50. If the friend has more income, it's not unreasonable of the ex to ask them to contribute more.
Ultimately, they have to work this out between themselves based on their ability to pay. If one can't afford it, then the child can't go on the trip sadly. What is the trip and how 'essential' is it?

@Moonlaserbearwolf

Essential trips in schools can only charge for certain elements like travel and sometimes an overnight stay if necessary. In primary schools this is rarely done because parents are unlikely to afford £400. Therefore most learning is done by day trips and overnights are kept to a minimum where the curriculum is concerned. Parents should not have to pay hundreds of £ to access the curriculum. Schools often do end of y6 trips that are residential but they are often not curriculum based. The same applies to secondary. If the trip is essential for the curriculum, the parental contribution should be kept to a minimum and trips arranged so that all can take part. We don’t know what this trip is. That makes quire a big difference in my opinion. Firstly is pp money being spent effectively and secondary whether the school has a hardship fund to ensure poor children can take part in trips.

Lastly. I am very well aware that unmarried parents who separate can have wildly different incomes. Pp will be based on the resident parent and if they are on benefits, the DC get pp. The former partner, living separately, can have a great job! Financial arrangements between them won’t affect fsm.

Would the nrp get a say in what the rp signs up to though re school trips though?

Oh FYI signed up Tommy for school ski trip, you need to pay £500/Paris £600/Berlin £700.....

You would hope parents would talk it over like mature people! It’s also not fair to bounce an expensive trip on someone without talking it over first. A resident parent doesn’t necessarily get to make decisions alone.

I’d say:
Cost of £450 trip split in half gives £225. The £150 pp comes off the qualifying parents half, who then pays £75. Other one pays the full £225.

This is what I think. Surely the qualifying parent qualifies for a reason! But it does depend on what their incomes are now. If the other parent has a reasonable income, I’m not sure why they should benefit from their ex being on a low income.