AIBU to object to school asking parents to cover trip shortfall?

[BingoBongoBusted]

So, I coughed up the required £23 for my child to go the school's "celebration day" for all year 5 and 6 children.
They have now said there is a shortfall, as not everyone had paid, and another £182.50 is required for the trip to happen, asking if any parents would like to pay more.
Pupil Premium families get half paid anyway, so those of us that have already paid in full are essentially being asked if we'd like to pay a bit more to fund the freeloaders who haven't paid.
AIBU to think this is outrageous???
I get that it's a trip in the school day,contributions have to be voluntary and unlike residentials either everyone goes or it doesn't happen, irrespective of who has/hasn't paid, but I thought charging extra to cover the non-payers wasn't allowed, which is what this very much feels like.

Eh? Obviously if it's part of your (also privileged-level) job, an intrinsic part of your adult social/corporate networking life or just a personal passion, then fine, learn whenever you get the opportunity... but the vast majority of adults (in the UK at least) do not ever need to go skiing, or would ever find themselves in trouble if they can't ski. It's very much a choice, and one that tends to be pursued by more privileged demographics.

There are thousands of specialist professions and hobbies that people might end up pursuing as adults; they can't routinely teach all of them to schoolchildren.

Not sarcasm at all. I've been to multiple corporate ski trips - what would I have done if I didn't know the basics. It's literally why schools run these trips so that kids can get the basic skills without their parents having to be dragged along.
Let's all race to the bottom. Maybe the kids should just never leave the school building and eat gruel so that no ones has hurty feelings

What type of employer takes their employees on "corporate ski trips" ?? 😮 and how do I apply for a job?

You're comparing apples and oranges though. The opportunities that children get when they are at school should be the same regardless of background. That's why they don't means test family finances when they put children in top set maths, even though evidence might suggest that middle class children do better in maths than working class ones.

Otherwise we may as well just charge everyone for education and be done with it. It doesn't matter if poor children's feelings are hurt of course - that's just how the world is, right?

I'm not really sure what we're meant to do. The Government forced our private school to close because they want everyone to go state schools. We then have £20,000 a year extra to spend on tutoring and enrichment. Then people get upset that their state school children have hurty feelings.. It is literally what people voted for.

Our Junior School always threatened that trips would be cancelled if not enough people paid, but then they always found the money to cover the shortfall.
Some of us thought the school really should cancel the outings to make the piss takers pay up in future.

My kids are PP but have never had any trips paid for by school due to this. I’ve noticed they have far fewer trips (can count on one hand the number of trips my year 6 child has been on) than when I was at school and I think that’s really sad. We’ve had a trip or two cancelled as well due to not enough people paying. They didn’t give us the option to donate extra. Although I’m on a low income, I always manage to budget the money for trips and would gladly pay for another child too if I could, as I’d hate to think of any child missing out. I found out that some kids had to sit in class while a panto was on in the school hall because their parents hadn’t paid, I thought that was horrible and unnecessary. They’re kids at the end of the day, they have no control over their parents finances.

No I don’t think it is. Labour did not have a mandate. A majority yes. But only because the right wing politically were split.
I realise Labour told themselves they did have a mandate.

Yes, marginalise the poor kids more, that will definitely help!

Then perhaps their lack can continue down the generations!

Astounding reply!

Did you not read the more pleasant replies above you saying how people can afford an extra place, so do?!

What made you want to leave such an unkind reply? What makes you be like this I wonder?! To want to take your issues out on the poor kids, isn’t a normal response.

Marginalising those with less than you isn’t on.

I homeschool to keep my kids far away from attitudes like yours, and no doubt your offspring are brought up to be as unkind also……Awful.

I read it as the trip is compulsory - either everyone goes or none of the children go, not that people are choosing to send their children on a trip that they have no intention paying for. DS's school used to do this. Opting out (child stays in school instead of going on the trip) wasn't an option. So parents were forced to spend money on trips whether they could afford it or not.

Thanks. I grew up poor but my mum found the money for trips so I didn’t miss out, she sometimes didn’t eat herself to feed us and got into lots of debt for things like Christmas and birthdays. I understand how it feels to be poor hence working my arse off as an adult to provide for my own kids. I don’t think I should have to shell out for other people’s. Just think if you can’t afford less than £25 for a trip there’s something amiss.

But surely you can use your 20k to teach your children to ski outside of school trips? Crazy to think state schools should teach skiing because some children might want a career where it's relevant. It isn't a life skill, it's a lifestyle skill. They may decide they want to become doctors instead and work for whatever is left in the NHS. Should we run summer schools in basic surgery techniques too?

Priorities are amiss!

£25 could be a basket of food from Lidl for the family -

Well, quite. I also feel like more parents would find the money if it meant their children genuinely missed out if they didn’t pay. Right now it’s a case of don’t worry about not paying because the school will cover the shortfall so Jimmy can still go. That doesn’t seem fair. One boy in my year literally never went on a single trip, even the £10 ones to a local art gallery which just covered the cost of the coach. Tough but there you go.

Or often 1 packet of cigarettes.

Sure so your kid can’t go because you needed the food from Lidl instead. Pretty sure the poorest kids get half covered by the state as well so their parents actually only needed to pay £12.

And said parents get at least the same top to in benefits to someone working full time on minimum wage - also from the state.

Some people afford it easily, some would really genuinely struggle and the other third take the p*ss. I have the same issue with a trip I’m organising (not a school one). Every year the same people say they need help with the cost yet one of them is about to fly off to see her daughter in Australia for 4 months and another will think nothing of spending the £25.00 deposit we need on her weekly roll ups.

If it’s taking place in schools hours school can ask for voluntary contributions but can’t force it, some parents refuse to pay but I’ve never ever heard of the whole trip cancelled ever when I worked in a school .

This isn’t a demand for you personally to give them money. It is a plea to two groups, those who have not contributed and those who can comfortably give extra.

You seem to have made up your mind not to pay and that’s perfectly fine. The school needs to rethink the costs of the activities they provide and how to stop this happening again. I remember when I was at school (many moons ago), we had to pay a termly school contribution fund of £2. It wasn’t much, just £6 a year but times that by 800 and it was a nice little fund for issues like that. We’re talking 40 years ago now, so a fiver per term would probably be more like it.

Part of what annoys me is those of us whose children aren't eligible for PP but also aren't rich.

If a school trip is £200, PP kids get for example £100 covered which hopefully means the parents can get the other £100 together. The full £200 is still a lot of money for some families, but they're not eligible for help.

So then the PP kids get more opportunity because the school will help pay? Is that fair on the ones not eligible?

OP, just ignore it.

I think you will be surprised to find that the number of people happy to pay double so that no one else misses out will be higher than the number who haven't paid.

If you are not in that number then no one is forcing you.

Wow ….. assumptions / judgements
they are people in poverty not scum

The point is about priorities. Statistically families on benefits are far more likely to be smokers. 25% of low income households have someone who choices to spend money on cigarettes over other essentials. That is not a judgement it is ONS data.