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.

Really? I went to a grammar school in the 80s. Very few people went on the skiing trip or the cruise.
Grammar school then was for bright children from all backgrounds who'd got there on merit, without parents who could afford years of tuition or ridiculously expensive trips. I did go to Stratford to see Shakespeare plays at the RSC, I still remember that now.

Agree. I saw a free school holiday club yesterday for SEN kids which sounded amazing for my son but it’s only for PP kids. Not even a case of other kids being able to pay, it’s literally just for those kids. I was a tiny bit outraged to be frank. Their parents likely don’t even work, why do they need holiday childcare?

But I’m not turning my nose up at all and I’m not lucky either. I grew up poor like you but I worked really fucking hard to escape that poverty trap and got into lots and lots of student debt as a result. I am NOT lucky, I worked for it.

Probably because children with additional needs AND living in poverty have a far worse situation than those children living with one or the other. They will be left behind twice over and likely have very poor outcomes without some help.

Please do not imply I am a liar. This was in the 70’s. Your grammar school was not every grammar school.
And yes, you got there on merit. The school organised the trip. Not the parents.

It’s ridiculous that school was asking parents to pay for this. They booked a person to come in and run a session - they should pay for it. In my school the alternative would never cross anyone’s minds.

This is for the children, not to give their parents childcare. Some kids spend their holidays sitting in their rooms on iPads, doing nothing, in a stressed unstable family environment. Of course this does not map straight onto PP children, but statistically there is a relationship. It’s meant to improve outcomes and reduce inequality.

My DD went to a grammar school in the 00s. Again we weren't rich She never went on a dki holiday. So clumsy she's probably have broken a bine

But what do you suppose happens to the kids whose parents are just above the limits to qualify but don't have heaps of ££ for private playscemes

The type that looks at recovery rate on previous trips and applies that same assumption to this trip.

ie X% of parents typically pay therefore I’ll assume X% will pay in this instance and build the costs on that.

Simple really.

Schools need to wind their necks in. Extra money for this and money for that.

My niece's year 10 school trip is to Malaysia FSS! MALAYSIA! A basic bog standard state school. It's costing loads of money that the family can ill afford.

"just don't go" is not the answer either.

School needs to be an equal place. It is a reason why we have uniforms after all.

People seem to be assuming the none payers are can’t afford it but there’s definitely a section that fall into the choose not to.
I think some people are saying they would pay extra for the genuinely can’t afford it but begrudge subbing those who can pay but don’t.
Some won’t pay because they don’t get around to it. Some think school trips in school day should be paid for by school and schools take mickey asking for money. Some think some trips are a waste of time/child doesn’t want to go. The I know my rights type - other parents are mugs to pay they can’t leave out a child.
I’m a volunteer leader in guiding. We charge termly subs. There’s a mechanism where we can apply for a grant if someone is in financial hardship and we are very flexible re payment by installments etc. One mum hadn’t paid a penny yet child attended all term. We then saw on social media child had a really expensive extravaganza birthday party easily costing £500 plus. Child left and money owing was never paid. If I was a school mum I wouldn’t be inclined to sub them. My experience is the low income do pay and wouldn’t dream of taking the piss like some parents do.

The £1000 trips are no different to the £25 if you have zero money. If PP children have to learn not to be freeloaders and accept that being poor means you can't join your friends at the panto, then middle class children have to learn that not earning enough to get a bonus/overstretching on your mortgage/having too many children etc means that you can't join your friends snowboarding at Whistler.

FWIW my state school offered trips for >£2k twenty five years ago and smallish groups of children went on them (trips to Vietnam, China, USA) so it is not a new thing. I know my parents chipped in a few hundred quid more to cover kids who couldn't afford the full fee too.
If people on this thread think that poor kids must miss out on a trip to the cathedral or panto for £23, why is it different when slightly less poor kids have to miss out on joining classmates on ££££ skiing or historic long haul trips?

I'm not implying that you are a liar ( prickly much? ) , but I've never seen an expensive school trip that everyone could afford and that there were enough places for everyone to go. It's possible that someone lied to you.

I told of my personal experience to which you replied ‘Really ‘? And that you were at school in the 80’s and nobody went skiing. So yes, you were implying I was making it up.
As to someone lying to me ? Er. No.

Not the same as a ski trip but my middle child’s school have arranged a whole school trip so it’s not completely out of the range of possible if it’s a smaller school or only one class per year that the sister would be one of the only not going.

Our ski trip is 1.5k. She isn’t going. She would find a way to die going with the instructor 🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️😅

They have to choose somehow - statistically, children in receipt of PP have less good outcomes at school. The line was set by the government's pupil premium policy. Other interventions like summer holiday support use PP as a tool for targeting.

If there are children who haven't been paid for by their parents/carers, it seems odd to decide that other children's parents are responsible for the missing money rather than the school or some other government or community funding source.

In Scotland there is a policy about the cost of the school day which should be kept as low as possible. This informs uniform policy, school trips and so on. Parents are asked to pay for residential (£300-400 for the full week trip in P7) but everyone is told that if they will struggle, they can speak to the school. No child will miss the trip because their parent can't afford it. We parents used to have to pay a small sum for the coach on day trips but in recent years we haven't been asked to. The school I work in is the same.

Unfortunately I know there are people who don't pay because either they know they can get away with it (and have no shame), or just don't have loads of extra money so it would be easier for them not to, even though they're not in poverty. There are others who don't pay because they resent that not everyone will, and think 'why should I, then?' when they are in a comfortable financial position themselves.

It's the same with anything free or with enhanced conditions that's aimed at those in need and has no firm eligibility criteria. There will always be people who don't have that need but can't be stopped from taking advantage. Removing it just harms the people who do need the concession.

Choose what ? They don't have a choice as they aren't eligible for the PP stuff and can't afford the private playscemes. And parents often working opposite shifts or single so they are shunted around friends relatives or at home

Your comment seems to indicate that you know nothing about the impact of early deprivation/abuse/neglect on child development. Having rich parents after adoption doesn’t make any of the early stuff go away. And it is often necessary for any therapy and support to be arranged by the recognised local authority - there are many services which don’t recognise independent assessments.

Eligibility for pupil premium attracts extra funding to the school. It is supposed to be used for the benefit of the child that brings it in, but that can be mean a range of things. It might be 1:1 support for the child. Or other things that support - in school - a child who has been disadvantaged at the start of their life.

Who said the kids had early neglect / abuse/ deprivation??

You said that they were adopted. The majority of adopted children are adopted from care. They were placed in care due to abuse or neglect in the family home. The small proportion who were adopted at or shortly after birth will have lower levels of trauma, but separation from their birth parents is still an adverse childhood experience and can lead to needs at a later point.