To think there should be limit to the extra income a state school can make out of parents

[Reallytired]

My son's school is in deprived area with quite a few children who have English as a second language. These children are well behaved but understandstably need a lot of resources to help them cope. My son is in a class of 29 in a school with two classes in each year. Each year group has one designated LSA. I believe there are other LSAs who are employed to help children who have SEN or are learning English.

My son's cousins only have 24 children in their class. The class size is limited by the size of the classroom. As there are fewer children with special needs my son's cousins get to read to someone at school more often.

Where as my son's cousins go to a state school in surrey which has much better resources, because the PTA is so generous. Apparently the parents are put under considerable pressure to set up a standing order for £15 a month. The school also makes money in other ways like charging £15 for a sweatshirt where as my son's school charges £7.

The higher level of income means that my son's cousins get far more than my son. For example they go on far more treats frills outings and the outings are more expensive. My son's cousins get swimming lessons from year 1 where as my son has to wait until he is in year 4. When my son was in reception his annual school outing was a picnic in Luton (which he loved), but his cousins got to go to an expensive children's farm for their reception outing.

I think its sad that children at my son's school do not get the same opportunities. There is no way you get a single mother on a low income to set up a standing order for £15. Yet a child who lives below the povety lines stands to gain far more from an expensive outing.

I think that schools in deprived areas should be given more money than state schools with rich parents. Its no wonder that there is so little social moblity in the UK.

My children go to a state school where there are a high proportion of the children are middle class. It is a Victorian building and there is thick mould all over my DD's classroom wall and water pours through the porous stonework into the classroom. There is no way our PTA can afford to sort that out. The school where my daughter goes to for her cultural exchange has lots of children from low income families, and has had huge amount of money spent on its buildings and playground by the LEA.

It is a bit trivial to worry about a trip to a farm when there are many school buildings around the country that are in a state of disrepair, with crowded classrooms and crumbling roofs. It is bad for children's health to be in such buildings, and that should be addressed for all children before we worry about spending even more money on social inequality.

That said, the money given for LSA for foreign language children is too low.

Reallytired - why don't you do some fund raising, then?

I think schools in relatively well-off areas should "adopt" or "twin" with poorer ones. For example I would say that our school really does not need any more kit from the sainsbury active kids vouchers. We should juts pass them on to somewhere where they'll be appreciated. We could even go so far as doing "exchange" visits, either swapping some teachers for a specialist day, or swapping kids for a week. Letting some inner-city kids come for a "sporty" day on our lovely field and include a walk in the woods etc.

However, I admit I am too scared idle to argue this seriously with our PTA and governors.

Choccy

The Government is trying to get that set up everywhere - so it may well happen in your school!

seeker - what you do not understand is that in a deprived area parents just simply don't have the money. Fund raising is much tougher in a socially deprived area. Schools rely on parental donations and I think this creates a two tier state eduation system.

I think that crumbling buildings do need to be addressed. A lot of schools in deprived areas have problems with their buildings. I believe the governant is trying to improve things with a "buildings for the future" programme for schools.

Building Schools For The Future is supposed to be building new replacement schools or refurbishing existing ones - think primaries are way behind secondaries, though (there are already some 'new' secondaries open).

Think it's running into real trouble now the economy's gone to pot, though, as it's all about public/private partnership and all that jazz. Worth looking at the Dept of Children Schools and Families website and then chasing your LEA/councillor.

As for the difference between schools in affluent v. deprived areas, you are dead right, it IS horribly unfair. Ds is lucky enough to go to a very good state primary in an affluent area - we feel like paupers compared to most of the other parents.

When he got his place, we had a letter from the school 'suggesting' we set up a direct debit to the PTA, cheeky feckers. Spring/Autumn/Christmas fairs generally raise £3-4k, then there's all the other events...

Choccyp1g - you should fly it.

I met a woman who wants to join our school's PTA and that was her suggestion (maybe you're her!).

I was knocked out. I thought it was a brilliant idea.

I really hope she makes it onto the PTA. She's amazing - drive, vision, the works.

Way to go for having the same idea.

Just seen MillyR's post - I didn't know that! I'm pleased to hear it.

Schools in deprived areas are getting more money per pupil than state schools - this is set to increase next year. My kids school is losing budget because of this.

reallytired - I'm sure the government pour far more money into schools in deprived areas.

I suspect schools in affluent areas get less from central government. That is why they have to do so much fundraising to get the whiteboards etc that are probably just handed out in other areas.

I can understand that more government money is needed in deprived areas but you can't blame people in affluent areas trying to raise money so that their children can have the same facilities in their schools that are paid for by the government in other areas.

I haven't heard of class sizes being smaller as a result of pta fundraising..although if anyone asked me I would stump up a few hundred a term to have a smaller class size. The problem is that most of the time to get a smaller class size you have to either go private (1000s a term) or choose an unpopular school.

As for the outings and swimming lessons my DS school (in surrey) gets no money for these. The parents are asked to pay the cost and people have to let the school know if they cannot afford it and the school must have a small fund somewhere that is used.

The thing with fundraising (in our school) is that it is a tricky area to know what parents really want.

Our parents do not want a social life with events in school.

Our parents do not want to buy their own child's artwork.

The biggest hit in our school is FILM NIGHT where the parent gets 2 hours childcare for £2.50 and the child gets to watch a film and popcorn for little money.

Each school is different though and we are annoyed as a PTA that we have subsidised over £1000 for those whose parents did not cough up the money for trips!

My dd goes to nursery/pre-school in a deprived area,(they rent out part of a children's centre) and I am involved in their parent fund raising group. We have just made £90 from £1 voluntary donation dressing up for world book week (not many parents donated the £1) and second hand books.

We set up two stalls and charged from 2p to £1.50 for some really lovely books, even marked some of them up as free if they weren't in very good condition.

There may be some chance for fundraising in a deprived area (admittedly, we have also set some books up in the main foyer where parenting courses, etc are run), if it is aimed at saving parents money on stuff like toys or books, or even children's clothes.

I can see your point Reallytired, it is inevitably more difficult to fund raise and there is inequality.

Reallytired - agree about how hard it is re fundraising. Also, I think that even with more targetted funding for schools with issues of deprivation, there is still going to be a shortfall.

I don't think the issue is simply money, either. For example, there are many, many schemes available for non-gevernment and non-parental fundraising. but you need parents who have the time, knowledge and possibly contacts to access those sources.

Eg. an awful lot of companies will donate a set amount each year to a school, along with sending their workers in to do DIY, work on the playground, admin. tasks, even reading with kids (if that's allowed). Odd things, like that. then there are companies that will set up benefits such as visits and work experience. and links with things like orchestras.

It's sad that more deprived schools tend to have to wait for pro-active organisations to come to them, or for the LEA to identify them and send stuff like this their way, rather than having a body of parents who are actively seeking these sorts of contacts.

I do think the government have tried in this area. From what I understand, the Beacon schools initiative (which has ended, I believe) was intended to disseminate just this sort of information/practice.

CherryBlossoms and MillyR, that is good news that the government is setting up some sort of twinning. I'm not even on PTA or Governors, mainly because I'm just not pushy enough. I do help out at events etc. and make suggestions to the parent governors about various things, but I get the feeling that our parent governors are simply in it to make sure that the school is doing all it can for their particular child; perhaps I'm cynical. It's natural that parents will be more engaged about issues affecting their own child, so it wil be very interesting to see how some of them react if/when they are asked to share some of our excellent resources with less fortunate children. I think it is easy to be generous for "charity" especially in other countries, but when it comes down to it most people WANT our children to get the best education. Which by definition means someone else has to get the worst.
BTW we have to pay the full cost of trips etc., but the point is, in an affluent area nearly everyone can afford it, whereas in a poorer area the "hardship fund" couldn't possibly stretch enough.

sorry I strongly disagree with the OP here. Whilst I'm sorry that her school, and a great many others no doubt, suffer from the general lack of support, financial and otherwise, of parents, I'm not sure that limiting fundraising for everyone else is a good idea. Just because some kids don't have the opportunity to go on jollies educational trips shouldn't be a reason to deprive others of the same.

It's just dumbing down in a different guise:
'We need to make sure both Group A and Group B are the same. If Group A can't have X we'll make sure Group B doesn't either so they're both the same'.
Very similar to 'We need to make sure both Group A and Group B are the same. If the exam's too hard for Group A to pass we'll make it easier then they'll both be the same'.

Lowest common denominator pah!

YABU - schools from deprived areas get a much higher budget per pupil than schools in affluent areas.

titchy, I'm not sure that poor people can be reliably compared with stupid people

We as parents have to raise 10% each year of the budget so it's hardly free education around here, nobody minds we all chip in but you do get a few parents who do not pay for school trips etc when you know they can afford it and then other who struggle and go without in order to make sure they pay their share, that's life I guess.

I wanted to do a PhD looking at exactly this, but I didn't get funding (boo hoo). I think the real problem is that no one really knows the extent to which extra resources and funds are going into schools, which schools and why, etc. and what effect this does have.

I was going to try and get an accurate 'spend per pupil' based on government spending and other resources.

It would also help see what was effective and how all schools can be helped

Sorry grubby - wasn't cpmparing different types of people - but the principle.

It's an interesting question. Ds is at nursery this year, and I've been surprised by the number of ways they try to get money out of us regularly, including £1 a week just because. I don't REALLY mind, but the school has beautiful facilities and is in an affluent catchment area. Would it really matter if they didn't have some swanky new garden toy thing this summer? I think not personally. I'd rather the children fundraised for people who really need the money -not necessarily another school, there are plenty of good causes to choose from.

Prehaps the answer is to increase income tax on wealthier families and fund state education better. I think its questionable that parents should be asked to pay for school trips in school time.

I think there should be a limit on how much funds a school can raise for itself. Prehaps above X amount per pupil the school should give the additional money to charity of the school's choice. There are thousands of good causes.

There are certain children who for one reason or another do need more resources. I would like schools to have a basic level of funding and then get additional funding, based on the problems they face.

This would be similar to the nhs For example today I went and saw an nhs physio, but most pregnant women do not need an nhs physio.

The nhs does not allow people to top up their treatments, even in tragic circumstances like cancer. Rich and poor people get the same standard of treatment, unless they opt out of the system completely.

To what extent should schools demand that parents top up education budgets. I like Grendle's suggestion of giving to charity.

Reallytired, I do understand that. Our school is in an area of significant social deprivation.

Our very large community primary school is in a mixed area. There are plenty of kids on free school meals or who have english as a second language, many of whom live in local council flats. At the same time, the houses in the road on which the school actually stands are worth £400,000 to £800,000 so there is a significant proportion of VERY middle class parents at the school too.

The PTA at our school is extremely active and makes a huge amount of money out of these mainly middle class families. And, amongst other things, a good proportion of the money goes to pay for school trips for the families who can't afford the £10 coach fare, for example. Otherwise it is spent on general equipment, garden landscaping, white boards, all sorts, that benefit the whole school.

I would say, at your son's cousins school, that many of the - for want of a better word, poorer - children benefit directly from the money that comes from the parents who are a little wealthier and so that's a good thing, no?