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.

reallytired - why do you deserve an nhs physio more than anyone else?

You are lucky if you got to see an NHS physio. When I had SPD I had to pay to see a private physio.

I think it is better if government money is spent on the basics like teachers, school buildings, and parents pay for the odd school trip. Schools normally have money available to offer parents who cannot afford the trip.

Middle & higher income families are already paying a large amount of income tax and council tax, yet they do not get the free childcare
and other things that less well off families get to enable the mother to return to work. I think it is fair that the children of those on middle incomes should get a decent state education given that they are paying tax like most other people to fund it. Obviously the less well off should get a good education too and that is why so much money is being poured into schools in deprived areas. People on low incomes have free school meals whereas those on higher incomes pay about £2 a child a day for their childrens school lunches.

The really wealthy do not tend to use state education and often use private healthcare.

Why should there be a limit on school fund raising? If the parents of a given school want to hold events and raise money for new library books etc. why shouldn't they. It is not compulsory to go to your childs xmas fair so people who can't afford to spend money there don't have to but their children are still able to benefit from the money that is raised.

If there were to be a cap on fundraising at schools how would this help your child?

The NHS doesn't allow top ups ?

Oh yes they do, they allow patients to pay for private rooms or in our case fertility treatments and of course the level of care is very much dependant on you being educated and articulate enough to ask first and then demand it if it's not forth coming.

"reallytired - why do you deserve an nhs physio more than anyone else?"

Clinical need as judged by my midwife. I got my appointment in less than 10 days.

See this link.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7459461.stm

Top ups are banned for the treatment of cancer. The arguement is that its creates a two tier nhs. Unlike cancer drugs people can actually live with fertility treatment or a private room.

Why are two tiers of state schools any different than a two tier nhs? What Mintyy suggests works well when there is a good social mix, but not all schools have a good social mix.

People could live without ever going to school as well so not a like for like comparision really is it ?

As for a good social mix, I don't want one thank you very much and would vote with my feet if it was forced upon me, taking my fundraising and cash with me so the school would be down one solvent source of income at least.

reallytired - I think it would be more positive to read the ideas people have used for fundraising at schools and maybe try some at your DCs school.

Some primaries have swimming pools. My DSs doesn't. I don't feel bitter that other children have a pool at school and mine don't. If I were to pursue your line of debate I would say that any state primary that has a pool should have it taken away as its not fair if some do and some don't.

I think school heads have different views on swimming. Some see it as something to do in key stage 1. Others think it is too much hassle to do with the youngest children and better to do in key stage 2. Maybe some primaries don't offer it at all.

There probably are some ways in which your DCs school is better than the cousins one. Maybe you have an exceptional music teacher or something.

I don't think children care too much where they go for school trips..most would love a picnic or a farm. My DS enjoys the journey on the bus most of all!

yabu.

So because your child's school can't afford certain things the rest of the country should go without? What about schools that perform better without donations from the parents? Should they have their good teachers taken away just because other children don't have the benefit of their teaching?

No school can demand payment from the parents. But if the pta is pursuasive enough then power to them.

Personally I would say that if the PTA is having to raise money specifically to pay for buildings and additional teachers then the school has serious issues with their own budget and are probably in a huge deficit.

Schools in deprived areas do receive additional funding, for children with free school meals, EAL etc.

The notion that schools fhould be banned from providing their children with a better education is frankly ridiculous, and selfish in the extreme.

The solution is obviously not to take responsibility for one's own community but to squeal for taxation of the middle classes 'until the pips squeak'.

Old news, I'm afraid.

Prefer the Tebbitism over the Healyism.

There appears to be a misunderstanding here.

Money raised by the PTA cannot be used for paying teachers or for capital projects. It's only for 'extras". A swimming pool or a lovely landscaped gardens would be 'extras". Mending the roof or employing a teacher wouldn't.

well quite. although I imagine that a fixed donation from parents could somehow be shown to be an additional income stream.

Also a budget could be amended so that the teacher essentially paid for by the PTA (if that really is the case which I somehow doubt) would be shown in the staff element of the school's main budget, and other costs which would essentially be extras could be taken out of the main budget and paid for by the parental donations.

But either way if a school has the ability to generate additional income they should not be prevented from doing so purely because other schools either don't have the level of parental involvement or don't have finance staff able to generate other sources of income.

Or are you a communist?