Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Is it legal?

36 replies

swedishmum · 26/04/2006 22:45

Ds starts swimming on Friday - apparently a statutory part of NC. If that's so, surely school should not be charging £2.50 per week for the travel to the pool?

I resent him going anyway - needs lessons not swimming - could happily go on adult snorkel trips a mile off shore at 7. Because of distance to pool from here it takes up 1/10 or the weekly curriculum time.

Seriously, anyone know about the legal part of charging?

OP posts:

sparklemagic · 26/04/2006 22:52

swedishmum, I don't know about the legal side but just wanted to say that we did this at school, I could already swim so didn't 'need' it but it was a lovely, enjoyable fun interlude, it was nice to do something out of the classroom, and very different, with my classmates, kind of a bonding experience. I remember it as lovely....so it might be worth it!?

cod · 26/04/2006 22:52

oh fgs cough up
how tight are you

sparklemagic · 26/04/2006 22:54

Lol! The two approaches to saying a similar thing, I love it!

Milliways · 26/04/2006 22:54

Our school PTA pays for all lessons in memory of 3 siblings (2 pupils) who all drowned in the local canal some years ago.

Moomin · 26/04/2006 22:55

it's definitely part of compulsory curriculum unless it's ks2 and they've covered all the requirements when they were at ks1.

not sure about charging policy though - ask the school. there will be provision for families who are hard-up but maybe not if it's just an objection to paying per se. but it will be an issue in most schools - how many have their own pools these days? and it's not for the whole year if i remember rightly, just for a term.

Original poster

swedishmum · 26/04/2006 22:59

Not being tight. Have already paid. Ds is going obviously. Just trying to use the huge knowledge of MN to question the legality - we miss out hugely in our rural area. If it's not normal practice I will lobby our right wing councillors - got broadband for the village so up for a fight. Rural communities miss out hugely in Kent. Why do some people always think the worst of posters?

OP posts:

cod · 26/04/2006 23:01

for ti is my job

if ypou wantedtus to knwo ti isnt abotut he monet then you shodul have said

HunKeRMunKeR · 26/04/2006 23:01

Or the Picasso.

cat64 · 26/04/2006 23:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster

swedishmum · 26/04/2006 23:07

I know that's the ruling for extra-curricular trips, but if it is a statutory part of the curriculum as the school letter states, surely our kids are penalised by being forced to pay? Town schools can walk to the baths. I agree everyone needs to learn to swim, and if the govt says it is statutory, surely they should fund the transport?

OP posts:

Original poster

swedishmum · 26/04/2006 23:09

Btw, I have phoned them in a way that doesn't reflect on or identify the school. Head's a friend - wouldn't want to land them in it. So far - 2 days - no-one has returned my call.

OP posts:

Original poster

swedishmum · 26/04/2006 23:10

Them being LEA

OP posts:

BadHair · 26/04/2006 23:20

This is the wording of a letter sent home yesterday re ds1's visit to farm as part of reception class:

"Under the requirements of the Education Reform Act 1988, we can only raise the cost of the visit by voluntary contributions. There is no obligation and children will not be treated differently according to whether or not any contribution has been made. However, the visit can only go ahead if the level of support is sufficient."

So, they are not allowed to enforce the charge, but can cancel the trip if the money if isn't raised.

I don't mind paying for this, and he's going, by the way. However, in your case Swedishmum, I would be pissed off that I was expected to pay for swimming lessons that he clearly doesn't need. Wouldn't mind if it was extra-curricular or voluntary, but to feel pressganged into subsidising other kids' swimming lessons isn't on.

Tortington · 26/04/2006 23:51

i know you said its not the money in this case. however when my kids were forced to go swimming they didnt ask for £2.50 ( or £5 for dts) per week, they asked for it in lump sums per term.

so it certainly felt like a huge amount.

KTeePee · 27/04/2006 07:24

In our school I think the money we are asked to pay goes towards paying for a coach there and back. There is actually a secondary school with a pool within walking distance (which I know other local primaries use) and I wish they would use this tbh rather than the public pool as I don't think they have sufficient adults travelling with them (I took this up with a previous head and got nowhere)

Most kids at the school have lessons after school as well so I don't think the school lesons are a great benefit and the teachers don't seem to be as good - in fact my dd isn't very keen at the mo because both school and private lessons are on the same day so it's a bit tiring

kipper22 · 27/04/2006 09:26

when I was working the KS2 children in my school also had to pay for transport to the local pool(also in Kent strangely enough). 1 or 2 parents decided to arrange their own transport in order to opt out of payments - is this possible for you?

clerkKent · 27/04/2006 12:52

Over here the school did not provide transport but expected parents to deliver the children to the pool (swimming was the first lesson of the day). That caused lots of logistical problems for parents. Not sure how the school got them home again.... Anyway it was only for one term and DD's swimming improved a lot.

shimmy21 · 27/04/2006 12:59

we had to pay for the transport too. Legally school cannot ask you to pay for the lessons of course but are completely within their rights to ask for transport costs. For those who refuse to pay the school has to cough up out of their own coffers from another budget.

Tbh I find it hard to think of a reason why you wouldn't want your child to have this opportunity.

Original poster

swedishmum · 27/04/2006 19:04

Like I said, I have paid my £25 for the term - I can afford it. It's just the unfairness of a system where people pay more because we live in a rural area. Incidentally, the letter came home last Fri to send money and form in by Monday. Two year groups are going - £50 to find with no notice isn't that easy for people on budgets with 2 kids. Not everyone in the countryside has money to spare. According to Ofsted we're in the bottom 4% for access to cultural and sporting opportunity.

OP posts:

scienceteacher · 27/04/2006 19:20

My state school kids pay 70p a session for swimming. They walk to another school to use the pool, and the lessons are done by their own class teachers. The money is the cost of 'hiring' the pool.

PopsP · 28/04/2006 01:13

Swedishmum I live in a city, but the children still have to get a coach to the local baths and we paid about £2.50 a session, so you are not paying more because you live in a rural area.

roisin · 28/04/2006 02:04

Most schools round here do charge for transport to swimming, but ours doesn't.

Jennypog · 28/04/2006 16:31

We had to pay £2.00 per session for swimming and my dds both had lessons anyway - but they really loved going with their classmates. They spend the majority of their childhood sitting in a classroom, it is quite nice for them to get out and go for a bit of recreation.

Jennypog · 28/04/2006 16:32

By the way, we are in Birmingham.

cazzybabs · 28/04/2006 16:36

I guess doesn't matter wether you pay for it directly or out of your council tax bill - because if the LEA provides the money for the school it will come out of your concil tax! I suspect small villiage schools have a tough time of it with their budget anyway.

I understand what you are saying but ultimatly you will pay one way or other!

Flip

1 2