Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

School fund compulsory... Cheeky???

89 replies

justdeserves · 14/07/2015 12:31

Hi
My hubby went to the new parents meeting at the school my son attends and my twin girls will be attending from September, and suddenly instead of paying £15 per family for school fund they are now stating its compulsory and £15 per child. It may not seem a lot however with school dinners snack funds (which are £7 a week... Sky high) school trips,fundraising for this and that every other week, non uniform days which we have to pay for etc etc I think it's cheeky to suddenly demand this money and then also say if you can't pay you need to explain why! Why should I? Am I being unreasonable? Any thoughts...

OP posts:
Original poster
justdeserves · 14/07/2015 13:24

They have yoghurt garlic bread spaghetti etc but it's tiny amounts and also cheapest of cheap ie asdas value brand and I know this for a fact because I help out at nursery (for free!) doing snacks. The headmistress bans frubes etc for that reason but cheap yoghurts apparently are ok... Confusing!

OP posts:
Heels99 · 14/07/2015 13:25

I agreed that tHe school Shouldn't say Donations are compulsory. I agree finances are personal. What bollocks am I talking please?

Original poster
justdeserves · 14/07/2015 13:27

As I said before it's more about the whole it's compulsory. Why should any parent have to justify why they won't pay on something that's supposed to be voluntary.

OP posts:
titchy · 14/07/2015 13:32

Heels if you go to your GP and get a prescription, take it to a chemist and are charged £30 instead of £9 or whatever the maximum charge is, is that OK if the medication's real cost is £200? Or is the chemist acting illegally by making a profit out of you?

The school IS being fully funded to its market value. Schools don't generally run at a loss, they cover their costs. their funding source is the Govn. rather than parents that's all. OP isn't saving money, any more than you are saving money by using the NHS instead of private.

Your logic is really weird....

ReluctantCamper · 14/07/2015 13:35

I'm not sure you understand the principle of taxation Heels

HelpMeGetOutOfHere · 14/07/2015 13:51

I thought it was voluntary?

I don't pay at primary school but ds2's grammar school ask for £19 a year. I would have to pay this x number if dc if more than one.

I think this is increasing in popularity now. A friend in bristol pays £5 per month per child for the school fund and are asked to take items from a list at the start of each term.

At pre school for dd, we were asked to bring a box of tissues, pack of wipes and a pack if crayons/pencils per term and then a rota for fruit/snacks. The dc often didn't get a snack due to other parents not bringing in in their day.

Heels99 · 14/07/2015 13:55

I am saving money by using nhs instead of private. I have to pay £100 excess on my private medical per annum if I make a claim. So if I use nhs instead I save that £100.

Schools are struggling to meet their costs. Our school has had its budget for buildings etc cut from £47k to £17k which is massive cut. The school doesn't spend what it likes and the authority gives them the money, they are given a budget and have to make tough decisions on what to spend it on or how they can raise alternative funds. The op says her school is asking for the money for building repairs so presumably similar situation. Schools don't run at a loss because they aren't allowed to, but they do have to cut spending on all sorts of resources that they would like to have. It was the market price of education I referred to not the market cost of running a school! Even with the £15 per child donation, and I agree it should not be compulsory, the school,will not be 'making a profit' as that money will be spent on repairs etc. the same as it would for a voluntary donation, an injection of cash from the PSA or whatever.

Th pharmacy example bears no relation to this example. Illegal overcharging is not what is happening here although illegal forced donation may well be.

Of course I understand the notion of taxation. Pay attention at the back - every days a school day!

Jo4040 · 14/07/2015 13:55

Heels, read what titch has said.

Jo4040 · 14/07/2015 13:57

Also. I wrote about finance being personal UNDER what I said about your nonsense logic. I was moving onto express another opi ion underneath.

Heels99 · 14/07/2015 13:57

I have!

Heels99 · 14/07/2015 13:59

Where is the nonsense Jo? My point was paying a donation in a state school is a cost saving when compared to paying market price for private education. What part of that is nonsense?

Jo4040 · 14/07/2015 13:59

Good. Don't dig your heels in too deep
Heels.

Heels99 · 14/07/2015 14:00

Seriously dunces hats should make a comeback.

Jo4040 · 14/07/2015 14:01

Would you suit it?

prh47bridge · 14/07/2015 15:05

It's a catholic school

Being Catholic makes no difference. Unless it is an independent school they cannot demand a compulsory contribution. They cannot demand that you explain why you can't pay.

The law is clear. They cannot charge for:

  • education provided within school hours
  • materials, books, instruments or equipment for the above
  • education outside school hours if it is part of the National Curriculum, exam syllabus or RE
  • entry for public exams if the school prepared the pupil for the exam
  • entry for re-sits if the school prepared the pupil for the re-sit
  • musical or vocal tuition unless it is provided at the parent's request

Any contribution to the above is voluntary. They may not imply or state otherwise.

The school is behaving outrageously and illegally.

titchy · 14/07/2015 15:33

Heels spending money on something you're entitled to receive for FREE is wasting, not saving money. The fact that you COULD have spent far more is irrelevant.

(Might try it on dh though - 'Darling look at this house it's only £5m. What do you mean it's too expensive? I could have fallen for one that was £30m, so I've actually saved us £25m!')

Heels99 · 14/07/2015 15:35

You have used the wrong example again. The house in your example is not free. Keep up!

titchy · 14/07/2015 15:58

Neither is OP's school find demand!

That's the point - paying for something when you could have paid less or nothing, doesn't equal a saving just by the mere existence of more expensive alternatives.

ReluctantCamper · 14/07/2015 16:07

the house in your example is not free

Sigh. And neither is state education.

Keep up!

Spintastic · 14/07/2015 16:13

Oh dear Heels. Please just stop now. You're making yourself look really silly.

OP, it's not compulsory as per previous comments and yes it's cheeky. A request is just fine, a demand is not

ReluctantCamper · 14/07/2015 16:17

Unless heels, this is your roundabout way of telling us you don't pay any tax. Should I be alerting HMRC?

Jo4040 · 14/07/2015 16:30

Poor Heels

00100001 · 14/07/2015 17:00

Heels

There is a subtle difference between saving money and not spending the money. It's do with 'necessity' sort of...

Trying to think of an example....

Ok, let's try this. Food shopping.

Saving money would be: "It costs me £40 a week in groceries, but I cut that down by only not having meat for every meal, saving myself £5 each week"

Spending less Money: "I didn't buy the Organic Quails Eggs and Hand Reared Weaved Lentils that I saw on Special Offer at Waitrose this week. I saved my self £35!"

00100001 · 14/07/2015 17:01

In the second example, you didn't "save money" you just didn't spend that money.

00100001 · 14/07/2015 17:01

In the second example, you didn't "save money" you just didn't spend that money.

Swipe left for the next trending thread