Voluntary contribution, but if you want your child to go you have to pay.

[Noneoffyourbusiness1]

I received a letter home form my 4year old sons infant school yesterday. It's about a school trip, with a voluntary contribution. I have 3 older children so this is not new to me.

What I haven't seen before is this sentence " please note by agreeing to your child participation in this activity you are also agreeing to pay the voluntary contribution for the trip"

They have included two tick boxes one saying I would like my child to attend and agree to pay the £15. And another saying I would NOT like my child to attend.
The letter dose not even give you a option to say I would like my child to attend but I can voluntarily contribute £.

I always thought that a voluntary contribution meant you could pay what you could. I am fortunate enough that I can pay the £15 for the trip but there maybe parents at the school that can pay all of this. And let's face it £15 for a 4 year old to go to a garden centre for the day is a lot.

What I am asking is can they word the letter like this, to me this is saying that if I agree that I want my child to go, then I agree to pay the charge. How can this be voluntary. I feel like I am being held to ransom.

I feel like making my own tick box up saying I would like my child to attend but I will pay £__ VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION.

Am I being unreasonable wanting the letter to give all the options, and for the wording to be different.

Ours never say it is voluntary. They say the trip will be £16 (the latest one) and is due by x date. They even charge for swimming and cannot give a breakdown of costs when asked. Annoying as most schools in the area do not charge.

PleaseComeBackSafe, if you are unhappy, maybe you should voice your concern to school?
Our school trip cost a lot too, but it's due to being out of a big town/city. Most of the cost is due to coach fees.
Some of our local school don't charge for swimming, ours do, but again, they are only charging for coach to nearest sports centre, which isn't a walking distance.

My husband asked the admin staff in the school, not in a formal way just a passing comment and they said that most off the money was to cover the coach. But when he asked if it was voluntary and why was there not a option where you could contribute what you could, his question was shrugged off as just one of those things. I am now thinking off taking it to the head mistress.

I understand that the school could be struggling with its finances and this is the only way to do it, but I know a parent at the school that can barely read let alone read "between the lines" she would have just ticked the box saying that her child could not go. Without explaining all the options clearly it seems they are trying to trick people in to paying the full voluntary contribution.

I do think it should be explicitly stated that the trip costs £X. No mention of voluntary but it should state that if you are not going to be able to afford it you can contact the school for help. If it simply said voluntary loads just wouldn't bother paying. They're less likely to explicitly lie about it to the school though.

I do think it should be explicitly stated that the trip costs £X

They cannot do that. They can ask for voluntary contributions. That is the law.

this is the only way to do it

If the only way to run the trip is to break the law they shouldn't run the trip. They should not say or imply that participation is dependent on a voluntary contribution. They can legitimately say that the trip won't run if too many people choose not to make a contribution. But they shouldn't try to blackmail parents.

@Lougle I think that's a great way of putting it in a letter.

The thing is, the OP is probably quite able to pay this fee without even batting and eyelid, but is just making a drama because she can. The reason things are getting cancelled or schools aren't organising events is because it's the parents who can afford it are sitting back going 'nuh uh, can't make me pay'. The parents who can least afford it are the ones scraping a few pennies out of each pay day to try and afford for their child t go.

I'm usually absolutely not a 'go up the school' type, but I actually would speak to the head about this. As others have said, it's illegal and wrong. It's also unfair to say that the only people who would complain about this are the parents who can afford the cost but choose not to pay. I always pay for all of my child's trips (which his school makes very clear are voluntary) but I think this is unfair on those parents who either can't afford it so can't go, or who scrape the money together but at real personal cost. In the current financial climate, schools should be getting more creative about providing lower cost alternatives to trips (DS's school has been brilliant at that), rather than illegally excluding poorer children from educational experiences to which they are entitled.

MidniteScribbler
The thing is, the OP is probably quite able to pay this fee without even batting and eyelid, but is just making a drama because she can. The reason things are getting cancelled or schools aren't organising events is because it's the parents who can afford it are sitting back going 'nuh uh, can't make me pay'. The parents who can least afford it are the ones scraping a few pennies out of each pay day to try and afford for their child t go.

This is absolutely what happens at our primary school. Very few pupils in receipt of PP, parents and D.C. bedecked in designer gear (Paul Smith Sweatshirt in KS1), fancy cars, long haul holidays etc etc.
Yet school are running a deficit over school dinners, swimming lessons and school trips.

Oddly enough, the parents with more modest lifestyles - the ones without the show offy clothes - manage to pay their way.

Some people have their priorities wrong. I completely agree that parents who are struggling should never be put under pressure to pay for school trips, but I am incensed that schools are in a position that allows cheeky fuckers to benefit at the expense of others.

Trips cost money. There's not enough money to buy pencils, let alone trips. Some has to pay.

How about we go back to putting it back on the children to do some work towards their trips? Where I live now (small island) any excursion involves an international flight, so there's only a couple of trips in the primary school years. No coaches on the island, so everyone just piles into cars for local excursions. Children spend the year before their trips running raffles, cake stalls, etc in order to offset the costs involved. I think they appreciate it more because they have to work for it.

Ironically I think it is usually the ppl with money to pay that do this.
I love that they also say that money may be tight. I don’t think there is any ‘may’ in this.

As I have said in my posts, I am willing to pay the voluntary contribution. The parents that children attend the school are very diverse financially, this is not a private school and the options should have been made clear for all to see. Not the better educated parents that can "read between the lines" to make sense off the letter.

My husband has also offers to drive my son and other children to the garden centre, but they refused. I suppose because of insurance reasons and safe guarding issues.

It's exactly this in our school - but then I realised the flash car and "can't make me pay" brigade have those flash cars and the like.... because of their "can't make me pay" aura of entitled twatiness.

Ended up being the school PTA picked up the shortfall so we could keep trips running... so basically I not only paid for my own kids' trip but I paid in the time I put into the PTA for the benefit of the school (normally we provide the nice quality of life stuff - not essentials) for these other parents as well. Was either the PTA did it or it came out of the school budget which is tight enough anyway so the PTA stepped in, but it means all future "nice" things are under review as a result.

I think they mean voluntary in the sense that you don’t have to send your child on the trip if you don’t want to pay.

If you are worried about less educated parents who can't read between the lines, indeed point it out to school of your concerns.
Yes, it's the law, that school should have given more options.
What I really find it weird is that this kind of posts comes up regularly, but it's never started by the parents who are struggling. It's always someone who can afford it, but just worried about who can't.

Sorry Racecar, but that's not what voluntary means. The rules on this are very clear. Children are not allowed to be excluded from trips if their parents are either unable or unwilling to pay. The trip might have to be cancelled if not enough parents pay - but if it goes ahead then all children must be included and there must be no pressure on parents to pay (ie school shouldn't be chasing for payment ). I agree it's annoying that it's often the better off parents who benefit from this - but it's still the rule.

What I really find it weird is that this kind of posts comes up regularly, but it's never started by the parents who are struggling. It's always someone who can afford it, but just worried about who can't.

Sadly though, it is generally only those with the sufficient spare time to care about such things, if you are not in a position to afford it, then you also almost certainly don't have the time or headspace to complain.

I don't think it's at all unreasonable, that having the privilege of time to check means that you do, the "this doesn't impact me, so I won't care about it" is quite selfish. Especially here where it's quite clearly wrong, and it is those most equipped to ensure they don't pay rather than those most in need.

I find that the parents who don't have spare cash though do pay.

So maybe they don't complain on Mumsnet because it's important to them that their children have opportunities to go on school trips and they expect to pay their way?

legally the contribution is voluntary, they cannot insist.

BUT if not enough parents pay, the trip can be cancelled.

the can only set the price of the trip as how much it costs the child, so they cannot for example charge everyone £1 more in order to raise more money to fund the trip.

NO child is allowed to be refused for a curriculum trip where the contribution is voluntary. BUT if it is a non curriculum trip, they can be refused

eg at the end of every year our school does a trip to legoland/thorpe park etc. The letter states very clearly, this is NOT a curriculum trip, this is a fun trip, and as such you can only go if you pay.

The letter is not allowed to phrase it in such a way that the permission and contribution are inseperable.

So I would return to school with a note saying the letter is actually in breach of the law, and they shoudl look at the format.

Totalny agree with what @MidniteScribbler said.
In our school letters are worded in similar way and children that don't pay don't go.They still have to come to school and have normal lessons.

In our school letters are worded in similar way and children that don't pay don't go

If your school is wording letters in that way they are breaking the law.

For an educational trip that takes place during school hours (or a trip outside school hours where the education is part of the national curriculum) they must be clear that the contribution is voluntary and that the child will be able to go on the trip regardless of whether or not the parents make a contribution. The school can cancel the trip if too few parents contribute but, if the trip takes place, they cannot refuse to take a child just because their parents haven't paid a contribution.

If it is a trip for which they are allowed to charge the school should not talk about voluntary contributions if participation is dependent on payment.

A summary of the relevant law can be found at assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/706830/Charging_for_school_activities.pdf.

prh47bridge, I do understand why the law is set, and the school should act accordingly.
But I do really think the law isn't really benefiting people who really need it. They are the ones tries hardest to pay so their children can do/go. There is something really wrong with the system.

But I do really think the law isn't really benefiting people who really need it. They are the ones tries hardest to pay so their children can do/go. There is something really wrong with the system.

Surely there is something really wrong with the schools who break the law, it's always the case that the privileged are more able to ensure their rights, it applies to all laws. A change of law isn't needed, simply some enforcement - and the only route to that enforcement is for the privileged to not let the schools get away with it I'd say.

sirfred, I do get you. Yes, it's wrong to break the law. Luckily, my ds school doesn't. But because of that, some parents won't pay, and school is struggling. That's what I mean by there is something wrong with the system.