School charging for transport cost for swimming as part of curriculum

[Julietta05]

Hi,

My child is in a primary school, this year they are meant to have swimming lessons as a part of curriculum. I agree with teaching children swimming but in the first week we received a letter from school informing us that parents need to pay for transport to and from swimming pool. This is £81 from September till 1st February. That caused a lot of upset as nothing has been said about patents covering the cost of the transport previously. I also don't think that previous years had to cover that cost either.

For those parents that had children attending swimming lessons as a part of curriculum, did you need to pay for transport?

Schools have no money. They can’t force you to pay or exclude your child if you don’t, but they aren’t asking for parents to pay just for fun.

Schools have to offer swimming on the curriculum but they don't get any extra funding to facilitate this. Coaches are currently very expensive. You don't have to pay but if you can afford it you really should. £81 for a term and a bit of swimming doesn't seem too bad to me considering how much lessons usually are. We pay £45 and the pool is on site (for upkeep).

An average primary school receives around £7,000 per pupil. That is £210,000 for a class of 30 and is roughly 12% higher in real terms than it was 15 years ago. That is where the money comes from. Schools should budget so that they can operate within the law. Most do so successfully. That is why I have little sympathy for the few that say they can't afford to operate legally and make illegal demands for parents to pay.

For my eldest around 5 years ago we didn't have to pay anything for swimming lessons. They walked to the local pool. We then moved to a different area and for my youngest we were charged £38 for a term of swimming. When I queried this I was told it covered the cost of hire of pool, teaching staff, lifeguard and coach there and back (despite the pool being walking distance).
Both my children were already strong swimmers by that point so it was pretty pointless anyway.

God, this is awful.

I think the government have scrapped the sports premium money that schools used to get so they have no money to cover it

On top.of that are premium children with additional funding!

There's loads of different statistics flying around though. The NEU is saying the average class is receiving £15k less than 15 years ago so which is it? I don't think anyone working in a school thinks there is more money than previously; it feels like things are actively declining. Sports was pretty much the only area that felt better funded but the big sports premium has just been axed. This was so valuable to schools in terms of paying for transport.

They never said it is voluntary and swimming is compulsory part of curriculum. Until this year transport was free and this is a part I am crossed about. The school never communicated this prior the start of term.

Without seeing exactly what the NEU are saying I can't say for certain, but class sizes are down on 15 years ago, particularly in secondary schools. It is therefore possible for funding per pupil to go up but the total funding for the average class to go down.

As swimming is a compulsory part of the curriculum, schools can only request a voluntary contribution towards transport costs. They can ask parents to pay £81, but they cannot insist that they do, nor can they refuse to take any child whose parents do not pay.

We paid £15 for 6 weeks last year and that was to use the school's own minibus, but there will be lesson charges too. What was great about it was it was obviously very expensive, time and people resource heavy for the school so someone managed to tap into some funding and the school pool is now being repaired at the cost of 500k and will be back open by Christmas. It's a very large primary school 5 form intake in most years, 4 in DS' , it's also part of an academy trust and lots of other schools outside of the MAT also used to pay a nominal amount to use their pool for lessons. So it works out for the best all round. Poor DH volunteered every week for 6 weeks and it used to take hours to shuttle the kids there get then changed lessons in small groups then rotate the next group in and that was just for two classes of Y2s

£81 for 6 months of lessons doesn't seem too bad, is there an option to pay in installments?

It doesn’t sound all that much for the length of time, they will probably offer a payment plan if requested. Although it is technically on the curriculum, schools often choose to only send children in one year group, they don't need to offer it for all of them. If not enough people pay, it will probably just mean less swimming.

It is not six months, is it? Plus that is not the point.

Or…here’s a thing…take them yourself if you cannot afford to meet the costs of private lessons or the termly coach costs.
Parents need to parent and take some responsibility for their children's wellbeing, they chose to have them after all!

Schools have to account for how they spend that money and prove it benefits those specific pupils though. It's not a general pot.

I think there is a lot of judgement and assumptions there and I don't think it is fair.

My point is that it is a part of curriculum, cost of transport had not been communicated with parents at any point but few days before and it was not the case in previous years.

Schools want parents to pick up a cost and be understanding and flexible but they do not much flexibility and understanding themselves.

how was it "free"? Genuine question, someone must have found the money to pay for petrol, insurance etc..

I genuinely can't understand parents who resent spending money for their child?
You are not asked to finance the headteacher summer vacation on the beach, it's transport for your own child?

I didn't say anything about 6 months. And what I have said is entirely the point. They can ask parents for a voluntary contribution towards transport costs. As the contribution is voluntary, you don't have to pay. They must still take your child to swimming lessons even if you don't pay.

They cannot insist that you pay or refuse to take your child if you don't pay. If they do either of those things they are breaking the law.

I genuinely can't understand parents who resent spending money for their child?

You do realise many, many parents don't have £81 sitting around, unaccounted for ?

Plus, as been pointed out previously on this thread, it won't actually benefit your child, if your child can already swim.

They don't have to though, they may just have to cut back and take one year group, e.g year 5 every year.

Swimming is part of the curriculum so children can’t opt out of it, school are not allowed to charge for the transport and make that charge mandatory. They are legally allowed to ask for donations or contributions but they can’t be forced.

This is is what it is. Few months for one year group.

This is the point.

Yes, I'd be pissed off, especially if they could already swim - can your child swim 25m OP?

I'm wondering how my DC school managed it if it's part of the curriculum - they asked for a 25m+ swimming certificate for those who could already swim, and only took the kids who couldn't.

I realise OPs school has said you can't, but more widely is it permitted to opt kids out if they're competent (as my DCs primary appears to have!)?