Is it unfair to exclude a child that has not contributed towards the upkeep of a swimming pool at school

[feelinghassled]

this is what will be happening next term at my childs school. It is a charity run school and they have asked for contribuitions towards the upkeep of the pool.

God yes, as the other children haven't contributed either, it was their parents. A child can't make their parents pay, so it is unfair to exclude them. Sins of the fathers and all that.
This is presumably a fee-paying school.

God yes, as the other children haven't contributed either, it was their parents. A child can't make their parents pay, so it is unfair to exclude them. Sins of the fathers and all that.
This is presumably a fee-paying school.

yes it would be unfair - and not a contribution clearly it was a manatory payment

and the reason they put contribution is becuase they can't ask you for a mandatory sum

i would seek the advice of a solicitor if it were my child

If it's a case of desperate hardship then it is unfair, I think the parents should however, be asked to do something towards the upkeep, such as cleaning, painting the fence etc.
If the parents are just mean, then it is fair enough, but how you judge between the two cases, I do not know.

We had this at our primary. We were asked to make a voluntary contribution of £5 each year. I always did but suspect a few didn't, however no child was excluded. Are you sure the school will do this?

it has been mentioned in a conversation from a teacher

i have paid but it's just the cheek of them asking this is the first time it has been asked

Sorry x post. Very unfair imo. Personally, I would just pay up.

If they've "asked for contibutions" then I don't see how they can discriminate between the children on that basis.

If they were allowed to charge for the use of the pool, that might be different, though still wrong IMHO!

why not get the parents on a chaingang too !?

it is not the child's fault , theu should not effecrively be ostracised and excluded

I have to say I'm always shocked by the idea of "voluntary contributions" to state schools. I don't think that happens up here at all - if it's a state school then there should not be any requirement for parents to pay directly towards it. There might be costs associated with school (uniform, dinners, trips) but that's not the same.

DD is transferring to a state Middle school in September. There is some kind of parents association that run the pool and they ask for an annual contribution of something like £48. In return your family can use the pool two evenings a week and Sunday afternoon.

This is all well and good and I'm happy to do so as am able atm to afford it. But I know straight away that there is one girl in DD's class whose parents won't be able to afford it.

I would be absolutely livid to say the least if she was excluded in any way but can't imagine this happening for one minute.

Well, the payment for the "additional benefit" of the family being able to use it at evenings and weekends sounds fair enough. But it would be wrong if the children at the school were not allowed to use it on the same basis as others.

Mutt. On reflection, my idea does sound a bit like the workhouse. But at our school, they are always begging for volunteers to supervise drying and dressing kids after the swimming, and also to clean changing rooms, weed around the paving stones etc.etc.
So if someone couldn't afford to pay but had time to help, other parents and children would be none the wiser.

choccypig, its not always that easy. What would you do with a child whose parents were on income support and whose parent also failed the CRB check on some trivality. (Ie, like having a criminal record for something like shoplifting) Ex criminals often find hard to get a job.

I am pretty certain that its against the law for a school to discrimate against the children of non paying parents for activites that happen during lesson times.

HAving a criminal record does not exclude you from working with children unless the conviction os for a child related or sexual offence.

I have refused to make a donation for the upkeep of the pool at dd's school. Apparently it needs a major refurbishment. It is a fee payijng school and I can't afford the extra money.

At a state school I'm fairly certain this scenario would be illegal. It is completely wrong on all levels.

If it is a contibution and then there is no lower limit - if the child takes coppers then how can thwe school say the child cannot swim. Money is money and if coppers are taken then this is a contribution.

The school would then have to stipulate how much the contibution has to be - which I don't think they can do if it is supposed to be a contribution.

Better if the school hired the pool out for pool parties to cover the cost of running the pool at other times.

"HAving a criminal record does not exclude you from working with children unless the conviction os for a child related or sexual offence."

In theory you are right. However even cautions appear on an enhanced CRB check. Many schools will not allow someone to work with children if they have a mere caution. Many schools are surprisingly strict and often unfair.

Fair point Really Tired.
Also someone with smaller children often can't help out with time either. For the drying "rota" (not exactly a rota if you're on it twice every week!) you do have to be CRB checked. FWIW this is one of the few occasions when I think a CRB is justified.

Too bl*y right it is! Should we deny access of neonatal facilities to babies and mothers on income support too? Is anyone suggesting we go back to Victorian values where the poor/less wealthy are segregated in every area of life? As a parent who can afford to privately educate 3 DC I feel very uncomfortable about this proposed scenario and believe that all children in a class should be treated equally, regardless of family income