Cost of school trips/activities: do you restrict what they can do?

[OrmIrian]

DS#1 had a camping 'get to know you' trip when he first started Yr7 (£60). He went to a rugby match (£15). Enrichment week camping trip (£90). Trip to see Stomp in September (£32). £60 a term drum lessons. And now a week in Germany (£200 just before Christmas ).

These are all things I want him to do. And I think the German trip is essential (and good value). But it all adds up. And more worryingly DD is starting in secondary school in just over a year so it will be all that doubled. We can afford it now but X 2 (and then X 3 in a few years time) is going to be a bit of a struggle.

How do you deal with this? Should we be restricting him a little in preparation knowing that he may not be able to do all these things when his sister starts Yr 7?

Dd's school appears to only do a ski-ing trip plus one to Germany. If her knee problem is all sorted out then I will be sending her ski-ing next year only because a ski trip would be my idea of pure hell!

we put money aside each month for all school related expenditure, from lunches, uniform to trips- that way we always have the funds available.

We allowed DD to go on the ski trip this Feb, as she was in year 9. Mid way her school life(and before knuckling down for GCSE's) iyswim. Her chosen GCSE options probably won't include any foreign trips-PE, Dance Drama etc-and no languages taken.

Secondly, skiing is something we would probably never do as a family.

And thirdly, both DP and I come from backgrounds that meant trips were not even an option. So as long as we can afford it, DC's will usually be able to go.

A lot of families don't have the time nor the money for a whole-family ski holiday (we certainly don't). A school trip can mean that the child gets to ski, even if the rest of the family doesn't.

And skiing is fun, challenging, and healthy.

School trips are a big part of my DCs education. 2 residentials this year, a gallery, a museum, camping. I don't think you need to see a direct correlation to their 'results'. Far too narrow a focus.
They're about seeing the curiculm in context, having fun, being away formn your parents, fostering confidence, learning to rub along, taking responsibility for yourself.
I feel school should make provision for those families who genuinely can't afford them.

Riven, 20-odd years ago I got an A in Irish the equivalent of A-level French without having been to France. I am happy to let my DC go on any worthwhile trips that I can afford, but I don't see any reason why they should need to go on them to do well in exams - although obviously if you are doing a language it is nice to be able to visit a country in which it is spoken.
But my DC won't be going on skiing trips and £1000+ New York jaunts simply because if we had that sort of money we would rather put it towards a holiday for the whole family.

scienceteacher - I quite agree with your last point. Taking 5 of us off to Germany for a week for example, is probably out of our reach atm. THis way DS#1 gets to go anyway. Same would apply to skiing. DH and I have had our share of lovely holidays in the past - the DC haven't. This is there turn. Much more fun without the rest of the family too.

I think a school trip pot might be the answer. ATM we're lurching from one to another feeling vaguely shell-shocked but are reluctant to say no. DD is also going on an outward bound trip right at the beginning of next term and has been to the London Eye and various other little things.

I didn't got on any school trips. My parents crippled themselves to send DB and me private - there be the case for my DC if I can avoid it.

"I don't think you need to see a direct correlation to their 'results'. Far too narrow a focus."

Totally agree litchick

The other thing about kids going on a school trip is that you are paying for just basic accommodation and you get a discount for having a large party.

What we do at my school for trips that are more holiday and less educational is to allow parents to sign up too. That way the parents can benefit from volume discounts, and that teachers can have some time off from supervision.

When we had a trip to China recently, it worked really well. Parents were responsible for their own children after hours, but in reality, families clubbed together to share out babysitting so that the others could go out in the evening.

Understandable envy, Riven. I agree with you that children should have an equal opportunity to go on residentials regardless of family income. Also music lessons and all those other extras that some children can afford and others not. But without substantial extra funding from government it's never going to happen.

In theory we'd restrict their activities on the basis of budget, but in practice neither school do expensive trips (so far) as they have a mixed catchment.

ds1 is in yr7 and the only thing he's done was a half-day science talk. I can't remember if it cost a couple of quid or was free! That's it. Everything else has been in school.

At my school the students are forever going on trips, residentials etc. Many of the day trips are backed by special grants and only cost a few quid, but it does all add up!

I take students on a residential to Europe every year. It's a fun time with their mates, and a chance to experience another culture, but they don't get to speak a huge amount of French/German.

It costs £340 for 5 days, two of which are spent travelling! I don't actually think this is good value for money.

From an educational point of view I would rather set up an opportunity for my boys to go on an exchange and live with a family for a couple of weeks on a reciprocal basis. That way it would basically be the cost of flights, plus the cost of having an extra teenager here for a fortnight.

The forthcoming residential trip made me grumble; they've only given us 4 months to pay and it impacts directly on our monthly budget.

I worry too how we'll manage when all 3 are eligible to go.

I do wonder why school trips have almost become part of the curriculum. They say you don't have to go but I think that's terribly unfair on those who don't or can't and makes school divisive. Aren't they supposed to be trying to avoid all that?

It's also putting huge pressure on parents particulalry now that many are under financial pressure anyway.

Also it perplexes me that they'll consider helping if you genuinely can't afford it.

What do you do to prove that point then? I don't particulalry relish a humiliating conversation with the head picking over my finances to see whether or not I can or can't afford something the school have decided to do. So I'll find the money somehow and say nothing.

They then think I can easily afford it; which is not the case.

I was so lucky at school! Being an only child and having a weirdo living arrangement (mum, uncle, and GP's in one house!) we all have seperate bank accounts. So when trips came up, my parents always told me to go for it. They started out cheap £105 for a trip to France (3 days, inc one in a theme park), the next France trip (Normandy, 5 days) was about £180. Italy for 12 days over Easter hols was £200-300ish and NYC in Year 11, £425 for 4 days (by this time I was saving money to either put towards the cost, or saving for spending money so that parents didn't need to provide that.

So for NY, mum paid £200, my uncle paid £100 and my GP's paid £100. I raised about £250 spending money over the months before the trip.

Now, I've got the chance to go back to New York with uni, 6 days this time, for approx £700 excluding food etc. I'm raising this myself, with the money I get from my job, and I always said I would. My mum might also be able to come (to make up numbers, and it's a dream of hers) and she'll also raise her own money/spending money etc.

So I AM lucky, no doubt about that, but I think my parents helped me have these experiences because we don't get family holidays very often.

In answer to your op, Orm, I wouldn't restrict 'in preparation'. I would carry on funding until it becomes unfeasable, and instead have a chat with ds and prepare him for the fact that you may not be able to fund everything in the future.

I suspect that is what we will do frank. It will be DD's turn then.

Totally agree with not restricting until it becomes necessary. Having said that, my DS has done one term at a school nursery and so far I have only been asked for £1.50 for a train trip so I am quite calm about it for the moment! Each of the items in your OP individaully seem reasonable, but adding it all up is a bit scary. I would go now if you can afford, maybe if you are short when DD is at secondary as well you might be able to ask GPs or similar.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

I agree with Riven that French is a far more useful skill (in many, many ways) than ski-ing, and that if I had to choose between a language trip and a ski-ing trip for my child I would have absolutely no hesitation in choosing the language trip.

I'm not sure that schools should be offering "holidays" at all, personally. It starts getting very unfair when they do, and creates rivalry and resentment because some children's parents can afford for them to do anything and everything and some children don't get to do anything.

I do, however, think that schools should offer a wide variety of educational trips and outings, and that schools should have a fund whereby they can ensure that each child, whatever their parents' resources, does at least do one or two trips with its peers.

I'm not sure about language trips to be honest. They can be great cultural experiences but not necessarily good at ensuring that the children get lots of exposure to the language.

DD's (senior) school does holiday trips - skiing, sports tours, Normandy, NYC, horseriding are some plus CCF camps and D of E - during the holidays but there are so few places that no-one should feel left out if they don't get onto the trip. All trips during term-time relate to the curriculum and are included in the fees we pay anyway (not the case with all independent schools).

DH hates going on holiday so family holidays are a rarity in this house anyway.

There is no way that a child can go on a first language trip abroad and learn very much in the way of the language! The point about language trips is that they need to build up, slowly, over the years - a first, cultural, trip with the class can be followed by an exchange or a residential language course for a couple of weeks. By mid-teens, a child who has been "broken in" like this can spend six weeks going to school in another country.

But I don't agree that they need to be 'broken in' in this way BonsoirAnna.

When I was a teenager I just went straight in to exchanges. Two weeks in France aged 13 or so, and 4 weeks in Germany aged about 14, including going to school for two of those weeks.