Cost of school trip coaches

[hellymedic]

We use London buses if we can because we don't have to pay.

Is that because you are a London school, or does it apply to all schools?

Buses are free for under 11s in London.
They are free for under 16s with a photocard.
11-16s need a photocard and 16-18s need documents from school to  get their cards.
I think.

[Kim]

What stops the bus drivers going "oh look, there's a load of schoolkids" and simply not stopping?

[Polar Bear]

Obviously there is nowhere local which could be the venue for a treat as well as being educational in Warwick...

The concept of a 'treat' at £40 seems a bit excessive to me.   Somebody hasn't thought through the impact on low income households but then Warwick is full of wealthy middle-class families. 

< Removes tongue from cheek... >

[CAMRAMan]

No, PB, I can't think of anywhere in Warwick that might fit the bill either. Maybe a day learning how to gamble at the racecourse?

This school has a diverse intake. There are a significant number of deprived families, but other, better off ones too that I suspect the Head sees as a source of subsidisation.

The Pupil Premium, which poorer kids do attract to the school (mine included), is meant to be ring-fenced and only spent on those children attracting the extra funding. How this is carried out by the school is supposed to be clearly declared on the school website, but the Head doesn't see fit to bother despite knowing of the duty to declare it.

[Greenbank]

What stops the bus drivers going "oh look, there's a load of schoolkids" and simply not stopping?

It's London. The first bus that tries that (which is very unliekyl) may get away with it, the second bus will be stopped by people standing in the road.

[Ham]

Since Ken tubes have been free for school trips, too, so London has a number of advantages.

Pedal Castro has already given what is the right calculation; there is no way that the school should subsidise a "treat" trip, as the money comes straight out of what is needed for the children's education. £40 sounds cheeky, maybe they are trying to make up losses from other educational trips that had a lot of knockers? That's not excusable behaviour, but it might be their thinking.

[tiermat]

<snip>... maybe they are trying to make up losses from other educational trips that had a lot of knockers? <snip>

<old git mode>

They never had THOSE sorts of educational trips when I was a lad, Spearmint Rhino, perhaps?

</ogm>

[Wascally Weasel]

What stops the bus drivers going "oh look, there's a load of schoolkids" and simply not stopping?

Quite a lot of the busier routes that have heavy school traffic have supplementary additional buses to cope.  These have a number six prefix - so for example the 216 bus route might have a 616 route operating in the morning and afternoon.

Back in the mid 90s when I was one of the people responsible for tendering bus routes, I desperately tried to get a school route to supplement the 266 route.  It would have been the 666 to Harlseden, which would have been entirely appropriate.

[ian]

What stops the bus drivers going "oh look, there's a load of schoolkids" and simply not stopping?

Quite a lot of the busier routes that have heavy school traffic have supplementary additional buses to cope.  These have a number six prefix - so for example the 216 bus route might have a 616 route operating in the morning and afternoon.

Back in the mid 90s when I was one of the people responsible for tendering bus routes, I desperately tried to get a school route to supplement the 266 route.  It would have been the 666 to Harlseden, which would have been entirely appropriate.

I always used to call the 266 the 666 anyway. It was the route of fear. A bus would turn up whenever, casually wafting marijuana smoke like a somnolent locomotive. This would fool you into thinking that you'd have a chilled-out ride. Not so. No sooner had you departed Hammersmith bus station, the driver would realise that he was late or the end of his shift was approaching, or maybe he'd just stuck his head in a bucket of meth. At which point it was best to either hang on tight or reach for the nearest available religion. You had to pause when you got off to let the rest of the world catch up. I think I once arrived home before the bus had even departed.

Anyway, if it's not changed, it would be a cheaper option than a roller coaster.

[CAMRAMan]

...£40 sounds cheeky, maybe they are trying to make up losses from other educational trips that had a lot of knockers? That's not excusable behaviour, but it might be their thinking.

I doubt whether there were many knockers in the past, as the wording of messages home about trips has been as a demand rather than a polite request for voluntary contributions.

Would I be within my rights to request a breakdown of costs?

[Ham]

As a parent you have precious few rights, except to go through the complaints procedure.

However, that's not to say that isn't a reasonable request, I think it is. And, any sensible school motivated by self interest would tell you as quickly as possible.

Also, the chances are that you have the right to that information under the FOI act rather than as a parent, being a parent accords you no different legal status except in relation to your obligations or where there is a formal school-pupil/family interaction (eg disciplinary)

[sojournermike]

You can ask without the 'right'. I would. The school is the state's provision to ensure broadly consistent education and let you and your other half remain economically productive, but you have only delegated the activity to it. Still your bairns and the school should recognise that and desire a relationship with you too.

Sometimes things fall a bit short I'm afraid, but just ask away.

Mike

[perpetual dan]

Coming late to this (did you find out how the costs broke down, did they have a good time?). We recently had a school trip by coach (to a nature reserve, so cheaper entry) about 25-30 miles away that cost £11.

[CAMRAMan]

We're still awaiting the trip to be announced. I think the £40 figure that was floated included all sorts of things the school isn't allowed to charge for, including subsidising those who can't/won't pay and paying for cover teachers - both strictly verboten by the DfE, so I assume they are trying to backtrack.

Mind you, seeing as I escalated this, I wouldn't be all that surprised if they didn't bother.

[Hot Flatus]

Great. Trip cancelled. Everyone's a winner.

[CAMRAMan]

OK, I'll bite. We have a head who is endorsing practices that are so far removed from the DfE guidelines as is possible. She has been challenged on this and refused to budge. Why should I not challenge this behaviour?

I don't expect to have my kids' trips subsidised by other parents, nor do I intend to do the subsidising. Schools are not allowed to charge for cover teachers, nor various other things that I suspect the school was trying to include in the cost.

If a head is challenged - when clearly in the wrong - and refuses to alter anything, the only choices are either to forget it or escalate. If her knee-jerk reaction is to then petulantly stop trips, who is at fault?

[Hot Flatus]

A trip to a theme park is nothing to do with your child's education, nor was the trip compulsory.you don't have to send your child on that trip if you feel it is too expensive, nor do you have to make decisions on behalf of others. Let them make their own minds up.

Looks like you've removed the opportunity for those that would have wanted to send their kids and didn't mind subsidising the poorer kids who can't afford trips, and also removed a day out for the more deprived kids.

What do you feel you've achieved by this?

[jsabine]

Looks like you've removed the opportunity for those that would have wanted to send their kids and didn't mind subsidising the poorer kids who can't afford trips, and also removed a day out for the more deprived kids.

No.

Don't try to shift the responsibility to AWL. If the trip has indeed been cancelled, the responsibility for that rests absolutely on the decision maker - presumably the head.

[Ham]

A trip to a theme park is nothing to do with your child's education, nor was the trip compulsory.you don't have to send your child on that trip if you feel it is too expensive, nor do you have to make decisions on behalf of others. Let them make their own minds up.

Looks like you've removed the opportunity for those that would have wanted to send their kids and didn't mind subsidising the poorer kids who can't afford trips, and also removed a day out for the more deprived kids.

What do you feel you've achieved by this?

If you think keeping your child away while all others in a class go is feasible, you either have no children of your own, or a different take on parenting from, dare I say, most of us.

What AWL has done is to make a valid stand against wrong headed practice by the school. The school should have a "Trips  Policy" (probably hasn't, from what we've heard) and this sort of thing should be entirely counter to it. Even if AWL can happily afford to pay, £1 gets you £0.01p that there are others who will be hard stretched to come up with the money and will probably not realise how wrong this pricing is. If the option is for the trip to be cancelled, it proves how wrong headed it was to start with and AWL should be cheered not criticised.

[Hot Flatus]

[quote author=Ham link=topic=71627.msg1498609#msg1498609 date=1370554127
 Even if AWL can happily afford to pay, £1 gets you £0.01p that there are others who will be hard stretched to come up with the money and will probably not realise how wrong this pricing is.

[/quote]

What a disdainful attitude. That's pretty arrogant to assume that other parents arent able to make their own decisions.

Your argument about not being able to withokd children from a school trip is interesting. You appear to be endorsing the following: not prepared to pay for trip, don't want to bear grief from kids, so scupper entire trip, including for those who want to go and are prepared to pay, but are obviously a bit too thick to see through the schools scam.

[jsabine]

so scupper entire trip,

You're doing it again.

If the trip has been cancelled, the responsibility for that lies with the head, not with AWL.

[Vince]

I have stopped my son going on a school trip on the grounds that is was poor value. It was a camping trip with one night under canvas with a less than inspiring programme. Since the lad has camped many times with cubs and scouts and the cost was about 4 times what scouts would charge for a two night trip, I said 'No'.
I took some time off and we did a better trip with just the two of us!

[Ham]

Even if AWL can happily afford to pay, £1 gets you £0.01p that there are others who will be hard stretched to come up with the money and will probably not realise how wrong this pricing is.

What a disdainful attitude. That's pretty arrogant to assume that other parents arent able to make their own decisions.

Your argument about not being able to withokd children from a school trip is interesting. You appear to be endorsing the following: not prepared to pay for trip, don't want to bear grief from kids, so scupper entire trip, including for those who want to go and are prepared to pay, but are obviously a bit too thick to see through the schools scam.

Disdainful? what a curious expression.

Nothing to do with arrogance, it is simply an observation that - when a child wishes to go on a school trip - parents will normally go to great lengths to pay for them to go, even when that payment is difficult.  Also, and possibly more pertinently, it takes a particular kind of parenting for a parent stop their child going on a trip on a point of principle, which is what you appeared to suggest was an appropriate course of action. AWL has at no time said he would not pay for his child to go, if the school were able to explain how they properly arrived at the charges.

Far from the rather confused supposition you are reading into my argument it is much simpler and entirely coherent.

In this instance, it appears that the school is falling short of the behaviour and standards that are expected (of course, they always have the option of explaining the contribution in terms that are acceptable, we are assuming here that they are not). If that means that the trip is canned, well that's because it shouldn't have been set up that way in the first instance.

[CAMRAMan]

The other parents are not able to make a decision on whether to subsidise other children because the school does not tell them that this is what it might be doing, nor does it explain the inflated price of the trip. Letters come home from school that resemble a demand for money - not a call for voluntary contributions. Guidelines covering the clarification of voluntary contributions are flouted and no mention is made that parents do not have to pay (nor of the ramifications if they do not). This includes demands for money for curriculum-related trips.

When this was pointed out to the head, she responded by issuing a new letter with the wording "Failure to pay may mean future trips will be in jeopardy", or similarly blunt and succinct words to that effect. "Failure to pay" is a very inappropriate term to use when we are talking about voluntary contributions. Something like: "We are requesting that you contribute £x towards this trip. This would be a voluntary contribution, but if we do not receive sufficient contributions, this might mean that we have to cancel this trip." Would be far more appropriate and would fall into line with the DfE guidelines that the head is now aware of.

[Hot Flatus]

Agreed, it's a clumsy wording....but in essence the meaning is the same.


Picking up on Ham's point about 'parenting', personally I am not bringing up my children to think that just because their peers have something, they should have it too. Your values may differ