Blood boiling! (AS resits + cost)

I have two sons in upper sixth, but, each attends a different Grammar School.

Both intend to resit some AS modules; I'm happy to support their decision.

Now, one school has sent out a form with each exam resit listed and the cost per module. Each module varies in price between £12.90 - £26.40 and the differing exam bodies (AQA, EDEXCEL, OCR).

The other school has sent out a sheet of paper stating: "The cost per module is £25, which is non-refundable after the exam entry has been processed".



Now, both wish to sit a physics module (or two): for one son, this will cost me £25.80; for my other son, the same two modules will cost me ... £50!!

So, I call son #2's school to query the £25 per module when a similar module will cost me half that price.

Answers escalated from: that's the cost; your other son is quoting GCSE prices; we charge an average so those who choose a cheaper resit "pay a little" more and those choosing a more expensive module "pay a little less"; it's school policy ... has been for years!

So, basically, I'm paying for someone to sit a more expensive resit? Why?

He states he will call me back with a reviewed figure for son #2's resits (but refuses to supply me with a breakdown of the costs per module)

Deadline for submission 30th September (a Sunday!!!??? ) which actually means - tomorrow!!

Bit miffed to be honest and very disappointed with the person's attitude!

Just saying :wallbang:

 

Yes, annoying, but best to just accept the differences pay up and forget it!!

Val

 

Do you think?

Calculating the total modules #2 son wishes to sit would cost me, overall, £150. Those same modules would cost #1 son £97 .... I'm not convinced it is ethical to charge a parent a published price of £97 from one school and for another to make a blanket ("averaged") charge which profits the school by a third *more* for the same product

Having calculated the average, the mean and the mode ... I still cannot come near to the £25 figure that school have stated is the "average". In fact, from the figures supplied by #1 son's school, it would appear that out of a total 18 potential resits, only 4 surpass the £25 so called "average".

Therefore, it would appear (at this stage) that the policy undertaken by #2 son's school "to charge an average", seems to merely favour not the child, not the exam board, but the school directly.

Perhaps he is correct that this was a policy undertaken by senior management "a number of years ago" ... times have changed ... does it still make it the right policy decision? Or, is it a way of "duping" people to pay this amount simply because they know no different? Doesn't that make it a stealth payment for the school to boost their own finances?

Yes, of course I will pay for my son to resit his exams - this is *his* future and with Uni fees at an all time high, I will give him the very best chance I am able to afford. That doesn't mean I've got "mug!" written all over my forehead though Why should I overpay for this service??? (And then ... forget it???)

The most interesting point of all is this: the school attended by son #2 is in an officially declared "deprived area"; son #1 attends a school where many of his peers have parents of wealth. Yet, it is son #1's school which shows transparancy and son #2's school is trading under a stealth fee for those who are least likely to be able to afford it! That simply doesn't sit right with me: on principle!

 

Same goes with supermarket deliveries, although they charge for the service, they don't charge enough to cover the cost of it, so they pass on the costs via higher instore prices.

So us lot that can't afford to have stuff delivered are subsidising those who can afford it.

 

Nice analogy, Zigster; but, I think when it comes to education this is a slightly different matter.

The exam boards set the price. School policy decides how to apply it (individually, or as an average in one of these cases); however, that policy is not transparent - until challenged - and even then, they are reluctant to direct you to the policy. To a large extent, at this stage, the school has a "captive audience" - the student is not at a point where they can choose to "shop" elsewhere; supermarket customers on the other hand, can

 

Want confusing even more,

Here's a link:-
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=537022

 

Oh, Arm How sad I am at your reply

Do you know, I have just, *just* passed a bachelors degree: my "peers" saw this as merely a transition from senior school; but, to *me*, it was a golden opportunity because ... it was not a mere stepping stone when I was their age!!! So, for me ... it was a golden opportunity to achieve an academic status.... does that make sense?

It so *should* be about education!!!! It so *should* be about social mobility; lifelong learning; progression; ambition, determination!!! But, it should equally be about ... a level playing ground!! And *that* is my point!

I have to budget for two boys, both of academic standing, both with equal potential; both with equal reasons why they were not quite as "successful" as they could have been at AS (not their fault, just, cirumstance); both, equally determined (of their own volition!) to right their wrongs ... the only difference is ... one third of the overall amount necessary to achieve their equal goals and aspirations!!!

And it is *my* student loan which will pay for them (through judicious budgeting) !!! Despite the fact, the awarding bodies set a price ... but, the individual schools, set varying "policies" (which does not reflect the current economic climate, but, which affects those effected by said economic climate! ... just feels ... wrong!)

Too emotive for me, or even the forums, perhaps, so I may have to delete: but I do feel so strongly on this! Not merely because it is personal, but because it is CULTURAL! My heart aches for those guys who may well have the academic wherewithall, but who's parents may not have the financial ability to support the academic capacity of their child/ren A huge step backwards, and due to the greed of an individual school policy - the very worst reason for their policies!

 

The initial "conversation" is 2008 based; the most recent alludes to a "college" re take vs a 6th form resit.

Thank you for the link, though

 

I just shows the issue isn't new.
For years people have been ripped off at the behest of an arbitary greed on some authority or other.
Those that stir it up may gain a refund, but the majority just accept it.
As others have suggested it's worth pursuing. They may well pay you off to keep a lid on the majority funding source.

 

Good point, well presented.

However, I only have to kow-tow to this for a fairly miniscule amount of time: yet, the issue is one that is long term. One I feel very strongly about; not one I shall easily relinquish

 

So, if what you say is true, Arm, it suggests that this is a "current" Government policy?

If so, how does that justify the member of staff's comment that it has been senior management "policy" .... for a number of years? And, his reluctance to honour his statement that he would call me back later today - and did not?

I have no problem in paying for both of my sons resits (let us make that very clear! I intend to give them the very best opportunities for their future; and yes, that includes paying extortionate uni fees!); I *do* have a problem with paying an amount which is so varying that it will cost me 1 and a third times more for one child, than the other, for the very same "service". This is not a "current" Government policy, but one that is entrenched in the system; if, the teacher I spoke to today was being open and honest about the school policy being a "number of years" old.

What I have not mentioned is, that I was a member of the parent/teacher association for that particular school at one point. I say "at one point" because it became blatantly obvious, from a very early stage, that they were so entrenched in their own opinions, there was no point in being there!

I get your bean counters scenario (how could I not?) ... but this policy appears to have been entrenched prior to needing to count beans.