why are schools always asking for money!

Flashdaisy

To bring a slightly different perspective to the thread, does anyone else think it's cheeky when schools send a letter home asking for a donation to a member of staff's leaving present/wedding present/new baby present?. Like I said, DD's current school don't really ask for money, but at her previous one we were frequently being asked for donations for presents, the Head even used to suggest in the letters the amount we donated.

If you worked in, say, a shop and were leaving, maybe your colleagues would have a whip round, but I doubt they'd be asking every customer who came into that shop to donate £5.

Janepig

Flashdaisy wrote: »

To bring a slightly different perspective to the thread, does anyone else think it's cheeky when schools send a letter home asking for a donation to a member of staff's leaving present/wedding present/new baby present?. Like I said, DD's current school don't really ask for money, but at her previous one we were frequently being asked for donations for presents, the Head even used to suggest in the letters the amount we donated.

If you worked in, say, a shop and were leaving, maybe your colleagues would have a whip round, but I doubt they'd be asking every customer who came into that shop to donate £5.

I seem to remember at the end of the summer term last year the lady who'd been sorting out the school dinner money retired after about 20 odd years and a letter came home saying you could give if you wanted, but it was by no means compulsory. I think that's the only time. I know when MIL retired as the school cook we weren't asked for donations!! It's a large school though with loads of staff so I guess they make enough from staff donations for a decent gift without having to go to parents too.

Jxx

Flashdaisy

Janepig wrote: »

I seem to remember at the end of the summer term last year the lady who'd been sorting out the school dinner money retired after about 20 odd years and a letter came home saying you could give if you wanted, but it was by no means compulsory. I think that's the only time. I know when MIL retired as the school cook we weren't asked for donations!! It's a large school though with loads of staff so I guess they make enough from staff donations for a decent gift without having to go to parents too.

Jxx

I think a brief mentioning in a letter is fine and a "donate if you want to", it was so different at DD's school though; we would get the initial letter saying the staff member was leaving/getting married/having their legs waxed;), and saying that they suggested a donation of, say, £4. Then a week later we'd all get a slightly stroppy letter saying "Only X amount have donated to the collection, I am very disappointed and we'd like to raise more money for her".

KellyWelly

the_other_mce wrote: »

You cannot be serious!!! This years PTA mums at my DD's school are a very affluent bunch with good jobs and husbands who have good jobs. They can afford cleaners, people to do their ironing, new cars and at least a couple of holidays a year! They have no idea how ordinary people live!!!

Gosh, so it is ok to gossip about what the PTA committee members have or have not got but if they were to do the same about somebody who didn't pay for the school trip you'd all be up in arms.

For further perspective, when I started the PTA at my children's school, I was unemployed (by choice as my husband and I made the decision that one of us should stay at home with our children until they were both full time in school). We were on an extremely tight budget because my husband went back to uni and retrained during that time and started at the bottom rung once more.

The other committee members were: a full time stay at home single mum; a mum who worked as a receptionist two days a week; a married stay at home mum whose husband was a labourer; a farmer's wife; and finally the richest of the bunch, a nurse. None of us were well off, and I can assure you that none of us had cleaners or hired help of any kind.

Seems to me you're as bad as the people who are 'gossipping about others' financial affairs' who put everyone off from going into school and explaining why they won't pay their own way. It pees me right off frankly that I work full time and subsidise the people who won't pay for their own kids. And it's BS that most people who don't pay can't afford to. The parents at my school who don't pay can afford it, they just don't see why they should and it's the ones who do pay or the ones who work their bums off fundraising that actually do pay in the end for their kids. If you genuinely can't afford it then the least you can do is swallow your misplaced pride and explain it rather than putting two fingers up to the school and your peers. Quite frankly, how dare you.

bigmomma051204

Flashdaisy wrote: »

I think a brief mentioning in a letter is fine and a "donate if you want to", it was so different at DD's school though; we would get the initial letter saying the staff member was leaving/getting married/having their legs waxed;), and saying that they suggested a donation of, say, £4. Then a week later we'd all get a slightly stroppy letter saying "Only X amount have donated to the collection, I am very disappointed and we'd like to raise more money for her".

Have to say, if I was the said staff member getting her legs waxed (pmsl!) or some such...i would be MORTIFIED that parents were being asked (bullied lol) to contribute!!! Totally wrong! As said before, i can understand if a long term member of staff is retiring after 25 odd years etc ...but not teachers getting married, having babies etc. I work for a childrens centre and i would be SHOCKED if the parents who attend our events were asked for money because i wanted to get hitched!!!!
Also, teachers earn more than enough money to pay for their own bloomin' colleagues presents! (ooops have i just opened one of those persky worm cans???)

Hell, if the reception class's teacher is up the duff and can't afford to buy her own nappy wrapper or stairgate, Why not just send the kids out onto the local high street and give them a penny whistle and a hat to shake.....be much simpler and would teach the kids alot about charity which so many on here keep preaching about......

KellyWelly

bigmomma051204 wrote: »

If they are "stay at home" mums whose children are all at school and they feel they need to "budget" (if their partners aren't earning enough...?) then surely they would be better off going to work part time rather than organising the odd tombola or raffle or charity event.......?

Some people choose to stay at home because they believe it is the best choice for their children. Investing time and love in your children in the first few years of their life is worth more (to some people) than money and being able to afford Heinz instead of Basics.

bigmomma051204

KellyWelly wrote: »

Some people choose to stay at home because they believe it is the best choice for their children. Investing time and love in your children in the first few years of their life is worth more (to some people) than money and being able to afford Heinz instead of Basics.

Hmmm - well if I had stayed at home when my little boy was a baby i would have been on benefits.... i "chose" to return to work because i wanted my child to see his parents work for a living. Rather than see a tainted view of the world where "every family has a father who earns enough to support the whole family on one wage". Oh and because i do not WANT to live off other peoples earnings. And also because i am the main breadwinner. I feel it is more important to be able to FEED my child and CLOTHE my child than to be with him 24 hours a day. Also, the fact that children need to have social interaction with their peers from an early age meaning that nursery is not the necessary evil that some say it is.
Are you implying that because i work, i am somehow damaging my child emotionally? My child is bright, happy, nurtured and secure in the knowledge that both his parents love him. I invest time and love in my child....your statement seems to imply that because i have to go to work (as our family would not survive economically without me doing so unless we all lived off the state) i am somehow depriving my child of my time. And my love.
And for the record, we can only afford own brand now (yes, even with me working, shock horror!!).....i am not a Heinz girl anyhow!


What silly and cruel statements some people on here make. How long will it be before that poster tries to retract what they said (without technically backing down of course!)


:rolleyes:

the_other_mce

KellyWelly wrote: »

Gosh, so it is ok to gossip about what the PTA committee members have or have not got but if they were to do the same about somebody who didn't pay for the school trip you'd all be up in arms.

For further perspective, when I started the PTA at my children's school, I was unemployed (by choice as my husband and I made the decision that one of us should stay at home with our children until they were both full time in school). We were on an extremely tight budget because my husband went back to uni and retrained during that time and started at the bottom rung once more.

The other committee members were: a full time stay at home single mum; a mum who worked as a receptionist two days a week; a married stay at home mum whose husband was a labourer; a farmer's wife; and finally the richest of the bunch, a nurse. None of us were well off, and I can assure you that none of us had cleaners or hired help of any kind.

Seems to me you're as bad as the people who are 'gossipping about others' financial affairs' who put everyone off from going into school and explaining why they won't pay their own way. It pees me right off frankly that I work full time and subsidise the people who won't pay for their own kids. And it's BS that most people who don't pay can't afford to. The parents at my school who don't pay can afford it, they just don't see why they should and it's the ones who do pay or the ones who work their bums off fundraising that actually do pay in the end for their kids. If you genuinely can't afford it then the least you can do is swallow your misplaced pride and explain it rather than putting two fingers up to the school and your peers. Quite frankly, how dare you.

How dare you!! If you read my posts properly you would know that 1) I was a member of the PTA so I know how it works. 2) I am fortunate in that I don't have financial problems now but there are plenty of parents who do and while our children were little we managed on one income. 3) I was commenting on the PTA members of my children's local school - not you personally. 4) I actually do pay for everything, support ALL the functions and take time off of work to help at the functions. 5) How do you know that the parents that don't pay CAN afford it - are you their bank manager?
Finally what makes you think that parents are putting two fingers up at the school ??? Every parent on this thread supports and appreciates the school their child is at and all are willing to support the educational side (trips etc). Or maybe I touched on a raw nerve - are you honestly saying that the £107 last month is a reasonable amount of money for the PTA to expect a parent to donate????? From the posts on this thread I know our school PTA is not unique - there are others who have had to pay out £75 etc. Remember this is for ONE MONTH, and our children are in school for 11 months a year. I think you have a cheek!

KellyWelly

I won't back down from anything I've said, and of course I know what you refer to and I didn't back down then, I never changed what I said and I didn't need to, what I said was common sense and in no way spiteful to anyone, but never mind. Yet again your own hang ups and issues are influencing what you read into things.

I don't think you are emotionally damaging your child, I didn't say you were. I said some people choose to invest time and love in their children over money. Most people can, if they choose to, survive on far less money than they have. It might not be the most comfortable of lives but it is possible and my personal view is that it is worth it for five years to stay at home with your child.

I am not silly or cruel, I speak as I find which I realise isn't what you want to hear.

DaisyFlower

KellyWelly wrote: »

Some people choose to stay at home because they believe it is the best choice for their children. Investing time and love in your children in the first few years of their life is worth more (to some people) than money and being able to afford Heinz instead of Basics.

What a horrible thing to say. Just because a parent works doesnt mean they are not investing time and love to their child. Putting a roof over their heads and food on the table is vitally important too. Also installs a good work ethic into the child.

Seeing as this thread is about school children, its fair to say that the majority of children are at school most of the day so wont even notice if the parent is at home or work.