why are schools always asking for money!

bigmomma051204

By the way, sorry for rambling on in that post and possibly making silly grammatical errors, i am just rather offended by the assumption that because i have to go to work, i neither spend time with my child or love my child as much as somebody who stays at home with them 24 hours a day.

bigmomma051204

DaisyFlower wrote: »

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.

Thanks Daisy - i can't believe i did what i never do on here, got offended lol.....oh well!!! And quite right about school age children being at school all day! :rolleyes:

Janepig

KellyWelly wrote: »

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.

I've agreed with alot of what you've said, but not this. I work part-time, but I also invest plenty of time and love in my children. As do many people. It's what suits me and my family. You do what suits you and your family. No need to judge anyone.

There has been alot of double standards on this thread, and I'm glad DD is at a large school because it seems to be alot of the smaller village-type schools where the b1tching and tittletattling is at it's peak. I also think it's no good popping out a football team of children then complaining because you've got to pay £11 for the school disco instead of £1. Some schools do seem to be blatantly taking the pi$$ though and perhaps there should be an element of standardisation amongst schools.

Jxx

PS: Who needs DT eh? This is far more cut and thrust!! :-D

bigmomma051204

KellyWelly wrote: »

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.

I live in my overdraft. I shop frugally. I had to bake cookies for my Dad and partner for Fathers Day as i could not afford to buy them presents. I haven't bought myself any new clothes for over a year. I am having to borrow money off my mother who is a pensioner for my little boy's school uniform.
We could not, i repeat COULD NOT live on less than we have. Sorry to burst the bubble.

the_other_mce

KellyWelly wrote: »

Most people can, if [STRIKE]they[/STRIKE] the PTA 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 [STRIKE]five years to stay at home with your child. [/STRIKE] the satisfaction of getting a thankyou from the head teacher at the end of the school year!!!

No offence meant - just trying to inject a touch of humour into this thread!!

barnaby-bear

bigmomma051204 wrote: »

By the way, sorry for rambling on in that post and possibly making silly grammatical errors, i am just rather offended by the assumption that because i have to go to work, i neither spend time with my child or love my child as much as somebody who stays at home with them 24 hours a day.

Can't please all the people all of the time. I've met plenty of deranged/badly turned out kids - some examples:
- the spooky home educated ones, where frightfully educated mummy and daddy focused their world on the little darlings, who I'm not sure were not some channel of beelzebub.....
- the ones with SAHMs who experienced a world of stimulus from Jeremy Kyle, educational experiences hanging around the precinct whilst mum smokes her fag
- the clingy antisocial bitey kid who never went to pre-school child care and can't socialise when hits school and misses out on the parenting networks because all formed through the nursery
- the kid with the high flying parents who hardly knows the parents because spends all day in childcare
- the kid with the mum who stayed at home and suffered depression because she couldn't cope without adult company and didn't handle full time parenting well
- the the kids with the stream of dodgy young inexperience au pairs
- the kids with no working parent role model who sees no option but benefits
- the kid packed off to boarding school who hated it

bigmomma051204

the_other_mce wrote: »

KellyWelly wrote: »

Most people can, if [STRIKE]they[/STRIKE] the PTA 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 [STRIKE]five years to stay at home with your child. [/STRIKE] the satisfaction of getting a thankyou from the head teacher at the end of the school year!!!

No offence meant - just trying to inject a touch of humour into this thread!!

Heee heeeeee :T:T

bigmomma051204

barnaby-bear wrote: »

Can't please all the people all of the time. I've met plenty of deranged/badly turned out kids - some examples:
- the spooky home educated ones, where frightfully educated mummy and daddy focused their world on the little darlings, who I'm not sure were not some channel of beelzebub.....
- the ones with SAHMs who experienced a world of stimulus from Jeremy Kyle, educational experiences hanging around the precinct whilst mum smokes her fag
- the clingy antisocial bitey kid who never went to pre-school child care and can't socialise when hits school and misses out on the parenting networks because all formed through the nursery
- the kid with the high flying parents who hardly knows the parents because spends all day in childcare
- the kid with the mum who stayed at home and suffered depression because she couldn't cope without adult company and didn't handle full time parenting well
- the the kids with the stream of dodgy young inexperience au pairs
- the kids with no working parent role model who sees no option but benefits
- the kid packed off to boarding school who hated it

I think alot of us have met most of those sometime or other. Thanks for the excellent perspective xx :beer:

pretzelnut

After visiting my son's school fete today after school i will be marching into that office tommorrow and demanding to be a member of the PTA.

We donated about £100 worth of top quality gifts for the tombola and raffle as well as baking some cakes for the cake stall.

When we got there - none of the decent gifts were anywhere to be seen and the best thing you could win on the tombola was a tin of fruit cocktail and they had the cheek to charge 50p a go!

We then went outside to have a go on the stalls. To find 3 stalls. 1 was soak the teacher - 3 sponges for £2 another was guess the bears age - £1 a go and finally 9 stacked tin cans for you to throw bean bags at that cost £1 a go and you didnt even get a lollipop for trying. It was ridiculously over priced for a start especially as there were no little prizes, i seriously doubt if they made any money. Plus the main prize for winning was a tiny box of maltesers which i suspect were seriously melted after todays heat.

It would have been better for them to charge less then more people could participate. I only have 1 at school but there are quite a few who have 2 or 3 at school and no way could they afford for each child to have a go at £1-£2 a game.

They had put no effort into making signs for the stalls just a scribble on a bit of A5 card. When i was younger we would get picked and made to feel privelidged that we were making the signs as it got us out of class for the afternoon to make really big signs.

I was expecting maybe someone who painted faces, the ice cream van as he usually gets invited everywhere. But there was noting - it was all about how much money they could rake in and none of it had the slightest hint of any fun anywhere.

I did pay for the raffle tickets a few weeks ago at £5 for 25 tickets but i really wish i hadnt (out of principle) when i saw the prizes today.

On top of this he has had 6 school ''events'' to pay for in recent months not including red nose day.

All of which are voluntary but on the bottom of the letter it states that if not enough contributions are recieved then they will have to cancel. Tugs on my heart strings that sentence does. But i only pay if its of some educational value. The most recent one i refused to pay for was £10 to go to the cinema to see monster V's aliens (which he had already seen with us) as a treat for there participation in the xmas show. The money was to cover the coach, entrance and popcorn, drink or ice cream.

I wouldnt donate to a treachers birth, wedding, etc unless they had been like my mum's teacher and had been there for donkeys years and we knew then quite well. But i do think its ok for school to mention it as its a case of each to there own and just cos im not interested doesnt mean some one else isnt, but to suggest an amount if ridiculous.

But then dont get me started on the whole teaher gift thing, i also think its ridiculous that most parents now feel the need to buy the teacher a gift at the end of term, they get paid to do there job, a home made thank you card is more than enough, i wouldnt buy my local greengrocer a gift just for stocking fresh fruit and veg.

OrkneyStar

DaisyFlower wrote: »

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.

Why is it horrible ?
I agree with KellyWelly, and tbh, think it is horrible to say she is being horrible by standing up for what she believes in.
I am a SAHM, dad works hard, this is the correct work ethic I want to put across to my child.
You put across whatever ethic you chose but don't criticise others for their choices!
SAH or not, we all do what we think it best for our offspring and we will never all agree- we can respect each others choices though!