Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't do this.

Really, it just leads to more increased dependance amongst the parents. It's $8 and the family can come up with the money. The family has to make a choice - buy one less convenience item that week vs. send their kid on the field trip.

It's not sweet, or cute, or helpful. It's the opposite. It creates a constant stream of dependance.

You are an idiot.

I grew up poor (especially right after my parents separated/divorced) and thank god people at my school were looking out for kids like me when it came to field trips, sports uniforms, etc. And it in no way created a dependence issue for me or for my mom, who eventually got back on her feet. Now let's say the poor kid's mom decides to go out and buy cigarettes with the money she could have given her kid for the field trip...so the kid should be punished?

People like you make my skin crawl.

I think the poster has a good point, no need for vitriol. Look when we were kids the welfare state wasn't as ubiquitous nor generous. For instance today, poor families get food stamps, so why do we subsidize breakfast lunch and dinner at schools when the parents are given welfare to provide? Could it be those food stamps are spent elsewhere? Also when we were kids and there was no welfare, communities were very charitable and did provide for their neighbors who were in wont. Also it was expected that the neighbors would try to improve their lot and most did.

This doesn't happen any more and it could well be due to the fact the original poster mentioned, people have become dependent on on the guaranteed dole coming their way. And if that is the case it should not be encouraged. A tough love approach is much better.

You must be ancient if there was no welfare when you were a kid. Welfare was actually better before 1996 than it is now.

Ancient perhaps but not decrepit… of course there was welfare but it was not used in the breadth size and scope as we see it today. And there was also a stigma associated with it which IMHO was a good thing, not so today. Now it seems the stigma is upon those of us who feel welfare should be reserved for those in absolute need.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are at an MCPS focus school and the school has a fund to help pay for field trips for any child that can't afford it. No child will be turned away due to lack of funds.

So any parents who don't pay for any reasons still gets their kid on the field trip? That is enabling at its finest.

No, it's letting the kid go on the field trip. Otherwise you're punishing the kid for choosing the wrong parents to be born to.

Yes but there need to be consequences for poverty too… if everything is provided for 'fairness' sake then what is the impetus to pul one out of poverty. We were not riches a child, I didn't get what the other children had, it was a motivation for me to work hard and now I'm much better off for it not only materially but as a person. If we 'reward' poverty then there is no impetus for others to improve their lives. Two important life's lesson is being denied these children when everything is being provided gratis. 1) That not everything is entitled, not everyone is equal, and that we can get along with others because they are richer or poorer because that's what Americans do.

All that said… I agree with us providing charitable support for children but I think its necessary children understand they are getting a charity.

Anonymous wrote:My DC went to a Title 1 school.

In Kindergarten there were many FARMS and ESOL students. On Valentine's Day there was a class party - and the ESOL and FARMS parents were walking in with cakes and trays of muffins from Costco. And flowers for the teachers. Easily spending $25.

Maybe it is a cultural thing and they will spend lavishly on their kids and the teachers. But - I would prefer that they contribute instead to things like field trips.

Here is my suggestion. Make each family donate $1 to the school fund every week. That will be enough to fund many things in the school. Almost $40 per family per year or more. Multiply it by 300 and you have $12,000 for a lot of academic clubs, a lot of enrichment - and it empowers everyone.

You're saying that families should spend their money the way you want, instead of the way they want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't do this.

Really, it just leads to more increased dependance amongst the parents. It's $8 and the family can come up with the money. The family has to make a choice - buy one less convenience item that week vs. send their kid on the field trip.

It's not sweet, or cute, or helpful. It's the opposite. It creates a constant stream of dependance.

Go take a nap, Ebenezer.

Really I think the PP is on to something. Go to school during snack time or go on the fieldtrip and see how many of your kid's classmates bring in snacks-- hot cheetos, juice boxes, cookies, gatorade. I stopped donating to the field trip when I volunteered to go with the class. I was amazed that kids who didn't pay had several dollars worth of junky snacks, while I made my kid drink from a recycled water bottle and eat a sandwich bag of Kix cereal. I also was pissed off that a mother came who didn't pay, didn't pay for her kid, and brought a younger sibling who she didn't pay for and she had a nicer smart than I do (she had a smart phone with internet while i still have a flip phone).

Well, you know who should be punished for such flagrant displays of wealth as cheetos? The kids' education. By all means, let's make sure the kid gets fewer educational experiences to drive the point home that their parents shouldn't be spending money on juice boxes.

Pp, I love you. I'm in full DCUM love with you! Thank you for being the voice of reason.

In general I agree with you, but years of working in a school have unfortunately made me aware of how the attitude of the parent trickles down to the kids. Of course no child should go without food, clothing and shelter but some parents have made it clear to the kids that someone is always willing to provide for them. I've had students actually tell me that their parent didn't send money or supplies in because someone else would pay for them. Again, not the fault of the kids but it's causing some kids to grow up believing that there is always someone out there who will provide for them without learning the value of providing for themselves.

On the other hand, we also have the parents who, if given a month's notice for a $10 field trip will send in a few dollars a week and then pay the balance of the remaining few dollars on the day of the trip.

I have personally subsidized field trips, after school clubs, snacks and supplies for students. Because whatever choices the parents make, it's not the kid's fault. But it has bothered me a bit when a parent picks their kid up in a late model Escalade when I've just paid for their kid's field trip.

Of course, you never know the real circumstances of anyone's home life. In my experience, the kids who need the real-life background knowledge of a field trip the most are the ones whose parents are most likely not to want to or be able to pay for the trip. That's why I will do what I can to make sure the kids get the experience.

Anonymous wrote:

I think the poster has a good point, no need for vitriol. Look when we were kids the welfare state wasn't as ubiquitous nor generous. For instance today, poor families get food stamps, so why do we subsidize breakfast lunch and dinner at schools when the parents are given welfare to provide? Could it be those food stamps are spent elsewhere? Also when we were kids and there was no welfare, communities were very charitable and did provide for their neighbors who were in wont. Also it was expected that the neighbors would try to improve their lot and most did.

This doesn't happen any more and it could well be due to the fact the original poster mentioned, people have become dependent on on the guaranteed dole coming their way. And if that is the case it should not be encouraged. A tough love approach is much better.

How old are you? The current food stamp program goes back to 1964. Aid to Dependent Children goes back to 1935, became Aid to Families with Dependent Children (usually what people mean by "welfare") in 1962, and ended in 1996.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/short-history-snap
http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=54&articleid=298§ionid=1967

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't do this.

Really, it just leads to more increased dependance amongst the parents. It's $8 and the family can come up with the money. The family has to make a choice - buy one less convenience item that week vs. send their kid on the field trip.

It's not sweet, or cute, or helpful. It's the opposite. It creates a constant stream of dependance.

You're an awful person.

Instead of resorting to pejorative, can you explain why the poster is wrong??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are at an MCPS focus school and the school has a fund to help pay for field trips for any child that can't afford it. No child will be turned away due to lack of funds.

So any parents who don't pay for any reasons still gets their kid on the field trip? That is enabling at its finest.

No, it's letting the kid go on the field trip. Otherwise you're punishing the kid for choosing the wrong parents to be born to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids are at an MCPS focus school and the school has a fund to help pay for field trips for any child that can't afford it. No child will be turned away due to lack of funds.

So any parents who don't pay for any reasons still gets their kid on the field trip? That is enabling at its finest.

We had a discussion about this at our PTA board meeting last year and the principal indicated that he funds less than 10 kids per field trip. We have a nearly 50% Farms rate. It doesn't seem like a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't do this.

Really, it just leads to more increased dependance amongst the parents. It's $8 and the family can come up with the money. The family has to make a choice - buy one less convenience item that week vs. send their kid on the field trip.

It's not sweet, or cute, or helpful. It's the opposite. It creates a constant stream of dependance.

Go take a nap, Ebenezer.

Really I think the PP is on to something. Go to school during snack time or go on the fieldtrip and see how many of your kid's classmates bring in snacks-- hot cheetos, juice boxes, cookies, gatorade. I stopped donating to the field trip when I volunteered to go with the class. I was amazed that kids who didn't pay had several dollars worth of junky snacks, while I made my kid drink from a recycled water bottle and eat a sandwich bag of Kix cereal. I also was pissed off that a mother came who didn't pay, didn't pay for her kid, and brought a younger sibling who she didn't pay for and she had a nicer smart than I do (she had a smart phone with internet while i still have a flip phone).

Well, you know who should be punished for such flagrant displays of wealth as cheetos? The kids' education. By all means, let's make sure the kid gets fewer educational experiences to drive the point home that their parents shouldn't be spending money on juice boxes.

Pp, I love you. I'm in full DCUM love with you! Thank you for being the voice of reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't do this.

Really, it just leads to more increased dependance amongst the parents. It's $8 and the family can come up with the money. The family has to make a choice - buy one less convenience item that week vs. send their kid on the field trip.

It's not sweet, or cute, or helpful. It's the opposite. It creates a constant stream of dependance.

Go take a nap, Ebenezer.

Really I think the PP is on to something. Go to school during snack time or go on the fieldtrip and see how many of your kid's classmates bring in snacks-- hot cheetos, juice boxes, cookies, gatorade. I stopped donating to the field trip when I volunteered to go with the class. I was amazed that kids who didn't pay had several dollars worth of junky snacks, while I made my kid drink from a recycled water bottle and eat a sandwich bag of Kix cereal. I also was pissed off that a mother came who didn't pay, didn't pay for her kid, and brought a younger sibling who she didn't pay for and she had a nicer smart than I do (she had a smart phone with internet while i still have a flip phone).

. I do agree do a degree. Many are not the poor of 30 years ago. I do routinely send in extra money to school to cover more than our share but I see the dependence a huge problem for our county especially. I pick DD up and see the kids getting backpack Friday with Ugg boots, iphone 5s, UnderArmour sweatshirts. You are not entitled to the same luxuries if you cannot afford it. Period. My kids cannot afford some things and they don't get them. I don't depend on someone else for their necessities. Of course some people don't do this and of course some people need the extra field trip money but if you are blind to this entitlement/dependence culture that is draining our county, you have made a decision to ignore.

We are a judgy bunch on here … read this.

http://non-stopmom.blogspot.com/2012/11/i-havent-ranted-in-while.html

Anonymous wrote:Don't do this.

Really, it just leads to more increased dependance amongst the parents. It's $8 and the family can come up with the money. The family has to make a choice - buy one less convenience item that week vs. send their kid on the field trip.

It's not sweet, or cute, or helpful. It's the opposite. It creates a constant stream of dependance.

You're an awful person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't do this.

Really, it just leads to more increased dependance amongst the parents. It's $8 and the family can come up with the money. The family has to make a choice - buy one less convenience item that week vs. send their kid on the field trip.

It's not sweet, or cute, or helpful. It's the opposite. It creates a constant stream of dependance.

You are an idiot.

I grew up poor (especially right after my parents separated/divorced) and thank god people at my school were looking out for kids like me when it came to field trips, sports uniforms, etc. And it in no way created a dependence issue for me or for my mom, who eventually got back on her feet. Now let's say the poor kid's mom decides to go out and buy cigarettes with the money she could have given her kid for the field trip...so the kid should be punished?

People like you make my skin crawl.

I think the poster has a good point, no need for vitriol. Look when we were kids the welfare state wasn't as ubiquitous nor generous. For instance today, poor families get food stamps, so why do we subsidize breakfast lunch and dinner at schools when the parents are given welfare to provide? Could it be those food stamps are spent elsewhere? Also when we were kids and there was no welfare, communities were very charitable and did provide for their neighbors who were in wont. Also it was expected that the neighbors would try to improve their lot and most did.

This doesn't happen any more and it could well be due to the fact the original poster mentioned, people have become dependent on on the guaranteed dole coming their way. And if that is the case it should not be encouraged. A tough love approach is much better.

You must be ancient if there was no welfare when you were a kid. Welfare was actually better before 1996 than it is now.

Anonymous wrote:My kids are at an MCPS focus school and the school has a fund to help pay for field trips for any child that can't afford it. No child will be turned away due to lack of funds.

So any parents who don't pay for any reasons still gets their kid on the field trip? That is enabling at its finest.

My kids are at an MCPS focus school and the school has a fund to help pay for field trips for any child that can't afford it. No child will be turned away due to lack of funds.