A rant: Using kids as salespeople to raise money for schools

[ikojo]

OK now school started for the St Louis area this week. Already my co-workers are bringing in the catalogs to order EXPENSIVE crappy stuff from for their kids and grandkids. This is not limited to only public school kids but they seem the be the majority.

The reason the schools have turned kids into salespeople is because the American public is loath to approve tax increases for public education.

The schools need money and so they come up with these "fundraisers." Of course they assume that you would not dare say no to a chiiiilllld, oh no of course not. Once again it is the parents (primarily women) who do the work of passing the catalog around and collecting the money from co-workers and it is the kid that receives all the glory and prizes.

One of my co-workers came by and handed me a catalog her granddaughter had given her. The granddaughter said to "D" "I need $300" (I guess because it is the best prize). D said to her granddaughter, "so do I and if you find it let me know." Of course she brought the catalog in and asked me to circulate it. I advised her that my unit has already been inundated with similar catalogs (one from the supervisor so you know we were "expected" to order from that one) but that I would show it to some people.

I don't recall doing fundraisers in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. I do recall selling gummi bears so the German Club (I took four years of Spanish but belonged in the German Club because they actually did things like go to Chicago and stuff) but that was for a club not the school. We also sold candy (and that will come later as kids rejoin Cub Scouts and Girl Scouts etc.

Oy vey! Can the fundraising stop already!

:mad: :puke:

[w13rd0]

1. I know...

...I already spoke to my sons about this, pointed out some of the issues with it. The school (a prvt catholic school which charges about 3500 a year) says in the accompanying literature that it needs to raise an extra 12,000 or some such. The sheer silliness of pimping these kids to sell product so the school can take 50% of the profits and apply it to this target...yeah, public and private schools, it's pretty damn sad. I called the school and asked them how large a check I had to write out to exempt my children from these stupid fundraisers...

[trogdor]

13. "50% profit" is the key phrase here.

There is a whole industry that exists mainly to provide these materials to schools, clubs, etc. There really isn't that much selling to do on the part of the fundraising companies - they let the kids to that for them, yet they get half the profit on whatever gets sold. It's a really nice racket if you can get in on it.

It also doesn't matter if the schools are fully funded or not. They always want more for X, Y, or Z.

Then there is the whole thing about vending machines and Coke vs. Pepsi that I don't want to get started on.

I would suggest cutting these people out of the picture by doing other things to raise money, like washing cars (hard to do in the winter, I know), throwing barbeques, or whatever. Why not take 100% of the profit rather than settle for 50% of whatever useless crap you can sell?

[WillParkinson]

2. I remember...

Doing it for camera club in high school (even though I never went after I finished selling the pizza). I sold the most. Won a prize. Gave up right after the sale and never went back.

Now, however, people show me catalogs of meats and cheeses and pizzas and stuff like that they want their kids to sell and I say, "Sorry, I'm vegan. I don't eat that stuff." It "USUALLY" gets me off the hook.

[ikojo]

3. I normally don't feel obligated

(but did feel as if I HAD to order from my supervisor, power relationships being what they are in corporate America) because I don't have a kid. I will not be bringing catalogs or coupon books in so I feel no shame in saying no.

[Missy Vixen]

4. Preach it!

>I don't recall doing fundraisers in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.<

First of all, we don't have kids, but we get "recruited" to buy the stuff anyway. I'm with the person who said they'd rather just write a check. Since we have in excess of 30 neighborhood kids in elementary school, we've started telling all of them that we unfortunately won't be able to buy.

The three kids two doors down cemented this decision last year during Girl Scouts cookie season. They are involved in multiple activities each; of course, we are expected to buy everything they bring to the door. One of these kids was buttonholing shoppers at the local grocery store one afternoon; since DH had already been guilted into buying ten boxes of Girl Scout cookies off his various childed co-workers, I bought ONE.

She yelled after me as I walked away, "You spent more money with my sister! It's not fair!"

Yes, this really happened, and yes, her mother and I had what I'd call the "come to Jesus" discussion later.

Julie

[BigMcLargehuge]

5. I never saw it until I moved to NH

Now I have a 2 year old and another on the way. I've already decided exactly what's going to happen when he brings his first catalog home from the public school 3 or 4 years from now.

Step 1: Ask boy for catalog
Step 2: Ask boy if he understands why he has the catalog full of overpriced chocolate and knick-knacks
Step 3: send boy off to play
Step 4: dial principals office of elementary school and schedule an appointment to talk. Pending outcome of that conversation (i.e. will my son be ostracised for not selling this crap around the neighborhood)... proceed to step 5.

Step 5: Contact lawyer. In NH we have a consitutional amendment requiring every town to adequately fund education for our kids. Ask lawyer if turning kids into door-to-door salespeople meets the constitutional criteria (my guess is no).
Step 6: Hire lawyer to represent me in case against the State of NH
Step 7: Deliver lawsuit papers to School Department
Step 8: Try to end practice statewide.

[bleedingheart]

22. I would first find out if the PTA is the sponsor of the event or the

school...before doing anything.

Our district hands out literature from the Fire and Police Departments (don't talk to strangers, get a fire alarm stuff..etc) as well as the PTA stuff.

[FlaGranny]

6. I remember selling magazine in grammar school

back in the 1940's and 50's. I don't remember why we had these sales, but they've been around a long time.

[seaglass]

7. This makes me crazy. My kids' school has started

a magazine fundraiser over the last few years. The school holds an assembly and tantalizes the kids with winning a limo ride to McDonald's and missing school for half a day if they can sell X number of magazines over a three day period. They also offer other desirable prizes for hitting other milestones. The kids are very susceptible to these tactics.

I have been through hell with my kids because I refuse to buy 100.00 worth of magazines or let them solicit our family or co-workers. Last year my son had $140.00 worth of birthday money that he was going to spend on magazines just so he could get the limo ride.

Unfortunately the towns are not funding the schools needs, they need to get money somehow, the schools are already charging fees for sports and activities, school supplies are mainly paid for by parents, many school depts. are charging bus fees. It's not your 70's & 80's public education anymore. I don't know what the answers are when the town won't fund the schools, perhaps they should just charge all parents an administration fee for sending their kids to public school.

[baldguy]

8. Another reason to FULLY FUND EDUCATION!

With local & state gov'ts running record deficits in Bush's economy, the first thing to get cut is money to teach our children.

[CanuckAmok]

9. Just an aside...

As Liberal as I am, one of my bugbears is school taxes. I'm all for supporting public schools to some degree, but my wife and I have to pay the exact same amount for school taxes as anyone who has children usung the system. We're not having kids, so why are we paying the same amount to support someone else's decision to raise children??

I understand that society benefits as a whole from an educated generation, but why the heck isn't there more of an onus placed on the people who actually USE the system? Where we live, 34% of our annual property taxes go directly into public schools--in our case, that's about $1700 per year.

I really do believe that having children is a matter of personal preference (a opposed to a belief that that's what we're put on this earth to do), and I don't understand why everyone in society is expected to pick up the tab to the same degree.

I'd rather the kids/parents who actually USE the system be more responsible for supporting it, thjan the people who don't and never will.

[ArkDem]

10. Lord knows, having educated people helps only the parents

not society, at all!

[CanuckAmok]

15. There's no need for sarcasm, I did say I understood why...

It's just a bugbear of mine because it reinforces the perception that people only exist to produce more people.

We're politically alligned with ZPG, which is a whole other thread, but it basically questions the validity of the current patterns/importance on repopulation.

[seaglass]

12. While the money is not comparable, this is the same to me

as saying senior citizens should pay more taxes because they use the Fire Dept. (for medical calls) more than any other constituency in town. In our town this is a fact.

Property values in our town are largely based on the quality of the school system, so even if you do not see a direct benefit from educating the younger generation, there is a benefit in the value of your home.

I thought one of the Democratic party's tenets was a belief in the public good, at least that's my belief. I paid for schools before I had my kids in them and will be paying for them long after my kids are out. I don't object to this. Who paid for your school?

[CanuckAmok]

16. My argument exactly.

here in Canada there IS a user fee for ambulances, fire response, etc. But if you're a senior, poor, or a special needs group, that fee is offset by the public tax base.

I fully believe that, as long as you can be shown to afford it, you should pay a little more for a public service you use more frequently.

on edit= re the emergency services analogy: nobody chooses to be old, handicapped and infirm. Everybody in our society who has children does so out of personal choice.

[seaglass]

21. Oh, sorry to be confusing, I'm not supporting a charge

to senior citizens for having our Fire Department respond to them when they are in need. I will happily pay taxes towards that.

I could probably pay more for my kids to attend public school but then when you sell your house for more money because I've paid to keep the schools funded at the level needed, will I get some of your profit?

[CanuckAmok]

24. Yes, you will...

as the sales tax on the house will be proportional to the value of it. So, if it's more valuable (thanks in part to excellent schools, which is pretty spurious and presumes a certain demographic of buyer), it generates more tax revenue, which goes to "you" and "me".

[seaglass]

25. It doesn't assume a certain demographic of buyer

A buyer without children would be just as likely to buy a house that would retain or increase value as a buyer with children.
I do not presume only those with children choose communities that have good schools. My neighbors, a couple without children just sold their house to a 29 yo single woman and my neighbors are buying another house in town. :shrug:

I don't know what's paid in taxes when a house is sold so I don't know whether that's an equitable deal or not.

[ikojo]

29. AMEN Canuckamok!

"on edit= re the emergency services analogy: nobody chooses to be old, handicapped and infirm. Everybody in our society who has children does so out of personal choice."

Although I believe in funding public education I get tired when people expect to have more tax deductions because they have kids. I especially got rankled when ONLY parents received a handout from Bush. A handout the country can ill afford but went through with because it was for the chiiiiillllldren (and I am sure will buy some votes come November 2004).

As far as paying for extra curricular activities..that is a choice to participate in those activities. The school district is picking up a large part of the tab and the relatively small amount parents are asked to pay is worth it. There should be funds available for kids whose family's cannot afford to pay.

I, too, agree with ZERO population growth.

[CanuckAmok]

31. One more little aside...

first of all, saying all I've just said, I have a box full of fundraising junk I've recently bought from local kids--please don't get the ida I'm a cranky old child-hating curmudgeon!

next...

Re child-rearing benefits... I don't know if there's such a thin in the US, but here we have a monthly "baby-bonus", which is a small monthly tax refund cheque sent to every family with children under 18 in the household. What irks me about that is that it's exactly tyhe same amount per child per household (forgive me if it's no longer this way, but it was for years if not now). So, my single parent mom raising me herself on $12,000 a year got the same amount in baby bonus as did my best friend's parents, who were both lawyers.

But they felt just as entiled to the cheques! That's not really on-topic, but it pisses me off, and I'm on a roll!

[seaglass]

32. How many rank and file Democrats do you think

supported the Bush tax cut?

What data do you have to support that people expect to have more tax deductions because they have children, because they take what's offered?

[CanuckAmok]

20. I agree in principle, but...

I don't see why it's the same amount for my (no kids, not having any) as it is for someone with three, four or more kids in the system. $1600 a year? I'd rather that money went to, say, the fire department, or safer roads, or a community centre, the Red Cross, or what have you.

People don't think twice about having multiple children in our society, even though, in my opinion and in the opinions of many people I know, that's environmentally and fiscally irresponsible.

Perhaps if we, as a society, didn't unquestioningly support everyone's right to have as many children as they want, we wouldn't have such an environmental impact on the planet, we wouldn't need to hoard 98% of the world's wealth, and we wouldn't need to pay for so many schools.

I'm not suggesting anything as draconian as limiting the number of children a couple can produce; I'm saying we need to question the valitity and impact of these decisions, and educate the population about other options. It's my belief that one of the keys to achieving this is to let the real costs of childrearing fall more on the parents than on society as a whole. They choose to have children, yet we don't choose to subsidise them.

[bleedingheart]

23. I understand what you are saying but the managment of a

system like that would take more money... and it could lead to some shady accounting practices....and then the fighting over where the money was supposed to go and not supposed to go would get really ugly.

The same argument could be used by young kids who are working...why should they pay FICA to aid people who didn't want to participate in educating them? Overall I think that sometimes we pay for things that benefit society whether or not we choose to participate in some aspects of life.

Children are the future...they will take care of us in our old age through their taxes..they will be our leaders, our caregivers, our doctors and nurses, our police and fire protection... how we treat them now will have a bearing on how they treat us then...whether or not we choose to have children of our own or not.

Personally I think we waste more money at the Pentagon. Halliburton got $1 Billion out of Iraq so far and they are just one of many...

[seaglass]

26. It would be interesting to live in a society in which we could

earmark our taxes, huh? There's a lot of things I probably wouldn't be interested in paying for that I now do.

[CanuckAmok]

30. A good example of a double-standard...

People have successfully sued for tax exemption of money earmarked for "defense". I believe Joni Mitchell is one of those people.

You can (and should) launch a very sensible argument against having your money spent on killing people.

Why can't you argue against any other spending with which you don't agree, without being labelled a "nut"?

We tried to appeal the amount, in the way there are avenues for appealing other tax spending where we live, but they didn't even know HOW to accept our appeal of the amount spent on education--there wasn't even a form for it. There was NO option for appealing, or even for launching a suit in this case. I even ended up talking with a Deputy Minister for Education--that's how far up I was shunted in a search for answers--and even she had no idea how to go about this.

[CanuckAmok]

28. Hmm...

"I paid for schools before I had my kids in them and will be paying for them long after my kids are out. I don't object to this."

That's my point--why would you object? As a parent, parenting is obviously a priority fo you. More power to you, but I'm saying people need to think outside their own priorities, and at least consider alternative lifestyles.

I'm happy to subsudise schools to a point (and I do understand the importance for society of a good educational system), but practically speaking, I don't feel it's fair to earmark the same percentage of my taxes for education as someone who is actually using the service. As a non-parents, we're expected to support the school system, but have no input into how the system is managed, how the money is spent, what is being taught in the class, etc. Remember, too, that I'm in Canada, which has a pretty expansive social safety-net. Not only are taxpayers subsidising elementary and high schools, but we're subsidising universities and colleges, too. For my family, the priorities of social spending are care of the elderly, hospitals, emergency services, all-inclusive community services, and then schools. Only 4% of our property taxes go to health care--and 30%+ to schools--that's just not right.

It's a fundamental difference of opinion from traditional society. Nobody if forced to rear children, but non-parents are forced, by a law which nobody questions, into subsidising their existence dollar for dollar.

What's wrong with a system which says "have children who have/now use/will use the system? Please pay 33% of your taxes toward the system. Had a vasectomy and don't have children? 20% for schools please, and 13% to seniors' services, since you won't have children to help care for you when you're old".

Theoretically, value of my house will increse proportionally to the quality of life in the area--in a vacuum, that means that whether the tax dollars are spent on fire engines or on textbooks, the same amount of tax spending should equal the same amount of property value increase.

I'm not complaining about the amount of tax I pay, just that it's not distributed in a way which matches our priorities, and there's no recourse.

[seaglass]

34. You are making the assumption that I support

school funding only because I'm a parent and that's not the case. How do you account for all the parents in town (including my own) who once had kids in the school system but have refused to support the refurbishment and rebuilding of schools in our community?

There is a return on the spending for schools that people without children are getting and that's one of the reasons why I don't have a problem with childfree people paying taxes towards public schools. If there was a way to pull out the increased value you obtain from your house upon selling it and you had to give that amount back to the town, I would be all for you paying the taxes in whatever percentage you wanted to.

I don't know what your town is like, in ours we vote for the people on the school committee and you don't have to have children to vote.

[CO Liberal]

11. A Place I Used to Work....

...had the e-mail system flooded with messages from people pushing the stuff their kids were selling to raise money for the schools in teh Colroado Springs area. Finally, I sent out the following global e-mail:

"You know, if you folks didn't keep voting down bond issue after bond issue, your kids wouldn't have to DO these fundraisers....."

Shortly after that, a message from teh company president directed everybody to stop using the e-mail system to sell stuff. And about a year later, I was fired.

[TrogL]

14. There is one benefit

I'm speaking specifically where the child is expected to do
their own selling.

[digression]

Actually, I'm thinking of the good old days when kids could
run the streets without parents worrying their heads off that
they're going to be kidnapped and/or molested.

[digression]

I'm on Ritalin today - why the hell am I digressing?

[/digression]

[/digression]

Many kids are tremendously shy.  Getting them out to interact
with people, even if it's hawking apples on street corners for
the Scouts, gets them used to being in people's faces.

[CanuckAmok]

18. Ritalin is making your fonts all weird! n/t

[trof]

17. We sold seeds.

Vegetable and flower.
Door-to-door in the neighborhood.
I hated it.
My grandpa usually bought all of mine.
I never saw him plant any.
;-)

[bleedingheart]

19. I choose not to participate in the sales but I do send a check

to the school to cover my kid's part of any event he takes part in...
They expect to make about $50 per kid on average so I send in a check for $50.. then I don't have to worry about sales and junk to distribute.

[kodi]

27. on the up side, kids are learning about the world of adult stupidity

parents are going to have to explain to kids why they do not have what is needed for their opwn education.

[jayfish]

33. What A Coincidence.

My sons first day of school, ever, was today. Wouldn't you know what he came home with... sales lit. The schools have to get funding from some source though.

Jay