Teacher Panhandles to raise money for school supplies

[Magpie]

If a patient needs a medication that is too expensive to afford, the doctor doesn't reach into his own pocket and pay for that drug. He finds a cheaper alternative that maybe doesn't work as well, or gets a case manager to work with the drug company to give a discount. Sometimes that means patients go without drugs they need. Sometimes they get sicker. Sometimes they die. All because they can't afford their meds. Doctors, nurses, and the general public lobby for better drug prices so patients can get their meds. We don't reach into our own pockets and spend thousands of dollars, even if it means someone gets sicker.

I know it is hard to say well, we just won't go as in depth as I'd like. Maybe we have fewer labs, fewer STEM toys for recess, fewer hands on activities. But I highly doubt that will make or break a young child's educational career. Nobody flunks oit of college because their teacher used less expensive supplies in elementary school.

I live in a country with socialized medicine. It's not okay to let people die due to lack of access to medical care. And, as a culture, we feel VERY strongly that no one should be denied access to the life saving medical treatment they need, especially not for financial reasons. That's just immoral. As immoral as letting children go without an education.

If the drug the patient requires isn't covered (see, "orphan diseases"), their doctor will...

1. Hand out samples from their own supplies, provided by drug company reps.

2. Look for a cheaper generic.

3. Try to enroll their patient in an experimental medical trial.

4. Beg the drug company to cover it.

5. Beg the provincial gov't to cover it.

6. Connect the patient with a charitable foundation, so they can beg them to cover it.

7. Advise the patient to start a fundraising campaign on social media.

In other words, yes... doctors will turn to begging online and in public to try to save their patients, just as teachers will turn to begging to try to save their students. If they could reach into their own pocket and purchase the lifesaving drugs their patients need at Walmart, they would!

Frankly, everything you are writing is sounding increasingly like:

• "At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
  "Are there no prisons?"
  "Plenty of prisons..."
  "And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
  "Both very busy, sir..."
  "Those who are badly off must go there."
  "Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
  "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

I'll let others tackle your suggestion that teachers just need to get better at budgeting and stop frittering away their funds on STEM toys.

 

[Happyinwonerland]

Did I say "destroy a kid's life"? Of course it won't, but test scores have been slipping in many places for a long time and teachers are still facing the same issues they've been facing for years. And yes... It's you are essentially saying it's fine to sacrifice education to make a point. Using those kinds of hyperboles are doing nothing to help your argument.

So, if it isn't destroying their lives, how much of a detriment is it really? Will most kids suffer long term consequences because they scored a bit lower on the state test a few years? And is buying fewer supplies really going to keep kids from learning where the continents are, how to solve for X, memorize history, or construct a compound sentence? Sure, extra supplies make it more fun, but not necessary.

In my co-op, we have an elemtary aged class called math games. The kids learn so much from this class, but the supplies for it are things like computer printed flash cards and game sheets, nothing too expensive. I remember a game from school that we called "Around the World", that drilled facts in a fun way, at no cost. I remember cutting out our own "dollars" and "checks" when learning about money management. Making paper clocks when learnjng to tell time.Teachers can entertain and teach the students with low cost /free activities like this.

 

[Hikergirl]

Did I say "destroy a kid's life"? Of course it won't, but test scores have been slipping in many places for a long time and teachers are still facing the same issues they've been facing for years. And yes... It's you are essentially saying it's fine to sacrifice education to make a point. Using those kinds of hyperboles are doing nothing to help your argument.

It's easy to be on board with sacrificing public school kid's education when your own kids are homeschooled.

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

So, if it isn't destroying their lives, how much of a detriment is it really? Will most kids suffer long term consequences because they scored a bit lower on the state test a few years? And is buying fewer supplies really going to keep kids from learning where the continents are, how to solve for X, memorize history, or construct a compound sentence? Sure, extra supplies make it more fun, but not necessary.

In my co-op, we have an elemtary aged class called math games. The kids learn so much from this class, but the supplies for it are things like computer printed flash cards and game sheets, nothing too expensive. I remember a game from school that we called "Around the World", that drilled facts in a fun way, at no cost. I remember cutting out our own "dollars" and "checks" when learning about money management. Making paper clocks when learnjng to tell time.Teachers can entertain and teach the students with low cost /free activities like this.

Since you have all of the answers maybe you could run for public office?

 

[Magpie]

Since you have all of the answers maybe you could run for public office?

I don't think we want her to do that...

 

[Happyinwonerland]

I live in a country with socialized medicine. It's not okay to let people die due to lack of access to medical care. And, as a culture, we feel VERY strongly that no one should be denied access to the life saving medical treatment they need, especially not for financial reasons. That's just immoral. As immoral as letting children go without an education.

If the drug the patient requires isn't covered (see, "orphan diseases"), their doctor will...

1. Hand out samples from their own supplies, provided by drug company reps.

2. Look for a cheaper generic.

3. Try to enroll their patient in an experimental medical trial.

4. Beg the drug company to cover it.

5. Beg the provincial gov't to cover it.

6. Connect the patient with a charitable foundation, so they can beg them to cover it.

7. Advise the patient to start a fundraising campaign on social media.

In other words, yes... doctors will turn to begging online and in public to try to save their patients, just as teachers will turn to begging to try to save their students. If they could reach into their own pocket and purchase the lifesaving drugs their patients need at Walmart, they would!

Frankly, everything you are writing is sounding increasingly like:

• "At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
  "Are there no prisons?"
  "Plenty of prisons..."
  "And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
  "Both very busy, sir..."
  "Those who are badly off must go there."
  "Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
  "If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

I'll let others tackle your suggestion that teachers just need to get better at budgeting and stop frittering away their funds on STEM toys.

None of what you suggested includes the doctors and nurses "Paying thousands of dollars out of their pocket to cover the expense" , which is what teachers are continuing to do, out of some guilt and worry that the kids won't get a good education if they don't.

And frankly, most of these replies are implying that teachers should continue to fund their classrooms out of their own salaries, which are already too low for the job they do.

I get that my stance isn't the heartwarming "anything for the kids" response that we all want. But it is reality. Teachers either sacrifice their finances for the kids and keep the status quo or sacrifice some of the kids' education to advocate a change. You can't have it both ways. It's sad, but that's how our system is set up.

 

[Mizzoufan]

You really think a few years of lower test scores is going to destroy a child's life?

I'm a homeschooler, who teaches a group of elementary age kids once a week, but that is a completely different job than public school teachers.

I don't presume to know how to do their jobs better than they do. I'm not criticizing anyone's teaching abilities. I'm saying that if their districts give them X amount of dollars and supplies, they should stick as close to that as possible. They should not feel responsible if that means the kids don't get as many supplemental experiences.

So, if it isn't destroying their lives, how much of a detriment is it really? Will most kids suffer long term consequences because they scored a bit lower on the state test a few years? And is buying fewer supplies really going to keep kids from learning where the continents are, how to solve for X, memorize history, or construct a compound sentence? Sure, extra supplies make it more fun, but not necessary.

In my co-op, we have an elemtary aged class called math games. The kids learn so much from this class, but the supplies for it are things like computer printed flash cards and game sheets, nothing too expensive. I remember a game from school that we called "Around the World", that drilled facts in a fun way, at no cost. I remember cutting out our own "dollars" and "checks" when learning about money management. Making paper clocks when learnjng to tell time.Teachers can entertain and teach the students with low cost /free activities like this.

You still run into the same problem who pays for the paper for all this activites? Who buying the scissors for the kids to cut out money? Whose buying the markers to make the money.

 

[MrsDuck]

It's easy to be on board with sacrificing public school kid's education when your own kids are homeschooled.

EXACTLY.

@Happyinwonerland - you just don't know.

 

[Magpie]

You really think a few years of lower test scores is going to destroy a child's life?

I'm a homeschooler, who teaches a group of elementary age kids once a week, but that is a completely different job than public school teachers.

I don't presume to know how to do their jobs better than they do. I'm not criticizing anyone's teaching abilities. I'm saying that if their districts give them X amount of dollars and supplies, they should stick as close to that as possible. They should not feel responsible if that means the kids don't get as many supplemental experiences.

So... you'd be okay with your children getting a substandard education, and having low test scores, for "a few years", if it somehow inspired the state to throw more money at education?

I'm guessing not, since you're homeschooling. Which means you're dedicated to ensuring YOUR children get the best possible education. It's other people's children you're so blithely willing to sacrifice.

For the record, I homeschooled my children from K through to the end of Grade 4. It was surprisingly expensive, and that's just with 2 kids. Nowadays, I tutor. And yes, I pay for paper and pencils and supplementary curriculum out of my own pocket. Because I am as dedicated to ensuring that other people's kids get just as good an education as I provided for my own.

 

[Happyinwonerland]

You still run into the same problem who pays for the paper for all this activites? Who buying the scissors for the kids to cut out money? Whose buying the markers to make the money

Scissors, paper, printer ink, marks, etc. should be coverd in the oft-quoted $200 annual budget. I can go to dollar tree and get 20 pairs of scissors for $10 (2 to a pack), staples and office depot have amazing deals on copy paper making it essentially free, markers are $1.00 per 10 pack. Not to mention most of these things are on school supply lists, inculding copy paper, so thrnparent shojld be covering most of it.

Again, nobody has been able to show me where the hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars out of pocket annual expense comes from.

 

[Happyinwonerland]

So... you'd be okay with your children getting a substandard education, and having low test scores, for "a few years", if it somehow inspired the state to throw more money at education?

I'm guessing not, since you're homeschooling. Which means you're dedicated to ensuring YOUR children get the best possible education. It's other people's children you're so blithely willing to sacrifice.

For the record, I homeschooled my children from K through to the end of Grade 4. It was surprisingly expensive, and that's just with 2 kids. Nowadays, I tutor. And yes, I pay for paper and pencils and supplementary curriculum out of my own pocket. Because I am as dedicated to ensuring that other people's kids get just as good an education as I provided for my own.

No, my child will not go into our school system, because it is awful. I do look out for my own child first, as every parent should.
And you're right, even if I couldn't homeschool, I'd make sure my daughter got the education she needed, better than what the school could give, even if that meant I had to spend time after work and school teaching her. I wouldn't be guilt tripping her teacher or random strangers into spending their own money to make up the difference.

 

[Westcoastwild]

I see the point she's trying to make, but IMO, it is the responsibility of the parents, the school administrators, and the teachers to cover educational costs. Don't have the budget for projects you want to do? Then figure out a cheaper way to do it.
Textbooks should be covered by the district so it I don't understand where the big expenses are coming from? Paper, pencils, and tempera paint don't cost that much.

It actually adds up to quite a bit over one year, especially if you teach several classes. Even as a college student- just for myself- I probably spent about 300 a year on supplies so I have no trouble believing some teachers spend a lot more.

In addition- think about what you would want a classroom to look like. If it isn't decorated, it's a pretty dismal place. The elementary school teachers I know spend a lot of money just on educational posters, colorful paper for the bulletin boards, etc. I mean, some of it is an investment- they'll take it with them to the next school or whatever, but it's still money out of their own pocket.

That's not even taking into account special subjects like music or art or technology. A friend got tapped last minute for yearbook one year- the school had ONE camera, no data cards, etc. She didn't have much choice- either buy cameras or no yearbook pictures. You've got to have supplies on hand for students who forget or whose parents can't afford it.

It's a nice thought that the parents and school administrators should be responsible, but the teacher is the one in the classroom all day. If a parent sends their kid to school without crayons or something, the teacher isn't going to just tell them to sit there. I don't think it's the teacher's responsibility at all to supply the classroom. Their job is to teach, and the school district needs to supply the support to do so.

 

[Magpie]

None of what you suggested includes the doctors and nurses "Paying thousands of dollars out of their pocket to cover the expense" , which is what teachers are continuing to do, out of some guilt and worry that the kids won't get a good education if they don't.

And frankly, most of these replies are implying that teachers should continue to fund their classrooms out of their own salaries, which are already too low for the job they do.

I get that my stance isn't the heartwarming "anything for the kids" response that we all want. But it is reality. Teachers either sacrifice their finances for the kids and keep the status quo or sacrifice some of the kids' education to advocate a change. You can't have it both ways. It's sad, but that's how our system is set up.

What I'm saying is, if they could they would. Mere thousands for a drug not covered by provincial healthcare is cheap. Especially if a mere couple thousand spent on that drug could benefit 30 kids for a year.

And it's not some needless "guilt and worry", it's simple fact. Kids need to learn.

Should teachers have to fund their own classrooms? No, of course not. But, it's wrong to criticize them for doing it, and it's even more wrong to say they should simply refuse to teach their students so that "low test scores" show the admins a thing or two. They didn't get into teaching so that they could sacrifice their students' education for policy change.

No, my child will not go into our school system, because it is awful. I do look out for my own child first, as every parent should.
And you're right, even if I couldn't homeschool, I'd make sure my daughter got the education she needed, better than what the school could give, even if that meant I had to spend time after work and school teaching her. I wouldn't be guilt tripping her teacher or random strangers into spending their own money to make up the difference.

Which is why I vote that you should put your child into the public school system, and get yourself a teacher's degree. Sacrifice your own child's education and make the change you want to see. Don't expect other people to do it for you.

And don't criticize them if they're no more willing to sacrifice their students, than you are willing to sacrifice your one, single child.

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

It actually adds up to quite a bit over one year, especially if you teach several classes. Even as a college student- just for myself- I probably spent about 300 a year on supplies so I have no trouble believing some teachers spend a lot more.

In addition- think about what you would want a classroom to look like. If it isn't decorated, it's a pretty dismal place. The elementary school teachers I know spend a lot of money just on educational posters, colorful paper for the bulletin boards, etc. I mean, some of it is an investment- they'll take it with them to the next school or whatever, but it's still money out of their own pocket.

That's not even taking into account special subjects like music or art or technology. A friend got tapped last minute for yearbook one year- the school had ONE camera, no data cards, etc. She didn't have much choice- either buy cameras or no yearbook pictures. You've got to have supplies on hand for students who forget or whose parents can't afford it.

It's a nice thought that the parents and school administrators should be responsible, but the teacher is the one in the classroom all day. If a parent sends their kid to school without crayons or something, the teacher isn't going to just tell them to sit there. I don't think it's the teacher's responsibility at all to supply the classroom. Their job is to teach, and the school district needs to supply the support to do so.

Not to mention things like computer programs, hands-on activities(because teachers use more than paper and scissors) etc...

 

[Happyinwonerland]

Since you have all of the answers maybe you could run for public office?

I'm guessing, from your screen name, you are a military spouse?

Military is another career field that doesn't pay nearly what its worth. But we don't expect our soldiers to supply their own ammo or beg the public for it , and it would be absurd to suggest that they do. But everyone seems to be ok with expecting teachers to do the same? And I'm the bad guy in this?

 

[Happyinwonerland]

What I'm saying is, if they could they would. Mere thousands for a drug not covered by provincial healthcare is cheap. Especially if a mere couple thousand spent on that drug could benefit 30 kids for a year.

And it's not some needless "guilt and worry", it's simple fact. Kids need to learn.

Should teachers have to fund their own classrooms? No, of course not. But, it's wrong to criticize them for doing it, and it's even more wrong to say they should simply refuse to teach their students so that "low test scores" show the admins a thing or two. They didn't get into teaching so that they could sacrifice their students' education for policy change.



Which is why I vote that you should put your child into the public school system, and get yourself a teacher's degree. Sacrifice your own child's education and make the change you want to see. Don't expect other people to do it for you.

And don't criticize them if they're no more willing to sacrifice their students, than you are willing to sacrifice your one, single child.

I'm making the change I want to see by keeping my child out of the school system. If she were in the system, I'd be advocating for better fundign and supplementing her on my own time and dime. I wouldn't sit back, cry "woe is me", and expect others to do it for me.

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

I'm guessing, from your screen name, you are a military spouse?

Military is another career field that doesn't pay nearly what its worth. But we don't expect our soldiers to supply their own ammo or beg the public for it , and it would be absurd to suggest that they do. But everyone seems to be ok with expecting teachers to do the same? And I'm the bad guy in this?

You're missing the point that everyone BUT you is trying to get at.

 

[pryncess527]

I'm guessing, from your screen name, you are a military spouse?

Military is another career field that doesn't pay nearly what its worth. But we don't expect our soldiers to supply their own ammo or beg the public for it , and it would be absurd to suggest that they do. But everyone seems to be ok with expecting teachers to do the same? And I'm the bad guy in this?

No, we do not expect our military members to beg for ammo. We expect Congress to fund them appropriately so they have the tools they need to do their job.

None of us are "ok" with teachers begging for money. We all seem to be suggesting that, like the military, Congress/States/Counties should fund them appropriately so they have the tools they need to do their job -- but they currently do not. Public begging was just one form of protest (of which teachers use many) to bring attention to this need.

I do not have children at all, but I would LOVE for my tax dollars to be more responsibly spent on providing quality public education for ALL children. Because I have to live in this society, and a democracy depends on an educated population. My daily life is better when the people around me had a quality public education. I'm safer because crime is lower where people have a quality public education.

 

[Happyinwonerland]

You're missing the point that everyone BUT you is trying to get at.

And that would be...?

 

[Happyinwonerland]

No, we do not expect our military members to beg for ammo. We expect Congress to fund them appropriately so they have the tools they need to do their job.

None of us are "ok" with teachers begging for money. We all seem to be suggesting that, like the military, Congress/States/Counties should fund them appropriate so they have the tools they need to do their job. Public begging was a form of protest to bring attention to this need.

Begging on the street isn't an effective way to lobby. She raised her funds, the bean counters at the top will start suggesting teacher use Go Fund Me to supply their classes. This is the opposite of effective.