Poor Kids Banned from School Carnival - NY USA

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Anyafaj

I don't know but everyone in school was well aware of what side of the tracks I was from, including myself, from quite a young age.

I became more aware of the teasing when I was about 9 or so when my mentally ill aunt put me in a diaper because she didn't want me running in and out of the house all day to go to the bathroom. I sat on the porch the entire time outside because of the sound the diaper made. And yes, I got looks and laughs from the other kids and was miserable all day. I had to deal with my paranoid schizophrenic birth mother, and her mentally ill sister. I was thrilled when my father got us out of that environment. Unfortunately a lot of teasing followed.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Not going to a party is not "disenfranchisement."

Not going to a party is not disenfranchisement, agreed, but what exactly do you call being put in a separate room, whilst your classmates are a stone throw away having fun?

Hell I even looked up the term, because I thought I may be off base, but here's the official definition.

www.google.com...

dis·en·fran·chise ˌdisənˈfran(t)SHīz/

verb past tense: disenfranchised; past participle: disenfranchised deprived of power; marginalized. "a hard core of kids who are disenfranchised and don't feel connected

If you were as dirt poor as you say, then you should be able to relate to the situation. Sure the parent's might be self-centered and buy drugs, alcohol, and smokes, but should their children be punished for it?

This event is once a year for christ sakes.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Not going to a party is not "disenfranchisement."

Not going to a party is not disenfranchisement, agreed, but what exactly do you call being put in a separate room, whilst your classmates are a stone throw away having fun?

Hell I even looked up the term, because I thought I may be off base, but here's the official definition.

www.google.com...

dis·en·fran·chise ˌdisənˈfran(t)SHīz/

verb past tense: disenfranchised; past participle: disenfranchised deprived of power; marginalized. "a hard core of kids who are disenfranchised and don't feel connected

If you were as dirt poor as you say, then you should be able to relate to the situation. Sure the parent's might be self-centered and buy drugs, alcohol, and smokes, but should there children be punished for it?

This event is once a year for christ sakes.

I certainly can relate--we had to miss out on a lot of stuff and this is one of the several reasons why I became determined at a young age never to be poor like that again.

The children should not be punished, but if they have parents with poor priorities, THE PARENTS are the ones doing the "punishing" and the fault lies with them, not a school trying to raise some funds. I recall my parents personally giving up little pleasures like beer and tobacco so we could save for movie tickets to see Star Wars when it came out. THAT is what a good and loving parent does, not demanding someone else pay for their kids.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: theantediluvian

While I am not necessarily commenting on this specific situation, I am pointing out a couple things:

1.) Why do we make the assumption that every kid who didn't pay decided not to because they were too poor? Voice of experience says that some kids just plain forget from time to time whether they could pay or not. Been there; done that. To make the assumption that the only reason kids didn't pay is because they couldn't frankly says something about us.

2.) That it's now unfair to have a fun fundraiser because some people might be unable to participate in it. I thought the point of a fundraise was to raise funds, and in order to raise funds, you have to get people to want to give you money through various means. Using a fun carnival is simply one smart way to do it.

Honestly, had they had a bake sale to raise funds and there had been world class brownies that some kids couldn't afford, someone would have written an article about how unfair that was, and we'd all be here discussing that.

Thanks to new rules and regulations, most schools are no longer allowed to have bake sales. Because of new Nutritional guidelines, most schools do not allow a bake sale on school grounds, but another parent can have one on their property and donate the funds to the school for the express purpose for the children who weren't able to pay. (Usually it's the same schools that are not allowed to have kids bring in home lunches.)

Source

a reply to: ketsuko

My school had a carnival every year in grade school and the purpose was fundraising for the school.

The Elementary School I attended also held an annual fundraising carnival. But they were always held on a Saturday, and I don't recall there being an entrance fee. There were PTA bake sales, food booths and games. I remember being a volunteer and sitting in the dunking booth for a few.

a reply to: NavyDoc

The intent was to raise funds--hence the charge to attend--and those funds may have been intended to do nice things for the entire student body. I doubt that they were intended to fund the principle's next vacation.

Doesn't sound like it was according to Mr. Chow of the parents association which sponsored the event:

Frank Chow, president of the parents association that sponsored the carnival, said Monroe insisted that kids whose parents didn’t pay could not partake.

“She was saying it’s not fair to the parents who paid,” Chow said. “You can’t argue much, I guess. The school is under her.”
The carnival cost about $6,200, including fees to a carnival company, Send In the Clowns, and reaped a $2,000 to $3,000 profit, he added.

“I wish we just charged parents the cost, not to make extra,” Chow said.

and if I'm understanding correctly, the (unintended?) profits likely wouldn't have been cut into regardless of whether or not the other kids attended. Instead, the reason for the exclusion was the principal's sense of fairness to the parent's who coughed up the $10? Petty and stupid.

If the event was a fundraising event, it would have been perfectly ethical to use a portion of the profit to pay for admission for children whose parents could not afford to pay. After all, what are they fundraising for if not the benefit of the students? The icing on the cake is that they probably paid Bring in the Clowns a flat fee.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

The children should not be punished, but if they have parents with poor priorities, THE PARENTS are the ones doing the "punishing" and the fault lies with them, not a school trying to raise some funds. I recall my parents personally giving up little pleasures like beer and tobacco so we could save for movie tickets to see Star Wars when it came out. THAT is what a good and loving parent does, not demanding someone else pay for their kids.

We must have had the same parents.

These parents, in this case didn't demand anyone pay, unless I missed something in the article.

Entitled people, rich, or poor are disgusting, because as long as they have their health, energy, and ability to do things they need contribute. No argument there from me.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: NavyDoc

The children should not be punished, but if they have parents with poor priorities, THE PARENTS are the ones doing the "punishing" and the fault lies with them, not a school trying to raise some funds. I recall my parents personally giving up little pleasures like beer and tobacco so we could save for movie tickets to see Star Wars when it came out. THAT is what a good and loving parent does, not demanding someone else pay for their kids.

We must have had the same parents.

These parents, in this case didn't demand anyone pay, unless I missed something in the article.

Entitled people, rich, or poor are disgusting, because as long as they have their health, energy, and ability to do things they need contribute. No argument there from me.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ketsuko

My school had a carnival every year in grade school and the purpose was fundraising for the school.

The Elementary School I attended also held an annual fundraising carnival. But they were always held on a Saturday, and I don't recall there being an entrance fee. The were PTA bake sales, food booths and games. I remember being a volunteer and sitting in the dunking booth for a few.

I have to agree. It shouldn't have been during school hours.

Having it during school hours with a punitive sounding "alternative" sounds like coercion to me and I hate fund raising on the clock. The combined federal campaign in military units pulls similar shenanigans--mandatory formations to hear the spiel, liberty given to those who donate while those who don't get to stay at work, CO's insisting on seeing every member's donation receipt, etc.

originally posted by: beezzer
Kids like McDonalds. (I like McDonalds, sue me)

McDonalds made a profit last year.

Yet they didn't give away Happy Meals to those kids who couldn't afford it.

Kids like Apple products.

Apple made a profit last year.

Yet they didn't give away iPads to those kids who couldn't afford it.



Much ado about nothing, in my humble opinion. Some things parents can afford, some things parents can't. In real life, not everyone gets a trophy for participating. Not everyone gets to do what others are doing.

Lexus made a profit last year. I can't afford a Lexus. So should I get a free car because I couldn't afford it?

Actually, Apple DID give iPads away to schools and Autistic adults and children, who couldn't normally couldn't afford them. So you might want to amend that statement. Some schools now give kids laptops or tablets upon entering. Junior or high school, not college, though, they do as well.

Source 1

Source 2

iPad give away to 114 schools in 29 states using free or reduced lunch as barometer.

iTaalk Foundation grants free iPads to those with Autism

On a tight budget? 7 ways to get an iPad for your child with Autism

a reply to: beezzer

Kids like McDonalds. (I like McDonalds, sue me)

McDonalds made a profit last year.

Yet they didn't give away Happy Meals to those kids who couldn't afford it.

Kids like Apple products.

Apple made a profit last year.

Yet they didn't give away iPads to those kids who couldn't afford it.

I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say here? Is the purpose of compulsory public education to generate profits for McDonald's and Apple or to educate children (without unnecessarily creating circumstances that lead to a large percentage of them feeling left out)?

In the UK if a trip/activity is educational then the contribution is voluntary.

Obviously not everyone knows about this. As a teacher, I generally know my kids. The ones who can't even afford a pen or pencil and turn up looking like they've been dragged through a hedge backwards. Then we have those where the parents don't value education and they don't have any equipment but they do have a brand new i-phone. I will always flag up the voluntary contribution where it's appropriate but most parents are happy when we come up with an arrangement to allow them to pay in installments, even for seemingly small amounts.

Scally

originally posted by: beezzer
Kids like McDonalds. (I like McDonalds, sue me)

McDonalds made a profit last year.

Yet they didn't give away Happy Meals to those kids who couldn't afford it.

Kids like Apple products.

Apple made a profit last year.

Yet they didn't give away iPads to those kids who couldn't afford it.



Much ado about nothing, in my humble opinion. Some things parents can afford, some things parents can't. In real life, not everyone gets a trophy for participating. Not everyone gets to do what others are doing.

Lexus made a profit last year. I can't afford a Lexus. So should I get a free car because I couldn't afford it?

McDonald's, Apple, and Lexus are all private companies that are in it to make money. The school in the OP is a publicly funded school paid for with American taxes. No one is forcing anyone to buy from Apple, McDonald's, or Lexus. However, these kids are forced to go to school. Your comparison falls flat.

originally posted by: Scallywwagg
I will always flag up the voluntary contribution where it's appropriate but most parents are happy when we come up with an arrangement to allow them to pay in installments, even for seemingly small amounts.

Scally

That is good. It enables the parents to maintain some dignity.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

But the carnival WAS paid for. The school made a profit and enough of a profit that they could afford to cover the kids who didn't pay several times over.

So? Is it fair to make some kids pay and others not? Who decides who is not poor enough to kick in? What if everybody said they couldn't afford to kick in?

I think as long as the cost for the carnival is covered, who effing cares? Let all the kids have fun. The school made a profit, the price to hire the carnival wasn't per kid, but apparently a flat fee, so why does it matter if a few kids didn't pay? I could see MAYBE a valid argument for this if the admissions barely covered the price of the carnival or didn't cover it at all, but they made MORE than enough to pay for the carnival. So again, who effing cares if some kids don't pay?

Either one has to find a way to make the event "no fee" (because nothing is "free") for everyone or insist that all attendees kick in.

Why?

I can't count the times where a medicaid patient said they didn't have $3 for a copay (yes, medicaid copay is $3) but reeked of cigarette smoke or I saw them later on buying a carton of smokes. Very often such issues are a matter of poor priorities on the side of the parents.

Circumstantial. You don't know the situation of those kids outside of what was written in the article so attributing negative factors to them based on anecdotal evidence of your own is fallacious.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

But the carnival WAS paid for. The school made a profit and enough of a profit that they could afford to cover the kids who didn't pay several times over.

So? Is it fair to make some kids pay and others not? Who decides who is not poor enough to kick in? What if everybody said they couldn't afford to kick in?

I think as long as the cost for the carnival is covered, who effing cares? Let all the kids have fun. The school made a profit, the price to hire the carnival wasn't per kid, but apparently a flat fee, so why does it matter if a few kids didn't pay? I could see MAYBE a valid argument for this if the admissions barely covered the price of the carnival or didn't cover it at all, but they made MORE than enough to pay for the carnival. So again, who effing cares if some kids don't pay?

Either one has to find a way to make the event "no fee" (because nothing is "free") for everyone or insist that all attendees kick in.

Why?

I can't count the times where a medicaid patient said they didn't have $3 for a copay (yes, medicaid copay is $3) but reeked of cigarette smoke or I saw them later on buying a carton of smokes. Very often such issues are a matter of poor priorities on the side of the parents.

Circumstantial. You don't know the situation of those kids outside of what was written in the article so attributing negative factors to them based on anecdotal evidence of your own is fallacious.

Maybe the parents who scraped together 10 bucks per kid when someone else didn't, care? You assume they are the "undeserving wealthy" because they had an extra tenner? Maybe they gave up smoking for a week to save the ten bucks to give their kid a little fun and a little dignity.

And conversely, you cannot attribute impossibility of parents to cover the ten dollars to outside forces either and thus, that line of reasoning is also fallacious.

a reply to: ketsuko

I agree, there will always be the kids who forget to give their parents the flier and parents who forget to give their kids money and kids who just aren't that interested and parents who could afford the $10 but don't care to pay for their child to attend.

That said, let's keep in mind that we are talking about a specific situation and that in this case, some of these kids are 4 years old.

As to your second point. I think we can all agree that the point of a school fundraiser is to raise funds for the school, thereby ultimately benefiting the students. If a fundraiser leads to young children breaking down in tears and asking if they're being punished, then I'd seriously question its merit. There's lots of ways to raise funds that don't involve making little kids feel left out. That's of course assuming that the intent of the carnival was indeed fundraising which isn't clearly the case from the source.

We've got people in this thread lecturing about entitlement mentality, Apple's profits and (from you) participation trophies. I wonder how many would hold firm to these abstract ideological principals when faced with the concrete reality of even a dozen bawling children, many of whom are far too young to even understand why they're being excluded.

What are we teaching the kids?

If you can't afford it, you get to participate regardless?

That saving, thinking ahead, planning, is not important, because if you just show up you get to do what everyone who planned, saved, got to do?

Kids who study for an exam do better than those kids who do not.

So should the kids who don't study get the same grades as those who did?

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Maybe the parents who scraped together 10 bucks per kid when someone else didn't, care? You assume they are the "undeserving wealthy" because they had an extra tenner? Maybe they gave up smoking for a week to save the ten bucks to give their kid a little fun and a little dignity.

This wouldn't be an issue if the principal wasn't so strict with the entry fee. They only needed to cover the cost of the carnival.

And conversely, you cannot attribute impossibility of parents to cover the ten dollars to outside forces either and thus, that line of reasoning is also fallacious.

Here's what I know. 100 kids were unable to attend a carnival held during school hours that was paid for to the point that the 100 kids could have had their entry fees covered. The school is a public school and the kids didn't have a choice at being there. I see no reason to let them sit out to appease the sensibilities of the parents who paid. It's stupid and selfish.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I have to agree. It shouldn't have been during school hours.

Exactly. I think that's really the crux of it for me. If it's going to be during school hours, and particularly for pre-K through 5th graders, it shouldn't be something that's exclusive.

We have an annual carnival (as in a real carnival with a fairway and actual rides, games and concessions.. and probably meth addicted carnies) in my town for the rec leagues. It's put on for a few nights during the week and all day on Saturday. The whole town comes out, they raise a lot of funds and for the most part, the only kids left crying are the ones who dropped their food in the dirt. As it happens, it's also a much better deal since $20 buys school aged kids a bracelet that allows them to ride everything for the night.