Here is a follow up article to the one we read on parent council funding. Please read and share your thoughts.
as well look through the blogging responses by the readers underneath the articles, anything stand out with a unique perspective?
http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/education/schoolsandresources/article/946344--province-needs-to-set-school-fundraising-limits-groups-say
I think it is a good idea, that the school, board is making a limit to fundriasing, because everyone should have the same amount of money through the school year, and everyone has a equal share for money
ReplyDeleteI think that the fundraising rules will never actually pull through.There will always be a way to get through the fundraising limits.If one school doesn't follow the limit,they would be seen as a violator of the agreement (if there has been an agreement).If many schools break the rules,it will be harder to put laws to keep them down because the rich schools can team up together.The parents could argue ''I want the best for my child,at the expense of others not having the advantage.'' By allowing systemic racism to continue,the playing field would continue to be unbalanced but we would have few people with a very high potential to becoming a world leader.The downfall is that the person(s) would have to credit the racist system (that is not malicious) their ''success''.
ReplyDeleteOne could argue,what is success? Does it really mean excelling beyond your opponents,or does it mean having perstistence to education in an equitable society?
I predict that the limits will continue to keep tightening,but the rules will continue to be broken.Why would the rich schools follow? Because this system was born in the time of human exploitation,it will continue to be like this until the system is torn apart.And if it is really torn apart and put back together,protests and complaints,violence and other conflicts could arise.
well seems like the schools the schools just want more money since they have to pay for those subjects like art or science. That makes no sense since how much money they make by the vending machine and the fundraising, why would they spend alot of money on a lot of expensive equipment. Or the price of a canvas for a month. They already have alot of money from the vending machine, also in one part of the article they mentioned how there was no specific way for the school money has to be spent like equipment or new school supplies. Some one got charged for supposedly taking the money or didn't deposit it for student activity.
ReplyDeleteIt is a very smart idea for a limit in raising money for fund, because some school can't afford as much but they had made a limit and it wouldn't be that bad ..
ReplyDeleteIts not fair .. some school are poor and can't contribute in the fund so .. that wouldn't be that much of a team work .. but some school can afford more than the usual and fund more than the limit/budget.
So in my opinion i say that it is a great idea that they had made a limit in fund raising ..
Becoming a world leader is just one of the jobs that this advantaged student could have.Thanks to his/her history of wealthiness (usually),there are at least two possible outcomes.One is that the student will continue excell if he/she reaches his/her full potential by having this extra money raised.Or,the money would be a waste because the student will become an unemployed induvidual with little skill that relies on his/her family wealth.A third option...Maybe could be a mediocre/unpopular job that addresses his/her lifestyle or hobby.
ReplyDeletei think it is a good idea to limit the fundraising, but that doesnt mean thhta the rules wont be broken. For the schools who have been fundraising alot more, they will probably reach over the limit no problem, and the rules will break.
ReplyDelete@Talwinder Mr Cheney did say that the people will (always??) find a way to go around the rules.I think that to put rules down on something is impossible.There's always undocumented/fake budget reports,etc.Unless theres something like a budget monitor that would check all the funds raised by the school,the money would be given accordingly.
ReplyDelete@ gurinder the only way they can find a way through the rules is if it sn't very staight forward or there isn't a consequence. And the reason the parent will say that is because they are obssesed with wanting their child to succed. They aren't really being racist they are jsut looking down on people because they aren't able to be at the same level as their child.
ReplyDeletei think that the limit to fundraising is a pretty stupid idea because there should be at least more than we expect what if the limit would be not enough for what we are going for like to give the children a better education or to deliver clean drinking water or anything else
ReplyDelete@Thomas Of course it would be secretive.Until the school would be caught,the other schools would reveal themselves (the other schools that are breaking rules)After that,they would team up together against them.
ReplyDelete@Mentally Superior in the Dark Arts of Negativity and Criticism,Artistically Overpowering,Imperial Overlord of the Entire Universe and beyond,Darthinder, i agree people don't care about the rule .. they just think as it about a consequences if it is suaver they would take it seriously .. but i certainly agree with what you are saying Darthinder.
ReplyDelete@ gurinder they will try to be secretive but that won't always work some one will find out about all the money they have raised when going over the limit. If they deposite alot of money it will get noticed, thats how some people get caught stealing money.
ReplyDeleteI think that there should be a limit on what can be fundraised by school's in richer areas. But how will that be tracked because fundraising is a private fund. And if there are rules put in, like Mr. Cheney said yesterday, the people in those areas will find a way to bend the rules so they can fundraise more. I read some of the parents comments. They don't seem happy. They don't understand why they can't enhance their child's education with their own money that they worked hard for. But I think they are wrong. Because there are a lot of parents can't afford things like that even though they work hard too. I do not think it's right to have some school's have all these things that other school's don't have. Like Mr Cheney said, it's systemic racism and there should be rules put in place even if small ones.
ReplyDelete@Tron It wouldn't be necessarily stupid...But it would be a difficult goal to achieve.When these parents are deciding to fund rasie,they accept the fact that there is systemic racism, without thinking.They might be giving money to children without drinking water,or they might be not.They accept that the society is captalist and it will stay like that.
ReplyDelete@talwinder, dont you think the teachers or parents would get in trouble if they raised more more money, especially after this big problem
ReplyDeleteI think making a limit to fundraising is a good idea because all of the schools can make the same amount of money and everyone could have a fair amount of education, and also everyone should have the same amount of money throughout the year. I think it is a good idea to have it because everyone wouldn't think that it isn't fair that some schools get more money then other schools and everyone would think that its fair because everyone would get a fair chance for getting new supplies and what not.
ReplyDelete@ tron thats not stupid at all and no one would put the limit that low that they can't get a good education, they would put it at an resonable limit.
ReplyDelete@Plan Ben-G, yeah the teachers/parents would get in trouble because now there is a limit and if they go over the parent/teacher would get consequences.
ReplyDelete@Alyssa , do you think most "rich" or most "poor" schools will bend the rules ?
ReplyDeleteI also think it is a good idea because if you put a limit to fundrasing it might help stop all the extra money that is coming into some schools.
ReplyDelete@gurinder I don't think that they realize that it's systemic racism because if they did they might not be fundraising as much or giving some money that was fundraised to the less fortunate.
ReplyDeleteHaving a limit is definetly a start but like people have said here there are people who know how to bend this system. I think the system needs to be remade and eradicate its self of intrest if you look at the world most of the worlds poor are people who take loans and can't pay it back in time end up having to pay way more than they spended in the first place.And I personally feel that money is kind of unlawfull you dont work and you get payed a whole lot. Thats another step I think the system should take.
ReplyDelete@Niida, i agree with you .. because every child was born the same and they should be treated equally, if other school have an advantage in money then they will have an advantage in getting more money in the fund, and that isn't equity ..
ReplyDelete@Nida, just because there is a limit put to the amount of fundraisding made, doesnt mean that everyone will be raising the same amount of money. Some schools will rais more than others limit, or no limit.
ReplyDelete@ bailee
ReplyDeletei agree with you that even if they make the rules the people can break them.the parents are going to want better for their childern's education then others
as mr.cheney said it more like competition in the real world.
@Talwinder , do you think "poor" schools should fund raise more ?
ReplyDelete@Nida Are you asking if I think which school would bend the rules more? Because I think it would be the rich schools because since they have fundraised so much in the past, to put rules on that, they won't understand and will want to continue fundraising as much as they want. So they will bend the rules so they can continue to fundraise what they have before.
ReplyDeleteThey can find a way around the rules because most of the time the people making the rules sympathize or have ties to those wealthy parents.
ReplyDeletei agree with you alyssa, because its true and most parents just think that money would make their kids smarter, which really isnt true and for the people who cant afford it, they still need educatation
ReplyDeleteFundraising with Purpose
ReplyDeleteOur children ALL have the right to learn through classroom education, field trips and through the arts. When school funds can't provide for all that in-comes fundraising. This type of subsidising is only good, IF and WHEN it meshes with desired values. It needs to serves a purpose, fill a need, and compliment learning. eCause Canada, sustainable fundraising does all that, all while treading lightly on our earth, and never sending our children door to door. Re-enforcing lessons for a healthier and more equitable world is at the company's core. Children learn about healthy eating and thinking globally and acting locally, but more often than not the fundraising programs are a complete contradiction. Sharing with our cwn communities for better equity can absolutely be part of the purpose, but guidelines need to be set at a much higher level. Respectfully submitted Joyce Shanks, eCause Canada.
Submitted by eCause Canada at 10:34 AM Tuesday, March 01 2011
True,the fundraising has to be meant for a purpose but it could also be put as an increased salary.Teachers can emphasize fundraising but fundraising too much that the money could go to unwanted places.
The money can easily be misused.
@Talwinder , i agree with you .. every child should deserve a proper chance.
ReplyDeletethis is good because now kids that aren't as rich as others could have an equal oppirtonity
ReplyDelete@Niida, if they can afford it then they should fund raise more, but they shouldn't be putting there money/life in danger by putting there money in danger and life in danger.
ReplyDeleteMaking kids fundraise is shady.
ReplyDeleteIn school, when asked to sell chocolates or magazine subscriptions, I always thought it was unfair that those kids who had parents who worked in offices and such had an unfair advantage to win those trinkets for selling the most. Kids should not be made into little retailers. I've also seen kids alone standing around near the subway trying to sell those things. This can't be right.
Submitted by Salanth at 6:46 PM Tuesday, March 01 2011
This response seems valid since it is true the person that sells the most is the one that has a lot of money but that isn't always the case though if the parent works some where, were they can sell it that would make it easier for them to win. The school always does earn money this way.
I think im on both sides of limiting fundraising and no limit on fundraising because there are times when schools get hooked on the money the school can raise and sometimes they do it because they want to support the cause.
ReplyDelete@sharpshooter Valid as it is,I strongly disagree it is ''not right''.The student took the initiative or took the opportunity to sell these.Using his or her advantages isn't wrong.It's the way that humans have been living since they've existed.Use what you have and what you can do.
ReplyDeleteBut...On the other side One could argue that,''The child has a history of white,wealthy people.'' For example, The opportunity to sell the chocolate in a certain workplace (maybe a parent works there because of they had systemic racism advantages) is only there because of this system.
Doing something good for the students so everyone gets a chance,being equitable,links back to systemic racism?
Fascinating....
Making kids fundraise is shady.
ReplyDeleteIn school, when asked to sell chocolates or magazine subscriptions, I always thought it was unfair that those kids who had parents who worked in offices and such had an unfair advantage to win those trinkets for selling the most. Kids should not be made into little retailers. I've also seen kids alone standing around near the subway trying to sell those things. This can't be right.
@Sharpshooter Another argument could be that,the world will never change.It will continue to have systemic racism.By having this systemic racism,students with a white,wealthy history can sell chocolates easier due to living in a rich society.By living in this rich society,the opinions of buying chocolate and the influences on their budgets MIGHT not be as effective.
ReplyDeleteI agree schools make the kids fundraise and it is not fair to other students who dont get that type of advantage because it seems like the kids are used as retailers to sell things that the school cant really do on their own,it kind of seems like the scholl miight not get as much sales as a kid would normally get because they're small little kids.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf we forget what is wrong and what is right for a moment...Is systemic racism a bad thing? People used human exploitation to make themselves rich,so the ones who come to inherit the money MIGHT have a better education.
ReplyDeleteIf it is possible,what if someone said that ''The exploited shouldn't aren't entitled to some present'' By saying something like that,people could infer that the world is ''Survival of the Finest''.As contradictory as it might be,this/these person(s) could argue that ''The ones who were exploited (and some that are still being exploited) weren't able to defend themselves.''
We live in a world where these ''positive'' acts lead to a better life.But if someone didn't look at religion and the afterlife for a moment,could they argue that ''What's the point of helping others if it will never affect ME?''
But,the majority of the population believes in a religion,so do I.To think of something like that is very dangerous,we can't decide to do something like that until we would actually know what the afterlife is.The problem is,religion isn't something that CAN be debated about because of the consequences.It might or might not affect our futures in this holy way,or it could start an actual fight.
Terrible world,really.The things that need to be tended to can never be taken care of
sharpshooter you are right young kids get the oppertunity to sell these things but it seems like the school uses them to sell the chocolate for them.
ReplyDeleteor anything else!!
ReplyDelete@Alyssa I agree.It's that there's many unaware of the problem,so it is dismissed.It creates a false sense of security,thinking that they have this equitable society;it's the exact opposite.Things like having future aces and laws,but when can we actually practice these when the whole system is part of the systemic racism?!
ReplyDeleteMostly by the rich areas, they would charge more money for chocolate because richer familys.
ReplyDelete@Heli By parents wanting to have their child better than another,it means that systemic racism will have to continue.It means that class-ism,that the idea that a person can be more valuable than another is put into place.If one person succeeds,50 fail.So if our whole school is the average,surely fewer students would fail for every 1 student that succeeds in our school,but there's thousands,so how many students fail? There needs to be people that fail so we can continue to ''be better'' than people.
ReplyDeleteTerrible...Terrible and Depressing...
@vanessa i agree and i thik its true but it depends on what there sellimg like for example chocolate they might buy more from the younger kids or the older kids.I think that the kids do the selling for the prize afterwards like an mp3 or ipod that the winner of the chocolate sales gets.
ReplyDeleteMaking the people who are rich recognize this (the ones that would have to credit systemic racism) is something that needs to be done.Not just recognize,but realize.Realize what their past is and that they need to make amends.Letting those who are at disadvantage of global warming (everyone else) could realize and then take action.Or,they could fall into a depression.To realize that there's people out there with advantages you've never known about is terrifying.It almost makes me feel like quitting school altogether. It's like,''Why bother? It'll never be fixed.''
ReplyDeleteits a good idea because then more schools will have the same or similar opportunities
ReplyDeletealso are we going to do book exchange tomorrow?
@Rukis, i agree with you the school with both have the same opportunities to do the same things, and it will be fair .. it won't just be like one school having a greater advantage in money in getting funds then poor school in low advantage to get money in funds .. and when i comes to the chart the poor school looks bad .. but what could they do .. its there finical problems they can't solve it in just a snap .. it is going to take alot of determination from the parent council to get the poor school away from the bottem of the chart to in the middle ..
ReplyDeletevanessa, i agree wiht you because its true , that schools make little kids sell choeclate or stuff for prizes and kids not get as much and it also depends on where the schoool uses the money, like if nits for donation or school use
ReplyDeleterukiye, tommrow its day 0 and we are donne have that dnace practice thingy and sinece there is bookfair i dont think there is book exchange
Yeah and everyone having equal opputurnities would mean that everyone has an equal chance to get into a college or university. That makes it fair for everyone and doesn't give the students from richer areas a larger advantage.
ReplyDelete@Alyssa But there are so many students that are delinquents and don't deserve to learn.The people that choose not to learn during a class,and take advantage make everyone else lose out on learning.If we don't look at systemic racism for a moment,and think about the students themselves,why? These weak links are just slowing down the rest of us from reaching our goals.
ReplyDelete@Talwinder It seems as if the way to ''solve''
ReplyDeletemisdocumentation and systemic racism is if we have to get a Dictator to do it.If surveys,accurate ones enforced by threat were taken and they were honest they could find out how much money each school would require.After they find the bare minimum required,they would have to give the money accordingly to improve the school by looking at the figures of the student.For example,how many are interested in going into _______ career,what they do in their spare time,etc.After that,they would look at what improvements need to be made.After improvements,charity and recreation would come in.By doing this,everything would be accurate...Or would it?
Is using threats a false sense of security? Does it ever work,and continue to work? Eventually,there would be an unpleasant response(An unpleasant response from those who are against limits)
stephanie some schools would do that like sell kids things but if you read one of the comments from the link that i pasted it said how someone saw a kid in the subway by themselves trying to sell something, now if you were running a school would you tell the students to sell something?? oh and let me add by themselves, and i know your answer is a no and that is my point,it doesnt matter what the kids are selling i thibk schools use the kids to bring in the money especially the little ones,because they're so so probavly they will make a good profit.
ReplyDeletesorry i spelled think and probably wrong!!
ReplyDeleteHaving a limit is definetly a start but like people have said here there are people who know how to bend this system. I think the system needs to be remade and eradicate its self of intrest if you look at the world most of the worlds poor are people who take loans and can't pay it back in time end up having to pay way more than they spended in the first place.And I personally feel that money is kind of unlawfull you dont work and you get payed a whole lot. Thats another step I think the system should take.
ReplyDelete@ gurinder isn't that a little harsh on how they don't deserve to learn at all? If they don't won't to learn at all then that is their fault. And how would that slow us all down, when they get to high school it is going to be their fault then. Since they didn't want to pay attention so they won't slow everyone down.
ReplyDelete@gurinder their are many students who by their actions seem as if they dont deserve to learn but there are those that turn their life around.
ReplyDelete@Bailee , Maybe some schools will raise as much as the limit.
ReplyDelete@Vanessa, the only reason schools use the kids to make fundraising profits doesnt mean that they are using the kids, it just means that the kids are taking intrest in something for there school. we do a chocolate sale here, does that really mean that our school is using us??
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Zak, the limit is the start .. and the system has to be new and rebuilt .. but the only thing i think that is a rule that can mend to be broken is the parent council or the teachers can "cheat" and start raising more money then the limit and that isn't fair.
ReplyDelete@ zak I don't think that is possible that if you don't work you get payed you do have to work to get the money.
ReplyDelete@Nida, some schools will raise as much as the limit, but its really simple for the schools who raise a lot more than others, to reach above the limit.
ReplyDelete@thomas it is possible its called intrest check the definition.
ReplyDelete@Gurinder what are you saying? Are you saying some people in the richer school's are just choosing not to learn so theres still an equal chance. I am confused.
ReplyDelete@ Nida
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Every school should be able to get the same amount of money and the same amount of supplies. Its not fair that some schools have more things than other schools because each child should be able to do the same thing as another child in a 'richer' school
@sharpshooter Sure it might be harsh,but it's the world.Life isn't fair,so we will just have to continue to compete with people with so many advantages.Systemic racism will never be fixed because the actual chance of someone taking all the advantages of systemic racism,and then demolishing systemic racism is so slim it's almost impossible.
ReplyDelete@Alyssa , i agree .. that the "rich" schools may bend the rules more then the "poor" schools.
ReplyDelete@Alyssa What I'm saying is,that the rest of us have to live with competing against people with advantages we don't know about because the ones who don't want to learn ruined everyone else's education.It could be karma.The few ruin it for the most.
ReplyDelete@Nida Yeah because why would a poorer school bend the rules? They would be raising the same amount as other schools so they would feel equal and wouldn't need to bend the rules.
ReplyDelete@ zak that still counts as working i know what intrest means where did they get the money in the first place they had to do something also keeping track of who had taken the money.
ReplyDelete@ gurinder well even though this world is competitive and we will have to take all the advantages we have. But what i was referring to was how you were saying they are a waste for doing that and thats harsh.
ReplyDelete@thomas but my point is say you borrow 5 bucks from me and you don't give that back in the alloted time frame after a bit that 5 becomes 15 and so on that extra money I believe is unlawfull because you don't work for it thats how banks become rich it should just be the money you borrow is the money you return.
ReplyDelete@ gurinder the people we will be competing against that have the advantage, doesn't mean they always take it and use it to the best of their abilities. Just because they get the advantage doesn't mean they are better they can just slack off and not pay attention.
ReplyDelete@gurinder Oh ok. So we have to live with the people who have advantages but why do the people who don't want to learn ruin everyone's education. And why do they matter? If they, don't want to learn well than that's their problem.
ReplyDelete@ gurinder
ReplyDeletei agree with you gurinder that some peopel don't have some intersent in studyies and they sometimes ruined it for others who want to study.
my computer isn't working well,so i couldn't post much but now it's better.
@ zak that isn't unlawfull since it going to be your fault there since you borrowed the money which you won't be able to pay back in time. The money you borrow from the bank could be the money they take out from someone else's account, i think that is how it works i can't remember correctly, they are going to need to put that money back. That is more of a consequence, if you don't pay back they increase the price so that it is a precaution.
ReplyDelete@sharpshooter thats not how it works its like this say you take a loan and can't repay it in time their is an maount of intrest added to the amount you have to pay back. Its just greedy repay the money you borrow not an extra amount that just comes about because of tardiness. And in response to your comment that its just a precaution would you not call that precaution gredy if you took a 1000$ loan for university but end up paying4000$ instead because you can't get all that mioney back in time.
ReplyDelete