Between €1000 - €1400 to get a child back to school? Who are they chatting to?

Dr Turk Turkelton

Grandeeod wrote: »

How do you know they are all freeloaders? In fact do you know if any of them are free loaders?



Educated and clothed, yes. Food has nothing to do with the cost and School is not a babysitting club, its a requirement.

Yes but these costs are being included in the amount that is in the headline for some reason.

You still sound like a bitter "squeezed middleclass person". A phrase and social class that actually contradict themselves over and over. But I think you are a single childless young lad, who wants to troll or is just angry.

Sorry but your powers of deduction are roughly on the same level as your IQ as you are wrong on every point.

SEPT 23 1989

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The media are arseholes - lazy, predictable and creatively-challenged ones. Same non-story each and every year.

Credit Union pushed this today

A business like any other

Grandeeod

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

Sorry but your powers of deduction are roughly on the same level as your IQ as you are wrong on every point.

Don't go all ****ing tough guy unless you can back it up and less of the IQ remarks.

Do you have kids in school? Were you ever on the dole?

You are the one throwing around remarks about freeloaders and generalising. In fact you have offered nothing to this thread except your septic remarks.

SEPT 23 1989

It's getting very hot in here

Dr Turk Turkelton

Grandeeod wrote: »

Don't go all ****ing tough guy unless you can back it up and less of the IQ remarks.

Do you have kids in school? Were you ever on the dole?

You are the one throwing around remarks about freeloaders and generalising. In fact you have offered nothing to this thread except your septic remarks.

I have three kids,two of which are in schooland I have no problem paying the voluntary contributions for their education.As a matter of fact I don't even think they should be voluntary.
I don't know where the dole remarks come from?
I thankfully haven't had to claim it myself but I know lots of hardworking people that have had to during times of unemployment but I can't see why you brought it up in this thread as I never mentioned it.
There is a difference between people who have lost jobs and had to claim the dole and the other types who claim it who come from a long line of wasters who also claimed it having never worked a day in their lives though and that if only my opinion and nothing to do with this thread.
I'm also sure there are many extremely well off freeloaders who also don't pay the voluntary contribution and they are just as bad in my book.

Gatling

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Credit Union pushed this today

Seen something that relates a while back where a school decided it wanted pupils to get iPads when a meeting was arranged the parents tuned up to meet the principal only to met by a manager from the local credit Union too who guaranteed anyone who wanted an iPad would get loan to cover the cost

Decent Skin

Winterlong wrote: »

To summarise. The report is a load of bollocks.

It kindof is, when you realise that they'd have to be fed and clothed to at least some extent anyway; €145 for lunches for half the yeah is about €1 per lunch, so they'd surely be spending that regardless ?

LunarSea

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

Why the fluck should the Catholic Church pay for the Dutch Gold swigging,layabouts,kids education?

Sounds like someone needs lessons still, namely in how not to stereotype folk and basic decency. I'd be far more concerned about what prejudices you're instilling in your kids and letting them spread that hate at school than another kid's parents not paying the voluntary contribution.

You might also want to look up the meaning of the word "voluntary". You don't have to pay it if you don't want to (as evidenced by "the Dutch Gold crowd"), stop playing the martyr.

Grandeeod

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

It's getting very hot in here

It sure is and probably because AH's features such a diverse group of people. Those with school going kids and those with no kids at all. That's fair enough. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the particular subject under discussion can really do without the vitriol of pitiful generalisations about why kids in a certain school were named and shamed because the parent/s didn't pay the contribution.

Skylinehead

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

It's getting very hot in here

Mod: Yep, this thread is way too personal and hot-headed. Calm down people

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jimmycrackcorm

Gatling wrote:

Seen something that relates a while back where a school decided it wanted pupils to get iPads when a meeting was arranged the parents tuned up to meet the principal only to met by a manager from the local credit Union too who guaranteed anyone who wanted an iPad would get loan to cover the cost

Whatever about iPads, the department of education should make it mandatory that any educational book suppliers provide PDF or otherwise ebooks of their paper versions. There is simply no excuse for the weight of a schoolbag that my youngling has to carry to and from school.

IIRC it was only a year or two ago that a schoolgirl ended up stuck between a LUAS and a platform after the weight of her schoolbag pulled her between them.

Kiwi in IE

Winterlong wrote: »

Survey carried out by the Irish league of credit unions....wonder if they are trying to get people to borrow more to keep up with the neighbours?

Anyway, the break down is;

Extracurricular activities: €185
Uniforms: €183
Books: €146
Lunches: €145
After school care: €123
Fees/contribution: €113
School trips: €115
Transport: €101
Gym gear: €74

People do realise that whether or not their kids are in school, they are still going to have to clothe and feed them don't they? Uniforms and gym gear may be expensive, but if a child isn't wearing a uniform 5 days a week, the parents are going to have to buy far more ordinary clothes. Also lunch is going to have to be provided whether or not they attend school.

I feel extremely sorry for families who are genuinely struggling, but I'm sorry, I just find this back to school cost horror all a bit whingy/whiny/ungrateful. I am happy to pay any amount to ensure that my kids get a good, all round education. It also feels a bit ungrateful to be moaning that we have to pay, what is essentially a pretty negligible amount, in return for very, very cheap, first class education. If your children had been born in one of the many countries where there is no such access to education, then you'd have something to moan about.

Grandeeod

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

I have three kids,two of which are in schooland I have no problem paying the voluntary contributions for their education.As a matter of fact I don't even think they should be voluntary.
I don't know where the dole remarks come from?
I thankfully haven't had to claim it myself but I know lots of hardworking people that have had to during times of unemployment but I can't see why you brought it up in this thread as I never mentioned it.
There is a difference between people who have lost jobs and had to claim the dole and the other types who claim it who come from a long line of wasters who also claimed it having never worked a day in their lives though and that if only my opinion and nothing to do with this thread.
I'm also sure there are many extremely well off freeloaders who also don't pay the voluntary contribution and they are just as bad in my book.

Why the fluck should the Catholic Church pay for the Dutch Gold swigging,layabouts,kids education?

The above quote and your bolded remarks are very clear indicators of what you were saying.

And thank you for answering my two questions as its nice to know the type of person I am debating with, so I withdraw my remarks about the type of person I thought you were.

PandaPoo

This is what we will pay for an educate together senior infant, its the most expensive from junior to 6th.

Class trip/ Art Day/ Other events: Approx. €35.00
Voluntary contribution: €135.00.
Books/text a parent/swimming lessons and insurance- €155

Theres no uniform in this school and extra curricular activities cost around €50 each. My son is just moving there this year, I heard from parents of kids in the school that the books and VC is far more expensive than the average school, I was expecting it to be way worse.

Estrellita

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

It's getting very hot in here

The usual childless / child-haters VS Parents / Parent Scroungers

Endless debate, and boring as fcuk at this point.

smash

Estrellita wrote: »

Smash those are very average figures there, if I thought Id get away with that Id be very happy lady. While I agree there are ways to cut a few corners, it's not always possible.

My children are in a school ,and while it's not a private school, it's not cheap to school them there. Only school approved clothing are permitted, which includes crested jacket, tie, and jumper. The shades of shirts and trousers that are recommended by the school are branded, and differ to the generics you can buy in dunnes or tesco. And what is worse is, you would notice.

The cost for gym gear alone, forget your figure of €74 because there is no designated gym gear. This is worse again, because there is competition between them for the best clothing and trainers.

School fees are higher in the school, and no rental scheme I'm aware of.

While I'm telling you all of this about their school, I must stress that I was aware fully of this when I registered them for enrollment. Where they went to school, the schools reputation, the principal himself, and everything in between mattered to me for their future. I'm not complaining about cost for that reason, but I just wanted to point out that school school fees aren't the same.

The figures are average because they've come from a report on the average costs. You can't count trainers as a return to school cost because they're used daily anyway. Right now return to school costs for me are around €400 which is fine. In 2 years I'll be looking at fees alone of circa €6,000 because of the school I've chosen and I'm well aware of the additional extras.

Lucyfur

Secondary school is proving to be far cheaper than primary for us. The school has a book rental scheme so it's €200 for 1st, 2nd and 3rd year. He needs a crested jumper but everything else comes from dunnes. Lunch is optional. It's €7.50 per week. Their lockers are €5. Trips away and school tours cos feck all. He has an ipad which we buy some books for, so he has some in digital format and all in hardback, but that's our choice, not a necessity.

Kiwi in IE

smash wrote: »

The figures are average because they've come from a report on the average costs. You can't count trainers as a return to school cost because they're used daily anyway. Right now return to school costs for me are around €400 which is fine. In 2 years I'll be looking at fees alone of circa €6,000 because of the school I've chosen and I'm well aware of the additional extras.

I don't think that you can count trainers, or lunches, or clothes at all. The cost of buying uniforms at the start of the year would surely cover what is saved by not having to buy anywhere near as many regular clothes. What do people think is going to happen when they have kids? That they are never going to have to pay anything toward their upbringing and education? Books and a voluntary contribution to the school is a small price to pay to have your child provided with opportunity and education. There is help available for people who are struggling in most cases. There is an option in our school to pay books and voluntary contribution weekly over the course of the year.

Dr Turk Turkelton

I think everyone is taking me up wrong here.
I hadn't mentioned anything about the dole inthis thread until it was assumed I did and I had to refute these claims.
I have no problem with anyone claiming social welfare in times in their lives when they need to.
My problem is the wasters who claim it their whole lives s they walk around smoking Johnny Blues with a bag of DutchGold in their other hand.
These are the layabouts I'm referring to.They use their money to buy drink and smokes but heaven forbid they have to make a contribution to their kids education.
To be honest they name and shame themselves nowadays with the advent of facebook as they put up pics of themselves on the"Sunday Sesh"and then on Tuesday moan about the unfairness of having to pay a pittance to give their kids a first class education.

LunarSea

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

I think everyone is taking me up wrong here.
I hadn't mentioned anything about the dole inthis thread until it was assumed I did and I had to refute these claims.
I have no problem with anyone claiming social welfare in times in their lives when they need to.
My problem is the wasters who claim it their whole lives s they walk around smoking Johnny Blues with a bag of DutchGold in their other hand.
These are the layabouts I'm referring to.They use their money to buy drink and smokes but heaven forbid they have to make a contribution to their kids education.
To be honest they name and shame themselves nowadays with the advent of facebook as they put up pics of themselves on the"Sunday Sesh"and then on Tuesday moan about the unfairness of having to pay a pittance to give their kids a first class education.

And what about the people who are hard working etc., but still don't pay the voluntary contribution? If you count the amount of "Sunday Sesh" parents vs. those that don't pay the contribution I'm sure you'll see the figures don't match...

Grandeeod

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

I think everyone is taking me up wrong here.
I hadn't mentioned anything about the dole inthis thread until it was assumed I did and I had to refute these claims.
I have no problem with anyone claiming social welfare in times in their lives when they need to.
My problem is the wasters who claim it their whole lives s they walk around smoking Johnny Blues with a bag of DutchGold in their other hand.
These are the layabouts I'm referring to.They use their money to buy drink and smokes but heaven forbid they have to make a contribution to their kids education.
To be honest they name and shame themselves nowadays with the advent of facebook as they put up pics of themselves on the"Sunday Sesh"and then on Tuesday moan about the unfairness of having to pay a pittance to give their kids a first class education.

Thanks for clarifying things. Now you are not generalising. However you did generalise things in your initial response to kids being named and shamed.

Dr Turk Turkelton

LunarSea wrote: »

And what about the people who are hard working etc., but still don't pay the voluntary contribution? If you count the amount of "Sunday Sesh" parents vs. those that don't pay the contribution I'm sure you'll see the figures don't match...

That's easy they are also miserable pricks as it's their kids education we are talking about here.
In fact they are worse and should be named and shamed because at least you know the wasters won't have paid it as they will have proudly updated their status to tell the world.

LunarSea

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

That's easy they are also miserable pricks as it's their kids education we are talking about here.
In fact they are worse and should be named and shamed because at least you know the wasters won't have paid it as they will have proudly updated their status to tell the world.

Amazing, just amazing.

The words "pot", "kettle" and "black" spring to mind.

So when you said "people are taking me up wrong here" what you menat to say was "I have a chip on my shoulder and think I'm better than people that don't pay the voluntary contribution".

Again, I'd be more concerned about my kids attending school with yours because they're clearly going to be picking up your prejudiced, holier-than-thou attitude at home.

I can take the shovel off you in exchange for a JCB if you want to dig that hole for yourself a little quicker.

Samaris

To go back a bit, do you or do you not believe that children should be named and shamed at a school assembly because their parents have not paid the voluntary donation regardless of their personal circumstances?

LunarSea

Samaris wrote: »

To go back a bit, do you or do you not believe that children should be named and shamed at a school assembly because their parents have not paid the voluntary donation regardless of their personal circumstances?

Would be great fun at assembly if Dr. Turk ran a school...

"And now, the following children's parents are miserable pricks, worse than those on the Sunday Sesh"

Grandeeod

Samaris wrote: »

To go back a bit, do you or do you not believe that children should be named and shamed at a school assembly because their parents have not paid the voluntary donation regardless of their personal circumstances?

The first response.

Yeah, for the mugs that do have to pay to keep the school afloat having to hear the names of the pricks that would rather waste the money than contribute to their kids education it sure must be sickening alright.

After that it went towards dole scroungers and I think we are now back to some goalpost moving. What pissed me off the most was that the term "pricks" was used, despite the fact that it was the kids names being listed at assembly. A minor error, but...

I've made my peace with this particular poster, but some of the stuff has left a sour taste. Articulation may have been neglected.

Kiwi in IE

Kids don't have any control over whether their parents are miserable pricks, on the Sunday sesh, or are just genuinely struggling. Treating them as if they are responsible for same, is simply going to breed future social problems which will be far more costly than 13 years of voluntary contributions to school. Schools should have an option available other than making a lump sum payment, parents who are facing difficulty paying should be encouraged to approach the school and come to an arrangement, if that fails harass the parents with private letters/phone calls all year, bring it up at parent/teacher meetings, make phone calls to them etc, but leave the kids out of it.

And they should not call it 'voluntary' when they don't intend it to be voluntary. It's just fees, that must be paid.

selastich2

the government pays for it through childrens allownace, so it's not as if it's even coming out of your own pockets

Samaris

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Kids don't have any control over whether their parents are miserable pricks, on the Sunday sesh, or are just genuinely struggling. Treating them as if they are responsible for same, is simply going to breed future social problems which will be far more costly than 13 years of voluntary contributions to school. Schools should have an option available other than making a lump sum payment, parents who are facing difficulty paying should be encouraged to approach the school and come to an arrangement, if that fails harass the parents with private letters/phone calls all year, bring it up at parent/teacher meetings, make phone calls to them etc, but leave the kids out of it.

Not to mention it's just damn wrong. It's cruel and bullying.