School Field Trips

[MushyMushy]

NO, I do not expect another parent to buy things for my kids. (including a $3.50 bottle of water, when I do NOT for one minute believe that there were no water fountains anywhere.)

I'll respond to this one since I'm the one who had to buy water for my group on a zoo field trip. (The water was $2.00, not $3.50, but I would have bought it even if it had been $5.00 a bottle )

I didn't make one negative remark about the parents (especially considering the kids weren't allowed to bring money!), but about the school not providing opportunities to buy or bring water. The school cafeteria supplied the bagged lunches, which included one small juice box. The kids ate their lunch at the beginning of the zoo trip, before they went into the zoo -- this was like 10:30 in the morning.

The day got hot -- well into the 80s, with not a cloud in the sky. There are only four areas with restrooms, and one of the areas doesn't have fountains. The first area had fountains, but the water was a trickle. About an hour later and we still hadn't come on the second restroom area, the kids were wilting, and I was dying for a drink myself! They were so red-faced and hot, it was worrying me. When we came up on this one area where there were concession stands, there were NO fountains at that stop. I made a judgment call to buy the group water. If someone had a problem with it, oh well. We went off to the side and drank the water, and then when we started off, I put the extra bottles in my backpack.

When we got to the third restroom area, we refilled our water bottles. Those restrooms weren't far apart physically, but when you're stopping to look at the animals, they're far apart in the time it takes to get to them. By the time we got to the last set of concession stands, the employees of the zoo had gotten wind of the situation with the kids and lack of water, so they GAVE the kids water from the stands. They normally charge for the cups and ice.

Should I be nominated for "sainthood" as another poster mentioned (that's so insulting)? Hardly. But I fail to see how a nice action like that could be interpreted with any other motive but kindness.

Are people so threatened by that these days?

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

Okey, dokey. I guess I have a thicker skin than you do because I've been room mom, chaperoned numerous trips, PTA president, the works - and I've never been bothered by the idea that there are sometimes going to be people irritated by something I do. It's part of being around other people.

The thing that's new to me is having someone say to me "how dare you?", or telling me I lack compassion, or that live a pathetic life (paraphrasing because I don't want to go back for the exact words), or that I must be a bad teacher. Those are new things to me, I've never experienced it in real life. If others don't see how those things could be seen as attacking, I guess they live differently than me.

for someone who a while back thought that dragging this out was silly - you sure do have a penchant for keeping it going....I think you are enjoying the drama (llama)

again, - I am only answering to remarks concerning my posts:

for the record: I NEVER and I do not believe anyone else said anything about you being pathetic or leading a pathetic life.

I did say it saddened me that you seemed so jaded and seemed to lack compassion based on your reaction to the zoo parent..and I do think those qualities affect your abitiy to be a good teacher and I was glad my DD's teachers were different. If you see that as an attack, then you are no where near as thick skinned as you think you are!

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

I'll respond to this one since I'm the one who had to buy water for my group on a zoo field trip. (The water was $2.00, not $3.50, but I would have bought it even if it had been $5.00 a bottle )

I didn't make one negative remark about the parents (especially considering the kids weren't allowed to bring money!), but about the school not providing opportunities to buy or bring water. The school cafeteria supplied the bagged lunches, which included one small juice box. The kids ate their lunch at the beginning of the zoo trip, before they went into the zoo -- this was like 10:30 in the morning.

The day got hot -- well into the 80s, with not a cloud in the sky. There are only four areas with restrooms, and one of the areas doesn't have fountains. The first area had fountains, but the water was a trickle. About an hour later and we still hadn't come on the second restroom area, the kids were wilting, and I was dying for a drink myself! They were so red-faced and hot, it was worrying me. When we came up on this one area where there were concession stands, there were NO fountains at that stop. I made a judgment call to buy the group water. If someone had a problem with it, oh well. We went off to the side and drank the water, and then when we started off, I put the extra bottles in my backpack.

When we got to the third restroom area, we refilled our water bottles. Those restrooms weren't far apart physically, but when you're stopping to look at the animals, they're far apart in the time it takes to get to them. By the time we got to the last set of concession stands, the employees of the zoo had gotten wind of the situation with the kids and lack of water, so they GAVE the kids water from the stands. They normally charge for the cups and ice.

Should I be nominated for "sainthood" as another poster mentioned (that's so insulting)? Hardly. But I fail to see how a nice action like that could be interpreted with any other motive but kindness.

Are people so threatened by that these days?

now, now disykat is not threatened - she is simply irritated

don't attribute any over the top emotions to her - but read through her posts and see her do it over and over so she can exaggerate and add drama to her posts!

 

[Blondy876]

Wow, after reading the whole thread I definitely see some attacking and sarcasm going on. I'm with disykat on this one. (And horror of horrors I'm a teacher too ) From reading her posts I am of the impression that she wasn't so much irritated that the parent bought her child something but by the fact that it was assumed by so many that since she didn't send money she must not be able to afford it or that she is a rotten parent. I don't send in money either. (Assuming lunch is provided and she won't need to buy it) The trip itself is a wonderful experience, why the need for some piece of plastic crap from the gift shop? I understand that kids want stuff, but they don't need it. When I take my kids on trips I don't buy them stuff from everywhere. I don't want them to connect the idea of being together and being someplace wonderful with the need to buy things. You don't need to buy things to have a good time, that's a lesson I am trying to instill in my girls. I get why disykat was irritated, she was not calling up the parent and screaming at her, but irritated. Because most likely this parent thought the same things so many others have assumed, deadbeat parent, which is far from the case.

 

[shortbun]

I've been on dozens of field trips and NEVER needed to spend money on anything. Our teachers prepare in advance for food and thirst but do not allow spending money. There has never been an exception to that rule. We carry liquid, sack lunches and a first aid kit. Before we leave the room, in charge parents have a checklist. If a child forgets his lunch, a lunch is provided for him from the teacher or children share(many do not eat close to everything that is provided, I always pack an extra sandwich and grapes or apple). I do not understand why your school goes on field trips where children would be unprepared for the heat. IMHO, this is a teacher responsiblity and should be thought out ahead of time-no money needed.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

Wow, after reading the whole thread I definitely see some attacking and sarcasm going on. I'm with disykat on this one. (And horror of horrors I'm a teacher too ) From reading her posts I am of the impression that she wasn't so much irritated that the parent bought her child something but by the fact that it was assumed by so many that since she didn't send money she must not be able to afford it or that she is a rotten parent. I don't send in money either. (Assuming lunch is provided and she won't need to buy it) The trip itself is a wonderful experience, why the need for some piece of plastic crap from the gift shop? I understand that kids want stuff, but they don't need it. When I take my kids on trips I don't buy them stuff from everywhere. I don't want them to connect the idea of being together and being someplace wonderful with the need to buy things. You don't need to buy things to have a good time, that's a lesson I am trying to instill in my girls. I get why disykat was irritated, she was not calling up the parent and screaming at her, but irritated. Because most likely this parent thought the same things so many others have assumed, deadbeat parent, which is far from the case.

And it is that ASSUMPTION that is wrong! Wouldn't a better person's first assumption be that the zoo person was just trying to be nice - that is the point I am making. Why think the worst of people?

(edited to add: I know I keep getting back into this - but my point is really this assumption alone..the rest I really do tend to agree - and yet because I don't like the assumption, people mek it out that I must also feel money is necessary, trinkets are necessary, all the rest - again my only real problem here is people thinking the worst of others and assuming the worst....rather than assuming the best or simple giving people a break)

I really do not think the majority of parents are going around making these judgement calls - so no reason to make such negetive assumptions.. - they are just helping out/doing something nice.

and AGAIN, as I have stated I am really on the same page as you on most of the other points. I am teaching my DD the same things - but the occasional nice gesture or treat does nothing to undermine that.

attacking - no,,,,,sarcasm?, sure..but I have seen that here on both sides -

 

[Blondy876]

that is the point I am making. Why think the worst of people?

You tell me. Why do so many people ASSUME that a parent who doesn't send in money not care about their child? I have seen it posted in this thread and I have heard parents of the children in my classroom make the same assumptions. A nice gesture to buy a kid something yes, the right to martyrdom, I don't think so. And that's what I see in some of the posts. This idea that "Well, I bought your child something, it's so sad that your such a rotten parent, but you should be grateful that I was here to be save the day." Granted, no one has posted that blatantly but it is the impression that I get from reading some of the posts.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

You tell me. Why do so many people ASSUME that a parent who doesn't send in money not care about their child? I have seen it posted in this thread and I have heard parents of the children in my classroom make the same assumptions. A nice gesture to buy a kid something yes, the right to martyrdom, I don't think so. And that's what I see in some of the posts. This idea that "Well, I bought your child something, it's so sad that your such a rotten parent, but you should be grateful that I was here to be save the day." Granted, no one has posted that blatantly but it is the impression that I get from reading some of the posts.

as i have stated over and over - I have never/would never make that assumption...and I don't feel the majority would....bottom line: unless you know it is the case - why assume the worst????? Why overgeneralize aomething that a very few have done to the motivations of all parents....why assume the worst and get so irritated.

I am the type that when I help out - I do so quietly and without drawing attention to myself or the child - I have slipped kids at the Sant shop a few extra dollars, etc (and am quietly working to get something done so all kids can participate this year and this type of thing won't even be necessary) - so no matyrdom here...I doubt anyone even notices....and I don't bring it up later to get any pats on the back....

it would never occur to me to make those ASSUMPTIONS about irresponsibility - it usually known when a child has a parent with a RECORD of not being responsible (and I am talking BIG stuff here: no homework, no science project, and a demonstrated attitude of just not caring) ...so no assumptions are needed...I would never assume this just based on money not being sent for a fieldtrip - that would be ridiculous....

I believe most people act this same way...

I have never seen a parent take that position or do anything but help out.

 

[Blondy876]

I have never seen a parent take that position or do anything but help out.

Then we have had very different experiences.

I agree with you that it would be wonderful if people assumed only good things but that simply is not the reality. People base their assumptions on their previous experiences. I have had previous experiences with parents and students that has shown me that most often people think the worst until it is dis proven. You have obviously not encountered this, hence your different assumptions. Nothing wrong with that. What I don't understand is why you seem to think that someone feeling differently than you is wrong. It is obvious that you think disykat is wrong to feel irritated. Feelings aren't wrong or right, they just are.

 

[va32h]

Why overgeneralize aomething that a very few have done to the motivations of all parents....why assume the worst and get so irritated.

Exactly! Why assume that if parents didn't send money, they don't care about their child! Maybe they didn't realize that the zoo would have no water fountains (I would definitely assume a public zoo would have water fountains).

Maybe they didn't catch the weather report that morning, and didn't know it would be cooler/hotter later in the day which is why they did or did not have a coat. Maybe they forgot the field trip was that day. My daughter went to the planetarium on Tuesday and we had both forgotten about the trip. Thank goodness she always brings her lunch!

I posted in another thread that my children seldom wear coats unless they are actually going to be outside for a long time. To run from the house to the car to the grocery store, they are only outside for a few minutes, so a sweatshirt is plenty for us.

You wouldn't believe the dirty looks and sometimes comments I get from people. They aren't cold. They aren't complaining about being cold. It just doesn't fit with someone else's definition of what a mom should do.

 

[Becky2005]

I'm constantly surprised that parents do not even send their kid on a field trip with enough money to buy a drink!

I end up with anywhere from 3 to 5 children plus my child for each trip and every time i feel compelled to spend additional money for kids who didn't bring money. Mainly it's for small trinkets in gift shops.

I know nobody is twisting my arm to buy them anything, but I feel terrible just buying for my own child.

Bolding is mine.

Maybe this is where some of the assumptions come in, the way the OP is read...I read the bolded statement as frustration.

I know the OP said no one was twisting her arm, but I'm reading frustration into the original post. Frustration that she has to spend her money on kids whose parents didn't send in money.

How I'm reading it, is she is frustrated that she had her group and littly Suzy & Sally bought their items with their own money but then Billy didn't have any money, so the parent felt it necessary to buy Billy something so he wouldn't be left out even though it was frustrating to have to spend their money once again for another person's child.

I'm not reading it as planned on getting them something without expecting them to use their own money.

I know the water issue was a health issue & that was the school's fault (they should have told the kids to bring water bottles) and in that case I would have done the same thing without even thinking if the kids had money to get water or not. I wouldn't have even asked them if they had money, I would just have gone and gotten them water since I wouldn't want a kid collapsing on me. However, it says "Mainly for small trinkets in the gift shop", so the water was an unusual occurance it sounds like.

The other parents who don't send in money are irritated/frustrated that any parent would feel compelled to buy their child anything and then get frustrated about having to do so.

I know I would be irritated too if the permission slip said no money and then if my child came home with a trinket it would irritate me because I would feel that chaperone broke the rules of the trip basically, since technically NO child should have had money in the first place for any trinket. Since every field trip in grade school has always specifically said no money (or it's implied by where they are going), I can't even imagine dealing with the gift shop. Now, I know when my DD has gone in Middle School, they stopped at a fast food place for lunch but they told you that ahead of time & said either have them bring money or pack their lunch. She has never gone anywhere with a gift shop, that was to go see a play.

Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

Exactly! Why assume that if parents didn't send money, they don't care about their child! Maybe they didn't realize that the zoo would have no water fountains (I would definitely assume a public zoo would have water fountains).

Maybe they didn't catch the weather report that morning, and didn't know it would be cooler/hotter later in the day which is why they did or did not have a coat. Maybe they forgot the field trip was that day. My daughter went to the planetarium on Tuesday and we had both forgotten about the trip. Thank goodness she always brings her lunch!

I posted in another thread that my children seldom wear coats unless they are actually going to be outside for a long time. To run from the house to the car to the grocery store, they are only outside for a few minutes, so a sweatshirt is plenty for us.

You wouldn't believe the dirty looks and sometimes comments I get from people. They aren't cold. They aren't complaining about being cold. It just doesn't fit with someone else's definition of what a mom should do.

I have clearly stated that I don't - nor do I feel enough do to overgeneralize that to all/most.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

Becky: I might agree with OP if it was only about water, it was a real necessity that the parents should/could have possibly foreseen...but to be COMPELLED to buy trinket I don't agree with...

clearly there are some wrong attitudes and assumptions on BOTH sides...but, again, I don't think you can generalize this to most people.....

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

Then we have had very different experiences.

I agree with you that it would be wonderful if people assumed only good things but that simply is not the reality. People base their assumptions on their previous experiences. I have had previous experiences with parents and students that has shown me that most often people think the worst until it is dis proven. You have obviously not encountered this, hence your different assumptions. Nothing wrong with that. What I don't understand is why you seem to think that someone feeling differently than you is wrong. It is obvious that you think disykat is wrong to feel irritated. Feelings aren't wrong or right, they just are.

really? Is that what you tell the kids in your classroom when they act out of negetive feelings - feelings just are - go with them???

I would hope we also have brains and choice. I am sure we have all had experiences that have led us to negetive feelings and to view certain situations negetively ....I know have....but I am faced with the choice of letting that color all my dealings or refusing to generalize it to all similar situations - and I at least TRY to view each situation/person as it comes and try to view things as positvely as possible.....

disyKat did not know this person, she had no idea what their motivations were ...she CHOOSE to make the assumptions she did.... she could have chosen to assume that since she has no evidence then the person was probably just being nice - or she could have chosen to make no assumption either way because she really has no way to know....

 

[disykat]

and I at least TRY to view each situation/person as it comes and try to view things as positvely as possible.....

....

Seriously? You keep accusing me of all these horrible things for simply feeling irritated.

I feel better now that there are some people who get what I said. I was irritated, big deal. That feeling has been confirmed over and over on this thread by people saying that they have to buy kids things because their parents don't send money. My feeling that when I send my child perfectly prepared for his field trip, the parent who bought my child junk food and trinkets from the gift shop (making him one of the "haves" and other children in his room the "have nots" - a position I would rather not have in him) might have thought I sent him unprepared was quite possibly valid. Possibly not, but it was how I felt. A brief, roll my eyes, why'd she do that moment. I don't think all feelings have to be justified - they simply are.

I was simply irritated. As I've said before, people must have a very different idea of what the word irritated means than I do.

I suppose what I should do now is start talking about how you must live a really jaded, negative life to make such a negative assumptions about someone based on one emotion they experienced. I could then go on to say I'm glad my children haven't been exposed to you...etc. It's not like that would be attacking you or anything.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

Seriously? You keep accusing me of all these horrible things for simply feeling irritated.

I feel better now that there are some people who get what I said. I was irritated, big deal. That feeling has been confirmed over and over on this thread by people saying that they have to buy kids things because their parents don't send money. My feeling that when I send my child perfectly prepared for his field trip, the parent who bought my child junk food and trinkets from the gift shop (making him one of the "haves" and other children in his room the "have nots" - a position I would rather not have in him) was quite possibly valid. Possibly not, but it was how I felt. A brief, roll my eyes, why'd she do that moment.

I was simply irritated. As I've said before, people must have a very different idea of what the word irritated means than I do.

I suppose what I should do now is start talking about how you must live a really jaded, negative life to make such a negative assumptions about someone based on one emotion they experienced. I could then go on to say I'm glad my children haven't been exposed to you...etc. It's not like that would be attacking you or anything.

I don't feel attacked - because I see the error in your logic...and I obviously have a "thicker skin"...

I get that you are "simply irritated" (goodness knows you keep bringing it up over and over after I have stated I GET that!) but to reach "irritated" you had to make a negetive assumption about someone based on no evidence....something I think is wrong

I don't see where I have accused you of "horrible things" -and I did not base my assumption on no evidence - you provide that quite clearly in your owm wording and the tone of your posts, thank you! I based my comments on what you said....you are the one who continues to exaggerate things to make you point......

I'll say it again - glad you aren't my child's teacher....

 

[disykat]

Okay, you win. From now on, I will experience no emotion because it could possibly be unfounded.

Obviously I'm being sarcastic, I'm just pretty amused at this point. Actually I'm glad this continued because I'm no longer by your posts. I think you've made yourself clear.

 

[Blondy876]

really? Is that what you tell the kids in your classroom when they act out of negetive feelings - feelings just are - go with them???

No but I would never tell a child their feelings are wrong. If a child gets angry and hits a friend I wouldn't turn to the child and say "Hey, don't feel that way." I would say "I know you are angry but you may not hit to express that. Let's come up with some ideas of what you can do to express your feelings appropriately." Feelings are feelings. It's not wrong to get angry, frustrated or irritated it is the way you react to them that matters.

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

Okay, you win. From now on, I will experience no emotion because it could possibly be unfounded.

Obviously I'm being sarcastic, I'm just pretty amused at this point. Actually I'm glad this continued because I'm no longer by your posts. I think you've made yourself clear.

for someone playing the wounded previously (the whole YAGE thing in post 91) ..you new found sarcasm is itself amusing...

well, there you go exaggerating again...and putting words in my mouth in order to avoid the issues and what I am really saying.

I have beaten this horse to death trying to get you to at least CONSIDER my point (and to fend off the over-exaggerations and misconceptions you keep trying to bolster your argument with), but I see that isn't possible if you refuse to truly see what I am saying - only to to pick out those parts of my posts that "irritate you".

Every time I make a valid point - you continue to evade them by going off about "how upset I am ('though I have stated numerous times that I am not)/now replaced with how amused you are...OR you go back to the "irritated thing" (which I have also address ad nauseum in response.)...OR you over-exaggerate some other aspect to add drama and deflect.

I am glad your amused - but sorry you can't discuss the point at hand without resorting to such nonsense as insinuating I think I am an ...where everything I have stated is to show I am not trying to be a martyr or anything of the sort...just that at least I do not make the kind of negative, baseless assumptions you did. All I have said is that I think you are wrong on this and that I TRY to do better.

I am going to again be the bigger person and let this go...

 

[pansmermaidzlagoon]

No but I would never tell a child their feelings are wrong. If a child gets angry and hits a friend I wouldn't turn to the child and say "Hey, don't feel that way." I would say "I know you are angry but you may not hit to express that. Let's come up with some ideas of what you can do to express your feelings appropriately." Feelings are feelings. It's not wrong to get angry, frustrated or irritated it is the way you react to them that matters.

I agree!!!! with the addition of working to react differently the next time when those feelings are found to be baseless (unlike your example which is apples and oranges to this situation) and unnecessary - so now tell that to disykat instead of supporting her actions!