My kids are in P2 all the kids in their school have been sent home with a tube of smarties and a note to eat the sweets, then fill the tube with 20p's and bring them back to school.

Two things about this have wound me up a little bit. I measured the tube last night, and worked out that it will hold around 60 x 20p's. So in effect the school are asking for £12 from each kid, that's affordable for me, but I think it is a bit insensitive where there are other families who would not have a lot of disposable income - plenty of kids in their school on means tested free school meals.

The other part of this which I find odd, is that the school intend to buy a defibrillator with the money raised. Surely if a school needs a defibrillator as an item of emergency first aid equipment, the education authority should supply this, and cover its maintenance costs. From another point of view, I don't recall any kid having any form of cardiac episode when I was at school, where there were 400 kids in my primary school and 1200 in my secondary school.

I would rather see the same funds spent on sporting equipment or something which gets my kids outdoors and aids their development than resus equipment. In doing a bit of research on this, there is a government document which recommends this kit to schools and has negotiated a supply and maint contract with an NHS approved supplier.

Does anyone else think this seems a bit odd for a school fund raising plan, or am I the odd one here?

 

Now when your in N.I. you should know the government/police and every other bureaucratic organisation is so corrupt it would make your toes curl

 

maybe the defib is for the teachers.....

If they need a defib really they should get one from the EA like you say or alternatively speak to local businesses who will probably put towards donating one to them.

 

I think it's strange that a school would hand out sweets after all the stuff about kids not eating healthy diets.

 

Yes, this sort of fund raising does not sit well with me tbh, puts a lot of pressure on parents

Our local primary, which is fantastic, needed some work done on its swimming pool (it only a little thing, but the kids love it)

The school said they would match any money the parents raised - with the council matching the total

My wife with another parent set about organising a village 10k run, in its first year it raised about 5k - and crucially from people outside the village, so not just a village money go round

That was over 6 years ago - it has been run as an event every year since then and now forms part of the village calendar, and also for local runners

The headteacher announced in the Xmas assembly last year (touting for volunteers for the 2016 event) that in the 6 years it as been going it has raised over 50k for the school

The problem is, as ever, it is the same parents that do 95% of the work

 

+1

My lad rarely get's any sweets and if he does it's usually just a bit of chocolate, yet every so often the school sends him home with a bag of crap, fortunately he doesn't eat any of it as it's usually way too sweet for him, he even forgets it's there and myself or his mother finds it in his bag.

It baffles me in this day and age why anyone would give a growing child a bag full of sugar coated chemicals, and don't get me started on fizzy pop.

As for the OP the "recommended" supplier / company is probably owned by or has something to do with the people that came up with the idea in the first place.

P.S when I was about 14/15 a promising young footballer died of some sort of heart attack on the football pitch, he was a year or so younger than me, so it does happen, but turned out he had some sort of rare condition, don't remember the exact details as it was quite a long time ago.

 

In my opinion, any sort of voluntary donation, if imposed upon, by any body whatsoever, is a malpractice. It's not about one's capacity to donate, it's about the principle of it. Let any thing voluntary be voluntary, not implicitly compulsory by some manipulation. In OP's example, parents should object on such practices and boycott them. Wealthy parents should pioneer this boycott; some of them are only on PTA to have some power, control and standing in their immediate society, and their PTA membership will get their precious children some extra priviledges in school. They are the usual suspects that hail such 'creative' proposals' such as that Smarties stupid tube, for their unethical imposement.

On a slightly different note, we have one going for the organ donation in Wales. They have it well thought for implementation. They're not imposing, but they are going to take advantage of you not making up your mind or simply forgetting to opt out. What they're saying is that if you don't opt out, they'll automatically assume that you'd be fine with passing your kidney, eyeball, fingers, heart etc. to the needy after your death. That's if such organs are in good condition. Peronally, I'm fine for my organs donation if anyone requires any of them after my demise. As I say, it's a different note, but I'm totally against putting any cash note in any smartie tube under some sly pressure.

 

Apparently a defibrillator is classed as "good practice" if you have one...so ticks another OFSTED box

 

Sounds about right.
I don't suppose you get points for knowing how to spell it or what it is used for & how it works .....................you know stuff that might be useful in the real world.

 

Any school that HAS one has to have at least TWO fully trained staff, (in case one is absent) and all will have been shown how to use it in an emergency. Just as all school staff have basic first aid training these days.