school supplies!

"Michelle J. Haines" wrote:

My kindergartener was expected to bring (I am not kidding):
3 boxes of kleenex
8 glue sticks
3 boxes of crayons
1 pair of scissors
2 boxes of markers
2 boxes of pencils
6 folders in specified colors
1 full sized backpack
1 pair of shoes to be left at school

We were informed that NONE of these were to be marked with her name
except her backpack and shoes, because ALL of them are to be taken away
from the students and go into a common pool to be shared as needed.

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely absurd overkill. This isn't me
supplying my child with school supplies, this is me supplies at least
2-3 children with school supplies, under some socialist "not all
children can supply themselves, so the other parents must do it"
mentality. Also, I can...sort of...live with her confiscating glue
sticks and crayons and sharing those out as needed. But scissors? and
folders? We labeled her scissors and folders anyway, and her teacher
reportedly said "Oh, you're not allowed to share your scissors?" because
I sent a note saying I labeled on -durable- supplies, but disposable
ones she was free to share. Even my in-law's, who teach school, and my
friend who teaches preschool and her husband who is a teacher was
totally blown away by the absurdity of that school supply list.

My older children's lists were slightly less ridiculous, but both of
them had half of their paper supplies confiscated to go into the "common
pool for when people run out." Gee, I thought when you run out, it was
YOUR OWN responsibility to BUY MORE. Good grief.

When my dh was teaching HS, he had to give the kids a point for each
day that they had brought a pencil and paper to class. When I was
teaching middle school, I had to have a supply of pencils to lend to
kids who are without. In some cases, it was because their home
situations were such that they didn't have the ability to supply their
own paper and pencils.

And in some cases it was lack of organization (In middle school I lost
8 Esterbrook pens in one year and I found out not too long ago that my
sister had similar problems-that was when we really had ink pens and
not ball points), and in some cases it was indifference. But you
cannot reasonably expect kids who have not got the tools they need to
just sit there while you instruct the other ones. So you do what
you can (as a teacher) to see that they all have what they need to do
the work.

A lot of the overkill may be because there are people who do not or
can not supply their own stuff. We always had to build into field
trips a certain amount of extra so that the very poorest kids could
still go.

I did supply my own Kleenex, but then I wasn't teaching sniffly 5 year
olds. And glue sticks (from experience) don't last very well once
they are opened. At one point money was so short, that we teachers
were buying our own mimeograph paper because each teacher was allotted
only so much paper. I didn't have textbooks to give out to my class
(because of the curriculum mostly), so I did a lot of hand-out
material. Fortunately, dh was employed and with two salaries I was
able to fill in the gaps.

Rosalie B. wrote:
Penny Gaines wrote:
[snip]
Over here, you pay tax when buying a house, but it has nothing to do
with property taxes going to the local council, it goes to the main
government. Property taxes are charged completely seperately. I can
completely understand that Anne's dh might not have realised that this
bill didn't need to be paid.

Yes I understand that there are differences. That doesn't excuse not
asking the necessary questions so that you understand what all the
numbers mean. It is a big purchase and involves a lot of money. It
isn't at all similar to not knowing that you need 24 Crayola crayons.

This isn't even a case of two cultures being divided by a common
language. The math(s) are the same regardless.

Well, no, it is a cultural difference. It is a need for Anne's husband
to have realised that this bill from this organiszation related to that
money he paid to that organization earlier, and that therefore he isn't
responsible for doing anything with the bill.

It's not just understanding the sums, it is also remembering some time
later what these unfamiliar terms were about.

--
Penny Gaines
UK mum to three

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:42:59 -0700, Anne Rogers
wrote:

If you want to get stressed, I have a good recipe...

...try to get school supplies on the evening before school starts!

Our local schools just started a service where you can pay and sign up
and have the school buy all the supplies. Works wonders here.

The supplies are in the classrooms and the kids unpack them with the
teachers on the first day.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

They didn't discuss escrow with you when you obtained your mortgage?

I can see how one spouse would not remember, but it sounds like you both weren't
clear on it.

I think the problem is, so many things were discussed that it's entirely
possible that it was said and forgotten, but I'm about 95% sure that
this wasn't said, as I did have the vague idea in advance, but then
don't remember anything confirming it at the time. I think a lot of
things were gone over extreemly quickly as we ended up having a last
minute crisis on the mortgage caused by an error in the person
preapproving us, so there was a lot for everyone to deal with at the
last minute and less time to go through finer details.

We were given a book called "Hello USA" that did provide plenty of
useful info, there are silly things like utilities, that are paid for in
a different way, like water being metered and having to pay for trash
collection.

Different names for things can also make thing hard to find out, in the
UK there is a difference in what kind of mortage you can get if you have
10% to put down as a deposit rather than less than that. We asked many
many people if there was such a number in the US, but we must have been
using the words, it was only later on that someone said we'd have been
able to get something better had we put down 20% - had we known that we
would have made different plans and put down that or more, as it was,
not knowing this important figure, despite asking multiple people and
trying to do our own research, we chose not to sell our house in the UK
and rent it out thus meaning we were scraping the barrell to get money
for a deposit and did not have 20%. Had we not asked, there would have
been some excuse, perhaps it's one of those things that anyone who'd
spent any time in the US would know, but we asked, many times, we asked
our realtor, two mortage advisors, our relocation specialist and many
other people all who said, just put down as much as you can - which is
way too simplistic, it might not be for some people, but even when we
explained that we had to make some choices still no one told us this
number - yet after we'd been here a few weeks, it was obvious it must be
an important one, as every advert for mortgages we heard on the radio
had the fast talk, equivalent to small print saying loan about 80% of
value....

Cheers
Anne

Anne Rogers wrote:

They didn't discuss escrow with you when you obtained your mortgage?

I can see how one spouse would not remember, but it sounds like you
both weren't
clear on it.

I think the problem is, so many things were discussed that it's entirely
possible that it was said and forgotten, but I'm about 95% sure that
this wasn't said, as I did have the vague idea in advance, but then
don't remember anything confirming it at the time. I think a lot of
things were gone over extreemly quickly as we ended up having a last
minute crisis on the mortgage caused by an error in the person
preapproving us, so there was a lot for everyone to deal with at the
last minute and less time to go through finer details.

We were given a book called "Hello USA" that did provide plenty of
useful info, there are silly things like utilities, that are paid for in
a different way, like water being metered and having to pay for trash
collection.

Different names for things can also make thing hard to find out, in the
UK there is a difference in what kind of mortage you can get if you have
10% to put down as a deposit rather than less than that. We asked many
many people if there was such a number in the US, but we must have been
using the words, it was only later on that someone said we'd have been
able to get something better had we put down 20% - had we known that we
would have made different plans and put down that or more, as it was,
not knowing this important figure, despite asking multiple people and
trying to do our own research, we chose not to sell our house in the UK
and rent it out thus meaning we were scraping the barrell to get money
for a deposit and did not have 20%. Had we not asked, there would have
been some excuse, perhaps it's one of those things that anyone who'd
spent any time in the US would know, but we asked, many times, we asked
our realtor, two mortage advisors, our relocation specialist and many
other people all who said, just put down as much as you can - which is
way too simplistic, it might not be for some people, but even when we
explained that we had to make some choices still no one told us this
number - yet after we'd been here a few weeks, it was obvious it must be
an important one, as every advert for mortgages we heard on the radio
had the fast talk, equivalent to small print saying loan about 80% of
value....


A different type of mortgage? Or do you mean that if you put down at
least 20% you don't have to pay private mortgage insurance (PMI)? If
nobody told you about the PMI, that's truly astounding.


Clisby



Cheers
Anne

"Clisby" wrote in message
m...
A different type of mortgage? Or do you mean that if you put down at
least 20% you don't have to pay private mortgage insurance (PMI)? If
nobody told you about the PMI, that's truly astounding.

I do think it's possible that when something is widely known, everyone
assumes that everyone else knows it. So when Anne asks about a different
mortgage when she means saving on PMI, no one knows what type of different
mortgage she's talking about. No one would even think she's asking about
something so widely known, they must think she's asking about something very
obscure, especially if she's specifically asking about a *different*
mortgage. She's not even aware of what to call this thing doesn't know
exist. It's easy for me to see her difficulty. I'm not sure why everyone
is giving her a hard time.

Anne Rogers wrote:

I don't know how they will run the wipes system, whether each child
will have to find their own or whether they will just use the packets in
sequence until they are done and if they are doing that, why can they
not just buy more of what they are already buying and up our fees by
however many cents that costs? They give us 10 dollars a month discount
for having 2 kids there, I'd rather not discount that 10 dollars and not
have had to buy baby wipes!

Usually they pool the things like wipes and tissues and
hand sanitizer and such. I've heard a gazillion people say they
wish the school would just buy the supplies and bill the parents
if necessary, but I think that must not be the prevailing
attitude. As I said, I'm shocked every year that most of the
parents don't take advantage of the PTA sponsored class supplies
kits, and given the demographics of the school, cost is definitely
not the leading explanation for why people don't go for it.
I don't know what the reason is, but it's clear that when given
the opportunity most of the people here don't choose to pony
up the money and have someone else provide the supplies.

Best wishes,
Ericka

If you didn't understand it,you should have asked. It isn't necessary
to blame this on 'things that are assumed'. You ask and keep on
asking until you understand everything. Don't let them fob you off
with some wonky explanation.

But the problem was DH didn't even know to ask, as far as he was
concered, he'd received a bill, it had a due date and he paid it by the
due date. It's all very well saying ask, but it wouldn't have even
occurred to him to ask because why would he think that there was some
other bizarre way of paying the bill that would happen automatically.

Because it isn't for information only. At least check with the bank.
Weren't there also insurance, electric and other utility bills being
dealt with at the closing.

Which is precisely the problem, yes, all bills were dealt with at
closing, but all except the tax from that point on would be paid
directly by us. Later when we pulled out all the paperwork to look
through and see if it was clear whether tax was being with the mortgage
and it wasn't crystal clear. It may well have been if that had been the
only thing we were dealing with at the time, but it wasn't, we weren't
simply buying a house, but we'd moved continents, DH was starting a new
job something that if it was the only complicated thing you were dealing
with that had some vague familiarity to it is a lot easier than dealing
with that and everything else, when it's completely unfamiliar. Buying a
house in the US is completely different every step of the way to buying
a house in the UK and I don't think any of the people that we were
working with fully appreciated that, they had no difficulty
communicating with us, so I don't think realised that they needed to
explain things as carefully and as clearly as they might someone who
spoke a different language. For example, it was assumed we knew what
Escrow was, we didn't, we asked and found out, dealing with bills at
escrow seemed a good idea, as we'd had problems with that in the UK,
where there is nothing formalised about it, the new owner generally
rings the utilities and says we are moving in on such and such a day,
please terminate the contract of the previous owner, then when you move
in you do all the meter readings and call up with them, which is both
complicated and unreliable and the previous owner of our house didn't
pay the bills and we had bailiffs coming round looking for him. So we
thought we understood what was going on and had to provide details about
lots of things, it really wasn't clear that one of those lots of things
, the tax was tagged on to the homeloan and continually paid via escrow.

The whole process was a bit like trying to understand an advanced class
having not sat the basic ones, you ask questions and you think you
understand the answers, but later you realise that the way you
constructed the question the person was answering a different thing and
what you thought they meant by the answer actually meant something
different.

So, if that bill wasn't "for information only", then do the tax people
have no idea where the payment is coming from? if so, are we then
expected to forward the bill to the relevant people, or are the tax
people sending one to us and one to them? if so, ours is "for
information only", yes we need that information, but a bill with nothing
else mentioned on it is a bill that needs paying. It's a bit like when
we get a bill from the hospital, but they've also sent it to our
insurance, it's quite clearly stamped on it that it's for our
information only, if it wasn't, then we'd have to call up the hospital
to find out if they had actually sent it to our insurance or lost the
details, or if we were expected to forward it to our insurance, I'm not
quite sure this particular hospital sends a copy to the patient as no
other office/clinic we've used does, but at least they don't give us a
fright by not saying anything on the bill that implies we're not
expected to pay it. I'd be surprised if the tax payment system is such
that the tax receivers have no idea who the payment is coming from, only
send the bill to the homeowner and then randomly receive payment on
their behalf from escrow, if that's the case then it is reasonable to
say nothing extra on the bill, though I'd be surprised if that was how
it worked, on the other hand, if they are expecting to receive payment
via escrow and they are sending out two bills then one should be marked
in some way, it's not reasonable for anyone in the position of sending
out bills to send out multiple copies without indicating which one they
are expecting to receive payment from and which is just so everyone
knows what is going on - then if we knew we'd paid off the mortage and
no longer had the escrow account, the bill that we received for our
information, we'd know we had to do something about it, similarly if we
got one that had gone into arrears, we'd know we had to call the escrow
company and work out what had gone wrong etc.

For us it really has been a big problem that we apparently speak the
same language, but when you to anything technical, it really isn't the
same language, no tax in the US is called the same name in the UK and
there are even some which have the same name, but are different things.
Same with cars, there are very few parts of cars, or things surrounding
them that have the same names, so it can be hard work to figure
everything out - so it's hardly surprising that from time to time we get
it wrong - all the small things that others have mentioned not knowing
because it was their first child at that school, or whatever, happens to
us or whatever in every walk of life and just as the school didn't think
to mention, or informed in a way that wasn't necessarily obvious to the
newcomer happens all the time, very few websites have glossaries and
they are often the main source of information and put there by the
officials.

Here's one example, I didn't know until recently that you needed to
carry your drivers license whilst driving, the Washington State Drivers
Guide said you needed to license to drive - which to me meant have
obtained your license, it be still valid and what not, not that it was
in your pocket whilst you were driving. The crime of driving without a
license, to me meant driving without having a license at all, not
driving without it upon your person. When I found this out, I scoured
the driver licensing website and found no mention of it, only the above,
which as I've already explained I read differently - and is a valid way
of reading it according to a US dictionary. It took ages to find
confirmation of this, eventually I found evidence that is the case by
finding a tiny bit of information deep in the transcripts of debate at
state senate about different fines for driving without a license based
on whether you actually owned one and could produce it later, or whether
you really didn't have one - so even in finding out about a law of the
state there is no clear expression of what it is, there is some
statement of the law that is more formal than the drivers guide, but it
says something that techincally is equally ambiguous, but by someone in
the know would be read one way and for someone coming from a country
where you don't have to carry your license, but do have to have one to
drive, would be read as just that.

Cheers
Anne

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
. ..
Anne Rogers wrote:

I don't know how they will run the wipes system, whether each child
will have to find their own or whether they will just use the packets in
sequence until they are done and if they are doing that, why can they not
just buy more of what they are already buying and up our fees by however
many cents that costs? They give us 10 dollars a month discount for
having 2 kids there, I'd rather not discount that 10 dollars and not have
had to buy baby wipes!

Usually they pool the things like wipes and tissues and
hand sanitizer and such. I've heard a gazillion people say they
wish the school would just buy the supplies and bill the parents
if necessary, but I think that must not be the prevailing
attitude. As I said, I'm shocked every year that most of the
parents don't take advantage of the PTA sponsored class supplies
kits, and given the demographics of the school, cost is definitely
not the leading explanation for why people don't go for it.
I don't know what the reason is, but it's clear that when given
the opportunity most of the people here don't choose to pony
up the money and have someone else provide the supplies.

I don't think I'd buy the kits, either, because I like to shop and buy the
particular eraser that I like or scissors or whatnot.

"toypup" wrote in message
news


"Clisby" wrote in message
m...
A different type of mortgage? Or do you mean that if you put down at
least 20% you don't have to pay private mortgage insurance (PMI)? If
nobody told you about the PMI, that's truly astounding.

I do think it's possible that when something is widely known, everyone
assumes that everyone else knows it. So when Anne asks about a different
mortgage when she means saving on PMI, no one knows what type of different
mortgage she's talking about. No one would even think she's asking about
something so widely known, they must think she's asking about something
very obscure, especially if she's specifically asking about a *different*
mortgage. She's not even aware of what to call this thing doesn't know
exist. It's easy for me to see her difficulty. I'm not sure why everyone
is giving her a hard time.
Maybe on the other side I remember seeing an American student opening a bank
account in England. It took nearly half an hour for the harassed cashier to
persuade them that, no they didn't have to pay, on the contrary the bank
gave them £40 for opening a student account. At then end the student said
"It can't be very good if you have to pay me for it" not knowing that it was
standard for banks to entice students in that way. On the way out we saw
that he was clutching a freshers guide which started by listing the
different enducements the banks gave.
Something that is standardly known in one place, may be confusing for
someone from elsewhere.
Debbie