To think if teenage girls from a private school can afford plane tickets ...

[Morgansports]

.... To visit the orphanage in Africa that they have been fundraising for, then the orphanage would be better served by just receiving the money they spent on their tickets. Seriously, what actual use to the orphanage is a group of hair-flicking, ugg boot wearing blondes???

And the bit that made me laugh is that other parents at the school were asked to help fundraise for the girls' trip.

AIBU?

Oh goodness, I do seem to have upset a lot of people with my reference to the girls. Apologies, not meant as sexist at all, it's a fact. These are the girls who have gone and this description sums them up. They are not wildly hard-working, super-intelligent movers and shakers of future. They are overprivileged kids at a famous public school who want for nothing.

My thread was not motivated by jealousy - my kids are at the same school - not sure why I feel the need to say this but there we are.

I just thought it was absurd a few weeks ago to get an email from one of the wealthier girls' mothers begging for a donation towards their 'trip'. As I said before, they are not going there to dig latrines, teach, nurse or do anything remotely useful. How could they? They are SCHOOLKIDS and their sex is irrelevant.

What a huge waste of thousands of pounds. Just think of the mosquito nets, vaccinations etc this money could buy. My own kids can see this is true and when it comes to their turn to be involved in this kind of poverty tourism, I am confident they will have the moral courage to tell the organisers to piss off.

We have students in my town who are asking for people to donate so they can "Go to Africa". They haven't even specified a country, the charity aspect is mentioned as "we will do charity". If you want to go to Africa, it is perfectly reasonable to go as a tourist. I just find the whole thing patronising for some reason.

"By the time they get to 18 years old donating their time to others is pretty much part of their makeup."

This is the other thing that intensely annoys me about this sort of thing. It is a commercial enterprise behind these 'charities' and they only do their marketing in private schools and schools in well off middle class catchment areas. My DSs school used to have a charity fundraiser in to talk to them every fortnight. I objected in teh end and it stopped.

They dont fundraise in schools in poor areas of town - because they know they won't get any money or anybody signing up to the trips. It really is that cynical.

Why should kids have this high pressure marketing of 'charities' shoved at them as a captive audience in school assembly?

A poster called munty said she disagreed with all of my points. I find it hqrd to see how-?considering that they are all factually accurate. However, I've C and Ped them to make it easier for her to expand.

"All this crap about jealousy and chips on shoulders and stuff is just bullshit.

Point 1. The companies that run these trips make huge profits. They are not run by aid agencies- they are run by travel agents who have latched on to a very lucrative market. As far as I am aware, none of the international aid agencies backs these trips.

Point 2. Any work that a teenager from the developed world could do in andeveloping country could be done significantly cheaper and more effectively by a local person, who could also thereby keep his or her family, and help preserve the community.

Point 3. Yes, it might well be a life changing experience for the teenager concerned, but they could have an equally life changing experience in th local homeless shelter, where they could actually probably do some useful work, whqt with knowing how to speak English, turn on kettles and work a Hoover. I suspect very few of them will have any practical well building or bricklaying skills."

I think it is a good thing to get personally involved rather than just throw money at things. I think they would be more useful doing things at home, but it wouldn't be as glamorous or exciting. OP rather spoils her point with the mention of ugg boots and blondes.

Why should kids have this high pressure marketing of 'charities' shoved at them as a captive audience in school assembly?

This I agree with! But there are two sides to it. Children are already having charities shoved down their throats at school through Comic Relief, children in need etc, and that is part of my objection to these charities. If we are going to talk to children about charity at school, which isn't really a bad idea, than I'd prefer them to be spoken to about a school or village they have an actual link with by older students going there and being able to show evidence of the difference they have made.

To respond to Seekers points

1. I don't think all of these trips are organised in exactly the same way, so it doesn't seem right to generalise about all of them. I don't think it matters whether they are backed by international aid agencies. Charity doesn't have to be backed by a bigger and better power to make it worthwhile.

2. Yes, much of the work could be done by local people. But local people won't bring any extra enjoyment by their visit, nor will they provide any financial assistance, nor will they bring smaller and more personal donations. If these places didn't want visitors, they are free to say no. If it had no effect at all, they would have said no by now.

3. I don't think working in a homeless shelter will have quite the same effect on a teenager tbh. While it is arguably as useful to the intended beneficiaries, it's not going to be the same for the teenagers concerned, and I don't think there is any shame in wanting to help those in other countries who have less than anyone in this country will ever have. The two things are not mutually exclusive, and there is no reason why charity work can't be done both at home and abroad.

Its not hard to understand seeker I don't agree.

These companies are not all profit making companies. Especially the ones working with schools.
A local person could do the work, however that's not what the trip is for or saying. The point is not 'teenage english girls English do better'.
and its not the same as working in this country. Its literally worlds apart.

I went to Lourdes at 16 with my college and assisted disabled people all week. People who possibly would not be able to go otherwise. Of the people who went 2 still help every year and several are all heavily involved with charities due to a direct consequence of how that trip effected us all.
There is money being raise that would not otherwise have been.
These trips lead to further fund raising and these schools rely on the year round relationship with the schools here. There is year long find raising for the school they are assisting.

The only teenager I know who went on a trip like this took a load of lego with her. She spent a lot of time sitting in the dirt, playing with young children who had no idea how to play. I don't think that took a great deal of skill or expertise, but I'm absolutely sure the children got something out of the experience.

Now, in fact, that trip was arranged privately, through a personal contact, and was not of the type described in the OP. But it is an example of how totally unskilled western teenagers can do some good.

(She also cleaned a lot of loos!)

They are not wildly hard-working, super-intelligent movers and shakers of future. They are overprivileged kids at a famous public school who want for nothing.

OP if you can mot see how awful your comments are then I feel sorry for you. You have written these girls off from what information?

If some wrote "these girls won't amount to anything as they are chavy and come from a council estate' there would be, rightly so, uproar.

But its ok to derogatory things about these kids, because of their background.

I have to admit that I am not a fan of this type of trip and I generally don't donate towards them whereas I do donate towards established charities working in Africa.
I used to live in Africa and helped in a local school for many years and saw a lot of misjudged charitable endeavours.

Where I lived the local population were very polite and would agree and say thank you to any offer of help even if it was misplaced. For example, the school had a stocked library that was donated by Westeners but it never used. It would have been much better to fund a teacher for several years than build a library but I don't think that 'sounds' as good to the people who donated it.
It should do no harm for the school kids to visit and it is great if they can do something worthwhile, however I don't want to help fund them. The same goes for any expensive sponsored activity.

For example, the school had a stocked library that was donated by Westeners but it never used. It would have been much better to fund a teacher for several years than build a library but I don't think that 'sounds' as good to the people who donated it.

Examples like this are a big problem ime, for charities at home and abroad. The charity I work with can find grants for major pieces of equipment relatively easily, but try to get donations from organisations to fund boring things like equipment servicing, or insurance, or volunteers expenses, or even things that are directly helping the charities beneficiaries, and it's like trying to get blood out of a stone. If a charity needs something that can have a nice shiny 'Donated by' plaque put on it, then there is plenty of money available.

Young people in this country do have a worthwhile part to play in building/improving schools in Africa.

The Victoria Climbie story is very interesting. She came to this country (and her shocking death) because there were wasn't a school in her village.

Now there is, thanks to fundraising, perseverance and hard graft from outraged ordinary people here - not from existing charities or NGOs.

the boys at the private school I work at raised funds through various events to go to Tanzania, climb Kili and renovate an orphanage. Yes, they got something out of it - is that so awful? No-one was forced at gunpoint to sponsor them, they worked extremely hard, had a life-changing experience and took the money directly to the orphanage themselves where they also used their own hands and skills to build, paint, clean etc and interacted with the children at the orphanage. To say that the orphanage gets nothing out of it is ridiculous. An ex teacher at the school lived in the town there for several years and set up a specific charity to raise funds for the orphanage and the street kids in the area. He runs events and take the funds himself. They also have quite shiny blonde hair - is that ok?

YABU

Half the girls in our local comp school are hollister wearing, hair-flicking, ugg booted size 4 blondes, it's the trend as is van wearing lads.

Would you have a problem if the state school were going?

Just sounds bitter and nasty to me to be honest, at least they are doing something, seeing new things and gaining an experience?

The second level of cynicism I have is that the private schools themselves are under pressure from the Charity Commission to prove that they deserve their charitable status.

Private schools were panic stricken when this new rule came in and they were sitting ducks for charity fund raising organisations that knew they could always use the implied threat that a private school could face a complaint if it refused to let charities in.

The private schools effectively just abicated responsibility for their pupils and allowed 'charity' marketers to walk into assembly and do presentations. A lot of parents were privately not happy but the schools presented it as 'educational' and 'for a good cause' so any parent who formally complained was being unreasonable. The children were of course excited by the prospect of a trip abroad and that just piled on the 'pester power' like selling sweets at the supermarket checkout. It has slackened off a bit now but in the early days it was just blackmail pure and simple.

Private schools saw it as a quick and easy way to meet their 'charitable objectives' by having their pupils do fund raising and go on trips like this. The effort the school puts in is minimal, Headteachers didn't care as long as they could just hand the entire thing over to the organisation running the trip - which is just a travel agency as seeker says.

Not only private schools do this. I know one girl who did this through the church and she was digging wells and helping in the hospital. When she returned she threw herself into charity fundraising.

I'm not so sure when its just a photo-op for the well-heeled to show their 'social credentials'. Why not just volunteer at a local salvation army or visit sick children in a hospice, or run for charity?

Some of these girls/boys will walk away with only 'OMGGG! They are so, like, poor? And they have absolutely no money at allll. They can't even pay school fees for their children? Daddy says, blah blah blah...'

Private schools cannot become registered charities just by allowing people from other registered charities to come in and talk to the students. That is bollocks.

If a charity wants to be a charity, it has to prove there is public benefit. This aim will not be met by piggy backing on what other registered charities already do. Private schools have to give bursaries if they want charity status.

Schools having charity status is very different from the schools PTA, Parents Association, The Friends of X School, having charity status.

They are not all like that though. State schools do do such trips.

Which is better? Doing one of these trips even if commercially run, and some money going to a worthwhile project, and the kids seeing first hand how other people live. Or the kids paying a similar amount to go on a skiing trip or on Safari, with no contact with the local people or any real benefit.

It is similar to Gap years, even the commercially organised volunteering may well be better than just "modern grand tour" so many do. A bit of unselfishness is probably better long term than none.

Outraged - I know. I am talking about centuries long established private schools that were already well established charities. They suddenly came under pressure to 'prove' they were providing a public benefit above and beyond traditional education.

There is a charming level of naivety on this thread.

And the usual extraordinary ability to focus on one irrelevant of the OP to the exclusion of the meat of the subject.

Oh, and the usual "every woman her own expert". No matter what people who actually know about foreign aid say- everyone's opinion is just as valid. Even if based on ignorance.

What are you on about Seeker?

'digging wells in 'Africa'' is not the solution-dont have time to find links, but;

are the wells in the area balanced? does each deliver the demand that is needed but not so much as to deprive the others. Is the water table being depleted so that crops are harder to grow? salinity? will the well provide in the dry season as well as the wet?

who will maintain the pump? do they have the necessary skills and knowledge? where will they get spare parts? who will pay for parts and labour? is the well protected? who can use the well? what purpose is the water to be used for? 'ownership' is very very very important

these considerations are so often not taken into account. most wells are defunct within 1-2 years (i think that is the time scale)

i agree with seeker except I find it increasingly less charming

LOL at mount kilimanjaro comment!!!!

I have no idea why when it comes to developing countries westerners think we are such fucking experts, building schools? would we build a school in the UK, err no
teaching, ditto

yet its OK to send pissed up students to "help" Brazilian orphans

give the money to people who KNOW what they are doing, and go to Greece or Spain and boost their economy in a less patronising fashion I say