Can we get MCPS to allow fundraising for staff positions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Weller Road is Title 1. It already has extra teachers.

No fair that those poor kids get smaller class sizes! Poor kids get all the good stuff!

Nobody said that. Literally NOT ONE PERSON ON THIS THREAD. I'm arguing we should be able to use *our own money* *in addition to our taxes* to get aides in the classroom. With a smile on my face, I will happily subsidize extra teachers at Title 1 / Focus schools. I would chip in for more for those schools if I was allowed to hire an aide for my kid's class. But instead, since I can't, I'm going to scrimp and save and send her to some private school as soon as I have enough $ to do it.
I am NOT alone.

Yes, you are arguing that you should be able to use your own money to buy your child a better education. If you want to do that, then you should do it, if you can -- in a private school. That is exactly what private schools exist for.

Well, that's a very reasonable response. But you aren't in a bind in terms of schools -- your local Bethesda school is FINE. Believe me, it's fine.



Well, since your view is the one that prevails in MCPS, that's what will happen. No flexibility whatsoever and a piss-poor public option. Yes, more people will go private. And in order to do that, we will have to move, because we cannot afford to live in this area and also pay for private. Since that financial status applies to most people in our area, expect to see that happen a lot.

You could move to Silver Spring! It's great over here.

No I can't.

Why not? If you have to move to pay for private, why not move to SS? It's really nice here. In fact, I live here even though I could live in Bethesda/CC etc. And your smaller mortgage paymenet could allow you to pay for private.

Because I can't just find a home that accommodates a wheelchair bound older person I care for. Moving anywhere is going to be a huge ordeal for us, for our particular reasons. We are very much in a bind. And my mortgage in my Bethesda home (because of where it is and how small it is) is probably not more than yours in SS. I have nothing against SS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since everyone ignored my ballot initiative suggestion, I'll make another practical suggestion to try to find a solution that improves all the schools:
How about a rule that says parents can contribute to fund aides for their school, but some portion (50%?) of what they fundraise will go into a pot to fund aides county wide. That's essentially what catholic churches do--some portion of what the parishioners donate to tE church is given to the diocese for re-distribution to churches that aren't raising enough to cover their needs. Wouldn't this kind of rule have something for everyone?

That seems like an idea everyone can get behind. I'd favor it!

In terms of action, I hope that everyone who supports the idea of permitting parents to contribute to the funding of aide positions in the classroom will reach out to a BOE member sometime this month. Let's do that individually to at least get the ball rolling and build some momentum. I particularly like the idea above (where there is a 50% allocation to the local school and 50% to a county pot). Let's do this. We don't have to just accept this current rule as set in stone. Even though this is such a massive school district, I'm hoping that at least it's possible to attempt to make a change.

[Anonymous]

Never gonna happen. Too many embedded interests, including the most powerful - the actual faculty and staff of MCPS. A vocal minority of DCUM screamers from BCC/Potomac isn't going to change it.

[Anonymous]

Since everyone ignored my ballot initiative suggestion, I'll make another practical suggestion to try to find a solution that improves all the schools:
How about a rule that says parents can contribute to fund aides for their school, but some portion (50%?) of what they fundraise will go into a pot to fund aides county wide. That's essentially what catholic churches do--some portion of what the parishioners donate to tE church is given to the diocese for re-distribution to churches that aren't raising enough to cover their needs. Wouldn't this kind of rule have something for everyone?

I would vote for this compromise!

The only thing that I would be careful about is that by giving MCPS 50% to distribute then this becomes part of their money and how do we make sure that they spend it on aides not something else? There needs to be a fund set up that only allows this money to be spent on aides and not be diverted to the central office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Never gonna happen. Too many embedded interests, including the most powerful - the actual faculty and staff of MCPS. A vocal minority of DCUM screamers from BCC/Potomac isn't going to change it.

I confess I may be naive, but why would the faculty and staff of MCPS oppose this? If I were a teacher, I would very much want an aide in the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never gonna happen. Too many embedded interests, including the most powerful - the actual faculty and staff of MCPS. A vocal minority of DCUM screamers from BCC/Potomac isn't going to change it.

I confess I may be naive, but why would the faculty and staff of MCPS oppose this? If I were a teacher, I would very much want an aide in the classroom.

If it's true that the faculty and staff of MCPS would oppose this, then it does not reflect well on them. The school system is for the benefit of the kids, not for the benefit of the employees. I"m open to hearing what legitimate opposition they would have to the 50/50 model of donation-sharing described above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If it's true that the faculty and staff of MCPS would oppose this, then it does not reflect well on them. The school system is for the benefit of the kids, not for the benefit of the employees. I"m open to hearing what legitimate opposition they would have to the 50/50 model of donation-sharing described above.

You've heard it here already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never gonna happen. Too many embedded interests, including the most powerful - the actual faculty and staff of MCPS. A vocal minority of DCUM screamers from BCC/Potomac isn't going to change it.

I confess I may be naive, but why would the faculty and staff of MCPS oppose this? If I were a teacher, I would very much want an aide in the classroom.

If it's true that the faculty and staff of MCPS would oppose this, then it does not reflect well on them. The school system is for the benefit of the kids, not for the benefit of the employees. I"m open to hearing what legitimate opposition they would have to the 50/50 model of donation-sharing described above.

It's *probably* true that it wouldn't work. And maybe the teachers union would oppose it. But maybe not. If you only try to change things that seem easy to change, then nothing ever changes. Always going to be difficult, and always going to be naysayers. Worst that happens is status quo, so why not try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before I had finished reading this topic, I had guessed you were in Bethesda. By allowing the PTA or other fundraiser to pay for staff positions just creates more inequity in the schools. So the rich schools would be able to afford to get another staff position and the not so rich schools would not be able to afford it.

There is no chance of changing this. To be born or live in Bethesda already allows great privilege that other places do not have. If you are not getting what you want out our your Bethesda school, you can go private or homeschool.

What an attitude. Not everyone in Bethesda has either of those options. So you are saying, rather than letting one group of kids get some extra support, let's let all the kids flounder equally. This is why our kids will all be working for the Chinese one day. Let's all drown together rather than saving those we can. Yay!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I find this silly. WE DON'T HAVE A REAL PUBLIC SOLUTION! I'd love it if we did, but we don't. I advocate for it, and won't stop advocating for it, but we don't have it. WE could have a private/public solution in the interim, but we can't do that because "it's not fair". WHAT? It reminds me of the Vonnegut story, Harrison Bergeron. Is the fear that if the schools with rich parents get better, then the rich parents will stop trying to make the system as a whole better? I feel like we could solve that problem. Like, if you want to raise funds for extra aides/teachers at your school, you have to raise matching funds that go into the system as a whole. So, Bannockburn PTA can put $100k toward two new teachers' aides, but they have to put $100k in matching funds into the general fund.
Otherwise, you know what's going to happen over time? The rich Whitman parents will gradually move more kids to private. Because the class sizes aren't going to support the reputation of "good schools" for much longer.

That's not the reason, but yes, actually, if rich parents can buy more teachers for their children's schools, then they will have much less incentive to advocate for more teachers for other children's schools. After all, more teachers for other children's schools won't benefit their children, right?

And please remember -- you can put $100,000 towards any number of things in your children's schools. The ONLY thing you can't do with the $100,000 is buy more teachers.

Yes, I know we can put money toward other things. But nothing compensates for the class sizes, which suck. Having after school activities or an artist in residence is nice, but it's so marginal compared to the fact that my kid's teacher still doesn't have any idea how she learns and has no relationship with her. Believe it or not, there are "at risk" kids in these schools too, and if you just have too many kids with one teacher, then lots of kids get ignored.

Well put.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess the costs would be higher. It is not just the xx,000 in the teacher's salary. It is the healthcare costs. pension contributions, training, HR costs etc that all need to be included if MoCo is to come out even in the deal.

Here's the thing. Teachers get promoted to central office. Let's declare an emergency and call them back to classrooms. Plus this will cut the size of the bureaucracy. Everyone wins. No more expense.