Janney PTA raised $1.4 million in one year

[Anonymous]

I've observed DC politics for over two decades, and there is a persistent theme that I'll call "DC Exceptionalism." It's the opposite of American Exceptionalism, it's the belief that things that work in other places can't work in DC because, well, thing are different here.

If you look at the list of income by state, not only does DC have higher per-capita income than Massachusetts, it has higher per-capita income than every one of the fifty states. We're number one. Yet somehow forty-six states that are poorer than us manage to turn out kids with higher SAT scores. Only Louisiana, Maine, Alabama and West Virginia have lower scores. And somehow, people cling to the belief that the reason is that our city is poor. Our city isn't poor. We have lots of poor people, but we have lots of rich people too. Overall, we're the richest jurisdiction in the country.

I suspect this happens because DC is the first place that these people have lived in close proximity to poor folks, and therefore think DC is somehow exception in having poor people.

I mean, I can see how it happens. You spend your whole life in Shaker Heights or Bloomfield Hills, only coming into the city for baseball games, and you are never really forced to deal with poor people. Because DC is more compact, suddenly these folks are shocked to find poverty existing alongside ludicrous wealth, and they think DC is somehow special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

These PTAs absolutely do this. Many schools collect books at book fairs to help fill shelves in poorer parts of the city and coat drives to fill sister-school requests. There are organizations who's sole purpose is to make the connection between rich and poor PTOs and many of these school participate in this.

Lafayette, for example, has an entire program called Lafayette Gives back, sponsored by the HSA, whose sole purpose is to give, and to teach kids to give, to others. This includes packing backpacks for foster kids, making care packages for first-responders and collecting baby carriers for refugees.

Do you not see how forcing poor kids to rely on the noblesse oblige of the .01% is an enormously fucked up way to fund basic social services such as education?

Huh? People have spent the last 4 pages complaining that rich PTAs should help poor schools. Now, when it comes to light that they do, in fact, help poorer school, it's fucked up? No one is relying on anything or forcing anyone to do anything.

Poor school kids get often X2 the funding as rich school kids.

No, the rich PTAs should help ALL kids. The money should go in a pot and be distributed equally to public schools in the city (not charters). What I object to is using poor (Black and Latino) kids as a "lesson" for rich kids. The poor don't exist to teach a lesson to rich kids, and using them as character building is grotesque. Just fund the schools. Barring that, pool the PTA funds.

No, you're wrong. SO wrong.

Taxes are already about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. We've all agree that it can happen, we dispute how much.

Now you want to impose a new penalty because wealthy parents continue to want to care for their children. Guess what? Even lesser-evolved animals still want to care for their children. You don't get to penalize human parents for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are letting DCPS off the hook by funding the schools through the PTA. If you want something for your kids, it's a better use of your resources to cut a check to the PTA than to lobby DCPS. DCPS makes it that way.

I come from Massachusetts. There, state law bans PTA's from paying for school expenses. State law also requires equality in funding. So if parents in a rich district want something for their kids, they can't pay for it themselves, and they can't lobby for extra resources for their school district. They have to lobby for extra resources for the entire state education system.

Coincidentally, Massachusetts has the nation's highest average SAT score. (DC is 47th out of 51).

How did the state law get this way? Massachusetts has very powerful teachers unions. The unions pushed for them as a way of increasing school spending.

Massachusetts, the state, doesn't come anywhere close to the poverty of DC. That's the issue- we don't have wealthy suburbs to draw from. Apples to oranges.

Median household income, 2014:
District of Columbia $65,124
Massachusetts $64,859

Per Capita income, 2014:
District of Columbia $45,877ts
Massachusetts $36,593

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

Interesting!

No, it's not. You can compare Boston to DC, but not DC to Massachusetts this way. Again, apples to oranges.

It is apples to apples -- income vs. income, SAT scores vs. SAT scores.

If you were to compare DC vs. Boston, income vs. income, SAT scores vs. SAT scores, it would be even more damning for DC.

This is false once you control for demographics. The high-end of DCPS performs better than the comparable group in every other major school district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are letting DCPS off the hook by funding the schools through the PTA. If you want something for your kids, it's a better use of your resources to cut a check to the PTA than to lobby DCPS. DCPS makes it that way.

I come from Massachusetts. There, state law bans PTA's from paying for school expenses. State law also requires equality in funding. So if parents in a rich district want something for their kids, they can't pay for it themselves, and they can't lobby for extra resources for their school district. They have to lobby for extra resources for the entire state education system.

Coincidentally, Massachusetts has the nation's highest average SAT score. (DC is 47th out of 51).

How did the state law get this way? Massachusetts has very powerful teachers unions. The unions pushed for them as a way of increasing school spending.

Massachusetts, the state, doesn't come anywhere close to the poverty of DC. That's the issue- we don't have wealthy suburbs to draw from. Apples to oranges.

Median household income, 2014:
District of Columbia $65,124
Massachusetts $64,859

Per Capita income, 2014:
District of Columbia $45,877ts
Massachusetts $36,593

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

Interesting!

No, it's not. You can compare Boston to DC, but not DC to Massachusetts this way. Again, apples to oranges.

It is apples to apples -- income vs. income, SAT scores vs. SAT scores.

If you were to compare DC vs. Boston, income vs. income, SAT scores vs. SAT scores, it would be even more damning for DC.

This is false once you control for demographics. The high-end of DCPS performs better than the comparable group in every other major school district.

"Control for demographics" is the central tenet of DC Exceptionalism. We're different here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are letting DCPS off the hook by funding the schools through the PTA. If you want something for your kids, it's a better use of your resources to cut a check to the PTA than to lobby DCPS. DCPS makes it that way.

I come from Massachusetts. There, state law bans PTA's from paying for school expenses. State law also requires equality in funding. So if parents in a rich district want something for their kids, they can't pay for it themselves, and they can't lobby for extra resources for their school district. They have to lobby for extra resources for the entire state education system.

Coincidentally, Massachusetts has the nation's highest average SAT score. (DC is 47th out of 51).

How did the state law get this way? Massachusetts has very powerful teachers unions. The unions pushed for them as a way of increasing school spending.

Massachusetts, the state, doesn't come anywhere close to the poverty of DC. That's the issue- we don't have wealthy suburbs to draw from. Apples to oranges.

Median household income, 2014:
District of Columbia $65,124
Massachusetts $64,859

Per Capita income, 2014:
District of Columbia $45,877ts
Massachusetts $36,593

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

Interesting!

No, it's not. You can compare Boston to DC, but not DC to Massachusetts this way. Again, apples to oranges.

It is apples to apples -- income vs. income, SAT scores vs. SAT scores.

If you were to compare DC vs. Boston, income vs. income, SAT scores vs. SAT scores, it would be even more damning for DC.

Fine, but at least it would be apples to apples. Poor cities in MA get STATE funding from rich ones. DC doesn't have any rich suburbs to pull from. You simply cannot compare 68 square miles of urban terrain with 11,000 of a state with rich suburbs as well as poor cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are letting DCPS off the hook by funding the schools through the PTA. If you want something for your kids, it's a better use of your resources to cut a check to the PTA than to lobby DCPS. DCPS makes it that way.

I come from Massachusetts. There, state law bans PTA's from paying for school expenses. State law also requires equality in funding. So if parents in a rich district want something for their kids, they can't pay for it themselves, and they can't lobby for extra resources for their school district. They have to lobby for extra resources for the entire state education system.

Coincidentally, Massachusetts has the nation's highest average SAT score. (DC is 47th out of 51).

How did the state law get this way? Massachusetts has very powerful teachers unions. The unions pushed for them as a way of increasing school spending.

Massachusetts, the state, doesn't come anywhere close to the poverty of DC. That's the issue- we don't have wealthy suburbs to draw from. Apples to oranges.

Median household income, 2014:
District of Columbia $65,124
Massachusetts $64,859

Per Capita income, 2014:
District of Columbia $45,877ts
Massachusetts $36,593

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

Interesting!

No, it's not. You can compare Boston to DC, but not DC to Massachusetts this way. Again, apples to oranges.

It is apples to apples -- income vs. income, SAT scores vs. SAT scores.

If you were to compare DC vs. Boston, income vs. income, SAT scores vs. SAT scores, it would be even more damning for DC.

This is false once you control for demographics. The high-end of DCPS performs better than the comparable group in every other major school district.

Is that true for black students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are letting DCPS off the hook by funding the schools through the PTA. If you want something for your kids, it's a better use of your resources to cut a check to the PTA than to lobby DCPS. DCPS makes it that way.

I come from Massachusetts. There, state law bans PTA's from paying for school expenses. State law also requires equality in funding. So if parents in a rich district want something for their kids, they can't pay for it themselves, and they can't lobby for extra resources for their school district. They have to lobby for extra resources for the entire state education system.

Coincidentally, Massachusetts has the nation's highest average SAT score. (DC is 47th out of 51).

How did the state law get this way? Massachusetts has very powerful teachers unions. The unions pushed for them as a way of increasing school spending.

Massachusetts, the state, doesn't come anywhere close to the poverty of DC. That's the issue- we don't have wealthy suburbs to draw from. Apples to oranges.

Median household income, 2014:
District of Columbia $65,124
Massachusetts $64,859

Per Capita income, 2014:
District of Columbia $45,877ts
Massachusetts $36,593

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

Interesting!

No, it's not. You can compare Boston to DC, but not DC to Massachusetts this way. Again, apples to oranges.

It is apples to apples -- income vs. income, SAT scores vs. SAT scores.

If you were to compare DC vs. Boston, income vs. income, SAT scores vs. SAT scores, it would be even more damning for DC.

Fine, but at least it would be apples to apples. Poor cities in MA get STATE funding from rich ones. DC doesn't have any rich suburbs to pull from. You simply cannot compare 68 square miles of urban terrain with 11,000 of a state with rich suburbs as well as poor cities.

But DC gets additional funding from the federal government that other states don't get.

Should we compare what DCPS and the Boston School district spend per pupil. From 2015:

DC $17,983
Boston $20,502

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-states-that-spend-the-most-and-the-least-on-education-in-one-map/?utm_term=.38cba74d75a7

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are letting DCPS off the hook by funding the schools through the PTA. If you want something for your kids, it's a better use of your resources to cut a check to the PTA than to lobby DCPS. DCPS makes it that way.

I come from Massachusetts. There, state law bans PTA's from paying for school expenses. State law also requires equality in funding. So if parents in a rich district want something for their kids, they can't pay for it themselves, and they can't lobby for extra resources for their school district. They have to lobby for extra resources for the entire state education system.

Coincidentally, Massachusetts has the nation's highest average SAT score. (DC is 47th out of 51).

How did the state law get this way? Massachusetts has very powerful teachers unions. The unions pushed for them as a way of increasing school spending.

Massachusetts, the state, doesn't come anywhere close to the poverty of DC. That's the issue- we don't have wealthy suburbs to draw from. Apples to oranges.

Median household income, 2014:
District of Columbia $65,124
Massachusetts $64,859

Per Capita income, 2014:
District of Columbia $45,877ts
Massachusetts $36,593

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

Interesting!

No, it's not. You can compare Boston to DC, but not DC to Massachusetts this way. Again, apples to oranges.

It is apples to apples -- income vs. income, SAT scores vs. SAT scores.

If you were to compare DC vs. Boston, income vs. income, SAT scores vs. SAT scores, it would be even more damning for DC.

Fine, but at least it would be apples to apples. Poor cities in MA get STATE funding from rich ones. DC doesn't have any rich suburbs to pull from. You simply cannot compare 68 square miles of urban terrain with 11,000 of a state with rich suburbs as well as poor cities.

But DC gets additional funding from the federal government that other states don't get.

Should we compare what DCPS and the Boston School district spend per pupil. From 2015:

DC $17,983
Boston $20,502

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/06/02/the-states-that-spend-the-most-and-the-least-on-education-in-one-map/?utm_term=.38cba74d75a7

You think the DC teachers union will be able to lobby the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to successfully spend more?

[Anonymous]

PP here-- on that WP link about funding...

Jesus Christ Mississippi!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And are people proposing that we tax funds raised by private schools and charters as well, and redistribute those? Not sure why one type of family giving is bad and should be shared but others shouldn't.

DCPS is one LEA, and parent resources should be pooled across it. There's already a DCPS foundation -- the same one that funds the study abroad program, and has brought things like the bicycle initiative to elementary schools. Just direct the parent raised funds there, in addition to the corporate and nonprofit funds DCPS collects.

Each charter is its own LEA. Multi-school charters like KIPP already redistribute funds they raise across their network.

Private schools are private.

All are tax-deductible contributions.

I donate to my school so my kids have books and paper and supervision at recess. I don't want to fund someone else's kid's trip to Europe. And if my PTA were to choose to spend its dollars to send five classmates to Europe, I wouldn't donate to them either. This isn't fun money for special trinkets and great programs benefitting a few lucky kids. The PTA is covering basic needs at our school that DCPS does not provide. Donating to the Foundation can't replace that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here-- on that WP link about funding...

Jesus Christ Mississippi!

Such bad reporting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here-- on that WP link about funding...

Jesus Christ Mississippi!

Such bad reporting.

While I'm not surprised, tell me what is amiss in this story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And are people proposing that we tax funds raised by private schools and charters as well, and redistribute those? Not sure why one type of family giving is bad and should be shared but others shouldn't.

DCPS is one LEA, and parent resources should be pooled across it. There's already a DCPS foundation -- the same one that funds the study abroad program, and has brought things like the bicycle initiative to elementary schools. Just direct the parent raised funds there, in addition to the corporate and nonprofit funds DCPS collects.

Each charter is its own LEA. Multi-school charters like KIPP already redistribute funds they raise across their network.

Private schools are private.

All are tax-deductible contributions.

DCPS already shares resources across schools. Just check out the per pupil funding across schools, and they are dramatically different. Upper NW schools receive substantially lower funding per student than do other schools around the District. And this makes sense -- DCPS redistributes money to where it feels it has greater need. So it *should* do so. Now DCPS might claim that it doesn't think about PTA funds when it makes this calculation, but that is just garbage. Janney raising money means that DCPS lowers its per pupil funding, probably not $1 for $1, but by a noticeable amount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And are people proposing that we tax funds raised by private schools and charters as well, and redistribute those? Not sure why one type of family giving is bad and should be shared but others shouldn't.

DCPS is one LEA, and parent resources should be pooled across it. There's already a DCPS foundation -- the same one that funds the study abroad program, and has brought things like the bicycle initiative to elementary schools. Just direct the parent raised funds there, in addition to the corporate and nonprofit funds DCPS collects.

Each charter is its own LEA. Multi-school charters like KIPP already redistribute funds they raise across their network.

Private schools are private.

All are tax-deductible contributions.

And why should funds raised in one sector not be shared with another sector? That seems like a false separation. If you want Janney families to share money with schools elsewhere in the city, why not Maret, GDS, and Sidwell?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

These PTAs absolutely do this. Many schools collect books at book fairs to help fill shelves in poorer parts of the city and coat drives to fill sister-school requests. There are organizations who's sole purpose is to make the connection between rich and poor PTOs and many of these school participate in this.

Lafayette, for example, has an entire program called Lafayette Gives back, sponsored by the HSA, whose sole purpose is to give, and to teach kids to give, to others. This includes packing backpacks for foster kids, making care packages for first-responders and collecting baby carriers for refugees.

Do you not see how forcing poor kids to rely on the noblesse oblige of the .01% is an enormously fucked up way to fund basic social services such as education?

Huh? People have spent the last 4 pages complaining that rich PTAs should help poor schools. Now, when it comes to light that they do, in fact, help poorer school, it's fucked up? No one is relying on anything or forcing anyone to do anything.

Poor school kids get often X2 the funding as rich school kids.

Poor kids do not need your gently used coats. That is not what is going to address the education gap. That you can't see this speaks volumes.