Janney PTA raised $1.4 million in one year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Uh because those aren't public schools and the public has no vested interest in whether or not they provide an equitable educational experience to their students

[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.

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.

Well, their teachers think they do or else they wouldn't have asked for them...

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain why Van Ness is getting the most funding per pupil for all DCPS elementary schools?

Or why Leckie is getting the least?

http://dcpsbudget.ourdcschools.org/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Uh because those aren't public schools and the public has no vested interest in whether or not they provide an equitable educational experience to their students

But dollars that parents donate are private dollars. If we want public schools to be equitable, then we should provide public funding equitably (not necessarily equally)! Once you start to "tax" private donations, I think all bets are off. My private donations should not be held to a different standard than someone else's private donations.

[Anonymous]

The amount of vitriol on this thread is hilarious. You guys don't know what you want.

You don't want to make the per-pupil-funding more even
You don't want rich schools to raise their own funds
You don't want to teach kids to do anything for others
You don't believe that rich schools don't already give a ton to poorer DCPS schools because there's not a badly-reported WP article about it
But You ALL want to get into the schools and are #4849 on the Janney PK waitlist...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Uh because those aren't public schools and the public has no vested interest in whether or not they provide an equitable educational experience to their students

But dollars that parents donate are private dollars. If we want public schools to be equitable, then we should provide public funding equitably (not necessarily equally)! Once you start to "tax" private donations, I think all bets are off. My private donations should not be held to a different standard than someone else's private donations.

That is exactly why this is a controversial issue. Those private dollars are supplementing the public school experience in an uneven way, since the supplemental dollars are disproportionately benefitting students from more affluent areas whose parents can afford to provide supplemental dollars. Because those affluent areas are mostly white, and the poor areas mostly black, there is a protected class involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Uh because those aren't public schools and the public has no vested interest in whether or not they provide an equitable educational experience to their students

But dollars that parents donate are private dollars. If we want public schools to be equitable, then we should provide public funding equitably (not necessarily equally)! Once you start to "tax" private donations, I think all bets are off. My private donations should not be held to a different standard than someone else's private donations.

That is exactly why this is a controversial issue. Those private dollars are supplementing the public school experience in an uneven way, since the supplemental dollars are disproportionately benefitting students from more affluent areas whose parents can afford to provide supplemental dollars. Because those affluent areas are mostly white, and the poor areas mostly black, there is a protected class involved.

Oh please. Lots of majority black schools have PTAs that fund stuff. It's the size of the funding that is controversial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Oh! I have an idea! It's this thing called a "property tax." With a property tax earmarked for the schools, education of our children would be everyone's shared responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Oh! I have an idea! It's this thing called a "property tax." With a property tax earmarked for the schools, education of our children would be everyone's shared responsibility.

The idea of splitting by LEA is hilariously ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think this is sloppy reporting, and I really don't care how much a PTA raises in different schools... I get that as a parent you are willing to donate more to a school if it directly impacts your child.

That being said, I would think with a budget as high as some of these schools have, perhaps they could make a small effort to help schools with much smaller PTO budgets. The success of the district as a whole should matter to these schools, even if the number one priority is their own population.

For one, many of these "poorer" schools are extremely inexperienced with fundraising, what works, what doesn't, etc. Reaching out to "mentor" a developing PTO would be so appreciated by schools. Offering advice, maybe a connection or two, sharing information, etc. Maybe developing a "Sister PTO" relationship. Its not just about the money. These schools are struggling just to figure out how to run a PTO, let alone how to raise money.

And if we want to get into the money, perhaps the wealthier PTO's could fund a small grant for other PTO's in the district. Offering a couple $500-$1000 grants a year to other district PTO's for a worthy cause. It would make such a difference to those school's budgets and would make a small impact on the wealthier school budgets.

I just think there are ways that wealthier schools could use a small portion of their resources for the greater good without negatively impacting their own budgets.

But isn't this what our tax dollars are supposed to do? If there's a problem with per pupil funding, then the city budget is where the attention should go.

By this theory, PTO/PTAs should not exist at all. Per-pupil funding should cover everything.

I was simply pointing out that PTO's with considerable advantages could (and maybe should) make small efforts to help those with considerable hurdles.

Offering a 1-2 hour mentoring session for a developing PTO owould require no money- just some time. It would be such a HUGE help to the developing school and a small burden for an advantaged school. Offering a small grant- maybe a matching one to help the school develop their own fundraising efforts-... would also be a HUGE help with a small cost.

Thank, but no thanks. I'm the fundraising chair of an EOTP Title I school PTA. Our FARMs percentage is in excess of 60%. We can't raise money the way you do, i.e. from parents at the school auctioning their vacation homes to each other. We can't ask for big donations from parents. We can't charge each other $20 to attend house parties. Our higher income parents are also disproportionately ECE/K parents. They often have an under 2 at home. They are exhausted and wont come to fundraisers.

We have to be much more creative about pulling in dollars from the wider community, getting grsnts, haggling for discounts etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, their teachers think they do or else they wouldn't have asked for them...

They also need stable homes, parents who value education or, even better, are educated themselves, role models, and good nutrition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Oh! I have an idea! It's this thing called a "property tax." With a property tax earmarked for the schools, education of our children would be everyone's shared responsibility.

Yes! Although I think general tax revenues are fine. Doesn't have to be property taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does look like sloppy reporting. At our school, we pay the HSA for every field trip. So if 100 students pay $10 each to the HSA to go to the Natural History Museum, it would appear that the HSA "raised" $1000. Then if you figure there are 7 grades and each grade goes on roughly 10 trips a year, it now looks like the HSA raised $70,000. But that is not fundraising, that's me paying for my kid to go on a field trip.

If you didn't pay for the field trip, the field trip would not happen. That's fundraising. The fact that the amount of money raised is equal to the cost of the activity is irrelevant.

It is not fundraising to pay for the cost of a field trip. It is not fundraising for parents to PAY for aftercare for their child just because the HSA/PTA is a conduit for those funds to go to the private provider of aftercare services. The aftercare provider could just as easily accept the funds directly from parents who are paying for care and the HSA would never be involved, it would just be a parent paying for a service.

The HSA is used as a pass-through for the fund to then go directly to pay for the bus or Metro to take the kids to the museum. Would you call it fundraising if instead we paid the school directly for the field trip like when I was a kid?

The CAP study is all about supplemental money in public education—in other words, money on top of what is allocated to schools from the school district. The reason is that traditionally most districts only compare resource equity by comparing school budgets. But if—within a single school district—there is one school that consistently receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in supplemental money from an outside organization, and another school consistently receives zero, and the primary difference between those two schools is race, then there is inequity. The question is, what responsibility, if any, does the school district have to address the inequity?

Your example assumes that every parent has the financial wherewithal to pay for the field trip, so it does not matter whether the money is paid to the PTA or directly to the school, because regardless of which entity receives the money, the trip will happen. Not every parent can afford the field trip, and when those parents are concentrated in a single school, the field trip will not happen. Therefore, the school with parents that can universally afford the field trip are receiving a benefit that another school may not receive.

It simply isn't true that the other schools receive zero on top of the DCPS budget. They get more from DCPS, and they get a ton of outside grands, partnerships, etc. that are not available to the 5 schools in the article. Where is the article on all the money and resources allocated to those schools? look at the DCPS profiles and the lists of activities and resources even the poorest schools are getting. Who is paying for all of that? So the five schools in the article make up the difference by making the parents pay out of pocket for their free public education.

Funding inequity favors at risk youth and Title I schools, particularly the 40 lowest performing schools. If DC changed its law to mirror Massachusetts in this regard, it would favor the wealthier schools. As it is, wealthy parents will not push for funding equity, which would take funds away from at risk youth. Also, lobbying for something district wide will never inure to the benefit of wealthy kids because DCPS is expressly focused on the neediest kids and schools, and will be for the foreseeable future. Instead, they fill in the gaps in their giant schools through fundraising. And by and large they are not providing things that are not available to kids at other schools. Look at the items cited in the article:

art teacher: most other DCPS schools have arts partnerships for low income schools and additional funding for arts through at risk allocations, see also https://dcps.dc.gov/page/art-dance-drama-music-and-visual-arts

classroom aides: most other DCPS schools are significantly smaller with small teacher:student ratios, plus they have additional support staff through at risk funding and title I funding. Quite frankly, DCPS should provide additional staff when there are 120 kids in a single grade, but they don't.

school trips: again, at risk funding, partnerships, grants, Proving What's Possible grants, and the like pay for this at other schools

additional instructional coaches: I actually don't think PTAs pay for this

after-school programs: this is a pass through -- parents are paying for this service out of pocket if they choose to use it -- it is not a PTA subsidy; no different than sending your kids to private karate class after school at your own expense; but in other DCPS schools, after care is provided by DCPS, plus 54 schools have OSTP, and there are partnerships with law firms, DC Scores, Food Corps, etc, available for enrichment to low income schools.

I'd like to see an article on all the outside support DCPS is getting to make the education experience better for kids at schools other than these five. There is a lot of going going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does look like sloppy reporting. At our school, we pay the HSA for every field trip. So if 100 students pay $10 each to the HSA to go to the Natural History Museum, it would appear that the HSA "raised" $1000. Then if you figure there are 7 grades and each grade goes on roughly 10 trips a year, it now looks like the HSA raised $70,000. But that is not fundraising, that's me paying for my kid to go on a field trip.

If you didn't pay for the field trip, the field trip would not happen. That's fundraising. The fact that the amount of money raised is equal to the cost of the activity is irrelevant.

It is not fundraising to pay for the cost of a field trip. It is not fundraising for parents to PAY for aftercare for their child just because the HSA/PTA is a conduit for those funds to go to the private provider of aftercare services. The aftercare provider could just as easily accept the funds directly from parents who are paying for care and the HSA would never be involved, it would just be a parent paying for a service.

The HSA is used as a pass-through for the fund to then go directly to pay for the bus or Metro to take the kids to the museum. Would you call it fundraising if instead we paid the school directly for the field trip like when I was a kid?

The CAP study is all about supplemental money in public education—in other words, money on top of what is allocated to schools from the school district. The reason is that traditionally most districts only compare resource equity by comparing school budgets. But if—within a single school district—there is one school that consistently receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in supplemental money from an outside organization, and another school consistently receives zero, and the primary difference between those two schools is race, then there is inequity. The question is, what responsibility, if any, does the school district have to address the inequity?

Your example assumes that every parent has the financial wherewithal to pay for the field trip, so it does not matter whether the money is paid to the PTA or directly to the school, because regardless of which entity receives the money, the trip will happen. Not every parent can afford the field trip, and when those parents are concentrated in a single school, the field trip will not happen. Therefore, the school with parents that can universally afford the field trip are receiving a benefit that another school may not receive.

It simply isn't true that the other schools receive zero on top of the DCPS budget. They get more from DCPS, and they get a ton of outside grands, partnerships, etc. that are not available to the 5 schools in the article. Where is the article on all the money and resources allocated to those schools? look at the DCPS profiles and the lists of activities and resources even the poorest schools are getting. Who is paying for all of that? So the five schools in the article make up the difference by making the parents pay out of pocket for their free public education.

Funding inequity favors at risk youth and Title I schools, particularly the 40 lowest performing schools. If DC changed its law to mirror Massachusetts in this regard, it would favor the wealthier schools. As it is, wealthy parents will not push for funding equity, which would take funds away from at risk youth. Also, lobbying for something district wide will never inure to the benefit of wealthy kids because DCPS is expressly focused on the neediest kids and schools, and will be for the foreseeable future. Instead, they fill in the gaps in their giant schools through fundraising. And by and large they are not providing things that are not available to kids at other schools. Look at the items cited in the article:

art teacher: most other DCPS schools have arts partnerships for low income schools and additional funding for arts through at risk allocations, see also https://dcps.dc.gov/page/art-dance-drama-music-and-visual-arts

classroom aides: most other DCPS schools are significantly smaller with small teacher:student ratios, plus they have additional support staff through at risk funding and title I funding. Quite frankly, DCPS should provide additional staff when there are 120 kids in a single grade, but they don't.

school trips: again, at risk funding, partnerships, grants, Proving What's Possible grants, and the like pay for this at other schools

additional instructional coaches: I actually don't think PTAs pay for this

after-school programs: this is a pass through -- parents are paying for this service out of pocket if they choose to use it -- it is not a PTA subsidy; no different than sending your kids to private karate class after school at your own expense; but in other DCPS schools, after care is provided by DCPS, plus 54 schools have OSTP, and there are partnerships with law firms, DC Scores, Food Corps, etc, available for enrichment to low income schools.

I'd like to see an article on all the outside support DCPS is getting to make the education experience better for kids at schools other than these five. There is a lot of going going on.

When I enrolled my child at our Title 1 DCPS in PK a few years ago, I asked the principal about a PTO. I was told that it doesn't exist, but not to worry because "we are pretty well funded." Not that they wouldn't like to have one, but there are many other sources of funding that are available to schools like this. Money isn't where their problems lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think this is sloppy reporting, and I really don't care how much a PTA raises in different schools... I get that as a parent you are willing to donate more to a school if it directly impacts your child.

That being said, I would think with a budget as high as some of these schools have, perhaps they could make a small effort to help schools with much smaller PTO budgets. The success of the district as a whole should matter to these schools, even if the number one priority is their own population.

For one, many of these "poorer" schools are extremely inexperienced with fundraising, what works, what doesn't, etc. Reaching out to "mentor" a developing PTO would be so appreciated by schools. Offering advice, maybe a connection or two, sharing information, etc. Maybe developing a "Sister PTO" relationship. Its not just about the money. These schools are struggling just to figure out how to run a PTO, let alone how to raise money.

And if we want to get into the money, perhaps the wealthier PTO's could fund a small grant for other PTO's in the district. Offering a couple $500-$1000 grants a year to other district PTO's for a worthy cause. It would make such a difference to those school's budgets and would make a small impact on the wealthier school budgets.

I just think there are ways that wealthier schools could use a small portion of their resources for the greater good without negatively impacting their own budgets.

But isn't this what our tax dollars are supposed to do? If there's a problem with per pupil funding, then the city budget is where the attention should go.

By this theory, PTO/PTAs should not exist at all. Per-pupil funding should cover everything.

I was simply pointing out that PTO's with considerable advantages could (and maybe should) make small efforts to help those with considerable hurdles.

Offering a 1-2 hour mentoring session for a developing PTO owould require no money- just some time. It would be such a HUGE help to the developing school and a small burden for an advantaged school. Offering a small grant- maybe a matching one to help the school develop their own fundraising efforts-... would also be a HUGE help with a small cost.

Thank, but no thanks. I'm the fundraising chair of an EOTP Title I school PTA. Our FARMs percentage is in excess of 60%. We can't raise money the way you do, i.e. from parents at the school auctioning their vacation homes to each other. We can't ask for big donations from parents. We can't charge each other $20 to attend house parties. Our higher income parents are also disproportionately ECE/K parents. They often have an under 2 at home. They are exhausted and wont come to fundraisers.

We have to be much more creative about pulling in dollars from the wider community, getting grsnts, haggling for discounts etc.

WOTP mom here and I would have assumed something similar. How is 1-2 hours telling title 1 PTOs about how we decided to up the dues this year a helpful bit of info? Getting parents engaged is not the problem for WOTP schools, nor is asking them to shell out for an event.

Now, maybe a grant writing expert could be of use. But the event planning and quickbooks skills of a WOTP PTO just isn't going to be useful.