UMC parents in low income schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The very people you are trying to advocate for will end up as cheap labor force providing services for the UMC. And a large part of it is because of ineffective people like you who continue to enable them in their non productive ways instead of empowering them to be better.

That's what people said about my grandparents, too. It wasn't true then, it isn't true now.

You limited intelligence is making you confuse your grandparents individual results for systemic results. I assure you the vast majority of grandchildren of the lower class during your grandparent’s time are still lower class too. Most middle class are only a couple generations removed from the lower class true, but most lower class are connected to poverty by dozens if not hundreds of generations with only a few outliers.

The myth of American mobility was for white men and rich people to access the ruling class or nobility, not necessarily for a shoe shine to become a landlord. While that came of that freedom really rich people were tired of never being royalty. No one intended for some food server to make a middle class wage and own a home. Once people are conflating their ideal with systems and founders intent for a much more brutal world hundreds of years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do find it off putting when UMC parents talk about navigating underperforming schools by constantly advocating for their kids. Like, these schools are already strapped for resources, and the kids there already need all the help they can get, yet these UMC parents are coming in and demanding more resources abd teachers’ energy for their own children.

UMC parents will always navigate the school and college in the way that meets the academic and extra-curricular needs of their students. That is a function of being highly educated and also having the money. When UMC parents are in high income schools, they create so many opportunities that the whole school is elevated, so obviously it is a great thing to have UMC and involved parents in the school.

But, since according to this article that is very anecdotal in nature these parents should not be allowed in low performing schools. Maybe, such UMC parents should be allowed to move their kids to higher performing schools?

I find it off-putting that the low performing schools do not allow COSA easily for UMC (as well as groups that are high performing) to leave their schools because they need the high performance of these UMC students to bolster their grades in standardized testing.

[Anonymous]

If the PTA is not doing what needs to be done (paying for Spanish interpreters by raising funds) then perhaps the school needs to provide these interpreters.

PTA is not there to do the job of the school. The school needs to step up and meet the needs of the parents and students where they are.

In a low performing school with minimal parent involvement, the school is usually grateful for the few parents who agree to be at least minimally involved and keep the PTA going. They may get a few staff appreciation events out of the whole deal but it is more than what they would get without the PTA.

The problem is not schools or PTAs. The problem is squarely the huge influx of non-English speaking, poorly educated immigrant families that are coming to our schools - and how to address the unique challenges that they bring to the school system. It would be probably better to have specialized schools for such students where intensive intervention and support is provided to get the students up to speed before they are allowed to attend the regular public schools. Otherwise, we can keep pointing fingers at different organizations.

A totally ineffective PTA does not create the achievement gap in the school. It is a function of the SES of the families that produces low achieving students. A radically different solution needs to be in place to address that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The very people you are trying to advocate for will end up as cheap labor force providing services for the UMC. And a large part of it is because of ineffective people like you who continue to enable them in their non productive ways instead of empowering them to be better.

That's what people said about my grandparents, too. It wasn't true then, it isn't true now.

You limited intelligence is making you confuse your grandparents individual results for systemic results. I assure you the vast majority of grandchildren of the lower class during your grandparent’s time are still lower class too. Most middle class are only a couple generations removed from the lower class true, but most lower class are connected to poverty by dozens if not hundreds of generations with only a few outliers.

The myth of American mobility was for white men and rich people to access the ruling class or nobility, not necessarily for a shoe shine to become a landlord. While that came of that freedom really rich people were tired of never being royalty. No one intended for some food server to make a middle class wage and own a home. Once people are conflating their ideal with systems and founders intent for a much more brutal world hundreds of years ago.

Are there really real people who live in Montgomery County and believe this stuff?^^^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agree. I work at a high FARMS school where the PTA president refuses to spend PTA money on interpreters to attend the PTA meetings, which essentially keeps the Spanish speaking majority away from participating in the PTA. When we looked closely at the budget and expenses, we saw that the amount of money spent on book fair decorations would pay for the interpreter for the whole year but the president still wouldn't budge. They said that if a staff member would volunteer their time to interpret then they would be ok with it. Staff members ended up finding high school students needing SSL hours. The PTA serves the interests of the English speaking UMC minority, and not the majority of the school's population.

The PTA President doesn't get to make all the decisions. Even the Board doesn't get to make all decisions. Votes should be open to members at meetings to vote on budget items. Anyone can propose an amendment on the floor for a public vote. Get more involved in your PTA and more educated on how PTA is *supposed* to work, then you can effect change. If there is an issue with the PTA board at your local school, go to your Cluster Coordinator or Area VP for support. Contact the MCCPTA if you don't know who your cluster coordinator or Area VP are.

I suggest you read the article. You can't expect poor, non-English speaking parents who barely have a high school education if that to walk into a PTA meeting and take on the 4-5 mothers with advanced degrees who are controlling everything by calling for a floor vote and an amendment to get interpreters. The point of the article is that the low income parents are intimidated by them and have neither the time nor debate skills to prevail.

Excuses and more excuses. You are an enabler to a population that keeps considering themselves as inferior. Keep catering to them and they will never step out of their comfort zone. Why not empower them to stand up and speak up for themselves rather than doing it for them? Sounds harsh but it is indeed a harsh and competitive world.

So since you know everything already how would you increase the turn out to the PTA meetings at my mixed socioeconomic school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agree. I work at a high FARMS school where the PTA president refuses to spend PTA money on interpreters to attend the PTA meetings, which essentially keeps the Spanish speaking majority away from participating in the PTA. When we looked closely at the budget and expenses, we saw that the amount of money spent on book fair decorations would pay for the interpreter for the whole year but the president still wouldn't budge. They said that if a staff member would volunteer their time to interpret then they would be ok with it. Staff members ended up finding high school students needing SSL hours. The PTA serves the interests of the English speaking UMC minority, and not the majority of the school's population.

The PTA President doesn't get to make all the decisions. Even the Board doesn't get to make all decisions. Votes should be open to members at meetings to vote on budget items. Anyone can propose an amendment on the floor for a public vote. Get more involved in your PTA and more educated on how PTA is *supposed* to work, then you can effect change. If there is an issue with the PTA board at your local school, go to your Cluster Coordinator or Area VP for support. Contact the MCCPTA if you don't know who your cluster coordinator or Area VP are.

I suggest you read the article. You can't expect poor, non-English speaking parents who barely have a high school education if that to walk into a PTA meeting and take on the 4-5 mothers with advanced degrees who are controlling everything by calling for a floor vote and an amendment to get interpreters. The point of the article is that the low income parents are intimidated by them and have neither the time nor debate skills to prevail.

Excuses and more excuses. You are an enabler to a population that keeps considering themselves as inferior. Keep catering to them and they will never step out of their comfort zone. Why not empower them to stand up and speak up for themselves rather than doing it for them? Sounds harsh but it is indeed a harsh and competitive world.

So since you know everything already how would you increase the turn out to the PTA meetings at my mixed socioeconomic school?

Why would people want to do that?

By increasing the turn out, what do we achieve? More money for the PTA? Apparently no. More people willing to volunteer? Maybe, maybe not.

It is the parents' own loss for not attending the meetings, that is how it is supposed to work. If they don't lose anything, of course parents don't care. Why should they? Whoever really care and have ideas to push forward would have already done so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the PTA is not doing what needs to be done (paying for Spanish interpreters by raising funds) then perhaps the school needs to provide these interpreters.

PTA is not there to do the job of the school. The school needs to step up and meet the needs of the parents and students where they are.

In a low performing school with minimal parent involvement, the school is usually grateful for the few parents who agree to be at least minimally involved and keep the PTA going. They may get a few staff appreciation events out of the whole deal but it is more than what they would get without the PTA.

The problem is not schools or PTAs. The problem is squarely the huge influx of non-English speaking, poorly educated immigrant families that are coming to our schools - and how to address the unique challenges that they bring to the school system. It would be probably better to have specialized schools for such students where intensive intervention and support is provided to get the students up to speed before they are allowed to attend the regular public schools. Otherwise, we can keep pointing fingers at different organizations.

A totally ineffective PTA does not create the achievement gap in the school. It is a function of the SES of the families that produces low achieving students. A radically different solution needs to be in place to address that.

I am the mom who has “been there” and I agree with you. But what to do with students who come from generations of poverty here in the US? They also need a lot of support which UMC families don’t...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why would people want to do that?

By increasing the turn out, what do we achieve? More money for the PTA? Apparently no. More people willing to volunteer? Maybe, maybe not.

It is the parents' own loss for not attending the meetings, that is how it is supposed to work. If they don't lose anything, of course parents don't care. Why should they? Whoever really care and have ideas to push forward would have already done so.

More participation, more involvement, more buy-in, more information, more ideas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why would people want to do that?

By increasing the turn out, what do we achieve? More money for the PTA? Apparently no. More people willing to volunteer? Maybe, maybe not.

It is the parents' own loss for not attending the meetings, that is how it is supposed to work. If they don't lose anything, of course parents don't care. Why should they? Whoever really care and have ideas to push forward would have already done so.

More participation, more involvement, more buy-in, more information, more ideas.

"More participation, more involvement, more buy-in"? Those provide nothing more than "more participation and more involvement and more buy-in". If you want to look good on the paper, that is an achievement. If you look at real world, that does not do much.

"more information" what information do you need from those parents who do not like to come to PTA meetings? How their kids are doing at home? Or how they want the school to educate their kids?

"more ideas": what we don't need, are more ideas. There are a lot of ideas flying around, nothing really practical. In addition, if the PTA have good ideas, they don't need hundreds of people to tell them how to implement them. If they don't, then they don't.

Overall, it just LOOKS better if more people come to the PTA meeting. In practice, it doesn't matter (as far as school operation is concerned) at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why would people want to do that?

By increasing the turn out, what do we achieve? More money for the PTA? Apparently no. More people willing to volunteer? Maybe, maybe not.

It is the parents' own loss for not attending the meetings, that is how it is supposed to work. If they don't lose anything, of course parents don't care. Why should they? Whoever really care and have ideas to push forward would have already done so.

More participation, more involvement, more buy-in, more information, more ideas.

"More participation, more involvement, more buy-in"? Those provide nothing more than "more participation and more involvement and more buy-in". If you want to look good on the paper, that is an achievement. If you look at real world, that does not do much.

"more information" what information do you need from those parents who do not like to come to PTA meetings? How their kids are doing at home? Or how they want the school to educate their kids?

"more ideas": what we don't need, are more ideas. There are a lot of ideas flying around, nothing really practical. In addition, if the PTA have good ideas, they don't need hundreds of people to tell them how to implement them. If they don't, then they don't.

Overall, it just LOOKS better if more people come to the PTA meeting. In practice, it doesn't matter (as far as school operation is concerned) at all.

Absolutely. The best PTA has a membership of one. Very efficient.

Wait, what?

[Anonymous]

I think the concept of PTA and parental participation is pretty foreign to even educated European parents.
I think it really is a product of the schools that are poorly funded (especially for the population that is diverse in abilities, education, and wealth).
It’s not segregation that creates poor schools, it’s the abysmal lack of funding that is not complemented by parental input.

[Anonymous]

PP here: so for true equality the state has to step up and fund schools, all schools, so that the parental factor is not significant anymore (I understand it will still matter in how ready to learn the kids are).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why would people want to do that?

By increasing the turn out, what do we achieve? More money for the PTA? Apparently no. More people willing to volunteer? Maybe, maybe not.

It is the parents' own loss for not attending the meetings, that is how it is supposed to work. If they don't lose anything, of course parents don't care. Why should they? Whoever really care and have ideas to push forward would have already done so.

More participation, more involvement, more buy-in, more information, more ideas.

"More participation, more involvement, more buy-in"? Those provide nothing more than "more participation and more involvement and more buy-in". If you want to look good on the paper, that is an achievement. If you look at real world, that does not do much.

"more information" what information do you need from those parents who do not like to come to PTA meetings? How their kids are doing at home? Or how they want the school to educate their kids?

"more ideas": what we don't need, are more ideas. There are a lot of ideas flying around, nothing really practical. In addition, if the PTA have good ideas, they don't need hundreds of people to tell them how to implement them. If they don't, then they don't.

Overall, it just LOOKS better if more people come to the PTA meeting. In practice, it doesn't matter (as far as school operation is concerned) at all.

Absolutely. The best PTA has a membership of one. Very efficient.

Wait, what?

That sounds stupid, but in reality it is not that stupid.

I can't say what a BEST PTA is, because it is usually hard to define "BEST".

Usually it works out this way: you involve more people to make it harder for the few in power to do bad things.
You involve less people- yet enough manpower - if you really want to achieve something.

Nowadays, I don't see how a PTA can really do something bad. Whether they can really do something good, maybe, maybe not, but spending the time and energy to involve more people is not going to help much on that.


Of course, again, if you think "involving more parents" itself is some achievement (on paper?), then of course, the PTA should do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agree. I work at a high FARMS school where the PTA president refuses to spend PTA money on interpreters to attend the PTA meetings, which essentially keeps the Spanish speaking majority away from participating in the PTA. When we looked closely at the budget and expenses, we saw that the amount of money spent on book fair decorations would pay for the interpreter for the whole year but the president still wouldn't budge. They said that if a staff member would volunteer their time to interpret then they would be ok with it. Staff members ended up finding high school students needing SSL hours. The PTA serves the interests of the English speaking UMC minority, and not the majority of the school's population.

The PTA President doesn't get to make all the decisions. Even the Board doesn't get to make all decisions. Votes should be open to members at meetings to vote on budget items. Anyone can propose an amendment on the floor for a public vote. Get more involved in your PTA and more educated on how PTA is *supposed* to work, then you can effect change. If there is an issue with the PTA board at your local school, go to your Cluster Coordinator or Area VP for support. Contact the MCCPTA if you don't know who your cluster coordinator or Area VP are.

I suggest you read the article. You can't expect poor, non-English speaking parents who barely have a high school education if that to walk into a PTA meeting and take on the 4-5 mothers with advanced degrees who are controlling everything by calling for a floor vote and an amendment to get interpreters. The point of the article is that the low income parents are intimidated by them and have neither the time nor debate skills to prevail.

Excuses and more excuses. You are an enabler to a population that keeps considering themselves as inferior. Keep catering to them and they will never step out of their comfort zone. Why not empower them to stand up and speak up for themselves rather than doing it for them? Sounds harsh but it is indeed a harsh and competitive world.

So since you know everything already how would you increase the turn out to the PTA meetings at my mixed socioeconomic school?

Honestly, turnout is low at most schools regardless of socio-eco omic situation of the parents.

When I was on the board at my school, it was often just the board and maybe 5-6 other people would show up if we were lucky. This is in a school with low FARMS.

Parents in general are unlikely to come to PTA meetings unless there is a very strong incentive. We even provided free babysitting and pizza and still low turnout. It's hard for parents to go back out to the school at night, especially after a long day of work. And people worry if they show up that they will be roped into volunteering for something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why would people want to do that?

By increasing the turn out, what do we achieve? More money for the PTA? Apparently no. More people willing to volunteer? Maybe, maybe not.

It is the parents' own loss for not attending the meetings, that is how it is supposed to work. If they don't lose anything, of course parents don't care. Why should they? Whoever really care and have ideas to push forward would have already done so.

More participation, more involvement, more buy-in, more information, more ideas.

"More participation, more involvement, more buy-in"? Those provide nothing more than "more participation and more involvement and more buy-in". If you want to look good on the paper, that is an achievement. If you look at real world, that does not do much.

"more information" what information do you need from those parents who do not like to come to PTA meetings? How their kids are doing at home? Or how they want the school to educate their kids?

"more ideas": what we don't need, are more ideas. There are a lot of ideas flying around, nothing really practical. In addition, if the PTA have good ideas, they don't need hundreds of people to tell them how to implement them. If they don't, then they don't.

Overall, it just LOOKS better if more people come to the PTA meeting. In practice, it doesn't matter (as far as school operation is concerned) at all.

Absolutely. The best PTA has a membership of one. Very efficient.

Wait, what?

That sounds stupid, but in reality it is not that stupid.

I can't say what a BEST PTA is, because it is usually hard to define "BEST".

Usually it works out this way: you involve more people to make it harder for the few in power to do bad things.
You involve less people- yet enough manpower - if you really want to achieve something.

Nowadays, I don't see how a PTA can really do something bad. Whether they can really do something good, maybe, maybe not, but spending the time and energy to involve more people is not going to help much on that.


Of course, again, if you think "involving more parents" itself is some achievement (on paper?), then of course, the PTA should do that.

I think PTA involvement is about chipping in where you can however big or small way. Volunteering for a single event or coming to a single meeting is a gesture of showing you care about your child’s school environment (both social and academic) even if it’s only for a single event or meeting. High participation creates a positive morale because you see that there are a lot of parents willing to volunteer their time even if it’s a sacrifice for some. It sets a great example for your own children to be involved in the community.