APS Fall boundary questionnaire

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what the Jamestown Elementary School PTA in North Arlington claims to do with their funds based on their website. I think alot of the key is to the afterschool enrichment programs.

Funds the schoolʼs technology needs including laptops, ipads, and other hand-held learning devices
Supplements the teacher training budget by funding professional development for teachers
Provides direct contributions to the teachers for the purchase of extra materials for classrooms and other areas of the school
Enhances the children’s arts education through Artists-in-Residence Programs, whereby artists are brought in and work with the students on a permanent art project
Enhances the childrenʼs music education through funding many musical performances throughout the year
Enhances the childrenʼs reading education through funding the Author-in-Residence Programs, whereby many authors come and read their books to the students
Funds the ever-popular school play
Coordinates the popular After School Enrichment programs and Reflections Contest
Hosts many social events throughout the year to build a stronger community such as the Ice Cream Social, Jamestown Auction, and Spring Fair

When I taught in N. Arlington, not Jamestown, the PTA gave teachers cash. It was to buy supplies, etc. for the classroom, which the parents already sent in and refilled as needed. I think they gave every teacher $200 a semester.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t need to eliminate option schools, we need more of them. Look, all of the option schools end up with crazy long wait lists, and it isn’t because of where the school is located. Sure some parents just want oit if a neighborhood school, but many, many, many are actually there because they think the option school is providing a great curriculum. That is why we chose our option schools even though it had/has a lower ranking than our neighborhood school. So offer more Ats models, more expeditionary leaning, more Montessori, more Spanish immersion. Clearly people are clamoring for that.

Then why was there all that wailing about moving option schools? We don't need more option schools. This is the first year that immersion might not clear their entire waitlists and it's because they cut back the K Classes from 6 to 4. ATS is the only one that consistently has a crazy long wait list and it's expanding significantly with the move.

ATS, Campbell, and Immersion have lots of applicants and long waitlists since they started publicly tracking and releasing the info. As does Pre-K Montessori. If they move the satellite Pre-K classes all to a central location, I expect that demand to decrease fairly significantly. Montessori has demonstrated the least demand for the primary years, and yet is being expanded through grade 8. It doesn’t make objective sense.

Eliminating option schools won’t help the demographics of the highest poverty neighborhood schools. The demographics remain highly segregated (with one exception, but the school couldn’t hold double its current student population anyway, and a boundary change to alleviate crowding would result in a tighter geographical area, and that would result in the same/current imbalance) just given the children in APS living within the geographical boundaries. Our geography is highly segregated, so are the neighborhood schools.

But it makes perfect and obvious sense when you remember that the face of Montessori advocacy spent the last four years on the school board and, more significantly, the last year as Chair.

I don't know if pre-K demand will go down by centralizing the program. I guess we'll see; but there's such demand for preschool that I doubt moving it to a central location within the County is really going to impact applications. It's Montessori's hope that centralizing all the preK classes will increase demand for the K-5 years; and then eventually subsequent demand for the 6-8 years. And you know what's next in about ten years....a 9-12 Montessori program.

What they DO NEED to do and SHOULD do is significantly revamp the fee schedule so non-FRL-eligible families are paying a lot more for it than they have been. Make it comparable or more expensive than private preschools, then we'll see what the real demand is.

Why would anyone pay more for public Montessori than private You're just making it impossible for middle class Arlington families to do Montessori. The UMC is already in private.

Because there is no entitlement to a public private program education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what the Jamestown Elementary School PTA in North Arlington claims to do with their funds based on their website. I think alot of the key is to the afterschool enrichment programs.

Funds the schoolʼs technology needs including laptops, ipads, and other hand-held learning devices
Supplements the teacher training budget by funding professional development for teachers
Provides direct contributions to the teachers for the purchase of extra materials for classrooms and other areas of the school
Enhances the children’s arts education through Artists-in-Residence Programs, whereby artists are brought in and work with the students on a permanent art project
Enhances the childrenʼs music education through funding many musical performances throughout the year
Enhances the childrenʼs reading education through funding the Author-in-Residence Programs, whereby many authors come and read their books to the students
Funds the ever-popular school play
Coordinates the popular After School Enrichment programs and Reflections Contest
Hosts many social events throughout the year to build a stronger community such as the Ice Cream Social, Jamestown Auction, and Spring Fair

There is a huge problem with the first 2 things on that list. PTAs are NOT supposed to be purchasing technology and they are NOT permitted to pay for teacher training. This has been repeatedly clarified with APS, the Virginia PTA, and CCPTA. A school's technology needs are to be funded by the school system. PTAs are to provide support and community building (aka all the other things on that list). The primary purpose of a PTA is NOT fundraising - it is community building. The Jamestown PTA should cease those first two activities immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what the Jamestown Elementary School PTA in North Arlington claims to do with their funds based on their website. I think alot of the key is to the afterschool enrichment programs.

Funds the schoolʼs technology needs including laptops, ipads, and other hand-held learning devices
Supplements the teacher training budget by funding professional development for teachers
Provides direct contributions to the teachers for the purchase of extra materials for classrooms and other areas of the school
Enhances the children’s arts education through Artists-in-Residence Programs, whereby artists are brought in and work with the students on a permanent art project
Enhances the childrenʼs music education through funding many musical performances throughout the year
Enhances the childrenʼs reading education through funding the Author-in-Residence Programs, whereby many authors come and read their books to the students
Funds the ever-popular school play
Coordinates the popular After School Enrichment programs and Reflections Contest
Hosts many social events throughout the year to build a stronger community such as the Ice Cream Social, Jamestown Auction, and Spring Fair

There is a huge problem with the first 2 things on that list. PTAs are NOT supposed to be purchasing technology and they are NOT permitted to pay for teacher training. This has been repeatedly clarified with APS, the Virginia PTA, and CCPTA. A school's technology needs are to be funded by the school system. PTAs are to provide support and community building (aka all the other things on that list). The primary purpose of a PTA is NOT fundraising - it is community building. The Jamestown PTA should cease those first two activities immediately.

Why? So for both those items, it is a concern if a PTA is buying tech that is not compatible, causes integration issues, requires APS to spend more on supporting, etc. As for training, again the training needs to be compatible with APS curriculum, not conflicting/controversial/etc and also not impact teacher's obligations or working hours that conflict with teacher contracts. Now all of those are potential reasons to not allow funding. Also, there should be a minimum level for all schools (e.g. can't have some schools not have sufficient tech/training). Now with all that being said, if PTAs have funding and can avoid the mentioned concerns, then why not let them. I wish our PTA (I'm not Jamestown) would allow MORE fundraising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is what the Jamestown Elementary School PTA in North Arlington claims to do with their funds based on their website. I think alot of the key is to the afterschool enrichment programs.

Funds the schoolʼs technology needs including laptops, ipads, and other hand-held learning devices
Supplements the teacher training budget by funding professional development for teachers
Provides direct contributions to the teachers for the purchase of extra materials for classrooms and other areas of the school
Enhances the children’s arts education through Artists-in-Residence Programs, whereby artists are brought in and work with the students on a permanent art project
Enhances the childrenʼs music education through funding many musical performances throughout the year
Enhances the childrenʼs reading education through funding the Author-in-Residence Programs, whereby many authors come and read their books to the students
Funds the ever-popular school play
Coordinates the popular After School Enrichment programs and Reflections Contest
Hosts many social events throughout the year to build a stronger community such as the Ice Cream Social, Jamestown Auction, and Spring Fair

There is a huge problem with the first 2 things on that list. PTAs are NOT supposed to be purchasing technology and they are NOT permitted to pay for teacher training. This has been repeatedly clarified with APS, the Virginia PTA, and CCPTA. A school's technology needs are to be funded by the school system. PTAs are to provide support and community building (aka all the other things on that list). The primary purpose of a PTA is NOT fundraising - it is community building. The Jamestown PTA should cease those first two activities immediately.

Why? So for both those items, it is a concern if a PTA is buying tech that is not compatible, causes integration issues, requires APS to spend more on supporting, etc. As for training, again the training needs to be compatible with APS curriculum, not conflicting/controversial/etc and also not impact teacher's obligations or working hours that conflict with teacher contracts. Now all of those are potential reasons to not allow funding. Also, there should be a minimum level for all schools (e.g. can't have some schools not have sufficient tech/training). Now with all that being said, if PTAs have funding and can avoid the mentioned concerns, then why not let them. I wish our PTA (I'm not Jamestown) would allow MORE fundraising.

Because it's against the rules established by the National PTA. If you need more reason than that: Because a PTA can risk its non-profit status if it breaks the rules. If you still need more reason: because it's not right from an equity standpoint.

I will clarify the teacher training expenditure - theoretically, it is allowable IF the training benefits all of the students and is not just for the teacher or for a select group of students. That can usually be rationalized in some manner; but the benefit is often actually more dubious from that standpoint.

If you're itchin' so much to donate or raise more money, perhaps you could do so for the PTAs that don't have much fundraising power and help them do the (legal and allowable) things for their schools that Jamestown's PTA is doing for theirs.

[Anonymous]

In DC, multiple public schools that we were at significantly contributed to the school to fund class aides, technology, a special program (outdoor) teacher. So it's not uncommon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In DC, multiple public schools that we were at significantly contributed to the school to fund class aides, technology, a special program (outdoor) teacher. So it's not uncommon.

It may be common; but that doesn't make it within National PTA guidelines to which every PTA is beholden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In DC, multiple public schools that we were at significantly contributed to the school to fund class aides, technology, a special program (outdoor) teacher. So it's not uncommon.

It may be common; but that doesn't make it within National PTA guidelines to which every PTA is beholden.

DP. If it is common and against the rules, I wonder why there are no consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In DC, multiple public schools that we were at significantly contributed to the school to fund class aides, technology, a special program (outdoor) teacher. So it's not uncommon.

It may be common; but that doesn't make it within National PTA guidelines to which every PTA is beholden.

DP. If it is common and against the rules, I wonder why there are no consequences.

Because there isn't enforcement and people are fine with inequities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In DC, multiple public schools that we were at significantly contributed to the school to fund class aides, technology, a special program (outdoor) teacher. So it's not uncommon.

It may be common; but that doesn't make it within National PTA guidelines to which every PTA is beholden.

But what is the justification? While we should not have a poorly funded school due to parent lack of income, it shouldn't mean that we can't have all schools be at least sufficiently funded and some funded more than sufficiently (by parents) just due to equality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In DC, multiple public schools that we were at significantly contributed to the school to fund class aides, technology, a special program (outdoor) teacher. So it's not uncommon.

It may be common; but that doesn't make it within National PTA guidelines to which every PTA is beholden.

But what is the justification? While we should not have a poorly funded school due to parent lack of income, it shouldn't mean that we can't have all schools be at least sufficiently funded and some funded more than sufficiently (by parents) just due to equality.

The justification is that the school system should be funding these particular items, across the board. They should not be relying on PTAs. If PTAs constantly fill in gaps in basic funding, like for technology or teacher training/salary, and other basic supplies, they will keep slashing the budget, knowing that PTAs (in the wealthy areas likely to notice and complain/organize) will just fix it. Then the poor schools don’t get those things, ever. It’s not an issue of equality, but equity, which is different. The inequities ballon when PTAs cover up the lack of funding coming from the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In DC, multiple public schools that we were at significantly contributed to the school to fund class aides, technology, a special program (outdoor) teacher. So it's not uncommon.

It may be common; but that doesn't make it within National PTA guidelines to which every PTA is beholden.

But what is the justification? While we should not have a poorly funded school due to parent lack of income, it shouldn't mean that we can't have all schools be at least sufficiently funded and some funded more than sufficiently (by parents) just due to equality.

The justification is that the school system should be funding these particular items, across the board. They should not be relying on PTAs. If PTAs constantly fill in gaps in basic funding, like for technology or teacher training/salary, and other basic supplies, they will keep slashing the budget, knowing that PTAs (in the wealthy areas likely to notice and complain/organize) will just fix it. Then the poor schools don’t get those things, ever. It’s not an issue of equality, but equity, which is different. The inequities balloon when PTAs cover up the lack of funding coming from the system.

NP. So APS cuts budgets which results in gaps in education, but parents can't fund the gaps in the school where all students could benefit. That leaves parents with the option of 1) accepting gaps in their kids' education or 2) paying for after school classes which only their child benefits from. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow parents to fund things at the school which all the kids could benefit from, or let PTAs pool resources and spread them evenly across schools? I get very tired of the "can't do it, there is no solution" answers. And frankly, it seems that regardless of the rules some (wealthier) PTAs just pay for stuff anyway, while lower income schools (even those with decent PFA funding) follow the rules. How does that serve equity? It doesn't. So you have inequity even with the rules since there is no enforcement. The rules aren't preserving equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In DC, multiple public schools that we were at significantly contributed to the school to fund class aides, technology, a special program (outdoor) teacher. So it's not uncommon.

It may be common; but that doesn't make it within National PTA guidelines to which every PTA is beholden.

But what is the justification? While we should not have a poorly funded school due to parent lack of income, it shouldn't mean that we can't have all schools be at least sufficiently funded and some funded more than sufficiently (by parents) just due to equality.

The justification is that the school system should be funding these particular items, across the board. They should not be relying on PTAs. If PTAs constantly fill in gaps in basic funding, like for technology or teacher training/salary, and other basic supplies, they will keep slashing the budget, knowing that PTAs (in the wealthy areas likely to notice and complain/organize) will just fix it. Then the poor schools don’t get those things, ever. It’s not an issue of equality, but equity, which is different. The inequities balloon when PTAs cover up the lack of funding coming from the system.

NP. So APS cuts budgets which results in gaps in education, but parents can't fund the gaps in the school where all students could benefit. That leaves parents with the option of 1) accepting gaps in their kids' education or 2) paying for after school classes which only their child benefits from. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow parents to fund things at the school which all the kids could benefit from, or let PTAs pool resources and spread them evenly across schools? I get very tired of the "can't do it, there is no solution" answers. And frankly, it seems that regardless of the rules some (wealthier) PTAs just pay for stuff anyway, while lower income schools (even those with decent PFA funding) follow the rules. How does that serve equity? It doesn't. So you have inequity even with the rules since there is no enforcement. The rules aren't preserving equity.

Fine. Then APS should direct more resources to the poor schools and let the PTAs of the wealthier schools purchase the laptops and pay for the teacher development and training. And those PTAs and school parents don't get to cry foul or complain that APS is providing things for the poor schools that they aren't providing for theirs. Yeah. No lawsuits there. And I'm sure the State would be fine with that, too.

You're missing PP's point. If the PTAs don't pay for it, then APS DOES. That's how it's been working. And no, it isn't right for well-funded PTAs to make purchases that then obligate APS' budget to maintain/replace something for their school that other schools don't have. And PTA guidelines are also that PTAs should not be making purchases or entering into agreements or contracts that obligate future PTA budgets.

Same old ridiculous argument used to perpetuate the status quo. Well, it's going to be unfair no matter what; so we might as well keep on doing what we want and for our own kids regardless of any effects or considerations for others.

[Anonymous]

I don't believe for one moment that APS will pay for things that PTA's done. APS hasn't had math text books for years. PTAs aren't allowed to pay for those. APS keeps not budgeting for them. APS kids continue without math text books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe for one moment that APS will pay for things that PTA's done. APS hasn't had math text books for years. PTAs aren't allowed to pay for those. APS keeps not budgeting for them. APS kids continue without math text books.

Huh?
That's not because PTAs don't pay for them. It's because APS has chosen not to use them.