Janney PTA raised $1.4 million in one year

[Anonymous]

The PR campaign for the roll out of the new chancellor is probably costing DCPS $250,000. Lots of pics of him "listening" to students and parents. So. Many. Pictures.

And, many positive affirmations on twitter. Total cult of personality and disturbing.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who seriously thinks that the funds the PTAs at these schools raise have any significant impact on student performance is delusional. This money isn't why these schools perform better than others. Sure, it's unfair, but it's no more unfair than the fact that high SES families can afford other nice things for their kids that others can't. School funding is not a root cause of inequality of educational outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Janney can raise this kind of money because the parents are rich and willing to give. You cannot raise money when the parents are poor or plain selfish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The PR campaign for the roll out of the new chancellor is probably costing DCPS $250,000. Lots of pics of him "listening" to students and parents. So. Many. Pictures.

And, many positive affirmations on twitter. Total cult of personality and disturbing.

It would be interesting to know the number of communications, media and social media positions in the chancellor's office.

Oakand Antwan is a listener, but not much of a doer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You and I both know that the extra money earmarked for Title 1 schools is not nearly enough to cause a real difference.

Title 1 schools have some money- but often it is earmarked for certain things and restricted in numerous ways. You might have money earmarked for new textbooks in 5th grade Math but you just got textbooks 2 years ago. What you really need are new computers. But you can't get those because the grant or partnership you have is only for one particular thing.

And sure, the number of students in your classroom is less than a WOTP elementary classroom, but 1/4 of those kids are ESL students, 1/4 of the kids start Kindergarten woefully behind, and a 1/4 of them come from homes with systemic poverty. You probably have a couple or more students with some diagnosed learning disability. Plus, you have several bright students who need differentiated instruction to keep them motivated. Teachers are pulled in a million different directions in a classroom to meet the extremely different needs in the classroom. You might have fewer students, but I would bet a lot of money that you have much extremer and more varied needs.

And yes, they have DCPS aftercare for a much lower cost... but that aftercare is barebones. Many of the "free" programming that exists is geared towards 2-5 grade. So ECE, K, and 1st graders are left with minimal aftercare activities. During winter months and rainy days, they are restricted to indoor spaces with limited activities. Bringing in outside activities costs money. Money that a large portion of the population does not have. So schools are hesitant to bring these programs in, because the children who cannot afford these programs are naturally upset and don't understand when Larlo gets to run off to basketweaving and they are stuck doing the same old thing. Teachers that are hired for this aftercare are paid minimal dollars, and are tired from a long day of work. So PTO's are left trying to figure out how they can help aftercare run more smoothly and offer the kids some basic activities. That being said, these PTO's have small budgets and have to consider how spending on Aftercare only benefits 1/3 or so of the school population.

Huh? Look at these aftercare set ups. Looks pretty enriched to me:
http://www.ludlowtaylor.org/program-information.html
http://politepiggys.com/before-after-school/maury/
http://politepiggys.com/wp-content/uploads/PP_Specials_Cycle_1_2016_2017_Tyler.pdf
http://www.thomsondcps.org/after-school.html

Ludlow is a very well run DCPS program, so you've found an exception to PPs comment above. Our experience in other DCPS was that the kids were put in front on the TV. Friends experience was that principal wouldn't allow enrichment in title 1 dcps aftercare for the reason PP mentions. (The Polite Piggys links aren't relevant in this conversation because that's private and not the title 1 subsidized care PP was referring to)

[Anonymous]

Come on, as long as every school has what it needs, what's wrong with affluent parents topping up the budget by hiring teachers aides etc.? This happens all over the country.

We're certainly not going to close the achievement gap as a country by limiting PTA contributions. Keeping well-off parents in the public school system benefits the low and moderate income students who attend the school, and swells city coffers by keeping their tax dollars in the city. DC wouldn't be better off if well-heeled JKLM, Brent, Maury, Ross etc. parents who contribute generously to PTA budgets run to the burbs or privates in search of the favorable instructor:student ratios and in-school enrichment PTA contributions help provide.

Please find a new cause, jealous PPs. PTA bashing is pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Come on, as long as every school has what it needs, what's wrong with affluent parents topping up the budget by hiring teachers aides etc.? This happens all over the country.

We're certainly not going to close the achievement gap as a country by limiting PTA contributions. Keeping well-off parents in the public school system benefits the low and moderate income students who attend the school, and swells city coffers by keeping their tax dollars in the city. DC wouldn't be better off if well-heeled JKLM, Brent, Maury, Ross etc. parents who contribute generously to PTA budgets run to the burbs or privates in search of the favorable instructor:student ratios and in-school enrichment PTA contributions help provide.

Please find a new cause, jealous PPs. PTA bashing is pathetic.

Actually if those well-heeled families leave for the suburbs or choose private schools, the city and its coffers would be better off. Families with kids use more city services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Come on, as long as every school has what it needs, what's wrong with affluent parents topping up the budget by hiring teachers aides etc.? This happens all over the country.

We're certainly not going to close the achievement gap as a country by limiting PTA contributions. Keeping well-off parents in the public school system benefits the low and moderate income students who attend the school, and swells city coffers by keeping their tax dollars in the city. DC wouldn't be better off if well-heeled JKLM, Brent, Maury, Ross etc. parents who contribute generously to PTA budgets run to the burbs or privates in search of the favorable instructor:student ratios and in-school enrichment PTA contributions help provide.

Please find a new cause, jealous PPs. PTA bashing is pathetic.

Actually it doesn't happen all over the country. Hiring staff with PTA funds is against national pta guidelines. You don't see this in Maryland or Virginia, just in nwdc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's just one example of unfair funding disparities in DCPS:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/unequal-shelves-in-dc-school-libraries-benefit-wealthier-students/2015/03/09/f548db96-bd1f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

Never mind that they are comparing a 700 student school to a 250 student school, but that article is not highlighting a DCPS funding inequity, rather a total failure to fund libraries at all: "But the District dedicates no annual funding for school-library collections, instead relying on the largesse of parents or the kindness of strangers to stock its shelves through donations." It is tragic that Drew at that time allegedly had one book per child; but it was also unacceptable that, while significantly better, Lafayette allegedly had only 40 books per child for PK to 5th grade (5 books per year -- my kids read more than that in a week), likely all provided by parents. It should not be left to parents at any school. That is a total failure on the part of the District to properly focus on libraries. This is an ongoing saga of DCPS misallocation of resources and messed up priorities. Many parents have been fighting for years to change this in all schools in DC. https://educationdc.net/2017/01/31/dcps-school-libraries-the-continuing-saga-of-the-inequitable-and-underfunded/

Things have changed since 2015, and all purchases are through the public library, and all DCPS students have at-school access to the whole public library collection; but it still isn't working perfectly. Also, DCPS still goes after and gives its own book grants. When DCPS does get book grants, if they actually allocate them to books and not equipment for Central Office, the books do not go to the likes of JKLM:

https://dcps.dc.gov/release/dcps-awarded-multi-million-dollar-literacy-grant-target
PWP grants: https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/FY16%20DCPS%20Budget%20Overview.pdf

So parents have to supplement for their kids as they always have. Instead of complaining that it is unfair that those parents can donate more books to their schools (by the way, they do book drives for other DCPS schools too, e.g. http://www.horacemanndc.org/apps/events2/event.jsp?eREC_ID=1895131&d=2017-02-03&id=0; http://www.politics-prose.com/wishlist/murch-reach-inc-bookdrive), join the advocacy to get more books in all DCPS libraries so it isn't dumped on the backs of parents. The system needs millions to make up for zero effort over the last decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's just one example of unfair funding disparities in DCPS:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/unequal-shelves-in-dc-school-libraries-benefit-wealthier-students/2015/03/09/f548db96-bd1f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

Never mind that they are comparing a 700 student school to a 250 student school, but that article is not highlighting a DCPS funding inequity, rather a total failure to fund libraries at all: "But the District dedicates no annual funding for school-library collections, instead relying on the largesse of parents or the kindness of strangers to stock its shelves through donations." It is tragic that Drew at that time allegedly had one book per child; but it was also unacceptable that, while significantly better, Lafayette allegedly had only 40 books per child for PK to 5th grade (5 books per year -- my kids read more than that in a week), likely all provided by parents. It should not be left to parents at any school. That is a total failure on the part of the District to properly focus on libraries. This is an ongoing saga of DCPS misallocation of resources and messed up priorities. Many parents have been fighting for years to change this in all schools in DC. https://educationdc.net/2017/01/31/dcps-school-libraries-the-continuing-saga-of-the-inequitable-and-underfunded/

Things have changed since 2015, and all purchases are through the public library, and all DCPS students have at-school access to the whole public library collection; but it still isn't working perfectly. Also, DCPS still goes after and gives its own book grants. When DCPS does get book grants, if they actually allocate them to books and not equipment for Central Office, the books do not go to the likes of JKLM:

https://dcps.dc.gov/release/dcps-awarded-multi-million-dollar-literacy-grant-target
PWP grants: https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/FY16%20DCPS%20Budget%20Overview.pdf

So parents have to supplement for their kids as they always have. Instead of complaining that it is unfair that those parents can donate more books to their schools (by the way, they do book drives for other DCPS schools too, e.g. http://www.horacemanndc.org/apps/events2/event.jsp?eREC_ID=1895131&d=2017-02-03&id=0; http://www.politics-prose.com/wishlist/murch-reach-inc-bookdrive), join the advocacy to get more books in all DCPS libraries so it isn't dumped on the backs of parents. The system needs millions to make up for zero effort over the last decade.

But DCPS can afford to fund a dedicated communication and media staff for our new chancellor, Oakland Antwan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on, as long as every school has what it needs, what's wrong with affluent parents topping up the budget by hiring teachers aides etc.? This happens all over the country.

We're certainly not going to close the achievement gap as a country by limiting PTA contributions. Keeping well-off parents in the public school system benefits the low and moderate income students who attend the school, and swells city coffers by keeping their tax dollars in the city. DC wouldn't be better off if well-heeled JKLM, Brent, Maury, Ross etc. parents who contribute generously to PTA budgets run to the burbs or privates in search of the favorable instructor:student ratios and in-school enrichment PTA contributions help provide.

Please find a new cause, jealous PPs. PTA bashing is pathetic.

Actually if those well-heeled families leave for the suburbs or choose private schools, the city and its coffers would be better off. Families with kids use more city services.

I don't know if your tax vs cost calculations are correct, but aside from that, DCPS would certainly not be better off if it lost most of its high performing students. Then all schools would be low performing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on, as long as every school has what it needs, what's wrong with affluent parents topping up the budget by hiring teachers aides etc.? This happens all over the country.

We're certainly not going to close the achievement gap as a country by limiting PTA contributions. Keeping well-off parents in the public school system benefits the low and moderate income students who attend the school, and swells city coffers by keeping their tax dollars in the city. DC wouldn't be better off if well-heeled JKLM, Brent, Maury, Ross etc. parents who contribute generously to PTA budgets run to the burbs or privates in search of the favorable instructor:student ratios and in-school enrichment PTA contributions help provide.

Please find a new cause, jealous PPs. PTA bashing is pathetic.

Actually if those well-heeled families leave for the suburbs or choose private schools, the city and its coffers would be better off. Families with kids use more city services.

I don't know if your tax vs cost calculations are correct, but aside from that, DCPS would certainly not be better off if it lost most of its high performing students. Then all schools would be low performing.

Right, no they wouldn't be better off. No way. Young high SES families are serious agents of change in DC. They don't just support schools, they do all kinds of things to help make the city a better place. This mother spent several long years lobbying DDOT to get the horribly battered sidewalks on our street changed out (we weren't even on an 10-year paving schedule), and succeeded. According to DDOT engineers, nobody had pushed for new sidewalks, or a radical reworking of the traffic flow at the profoundly dangerous intersection around the corner, until gentrifiers appeared on the scene.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on, as long as every school has what it needs, what's wrong with affluent parents topping up the budget by hiring teachers aides etc.? This happens all over the country.

We're certainly not going to close the achievement gap as a country by limiting PTA contributions. Keeping well-off parents in the public school system benefits the low and moderate income students who attend the school, and swells city coffers by keeping their tax dollars in the city. DC wouldn't be better off if well-heeled JKLM, Brent, Maury, Ross etc. parents who contribute generously to PTA budgets run to the burbs or privates in search of the favorable instructor:student ratios and in-school enrichment PTA contributions help provide.

Please find a new cause, jealous PPs. PTA bashing is pathetic.

Actually if those well-heeled families leave for the suburbs or choose private schools, the city and its coffers would be better off. Families with kids use more city services.

I don't know if your tax vs cost calculations are correct, but aside from that, DCPS would certainly not be better off if it lost most of its high performing students. Then all schools would be low performing.

Right, no they wouldn't be better off. No way. Young high SES families are serious agents of change in DC. They don't just support schools, they do all kinds of things to help make the city a better place. This mother spent several long years lobbying DDOT to get the horribly battered sidewalks on our street changed out (we weren't even on an 10-year paving schedule), and succeeded. According to DDOT engineers, nobody had pushed for new sidewalks, or a radical reworking of the traffic flow at the profoundly dangerous intersection around the corner, until gentrifiers appeared on the scene.

Exactly. Remember how much of a shithole DC was (in fact, DCPS schools didn't even have toilet paper) when Mayor Marion Crackhead and his crooked cronies ran things?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's just one example of unfair funding disparities in DCPS:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/unequal-shelves-in-dc-school-libraries-benefit-wealthier-students/2015/03/09/f548db96-bd1f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

Never mind that they are comparing a 700 student school to a 250 student school, but that article is not highlighting a DCPS funding inequity, rather a total failure to fund libraries at all: "But the District dedicates no annual funding for school-library collections, instead relying on the largesse of parents or the kindness of strangers to stock its shelves through donations." It is tragic that Drew at that time allegedly had one book per child; but it was also unacceptable that, while significantly better, Lafayette allegedly had only 40 books per child for PK to 5th grade (5 books per year -- my kids read more than that in a week), likely all provided by parents. It should not be left to parents at any school. That is a total failure on the part of the District to properly focus on libraries. This is an ongoing saga of DCPS misallocation of resources and messed up priorities. Many parents have been fighting for years to change this in all schools in DC. https://educationdc.net/2017/01/31/dcps-school-libraries-the-continuing-saga-of-the-inequitable-and-underfunded/

Things have changed since 2015, and all purchases are through the public library, and all DCPS students have at-school access to the whole public library collection; but it still isn't working perfectly. Also, DCPS still goes after and gives its own book grants. When DCPS does get book grants, if they actually allocate them to books and not equipment for Central Office, the books do not go to the likes of JKLM:

https://dcps.dc.gov/release/dcps-awarded-multi-million-dollar-literacy-grant-target
PWP grants: https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/FY16%20DCPS%20Budget%20Overview.pdf

So parents have to supplement for their kids as they always have. Instead of complaining that it is unfair that those parents can donate more books to their schools (by the way, they do book drives for other DCPS schools too, e.g. http://www.horacemanndc.org/apps/events2/event.jsp?eREC_ID=1895131&d=2017-02-03&id=0; http://www.politics-prose.com/wishlist/murch-reach-inc-bookdrive), join the advocacy to get more books in all DCPS libraries so it isn't dumped on the backs of parents. The system needs millions to make up for zero effort over the last decade.

But DCPS can afford to fund a dedicated communication and media staff for our new chancellor, Oakland Antwan.

Well, the Oakland, Calif. public schools are certainly a model for the nation!

What made DC hire this guy? Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on, as long as every school has what it needs, what's wrong with affluent parents topping up the budget by hiring teachers aides etc.? This happens all over the country.

We're certainly not going to close the achievement gap as a country by limiting PTA contributions. Keeping well-off parents in the public school system benefits the low and moderate income students who attend the school, and swells city coffers by keeping their tax dollars in the city. DC wouldn't be better off if well-heeled JKLM, Brent, Maury, Ross etc. parents who contribute generously to PTA budgets run to the burbs or privates in search of the favorable instructor:student ratios and in-school enrichment PTA contributions help provide.

Please find a new cause, jealous PPs. PTA bashing is pathetic.

Actually if those well-heeled families leave for the suburbs or choose private schools, the city and its coffers would be better off. Families with kids use more city services.

I don't know if your tax vs cost calculations are correct, but aside from that, DCPS would certainly not be better off if it lost most of its high performing students. Then all schools would be low performing.

Right, no they wouldn't be better off. No way. Young high SES families are serious agents of change in DC. They don't just support schools, they do all kinds of things to help make the city a better place. This mother spent several long years lobbying DDOT to get the horribly battered sidewalks on our street changed out (we weren't even on an 10-year paving schedule), and succeeded. According to DDOT engineers, nobody had pushed for new sidewalks, or a radical reworking of the traffic flow at the profoundly dangerous intersection around the corner, until gentrifiers appeared on the scene.

Exactly. Remember how much of a shithole DC was (in fact, DCPS schools didn't even have toilet paper) when Mayor Marion Crackhead and his crooked cronies ran things?!

We just bought toilet paper for our school during a "paddle raise." NWDC school.