Rich NYC PTAs are able to provide funds for arts programs, teaching assistants; poor PTAs struggle

[AngryTeacher]

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/05/22/2011-05-22_rich_nyc_ptas_are_able_to_provide_funds_for_arts_programs_teaching_assistants_po.html

*****
Indeed, some schools naturally have a leg up when it comes to fund-raising. LaGuardia High School of Music & Art and Performing Arts - with its numerous celebrity alums and parents - raked in $522,349 last year, largely from its annual auction.

This year, the school auctioned off white Chanel boots once worn by Madonna, whose daughter Lourdes attends the school, while alum Jonathan Letham, author of "Motherless Brooklyn," sold a chance to become a character in his next novel.

[Anonymous]

mcp can't fund operating expense like salaries the way pta can in dc and apparently nyc. . . however, ptas that have the werewithall raise funds and/or form educational foundations to fund such extras as extra computers, enrichment programs, etc.

some of these foundations even offer grants to less wealthy schools in the county. . .

[Anonymous]

I find it hard to get upset about this particular instance of inequity.

After all,if the rich parents whose kids go to the rich schools weren't able to raise money through the PTA to fund the arts programs, they'd just use their money to hire drivers to take their kids after school to fancy after school art academies or whatever. if you have money, you get to have nicer classes and after school activities for your kids.

At least by funnelling the money through the PTA, more kids at the school get to take advantage -- including some kids of more modest means (if any happened to sneak into the school, that is.)

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty sure the elementary schools in upper NW pull in some impressive fundraising numbers not far off from this. I don't have a problem w/ it.

[Anonymous]

I know, god forbid that parents contribute extra to their children's education. Bastards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it hard to get upset about this particular instance of inequity.

After all,if the rich parents whose kids go to the rich schools weren't able to raise money through the PTA to fund the arts programs, they'd just use their money to hire drivers to take their kids after school to fancy after school art academies or whatever. if you have money, you get to have nicer classes and after school activities for your kids.

At least by funnelling the money through the PTA, more kids at the school get to take advantage -- including some kids of more modest means (if any happened to sneak into the school, that is.)

This line says it all.

It is easy to dismiss the have-nots if you are a have.

[Anonymous]

So wealthy schools can raise money from wealthy parents. Hardly news there. And any special reason you're linking to a NYC article from the Maryland forums?

Anyway, Angry Teacher, like many union employees, you seem to be focused on budgets, as if throwing enough money at a school will make it good. Newsflash: it won't. In fact some of the best schools have very limited means, while some districts that get huge amounts of money fail year after year. Bottom line: it take active parents and great teachers to make a great school. Money is nice but without the parents and teachers you'll just see money wasted.

[Anonymous]

No, it is easy to dismiss you because your argument is essentially a "race to the bottom." Taken to an extreme, your argument would suggest that no parent should help their child or school unless and until all children/schools can be similarly helped. This argument actually helps NO ONE. Basically, in your worldview: I shouldn't provide fruits and veggies in my child's lunch b/c, after all, some can't afford the high price of healthy produce. Or, maybe, I shouldn't help my child with homework because I have a doctorate degree - something not all parents have. Or, maybe, I shouldn't volunteer at my child's school b/c not all parents have the flexibility to so so.
The point is that ALL children in a particular school will benefit if the parents of that school pool their resources to provide extras. By definition, they are extras - above and beyond the curriculum. If providing these extras meant taking something away from less advantaged schools, I would agree with you -- but it does not. MCPS has decided the basic level of what schools should provide. If parents want to go above and beyond with their own resources, so be it. If you think MCPS standards should be raised, then you should focus your efforts in that direction rather than vilify parents who are trying to do the best for their school.
This mentality of "if we can't ALL have the extras, then NONE of us should have the extras" is destructive and, frankly dis-empowering to parents throughout the county.

[Anonymous]

Yaaawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, it is easy to dismiss you because your argument is essentially a "race to the bottom." Taken to an extreme, your argument would suggest that no parent should help their child or school unless and until all children/schools can be similarly helped. This argument actually helps NO ONE. Basically, in your worldview: I shouldn't provide fruits and veggies in my child's lunch b/c, after all, some can't afford the high price of healthy produce. Or, maybe, I shouldn't help my child with homework because I have a doctorate degree - something not all parents have. Or, maybe, I shouldn't volunteer at my child's school b/c not all parents have the flexibility to so so.
The point is that ALL children in a particular school will benefit if the parents of that school pool their resources to provide extras. By definition, they are extras - above and beyond the curriculum. If providing these extras meant taking something away from less advantaged schools, I would agree with you -- but it does not. MCPS has decided the basic level of what schools should provide. If parents want to go above and beyond with their own resources, so be it. If you think MCPS standards should be raised, then you should focus your efforts in that direction rather than vilify parents who are trying to do the best for their school.
This mentality of "if we can't ALL have the extras, then NONE of us should have the extras" is destructive and, frankly dis-empowering to parents throughout the county.

We beat this horse to death a long time ago. We have vastly different assumptions underlying our viewpoints, so there is no point in having this same (fruitless) conversation.

[AngryTeacher]

Cold Spring ES with 1.8% FARMs
Roscoe Nix ES with close to 70% FARMs (I work in this cluster.)

Although it's "hardly news," it's is the same everywhere - from NYC to good old Mo Co. Even so, that doesn't make it right.

I'm glad you think you understand me so well.

Anonymous wrote:So wealthy schools can raise money from wealthy parents. Hardly news there. And any special reason you're linking to a NYC article from the Maryland forums?

Anyway, Angry Teacher, like many union employees, you seem to be focused on budgets, as if throwing enough money at a school will make it good. Newsflash: it won't. In fact some of the best schools have very limited means, while some districts that get huge amounts of money fail year after year. Bottom line: it take active parents and great teachers to make a great school. Money is nice but without the parents and teachers you'll just see money wasted.

[Anonymous]

I could be wrong but I believe that MCPS disallows parents from making any monetary donations and/or any monetary donations that benefit their school. While this may sound equal but it lacks any fiscal understanding of budgeting process and philanthropy to the detriment of all schools.

I'll give an example. MCPS has a budget for planned facility maintenance and renovation. The budget is slim so across the county only renovations and maintenance required to meet safety regulations are planned. The budget allocations are based on facilty need. Cluster A will get $1 M and Cluster B will get $1 million for bare bones repair. Cluster A and both need 2M to truly improve the facilty but the money is not there.

Parents are allowed to fund raise directly for their school. Parents in cluster A raise 2.25M and parents in cluster B raise nothing. Angry Teacher would assume that cluster A students get a building with repairs and all improvements and 500K in extra bells and whistles while cluster B just gets basic repairs. Not true. In the next facility assessment based on need and budget subsmission, cluster A does not require any repairs because it has been completely renovated through philanthropy. $1M can now be re-alloacted to cluster B. Cluster B receives all repairs and all improvements which would never have occurred if the parents in A had not raised the funds for their school. The parents in cluster A are still happy because they see the extra 500K in bells and whistles that are at their school. Parents in cluster B are happy because they received all repairs and all improvements.

This approach is used at every hospital, higher education, and non-profit around. The fact is that people will give where they have a direct connection and can see a direct result. The parents in cluster A would never have raised 2.5M if it was for a general school fund. At the same time, as long as the money goes toward the intended purpose there is nothing wrong with the organization re-allocating funds to others areas based on their original criteria.

School systems should leverage philanthropy to maximize their budgets. It is irresponsible to the kids not to do this.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the Department of Defense should leverage philanthropy to meet its needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it hard to get upset about this particular instance of inequity.

After all,if the rich parents whose kids go to the rich schools weren't able to raise money through the PTA to fund the arts programs, they'd just use their money to hire drivers to take their kids after school to fancy after school art academies or whatever. if you have money, you get to have nicer classes and after school activities for your kids.

At least by funnelling the money through the PTA, more kids at the school get to take advantage -- including some kids of more modest means (if any happened to sneak into the school, that is.)

This line says it all.

It is easy to dismiss the have-nots if you are a have.

Oh, please. I was being facetious.

I'm an elementary school teacher at a school that has 60% kids on Free and Reduced lunch. My kids go to an elementary school that has 80% kids on Free/reduced lunch. I'm not a "have".

But I find it hard to get upset that parents at other school can raise money to pay for extra at their kids' schools; but my own kids' school PTA can't raise that kind of money.

Rich people can afford more atr classes for kids after school, than poor people can.

yeah, I'd LOVE for the whole school district to be able to afford after school art classes for everyone. But I don't think refusing to let parents provide these activities for their kids on their own dime, is going to solve anything.

[Anonymous]

And, if you don't let people supplement their schools, they will just create pressure to start charter schools; or the parents will pull out for private, which loses the public schools a LOT of political support.