Mann and Janney PTAs called out in NYTs op-ed for perpetuating segregation in cities
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
It is easier to go to the bathroom when you have a nice bathroom too. That doesn't change the facts it would behoove people to prioritize figuring out a way. There will always be poor people who will have to work 10x as hard to get just parity with normal people let alone the privilege of those who have generations of momentum inside the ownership culture. I don't understand the utopia people claim to be fighting for. Every parent works to impart privilege to their kids, what would be the point if every generation resets and all kids get a equal shot at success? Even then; if parents, race, wealth aren't acceptable ways to pick the winners and losers (ok you might have a point) you tell me what ways are ok to pick the winners and losers. Pick any way you wan't but there has to be about 50% of the people below the middle class and about 1 rich person for every 100 cattle. 1. IQ? (how has standardize testing worked out so far) 2. Work ethic? Poor people already work way harder, people get rich not to work 3. scholastic performance? Good luck competing with the GAP, hell this way doesn't work out so great for white people either. 4. Morality? Moving target 5. Entitlement? Sorry that's the current system and the seat is taken 6. Citizenship? Please help me out, how do you pick winners and losers when nobody wants to be a loser? How to you tell the winners that they can't help their kids because the losers aren't in a position to help their kids? Now do all of this in a capitalist system that has more losers than winners and the only real predictor is ownership.... and everything is already owned. Truth is that what we are really talking about is breaking up the ownership class and redistributing. I hope people aren't holding their breath for that. |
Anonymous
It is not about picking winners and losers. It is about making sure that everyone has a safe place to live and enough food to eat. It is also about making sure someone having a health problem doesn't set back an entire family generations and that those who do care about education can afford to get a quality education. |
Anonymous
And how does a parent giving money to a public school interfere with that? |
Anonymous
| It’s important that many of us, rich or poor or in between, have and have nots—have some of the same values and wants: decent home, solid education, happy family, safe neighborhoods, and good government. Many are trying to make the best with the hand they are dealt. All children deserve a chance. Accolades go to those that can climb the latter and give back. They inspire others to try to do the same. |
Anonymous
I don’t know that I oppose it — I give the suggested per kid PTA donation, though I recognize that it helps maintain inequalities in the city when my kids’ school can raise money other kids’ schools can’t. But a lot of people here who have no problem with JKLM schools raising money privately then justify it by saying the schools don’t get enough from the city and that the spending at other schools reflects waste. Which does seem to suggest that the NYT isn’t totally wrong in its claim that people who raise private funds for their school would oppose higher taxes to spend more on poorer schools. |
Anonymous
No, I think what people are saying is that there is already a huge disparity in public funding for schools within the city and that PTA funds don't come close to making up that disparity. So when people suggest taking PTA monies from the schools that have the least funding by far then that's just punitive. |
Anonymous
Seems to suggest the claim? Seems awfully wishy washy to me. Is there proof? If you don’t oppose people donating money to public schools, are you one who is trying to justify it? I just don’t get why people want to refuse money someone wants to give to a public school. |
Anonymous
No one is saying the schools should refuse the money. The point is that the money helps overall inequality persist -- even if it "makes up for" a funding disparity where the schools that serve the wealthiest families have less money per pupil than other schools do. The "extra" money that other schools have can't be spent on the stuff that JKLM schools spend their PTA money on, because it mostly goes for specialized services that are in higher need there. So what would be most fair would be to raise taxes (especially at the top end of the income tables) and spend more money on all the stuff that the JKLM schools raise private funds for -- and make sure it's allocated equitably across the city. Then there'd be no need for private fundraising, and the schools that can't raise money privately would have the same opportunities that the schools that can do. Would you vote for someone who proposed that? Or would you object to the tax increase and to the fact that more money would still, per pupil, be going to other schools? |
Anonymous
No, I would not vote for that unless you are planning on reducing the substantial disparity. $9k per student for some schools and $17k for others is not right. |
Anonymous
|
the vast majority of the money the JKLM elementary schools (and schools like them) raise is spent to lower student teacher ratios by increasing the number of teachers and paraprofessionals in the classroom. That is also what title I funds are for in part, because it has been determined that that is good for disadvantaged children.
Many people apparently think that students that are advantaged in life should not also have the benefit of smaller class sizes somehow that is unfair because it will give them a better education and further the disparity. It is only a "better"education because these kids are starting with inherent advantages (higher vocabulary exposure, parents reading to them, stable homes and other resources, etc). I can understand if you have to choose who gets the extra funds to pay for smaller class sizes they go to schools with disadvantaged kids. But this argument is about prohibiting schools with advantaged students from allowing parents to fundraise to provide the same lower teacher/student ratio that the disadvantaged kids have paid for with public funds. I contribute to funds for my children's schools and I support funding lower teacher/student ratios at schools with disadvantaged students. Why is this wrong? |
Anonymous
| What is the average JKLM class size in this hypothetical? |
Anonymous
The class size is not unusually small. What they do is add adults so in K there is a teacher and an assistant in every classroom, in first there is a teacher for each class and additional math and reading teachers that work with multiple classrooms and so on. It allows for pull outs and small learning groups. They have dedicated science and social studies teachers that teach across the grades. Stuff like that. I think Mann has a teacher and an assistant in every classroom across all grades but my knowledge may be based on old information as my youngest is now a middle schooler. |
Anonymous
I am asking what the publically funded class sizes would be if PTA funds were taken out of the equation. |
Anonymous
Opening paragraph of the article is already problematic. The city public schools of the past were bastions of opportunity for whites, as evidenced by his examples (all white men) from Boston Latin. So what's changed? It wasn't like black students were flourishing at Boston Latin at the same time. To be clear, this is not an issue with the argument about economic segregation. Boston Latin in the first half of the 20th century (and Boston public schools rather famously) was segregated. So what's the point being made? |
Anonymous
Only two schools do that, fwiw. |