Can we get MCPS to allow fundraising for staff positions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. Of course not. It will be to a different extent in different schools. Which is why I would give my left hand to decrease class sizes across the board for all schools (you have no idea how hard I've worked to try to make that happen). But it's better than *no aides at all* which is what we have now.

It's certainly better for your child. But it's worse for the public school system as a whole, and for society.

Why is it worse for the public system as a whole, or for society? Is it better for my kid to go to private school? Or for my kid to get a crappy educational foundation and then need more resources later on, that then come out of the public school system?
So short-sighted.
What I wish is that we could all band together and get smaller class sizes for all schools. But I have been so disappointed at the total lack of energy toward making that happen.

You are asking why it's bad for society when rich people can buy better versions of public goods than poor people.

But just to be clear, you're perfectly OK with giving poor people better versions of public goods than rich people. My kids' school gets less money per pupil than a school run by the same public system where the average income is lower.

I've only posted on this thread 2x and I don't actually support the idea of parent fundraising for extra teachers or aides. But don't justify opposition to the idea on the basis of equity. MCPS is already a totally inequitable system that is trying (and failing) to redress the increasing inequity in society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just saw this post from DCUM about the suggested contribution at Horace Mann Elementary (in NW DC) in DCPS.

"The Mann money goes to the second teacher in every classroom (PK - 5th), the extra science teacher, the extra PE teacher, the extra performing arts teacher, outdoor facilities. Other things here and there. We got the letter today asking for $1500 per child."

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/327926.page

I would like to see MCPS allow parents to do something similar.

Because the county is so diverse socio-economically, it's a way to keep high-earners in MCPS. Otherwise they may get frustrated with this massive country-run operation. And it frees up money in the budget for the schools that need it.

Any chance this could actually happen? Or would people think it's not PC to support it? How did DCPS get this done?

The bolded is a fabrication. DCPS does not -- read that again, DOES. NOT. -- allow PTAs to hire a 2nd true teacher to teach in its classrooms (and thereby reduce the student-to-teacher ratio). Janney and Mann parents will try to tell you otherwise, as you see in the above post. It's not true.

What PTA funds can cover: aides. Aides (who are, yes, adults and helpful and may even be in school earning a degree someday) are not full-on, unionized curriculum-trained teachers who teach curriculum.

Don't take my word for it -- call Central Office at DCPS.

Another adult warm body in a classroom =/= "a teacher that effectively reduces class size."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw this post from DCUM about the suggested contribution at Horace Mann Elementary (in NW DC) in DCPS.

"The Mann money goes to the second teacher in every classroom (PK - 5th), the extra science teacher, the extra PE teacher, the extra performing arts teacher, outdoor facilities. Other things here and there. We got the letter today asking for $1500 per child."

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/327926.page

I would like to see MCPS allow parents to do something similar.

Because the county is so diverse socio-economically, it's a way to keep high-earners in MCPS. Otherwise they may get frustrated with this massive country-run operation. And it frees up money in the budget for the schools that need it.

Any chance this could actually happen? Or would people think it's not PC to support it? How did DCPS get this done?

The bolded is a fabrication. DCPS does not -- read that again, DOES. NOT. -- allow PTAs to hire a 2nd true teacher to teach in its classrooms (and thereby reduce the student-to-teacher ratio). Janney and Mann parents will try to tell you otherwise, as you see in the above post. It's not true.

What PTA funds can cover: aides. Aides (who are, yes, adults and helpful and may even be in school earning a degree someday) are not full-on, unionized curriculum-trained teachers who teach curriculum.

Don't take my word for it -- call Central Office at DCPS.

Another adult warm body in a classroom =/= "a teacher that effectively reduces class size."

[Anonymous]

But as a PP mentioned, Arlington and Falls Church have separate small school districts. It is not written in stone that school districts need to be organized along huge-county lines. Bethesda/Potomac do not benefit from being a part of MoCo.

This is true but the other areas benefit greatly from Bethesda/Potomac being part of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But just to be clear, you're perfectly OK with giving poor people better versions of public goods than rich people. My kids' school gets less money per pupil than a school run by the same public system where the average income is lower.

I've only posted on this thread 2x and I don't actually support the idea of parent fundraising for extra teachers or aides. But don't justify opposition to the idea on the basis of equity. MCPS is already a totally inequitable system that is trying (and failing) to redress the increasing inequity in society.

Oh, are Title I schools and Focus schools better than the schools in Bethesda, Potomac, and Chevy Chase? I didn't know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw this post from DCUM about the suggested contribution at Horace Mann Elementary (in NW DC) in DCPS.

"The Mann money goes to the second teacher in every classroom (PK - 5th), the extra science teacher, the extra PE teacher, the extra performing arts teacher, outdoor facilities. Other things here and there. We got the letter today asking for $1500 per child."

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/327926.page

I would like to see MCPS allow parents to do something similar.

Because the county is so diverse socio-economically, it's a way to keep high-earners in MCPS. Otherwise they may get frustrated with this massive country-run operation. And it frees up money in the budget for the schools that need it.

Any chance this could actually happen? Or would people think it's not PC to support it? How did DCPS get this done?

The bolded is a fabrication. DCPS does not -- read that again, DOES. NOT. -- allow PTAs to hire a 2nd true teacher to teach in its classrooms (and thereby reduce the student-to-teacher ratio). Janney and Mann parents will try to tell you otherwise, as you see in the above post. It's not true.

What PTA funds can cover: aides. Aides (who are, yes, adults and helpful and may even be in school earning a degree someday) are not full-on, unionized curriculum-trained teachers who teach curriculum.

Don't take my word for it -- call Central Office at DCPS.

Another adult warm body in a classroom =/= "a teacher that effectively reduces class size."

It is a huge benefit in lower grades. In our private we have 1 teacher and 1 aide. In K, the aide assists with tying shoes, escorting to the bathroom, opening snack, monitoring classroom behavior, intervening when necessary, removing a child from class that needs a few minutes to settle down. She will also work with kids on reading and math. Without this assistance, all of these tasks fall to the teacher. Which takes away from their ability to actually teach. In the upper elem school grades the aide is assisting with reading and math groups--again allowing small group work to occur within a larger class size--effectively reducing class size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But as a PP mentioned, Arlington and Falls Church have separate small school districts. It is not written in stone that school districts need to be organized along huge-county lines. Bethesda/Potomac do not benefit from being a part of MoCo.

This is true but the other areas benefit greatly from Bethesda/Potomac being part of the county.

What does Bethesda/Potomac get from being part of the county?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But as a PP mentioned, Arlington and Falls Church have separate small school districts. It is not written in stone that school districts need to be organized along huge-county lines. Bethesda/Potomac do not benefit from being a part of MoCo.

This is true but the other areas benefit greatly from Bethesda/Potomac being part of the county.

What does Bethesda/Potomac get from being part of the county?

If you don't want to be part of the county, then start a movement to secede.

[Anonymous]

As a higher income earner, I pay more county taxes. Those tax dollars are taken by the county to fund schools outside of my town. So, I've already done my part in helping out the poorer citizens of this county. If I should choose to contribute some more money to my local school, why shouldn't I be allowed to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a higher income earner, I pay more county taxes. Those tax dollars are taken by the county to fund schools outside of my town. So, I've already done my part in helping out the poorer citizens of this county. If I should choose to contribute some more money to my local school, why shouldn't I be allowed to.

If you want to persuade the rest of the county to allow this, don't use this argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a higher income earner, I pay more county taxes. Those tax dollars are taken by the county to fund schools outside of my town. So, I've already done my part in helping out the poorer citizens of this county. If I should choose to contribute some more money to my local school, why shouldn't I be allowed to.

You aren't going to win any supporters with that attitude, PP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a higher income earner, I pay more county taxes. Those tax dollars are taken by the county to fund schools outside of my town. So, I've already done my part in helping out the poorer citizens of this county. If I should choose to contribute some more money to my local school, why shouldn't I be allowed to.

1. If you are a resident of the county, you do not live in a town, at least not for school district purposes. Your county taxes are used to fund county schools. Schools in the county in which you reside.

2. RE paying more taxes because you earn more: Yes, that is how taxation works.

3. Paying more taxes into a public system does not translate to you being allowed to do whatever you want with that public system.

Government 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But as a PP mentioned, Arlington and Falls Church have separate small school districts. It is not written in stone that school districts need to be organized along huge-county lines. Bethesda/Potomac do not benefit from being a part of MoCo.

This is true but the other areas benefit greatly from Bethesda/Potomac being part of the county.

What does Bethesda/Potomac get from being part of the county?

I agree with this poster. Bethesda/Potomac derive no benefit from being part of MoCo, yet other parts of the county benefit from having Bethesda/Potomac part of MoCo. So at least allow parent funding of an aide for the classroom. That would be the 1 benefit Bethesda/Potomac would get from being a part of MoCo. Otherwise, it would be nice to have our own school district (or form a new county). Just because MoCo is organized this way now, does not mean it always has to be organized this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with OP.

I remember reading an article from 2012 about how French President Hollande had proposed banning homework in an effort to level the playing field. He said homework favors the wealthy because they have parents with the time and energy to help them with their homework. I guess his idea was that, instead of allowing some kids to benefit from homework, it's better to bring all kids down to a lower level (since equality is the #1 goal).

I don't get why people would oppose having parents help a school fund staff positions. Since it doesn't hurt your school (but only helps the other school), it seems kind of petty to oppose it.

Really? You don't understand why people might be upset if School A gets an extra art teacher/reading specialist/media person because School A has a lot of rich parents, but School B does not get an extra art teacher/reading specialist/media person because School B does not have a lot of rich parents?

PP here. The reason I don't understand it is that it does not hurt your child and frees up money in the budget to help other schools.

The system OP proposes sounds good on paper, but in practice it works out like this: Rich parents fund extras for their children's schools; they then start complaining about the amount of taxes they pay that is used by the County and State to fund not only their children's school but all the schools; they lobby for the taxes to be lowered; as the taxes are lowered the funding from the County and State is also reduced; the funding to the rich schools and the poor schools may be reduced equally, but the rich parents can make up for the short fall; and the result is that the poorer school get worse while the rich school stay the same or get better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a higher income earner, I pay more county taxes. Those tax dollars are taken by the county to fund schools outside of my town. So, I've already done my part in helping out the poorer citizens of this county. If I should choose to contribute some more money to my local school, why shouldn't I be allowed to.

Sure, and that contribution can be called tuition to a private school.