Can we get MCPS to allow fundraising for staff positions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!!!

Have you ever stepped foot in those "better versions"?!?!?

Yes they have additional funding, it is to help low-income students have the same quality of education. The extra monies come from federal funds. Countless studies show students in high-income areas out-performing students in low-income areas. The Dept. of Education is trying to "bridge the gap" - not saying that it's working just saying what they are doing.

Perhaps you'd prefer to send your child to one of these "better versions" - if you think your school has problems check out:
- Sargent Shriver
- Harmony Hills
- Jackson Road
- Highland
All are among the worst ranked schools in MCPS and have Kindergarten class sizes of 18-20.

[Anonymous]

On the leaving mcps point, if I did decide to go private, I would absolutely sell my expensive house in MoCo, and move into the district. The only reason I'm putting up with my crappy commute is because of the public schools put here, so if the public schools continue to spiral down (thanks Hogan!), I'll be taking my extensive tax dollars into DC.

[Anonymous]

Since everyone ignored my ballot initiative suggestion, I'll make another practical suggestion to try to find a solution that improves all the schools:
How about a rule that says parents can contribute to fund aides for their school, but some portion (50%?) of what they fundraise will go into a pot to fund aides county wide. That's essentially what catholic churches do--some portion of what the parishioners donate to tE church is given to the diocese for re-distribution to churches that aren't raising enough to cover their needs. Wouldn't this kind of rule have something for everyone?

[Anonymous]

To all of you who are champions for equality and hate this idea because it's "unfair" to the lower SES schools, how many of you also criticize Common Core becuase it's bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator in curriculum? So, is equality good or bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Weller Road is Title 1. It already has extra teachers.

No fair that those poor kids get smaller class sizes! Poor kids get all the good stuff!

Nobody said that. Literally NOT ONE PERSON ON THIS THREAD. I'm arguing we should be able to use *our own money* *in addition to our taxes* to get aides in the classroom. With a smile on my face, I will happily subsidize extra teachers at Title 1 / Focus schools. I would chip in for more for those schools if I was allowed to hire an aide for my kid's class. But instead, since I can't, I'm going to scrimp and save and send her to some private school as soon as I have enough $ to do it.
I am NOT alone.

Yes, you are arguing that you should be able to use your own money to buy your child a better education. If you want to do that, then you should do it, if you can -- in a private school. That is exactly what private schools exist for.

Well, since your view is the one that prevails in MCPS, that's what will happen. No flexibility whatsoever and a piss-poor public option. Yes, more people will go private. And in order to do that, we will have to move, because we cannot afford to live in this area and also pay for private. Since that financial status applies to most people in our area, expect to see that happen a lot.

You could move to Silver Spring! It's great over here.

No I can't.

Why not? If you have to move to pay for private, why not move to SS? It's really nice here. In fact, I live here even though I could live in Bethesda/CC etc. And your smaller mortgage paymenet could allow you to pay for private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since everyone ignored my ballot initiative suggestion, I'll make another practical suggestion to try to find a solution that improves all the schools:
How about a rule that says parents can contribute to fund aides for their school, but some portion (50%?) of what they fundraise will go into a pot to fund aides county wide. That's essentially what catholic churches do--some portion of what the parishioners donate to tE church is given to the diocese for re-distribution to churches that aren't raising enough to cover their needs. Wouldn't this kind of rule have something for everyone?

That seems like an idea everyone can get behind. I'd favor it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree with you, but the schools with lower income parent populations feel it's unfair. Of course, it's not taking anything from their kids and the TItle 1 schools do get more teachers per student (which seems reasonable to me). So I think it's a specious argument. I've seen my kid get basically zero attention all year in her enormous K class with one teacher.

So move to a Title 1 school or MD focus school. Then your child's classmates will be less white, less wealthy and some will be speaking English for the first time. Hopefully with school breakfast and lunch your child's classmates will at least not be hungry.

Not the PP but we don't go to a Title 1 or Focus school and 13 out of our 27 K kids are ESOL. Out of those 13, 5 still don't know anything but a few sentences in English. The kids get ignored. 27 K students to 1 teacher and no paraeducator help is just outright awful.

It all comes down to illegal immigrants. They are destroying a once great school district. And they just show up on the first day without registering. Once teachers are allocated, it is very hard to get a new teacher. Every year it happens. Every year it sucks. I can't go to Russia, China, Brazil etc.... And just start a school and have them teach me their language. It is no way benefitting us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To all of you who are champions for equality and hate this idea because it's "unfair" to the lower SES schools, how many of you also criticize Common Core becuase it's bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator in curriculum? So, is equality good or bad?

I think that the Common Core standards are a good thing.

And I don't think that rich people should be allowed to buy extra teachers for their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since everyone ignored my ballot initiative suggestion, I'll make another practical suggestion to try to find a solution that improves all the schools:
How about a rule that says parents can contribute to fund aides for their school, but some portion (50%?) of what they fundraise will go into a pot to fund aides county wide. That's essentially what catholic churches do--some portion of what the parishioners donate to tE church is given to the diocese for re-distribution to churches that aren't raising enough to cover their needs. Wouldn't this kind of rule have something for everyone?

How does that improve all of the schools? Let's say that 26 parents in one of the kindergarten classes in Rich Public School A contribute $36,000 for an extra teacher's aide and another $18,000 for the MCPS pot. That's $2,000 per household (a lot of money, for most people). The kindergarten class gets an extra teacher's aide -- yay for the kindergarten class! And the funding for the 154,000 students in MCPS goes up by 12 cents per student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree with you, but the schools with lower income parent populations feel it's unfair. Of course, it's not taking anything from their kids and the TItle 1 schools do get more teachers per student (which seems reasonable to me). So I think it's a specious argument. I've seen my kid get basically zero attention all year in her enormous K class with one teacher.

So move to a Title 1 school or MD focus school. Then your child's classmates will be less white, less wealthy and some will be speaking English for the first time. Hopefully with school breakfast and lunch your child's classmates will at least not be hungry.

Not the PP but we don't go to a Title 1 or Focus school and 13 out of our 27 K kids are ESOL. Out of those 13, 5 still don't know anything but a few sentences in English. The kids get ignored. 27 K students to 1 teacher and no paraeducator help is just outright awful.

It all comes down to illegal immigrants. They are destroying a once great school district. And they just show up on the first day without registering. Once teachers are allocated, it is very hard to get a new teacher. Every year it happens. Every year it sucks. I can't go to Russia, China, Brazil etc.... And just start a school and have them teach me their language. It is no way benefitting us.

what school is this? I do not at all believe that system-wide illegal immigrants are what's ailing MCPS, or that half the kids in your (non-title I) school are illegal immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, the school environment is not better in Title 1 and Focus schools, nor did I ever say that. But those schools receive more in resources for the same service and the same curriculum. So it is, by definition, not an equitable assignment of resources.

BTW, to the PP, who must be posting 2x a minute on this thread, you have a real affinity for using straw men to try to discredit the arguments of others. It suffers through overuse, however.

Yes, it's not an equitable assignment of resources, based on the idea that the Title I schools and the Focus schools should get more money because their needs are greater. But does that mean that poor people are getting better versions of public goods than rich people, as the PP said? Only if you think that the Title I schools and the Focus schools are better than the wealthy/white schools. Do you think that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

what school is this? I do not at all believe that system-wide illegal immigrants are what's ailing MCPS, or that half the kids in your (non-title I) school are illegal immigrants.

Not to mention, how does the PP know the immigration status of the kids in the PP's kids' schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"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."

+1

Also agree with the pp helping poiny out that if you are so jealous of how great title 1 and focus schools have it you are welcome to come on over here. Moving to private school is a move same as COSA would be. What's that? The small class size in title 1 and focus do not begin to make it comparable to your Bethesda school so you don't want to do that? Forgive me if I lack some sympathy.

No one asked for your sympathy. I get that you don't care about our kids because of where we live. But there's no hypocrisy here. I don't want to move to private school either. For a kid with social anxiety, any move to any new school and new social group is going to be traumatic. But I know you don't care. Nor do I care whether you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, the school environment is not better in Title 1 and Focus schools, nor did I ever say that. But those schools receive more in resources for the same service and the same curriculum. So it is, by definition, not an equitable assignment of resources.

BTW, to the PP, who must be posting 2x a minute on this thread, you have a real affinity for using straw men to try to discredit the arguments of others. It suffers through overuse, however.

Yes, it's not an equitable assignment of resources, based on the idea that the Title I schools and the Focus schools should get more money because their needs are greater. But does that mean that poor people are getting better versions of public goods than rich people, as the PP said? Only if you think that the Title I schools and the Focus schools are better than the wealthy/white schools. Do you think that?

Why do you think the richer schools are better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, the school environment is not better in Title 1 and Focus schools, nor did I ever say that. But those schools receive more in resources for the same service and the same curriculum. So it is, by definition, not an equitable assignment of resources.

BTW, to the PP, who must be posting 2x a minute on this thread, you have a real affinity for using straw men to try to discredit the arguments of others. It suffers through overuse, however.

Yes, it's not an equitable assignment of resources, based on the idea that the Title I schools and the Focus schools should get more money because their needs are greater. But does that mean that poor people are getting better versions of public goods than rich people, as the PP said? Only if you think that the Title I schools and the Focus schools are better than the wealthy/white schools. Do you think that?

So equity isn't the principle at play here. The principle at play is not liking rich people.