Can we get MCPS to allow fundraising for staff positions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You can keep saying the "move to a Title 1" school thing all you want, but I've already answered it. I can't move away from the grandparents i need to help. And, also, it's kind of traumatic for kids to leave their friends and start all over socially (some kids have a harder time with that than others -- one of mine would have a VERY hard time with it).
And no, this isn't about fear of brown/black people. We're brown people.

Well, if you can't/don't want to, then you can't/don't want to, and you will just have to make do with the choices you have -- as we all do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I find this silly. WE DON'T HAVE A REAL PUBLIC SOLUTION! I'd love it if we did, but we don't. I advocate for it, and won't stop advocating for it, but we don't have it. WE could have a private/public solution in the interim, but we can't do that because "it's not fair". WHAT? It reminds me of the Vonnegut story, Harrison Bergeron. Is the fear that if the schools with rich parents get better, then the rich parents will stop trying to make the system as a whole better? I feel like we could solve that problem. Like, if you want to raise funds for extra aides/teachers at your school, you have to raise matching funds that go into the system as a whole. So, Bannockburn PTA can put $100k toward two new teachers' aides, but they have to put $100k in matching funds into the general fund.
Otherwise, you know what's going to happen over time? The rich Whitman parents will gradually move more kids to private. Because the class sizes aren't going to support the reputation of "good schools" for much longer.

That's not the reason, but yes, actually, if rich parents can buy more teachers for their children's schools, then they will have much less incentive to advocate for more teachers for other children's schools. After all, more teachers for other children's schools won't benefit their children, right?

And please remember -- you can put $100,000 towards any number of things in your children's schools. The ONLY thing you can't do with the $100,000 is buy more teachers.

Yes, I know we can put money toward other things. But nothing compensates for the class sizes, which suck. Having after school activities or an artist in residence is nice, but it's so marginal compared to the fact that my kid's teacher still doesn't have any idea how she learns and has no relationship with her. Believe it or not, there are "at risk" kids in these schools too, and if you just have too many kids with one teacher, then lots of kids get ignored.

[Anonymous]

Fundraising for staff positions sounds like a terrible idea. I can only imagine what it would be like for that teacher, with a class full of parent who basically "bought" her and then feel entitled to a whole lot. And then the risk that if she doesn't cater to the parents' every whim, they'll cut off their contributions next year so she loses her job.

[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.

Of course not. The schools are separate but equal. Right?

Don't be stupid. Currently, the schools getting more funding are the ones with MORE minority populations, not less. Also, we're not white.
What about my "matching funds requirement" suggestion? What's wrong with that idea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can keep saying the "move to a Title 1" school thing all you want, but I've already answered it. I can't move away from the grandparents i need to help. And, also, it's kind of traumatic for kids to leave their friends and start all over socially (some kids have a harder time with that than others -- one of mine would have a VERY hard time with it).
And no, this isn't about fear of brown/black people. We're brown people.

Well, if you can't/don't want to, then you can't/don't want to, and you will just have to make do with the choices you have -- as we all do.

Great! Let's all just accept a shitty education for our kids, and do nothing about it even though we could. Sounds perfect. Do you work for MCPS? You sound a lot like them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Don't be stupid. Currently, the schools getting more funding are the ones with MORE minority populations, not less. Also, we're not white.
What about my "matching funds requirement" suggestion? What's wrong with that idea?

It's still separate but equal -- which has become a general concept, not limited to the specific people involved in Plessy v. Ferguson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fundraising for staff positions sounds like a terrible idea. I can only imagine what it would be like for that teacher, with a class full of parent who basically "bought" her and then feel entitled to a whole lot. And then the risk that if she doesn't cater to the parents' every whim, they'll cut off their contributions next year so she loses her job.

Ask the teachers at Janney/Mann/Lafayette/Key. They don't seem upset to have jobs they wouldn't otherwise have.

[Anonymous]

In DCPS we fundraise for aides. This makes the large classes more manageable and moves the teacher/ student ratio closer to Title 1 schools, which get twice as much per student to keep class sizes down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can keep saying the "move to a Title 1" school thing all you want, but I've already answered it. I can't move away from the grandparents i need to help. And, also, it's kind of traumatic for kids to leave their friends and start all over socially (some kids have a harder time with that than others -- one of mine would have a VERY hard time with it).
And no, this isn't about fear of brown/black people. We're brown people.

Well, if you can't/don't want to, then you can't/don't want to, and you will just have to make do with the choices you have -- as we all do.

Great! Let's all just accept a shitty education for our kids, and do nothing about it even though we could. Sounds perfect. Do you work for MCPS? You sound a lot like them.

I should really stop being surprised by the accusations on DCUM that I must work for MCPS, given that it happens every time I say that MCPS actually does some things right. No, I don't work for MCPS.

And again -- there are lots of things you can do about your child's education in MCPS, and for education in MCPS in general. Lots and lots and lots of things. The only thing you can't do is buy more teachers for your child's school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Don't be stupid. Currently, the schools getting more funding are the ones with MORE minority populations, not less. Also, we're not white.
What about my "matching funds requirement" suggestion? What's wrong with that idea?

It's still separate but equal -- which has become a general concept, not limited to the specific people involved in Plessy v. Ferguson.

To some extent that's unavoidable, right? I mean, my school doesn't have the level of ESL or lack of parental resources that some schools have. That's an advantage. So I guess it's separate but equal unless we force all parents to donate their income to other families? Or tell the well-educated parents that they're not allowed to read to their kids?
IT seems so silly. What's too bad is that this is a very pro-education crowd who DO work to benefit the entire school system.
But you would really reject this WITH matching funds for other schools, on principle. SO you're turning down the benefit for ALL kids because we don't want the rich kids to have more teachers, even if it costs the system nothing AND the system gets more funding out of it. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In DCPS we fundraise for aides. This makes the large classes more manageable and moves the teacher/ student ratio closer to Title 1 schools, which get twice as much per student to keep class sizes down.

Exactly. My friends in DCPS schools are shocked when I tell them how big my "good" MCPS classes are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

To some extent that's unavoidable, right? I mean, my school doesn't have the level of ESL or lack of parental resources that some schools have. That's an advantage. So I guess it's separate but equal unless we force all parents to donate their income to other families? Or tell the well-educated parents that they're not allowed to read to their kids?
IT seems so silly. What's too bad is that this is a very pro-education crowd who DO work to benefit the entire school system.
But you would really reject this WITH matching funds for other schools, on principle. SO you're turning down the benefit for ALL kids because we don't want the rich kids to have more teachers, even if it costs the system nothing AND the system gets more funding out of it. Wow.

Yes, and to some extent it's unavoidable. For example, to the extent of allowing rich parents to buy additional public-school teachers for their children.

If you want to fundraise for other schools, please do so! If you want to fundraise for your school, please do so! Nobody is stopping you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can keep saying the "move to a Title 1" school thing all you want, but I've already answered it. I can't move away from the grandparents i need to help. And, also, it's kind of traumatic for kids to leave their friends and start all over socially (some kids have a harder time with that than others -- one of mine would have a VERY hard time with it).
And no, this isn't about fear of brown/black people. We're brown people.

Well, if you can't/don't want to, then you can't/don't want to, and you will just have to make do with the choices you have -- as we all do.

Great! Let's all just accept a shitty education for our kids, and do nothing about it even though we could. Sounds perfect. Do you work for MCPS? You sound a lot like them.

I should really stop being surprised by the accusations on DCUM that I must work for MCPS, given that it happens every time I say that MCPS actually does some things right. No, I don't work for MCPS.

And again -- there are lots of things you can do about your child's education in MCPS, and for education in MCPS in general. Lots and lots and lots of things. The only thing you can't do is buy more teachers for your child's school.

What? What can I do to make my kids' school better NOW? Not in 10 years or when the political winds change, but while they're actually in school? I already volunteer at my kids' school. I already lobby for better funding. I make the phone calls and send the emails asking everybody else to. I work with my kid after school, teaching her the stuff she doesn't learn in school. I deal with her emotional traumas from misbehaviors that go unchecked because it's impossible to catch it all when there are that many kids in the classroom. I have a job and kids. I can't do it full time. I can't afford private, but I'm considering moving to another school district because I have one kid who actually needs some attention (the other's probably going to be fine regardless). Please, if there's something I can do to ameliorate the effects of 26 kids and one teacher in early elementary, tell me what it is. If I can do it, I certainly will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To some extent that's unavoidable, right? I mean, my school doesn't have the level of ESL or lack of parental resources that some schools have. That's an advantage. So I guess it's separate but equal unless we force all parents to donate their income to other families? Or tell the well-educated parents that they're not allowed to read to their kids?
IT seems so silly. What's too bad is that this is a very pro-education crowd who DO work to benefit the entire school system.
But you would really reject this WITH matching funds for other schools, on principle. SO you're turning down the benefit for ALL kids because we don't want the rich kids to have more teachers, even if it costs the system nothing AND the system gets more funding out of it. Wow.

Yes, and to some extent it's unavoidable. For example, to the extent of allowing rich parents to buy additional public-school teachers for their children.

If you want to fundraise for other schools, please do so! If you want to fundraise for your school, please do so! Nobody is stopping you.

When you get to this extreme, you have to admit, you're not thinking about what's best for the kids. You're turning down money that could benefit ALL kids, because you have some ideology that you think is more important than they are.
Why don't we take DCPS as an example and see if the bad effects have actually happened there? Has it been bad for DCPS as a whole for schools to be allowed to do this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

When you get to this extreme, you have to admit, you're not thinking about what's best for the kids. You're turning down money that could benefit ALL kids, because you have some ideology that you think is more important than they are.
Why don't we take DCPS as an example and see if the bad effects have actually happened there? Has it been bad for DCPS as a whole for schools to be allowed to do this?

I don't think that "rich parents don't get to buy additional public-school teachers for their children" is an extreme position.