did I make a mistake?

[Anonymous]

To 11:56 - Clearly your child doesn't go to a Title I school (or any borderline/Focus school). At those schools (and there are a bunch in MC), there are TONS of families who simply don't have any additional resources to spare. These parents can't afford breakfast/lunch, school supplies or the cost of field trips --- so please don't fool yourself into believing that they can magically come up with money to kick in for staff salaries/support. Disclosure: My kids don't go to Title 1 or Focus schools, but I have relatives and friends with kids in those schools (in MCPS) as well as teachers, so I hear about things like who runs the PTA (who actually shows up), sending in extras for the class (b/c the teacher shouldn't have to buy supplies for the kids), being expected to be the room mom (or doing it b/c you want to make sure your kid has holiday parties, etc.) b/c you are literally the only parent who can afford to swing the costs associated with the treats and paper products, etc. Clearly 11:56's kid is in a good school --- are you in Bethesda, Chevy Chase or Potomac? So there are lots of kids in your child's class -- big deal. Pull out your yearbook from elementary school and count the kids. And I bet you didn't even go to full-day kindergarten either (most didn't way back when). Your kid will survive.

[Anonymous]

Alright 12:28, how does prohibiting more affluent schools from doing EXTRA things make anything WORSE for the less affluent schools?

This becomes a philosophical issue about our educational system seeking the lowest common denominator rather than striving for excellence wherever and whenever possible.

How is this philosophy different that telling the smartest kid in the class to read ABC books all year (b/c that is the lowest level standard established throughout the county and, oh well, those smart kids will survive anyway)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 11:56 - Clearly your child doesn't go to a Title I school (or any borderline/Focus school). At those schools (and there are a bunch in MC), there are TONS of families who simply don't have any additional resources to spare. These parents can't afford breakfast/lunch, school supplies or the cost of field trips --- so please don't fool yourself into believing that they can magically come up with money to kick in for staff salaries/support. Disclosure: My kids don't go to Title 1 or Focus schools, but I have relatives and friends with kids in those schools (in MCPS) as well as teachers, so I hear about things like who runs the PTA (who actually shows up), sending in extras for the class (b/c the teacher shouldn't have to buy supplies for the kids), being expected to be the room mom (or doing it b/c you want to make sure your kid has holiday parties, etc.) b/c you are literally the only parent who can afford to swing the costs associated with the treats and paper products, etc. Clearly 11:56's kid is in a good school --- are you in Bethesda, Chevy Chase or Potomac? So there are lots of kids in your child's class -- big deal. Pull out your yearbook from elementary school and count the kids. And I bet you didn't even go to full-day kindergarten either (most didn't way back when). Your kid will survive.

BTW, no one is mandating that those families pay anything additional. No services would be taken away from these schools in any way shape or form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:B/c it would be the parents in the wealthy areas who would be equipped to cover the costs for additional staff support and the rest of the schools in the lower-income areas would be left out (b/c those parents can't afford to chip in). FWIW, lots of schools have paraeducators or reading specialists or other support staff who assist with certain classes each day. You should ask the principal if that is an option. For example, my child only has 22 in his 2nd grade class (in a green zone school), there are 4 second grades each with 20-22 kids, and the school also provides a reading specialist so that reading groups are even smaller.

Ok, but that would mean that in the lower-income areas, the kids would have EXACTLY what they have now. Why is allowing certain schools to provide more than this level harm the lower income schools? It wouldn't be changing anything for those schools.

Also, who's to say that the lower income schools would, necessarily, not be able to raise money. Theoretically, a more affluent school could have parents that are already able to volunteer in the classroom, so those parents might not feel it is necessary to contribute money for add't staff. By the same token, a lower income school could have families that decide they will contribute additional money at whatever level they are able. After all, those families should be allowed to chose how to spend their resources and not have someone decide that because they are "lower income" that they must not have anything to contribute.

I don't understand - are you implying that lower income people aren't involved?

[Anonymous]

They tend not to be because they may have more than one job, no paid time off, no flex time and no paid sick leave. It doesn't mean they don't WANT to be involved but if you don't get paid for the time you take off to volunteer in the classroom and you make a very low hourly wage, chance are they don't volunteer. This describes me but I volunteer in other ways. I offer to help at home by sorting, cutting, pasting, etc. I also send in supplies for crafts, parties, teacher appreciation, etc. If I took a few hours off work, I wouldn't get paid. I wish I had paid time off but in this economy, I feel lucky to have any job.

[Anonymous]

For the person who wonders why it would be wrong to let the wealthier schools raise money for staff positions, while knowing poorer schools don't have the option: it reinforces social injustice, that is why. The quality of your education should not be determined by your wealth. Giving more to the "haves" widens the gap between them and the "have nots" and that isn't good for society.

Yes, I am a socialist.

[Anonymous]

Why not a general contribution fund then that raises money for staff positions everywhere?

[Anonymous]

PP - Its a good idea, and I think lots of people would do it. The challenge for some of us is that we believe that really good schools should be provided for all, regardless of wealth, and that all of society should pay for them - with taxes. I believe that having parents donate to the fund relieves the State of its responsibility.

[Anonymous]

For the person who wonders why it would be wrong to let the wealthier schools raise money for staff positions, while knowing poorer schools don't have the option: it reinforces social injustice, that is why. The quality of your education should not be determined by your wealth. Giving more to the "haves" widens the gap between them and the "have nots" and that isn't good for society.

Yes, I am a socialist.

I'm a capitalist but good hearted life long democrat who thinks that you can balance the two options. You need to look at the cumulative financial picture. If you can only raise 100X from tax revenues but there is the ability to raise another 25X from private donors, you NEED to figure out a way to get that 25K and increase your overall budget by 25%.

There is no reason why a model could not be put in place that allows for a base minimum budget from the state, augmentation for local schools from parents, and then a grant based option (funded from an overhead deducation % from local donations and tax revenue) for schools that fail to raise money and show a need for augmentation. You would end up with more money for the base and more money for grant augmentation along with the local improvements.

Lets say that Potomac parents raise enough to fund an aid in each classroom, an art specialist, and a PE teacher. Lets say that another school raises no money but applies for a state grant and is able to receive an aid in each classroom. The Potomac school still has more but the other school also has more than it would have had in the all are equal model.

[Anonymous]

Who pays for the state grant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the person who wonders why it would be wrong to let the wealthier schools raise money for staff positions, while knowing poorer schools don't have the option: it reinforces social injustice, that is why. The quality of your education should not be determined by your wealth. Giving more to the "haves" widens the gap between them and the "have nots" and that isn't good for society.

Yes, I am a socialist.

A couple of questions/thoughts.

1) I assume want to outlaw all private schools, right? Perhaps you should take up this point with President Obama or Vice President Biden who's children/grandchildren attend one of the most expensive private schools in DC.

2) You do recognize that the purpose of public schools is not to relieve social injustice, it is to educate children. What's next? Should families also give up reading to their kids? After all, parental reading is the biggest predictor for educational success. Under your theory, it would be "unfair" for some to have this benefit while others are left without it.

3) In a county system like MOCO, the wealthier residents already support/subsidize schools in less affluent areas through their tax dollars. In addition, any parent who participates in a PTA pays dues, approximately half of which subsidize programs in less affluent schools. Furthermore, many schools have a program to raise funds, etc. for a less affluent "sister school" in the county.

4) Finally, please, point us to the socialist country that has innovated in any way? Was the computer, iphone, super-conductor created in a socialist country? Nope. As much as you may not like it, dumbing-down a population and reducing opportunities to the lowest common denominator just.doesn't.work.

It seems like your desire to keep willing parents from providing additional resources to their schools isn't even really just some misguided notion that this will "level the playing field" rather it is some desire to "stick it" to folks with more resources. In fact, I bet that the parents who want to provide these resources do more to help disadvantaged kids in this county than you have ever done. Your talk seems like just that: empty words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For the person who wonders why it would be wrong to let the wealthier schools raise money for staff positions, while knowing poorer schools don't have the option: it reinforces social injustice, that is why. The quality of your education should not be determined by your wealth. Giving more to the "haves" widens the gap between them and the "have nots" and that isn't good for society.

Yes, I am a socialist.

I'm a capitalist but good hearted life long democrat who thinks that you can balance the two options. You need to look at the cumulative financial picture. If you can only raise 100X from tax revenues but there is the ability to raise another 25X from private donors, you NEED to figure out a way to get that 25K and increase your overall budget by 25%.

There is no reason why a model could not be put in place that allows for a base minimum budget from the state, augmentation for local schools from parents, and then a grant based option (funded from an overhead deducation % from local donations and tax revenue) for schools that fail to raise money and show a need for augmentation. You would end up with more money for the base and more money for grant augmentation along with the local improvements.

Lets say that Potomac parents raise enough to fund an aid in each classroom, an art specialist, and a PE teacher. Lets say that another school raises no money but applies for a state grant and is able to receive an aid in each classroom. The Potomac school still has more but the other school also has more than it would have had in the all are equal model.

Or you assess a luxury tax on every private school in the state and direct that money pay for additional staff, specials, etc. in the public schools.

[Anonymous]

I was joking with the "Yes, I am a socialist" comment, because whenever you start talking about social justice people get all rabid like 14:36. Perhaps I needed an emoticon?

My kid goes to private school, because the state has not fulfilled its responsibility to provide good to schools to all. I live in PG county. And I'm not a socialist. But even socialist countries have private schools...i.e. they are not communist.

I know inequality will always exist. But I think it is the state's role to foster and promote equal opportunity, and if you provide some with "more equal" education than others, you are fostering inequality.

Not saying there is no role for private money in public schools (though I don't know where the line is) but I'm not sure allowing rich schools to get richer (even if they don't make poor schools poorer) is the way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the person who wonders why it would be wrong to let the wealthier schools raise money for staff positions, while knowing poorer schools don't have the option: it reinforces social injustice, that is why. The quality of your education should not be determined by your wealth. Giving more to the "haves" widens the gap between them and the "have nots" and that isn't good for society.

Yes, I am a socialist.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was joking with the "Yes, I am a socialist" comment, because whenever you start talking about social justice people get all rabid like 14:36. Perhaps I needed an emoticon?

My kid goes to private school, because the state has not fulfilled its responsibility to provide good to schools to all. I live in PG county. And I'm not a socialist. But even socialist countries have private schools...i.e. they are not communist.

I know inequality will always exist. But I think it is the state's role to foster and promote equal opportunity, and if you provide some with "more equal" education than others, you are fostering inequality.

Not saying there is no role for private money in public schools (though I don't know where the line is) but I'm not sure allowing rich schools to get richer (even if they don't make poor schools poorer) is the way to go.

Is there an emoticon for hypocrite?!?!? You say that you are concerned about equal opportunity but...wait for it...you send your kid to private school. To borrow an old expression, "isn't that special?" Just hilarious! You think there should be equal opportunity and you don't think "rich schools should get richer" but you send your kid to private school? Do you get how off you theories are from your reality?

Also, part of the problem with socialist societies is that there really are haves and have-nots. You are right, there was a whole separate system for the politically connected and then an inferior system for everyone else (all the while this system was sold as for-the-greater-good). Hmm, actually it sounds like maybe you are a socialist after all. You want to be able to chose the perfect school for your kid b/c you can afford it...but you want to tell other parents that they can't use their resources for make their kid's school better for all the kids in that school. Shame on you. Take a look in the mirror and take a long hard look at your choices before you start telling other parents what they can't do.