How can DCPS improve *all* its schools when Wilson and feeders raise big PTA money for enrichment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really is all about the parents. Not even the money they raise really impacts outcomes at the school as a whole. My kid attends a title 1 school EoTP, our HH income is over 300k. We just had a teacher conf and she is reading a grade level ahead already, she easily grasps math and Spanish. Why. She has parent with three advanced degrees who read and write and speak with her. We expose her to travel and museums and interesting experiences. She has never known a day of hunger or housing insecurity. We have never let her play or watch a violent movie or video game. Screen time is limited and monitored. She is living in a safe and healthy bubble compared to a lot of her peers quite frankly. The achievement gap is evident in K and will only get bigger and has nothing to do with the teachers or PTA funding.

That's really an insult to the excellent teachers we've encountered at DCPS. We're a duel Ivy family with an HHI of 250k, and I have no qualms in attributing my son's academic success to the amazing teachers he has had. I mean, even if you think your kid is the bees knees, the teachers still do the work of, you know, teaching. And it's not only academics -- my kid has special needs, and they've just been amazing at working with his weaknesses. I think you must not even realize what teachers do, because you just assume your kid is self-teaching?

NP. I think that if a teacher reaches a certain minimum threshold of being an adequate, decent teacher, the kids (especially if neurotypical) will do fine and thrive. They don't have to be amazing. However, if your kid is significantly behind due to deficits in the early years--parents who experienced trauma, rough neighborhood, parents not reading to kids or any other enrichment, general instability--I don't think even an amazing teacher can catch that kid up. For that task, wraparound services are necessary, and there doesn't seem to be the political will to provide this for these kids.

that's demonstrably untrue, both in my direct observation of teachers, common sense, and the actual research. teaching quality can make a huge difference. is there any other profession where you'd say quality doesn't matter past "adequate," especially for the most challenging cases?

https://www.rand.org/education-and-labor/projects/measuring-teacher-effectiveness/teachers-matter.html

PP here and you're right in that teachers have some measurable impact. I think demographics matter a whole lot more. From your link:

"Some research suggests that, compared with teachers, individual and family characteristics may have four to eight times the impact on student achievement."

So you unschool your child. Interesting.

I mean of course, privilege matters. That's why it's called privilege. But to say it's "all" parents is just not believable. I don't believe for a second that DCUM parents would be happy to have crappy teachers and crappy curriculums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really is all about the parents. Not even the money they raise really impacts outcomes at the school as a whole. My kid attends a title 1 school EoTP, our HH income is over 300k. We just had a teacher conf and she is reading a grade level ahead already, she easily grasps math and Spanish. Why. She has parent with three advanced degrees who read and write and speak with her. We expose her to travel and museums and interesting experiences. She has never known a day of hunger or housing insecurity. We have never let her play or watch a violent movie or video game. Screen time is limited and monitored. She is living in a safe and healthy bubble compared to a lot of her peers quite frankly. The achievement gap is evident in K and will only get bigger and has nothing to do with the teachers or PTA funding.

That's really an insult to the excellent teachers we've encountered at DCPS. We're a duel Ivy family with an HHI of 250k, and I have no qualms in attributing my son's academic success to the amazing teachers he has had. I mean, even if you think your kid is the bees knees, the teachers still do the work of, you know, teaching. And it's not only academics -- my kid has special needs, and they've just been amazing at working with his weaknesses. I think you must not even realize what teachers do, because you just assume your kid is self-teaching?

NP. I think that if a teacher reaches a certain minimum threshold of being an adequate, decent teacher, the kids (especially if neurotypical) will do fine and thrive. They don't have to be amazing. However, if your kid is significantly behind due to deficits in the early years--parents who experienced trauma, rough neighborhood, parents not reading to kids or any other enrichment, general instability--I don't think even an amazing teacher can catch that kid up. For that task, wraparound services are necessary, and there doesn't seem to be the political will to provide this for these kids.

that's demonstrably untrue, both in my direct observation of teachers, common sense, and the actual research. teaching quality can make a huge difference. is there any other profession where you'd say quality doesn't matter past "adequate," especially for the most challenging cases?

https://www.rand.org/education-and-labor/projects/measuring-teacher-effectiveness/teachers-matter.html

PP here and you're right in that teachers have some measurable impact. I think demographics matter a whole lot more. From your link:

"Some research suggests that, compared with teachers, individual and family characteristics may have four to eight times the impact on student achievement."

What the original PP said is that teachers don't matter for any demographic: "The achievement gap is evident in K and will only get bigger and has nothing to do with the teachers or PTA funding. " I think this is fatalistic and untrue; and also weird because I seriously doubt any of you would be happy with bad teaching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really is all about the parents. Not even the money they raise really impacts outcomes at the school as a whole. My kid attends a title 1 school EoTP, our HH income is over 300k. We just had a teacher conf and she is reading a grade level ahead already, she easily grasps math and Spanish. Why. She has parent with three advanced degrees who read and write and speak with her. We expose her to travel and museums and interesting experiences. She has never known a day of hunger or housing insecurity. We have never let her play or watch a violent movie or video game. Screen time is limited and monitored. She is living in a safe and healthy bubble compared to a lot of her peers quite frankly. The achievement gap is evident in K and will only get bigger and has nothing to do with the teachers or PTA funding.

That's really an insult to the excellent teachers we've encountered at DCPS. We're a duel Ivy family with an HHI of 250k, and I have no qualms in attributing my son's academic success to the amazing teachers he has had. I mean, even if you think your kid is the bees knees, the teachers still do the work of, you know, teaching. And it's not only academics -- my kid has special needs, and they've just been amazing at working with his weaknesses. I think you must not even realize what teachers do, because you just assume your kid is self-teaching?

NP. I think that if a teacher reaches a certain minimum threshold of being an adequate, decent teacher, the kids (especially if neurotypical) will do fine and thrive. They don't have to be amazing. However, if your kid is significantly behind due to deficits in the early years--parents who experienced trauma, rough neighborhood, parents not reading to kids or any other enrichment, general instability--I don't think even an amazing teacher can catch that kid up. For that task, wraparound services are necessary, and there doesn't seem to be the political will to provide this for these kids.

that's demonstrably untrue, both in my direct observation of teachers, common sense, and the actual research. teaching quality can make a huge difference. is there any other profession where you'd say quality doesn't matter past "adequate," especially for the most challenging cases?

https://www.rand.org/education-and-labor/projects/measuring-teacher-effectiveness/teachers-matter.html

PP here and you're right in that teachers have some measurable impact. I think demographics matter a whole lot more. From your link:

"Some research suggests that, compared with teachers, individual and family characteristics may have four to eight times the impact on student achievement."

So you unschool your child. Interesting.

I mean of course, privilege matters. That's why it's called privilege. But to say it's "all" parents is just not believable. I don't believe for a second that DCUM parents would be happy to have crappy teachers and crappy curriculums.

PP, and I agree. I didn't say that "crappy" teachers are all that's necessary, I said "decent" teachers. One can argue how many teachers meet even this minimum threshold at many schools, but I don't think every teachers needs to be some rarefied breed to get good outcomes with children from educated families, and who come to school prepared to learn. And again, even the rarefied breeds of teachers won't be able to completely make up for impoverished home environments.

[Anonymous]

I find the initial argument for this thread interesting. Our family did 2 years at a Title 1 school with a fledgling PTO, and we are now at a school with a PTO that does a ton of fundraising. Several thoughts:

1) The argument against big PTO fundraising that most resonates with me is the one that posits that wealthier family will concentrate on this rather than demanding more money from the school system (which would benefit all schools). I think that's a decent argument.

2) The argument that parents just shouldn't fundraise or try to get nice things for their kids in general is pretty anti-evolutionary and will definitely drive wealthier families out of the public school system (which in my mind is a bad thing). Plus the PTO fundraising benefits pretty much all of the kids in a school, many of whom are not wealthy.

3) The huge numbers coming from some PTOs aren't really representative of the discretionary money those PTOs can spend on the kids. A $100K fundraiser can cost $60K to run. $40K is still a big number. But it's not $100K.

4) One thing that our school does is collect money at the start of the year for all annual classroom supplies and field trips. This is a big chunk of what you see in our total PTO budget. But it's not an extra. It's just avoiding the nickel and diming of asking for $20 for every fieldtrip and giving out a supply list at the start of the year. Doing things this way is a luxury (most parents are able to front those costs), and I just wish all schools could do it. It so reduces transaction costs and means that teachers can actually buy what they need rather than receiving 56 bottles of Elmers glue from whatever ill-conceived supply list the school administration sent out to parents at the start of the year.

So, yeah, big PTO dollars does make a bunch of things easier/better and buys some nice things which ease the minds of wealthier parents and helps kids at that school. But I agree with all the previous posters that it's not the bulk of what makes public schools unequal/inequitable. That is based on the needs of the kids who come in the door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find the initial argument for this thread interesting. Our family did 2 years at a Title 1 school with a fledgling PTO, and we are now at a school with a PTO that does a ton of fundraising. Several thoughts:

1) The argument against big PTO fundraising that most resonates with me is the one that posits that wealthier family will concentrate on this rather than demanding more money from the school system (which would benefit all schools). I think that's a decent argument.

2) The argument that parents just shouldn't fundraise or try to get nice things for their kids in general is pretty anti-evolutionary and will definitely drive wealthier families out of the public school system (which in my mind is a bad thing). Plus the PTO fundraising benefits pretty much all of the kids in a school, many of whom are not wealthy.

3) The huge numbers coming from some PTOs aren't really representative of the discretionary money those PTOs can spend on the kids. A $100K fundraiser can cost $60K to run. $40K is still a big number. But it's not $100K.

4) One thing that our school does is collect money at the start of the year for all annual classroom supplies and field trips. This is a big chunk of what you see in our total PTO budget. But it's not an extra. It's just avoiding the nickel and diming of asking for $20 for every fieldtrip and giving out a supply list at the start of the year. Doing things this way is a luxury (most parents are able to front those costs), and I just wish all schools could do it. It so reduces transaction costs and means that teachers can actually buy what they need rather than receiving 56 bottles of Elmers glue from whatever ill-conceived supply list the school administration sent out to parents at the start of the year.

So, yeah, big PTO dollars does make a bunch of things easier/better and buys some nice things which ease the minds of wealthier parents and helps kids at that school. But I agree with all the previous posters that it's not the bulk of what makes public schools unequal/inequitable. That is based on the needs of the kids who come in the door.

+1000. And, not to start another new topic, but this is why the whole Wilson name change movement is just another example of clueless limousine liberals trying to make some sort of cosmetic social justice warrior statement that will have ZERO effect on the kids there that are really struggling. Take the time and money that is being spent on this and invest in real solutions to trying to close the achievement gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you’re understanding of inequality is lacking. The inequality is not because of PTA funding. Sure PTA funding helps with some more resources but you take PTA fundraising out of the picture and you still would get inequality.

Really?! Because I don’t hear about Janet parents doing mold and rat abatement. There is a funding problem!

Mold and rats are problems all over DC.

OK I'm sorry, have you been to Lafayette campus? It's a palace with a massive park. It's got a digital sign. I went there and gasped (from EOTP, clearly). Not sure if it's the PTA, but please, understand what you have is NOT typical. Also understand that YES the kids who attend those schools are RICH. Just be ok with being RICH people, when your house is worth 2.5 million (oh, right, you're just upper middle class...get a grip on reality).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you’re understanding of inequality is lacking. The inequality is not because of PTA funding. Sure PTA funding helps with some more resources but you take PTA fundraising out of the picture and you still would get inequality.

Really?! Because I don’t hear about Janet parents doing mold and rat abatement. There is a funding problem!

Mold and rats are problems all over DC.

OK I'm sorry, have you been to Lafayette campus? It's a palace with a massive park. It's got a digital sign. I went there and gasped (from EOTP, clearly). Not sure if it's the PTA, but please, understand what you have is NOT typical. Also understand that YES the kids who attend those schools are RICH. Just be ok with being RICH people, when your house is worth 2.5 million (oh, right, you're just upper middle class...get a grip on reality).

Not a Lafayette parent but up until 3 years ago Lafayette had not been renovated in many decades, it was one of the last WOTP schools to be modernized. It is serving I think almost 800 kids. I would guess that very few if any of the houses of students are worth 2.5 Million. Over 1 Million, sure, but 2.5, that is private school territory. Are they poor, absolutely not, not even close. But you should get a grip on reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you’re understanding of inequality is lacking. The inequality is not because of PTA funding. Sure PTA funding helps with some more resources but you take PTA fundraising out of the picture and you still would get inequality.

Really?! Because I don’t hear about Janet parents doing mold and rat abatement. There is a funding problem!

Mold and rats are problems all over DC.

OK I'm sorry, have you been to Lafayette campus? It's a palace with a massive park. It's got a digital sign. I went there and gasped (from EOTP, clearly). Not sure if it's the PTA, but please, understand what you have is NOT typical. Also understand that YES the kids who attend those schools are RICH. Just be ok with being RICH people, when your house is worth 2.5 million (oh, right, you're just upper middle class...get a grip on reality).

Not a Lafayette parent but up until 3 years ago Lafayette had not been renovated in many decades, it was one of the last WOTP schools to be modernized. It is serving I think almost 800 kids. I would guess that very few if any of the houses of students are worth 2.5 Million. Over 1 Million, sure, but 2.5, that is private school territory. Are they poor, absolutely not, not even close. But you should get a grip on reality.

+1.

In the meantime, DC has built multiple $100+ million buildings outside NW to reward failing schools for, well, failing with style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you’re understanding of inequality is lacking. The inequality is not because of PTA funding. Sure PTA funding helps with some more resources but you take PTA fundraising out of the picture and you still would get inequality.

Really?! Because I don’t hear about Janet parents doing mold and rat abatement. There is a funding problem!

Mold and rats are problems all over DC.

OK I'm sorry, have you been to Lafayette campus? It's a palace with a massive park. It's got a digital sign. I went there and gasped (from EOTP, clearly). Not sure if it's the PTA, but please, understand what you have is NOT typical. Also understand that YES the kids who attend those schools are RICH. Just be ok with being RICH people, when your house is worth 2.5 million (oh, right, you're just upper middle class...get a grip on reality).

Not a Lafayette parent but up until 3 years ago Lafayette had not been renovated in many decades, it was one of the last WOTP schools to be modernized. It is serving I think almost 800 kids. I would guess that very few if any of the houses of students are worth 2.5 Million. Over 1 Million, sure, but 2.5, that is private school territory. Are they poor, absolutely not, not even close. But you should get a grip on reality.

Almost 900 kids. 4 Short years ago it didn't have any classroom walls, had almost no control over heat and noise and rats and mice were a significant issue. It hadn't been touched since the mid 1970s. Save your outrage.

[Anonymous]

The reason why these schools have to raise additional money is to compensate for the "tax" that DCPS levies on their communities for bureaucratic bloat, fluff, no-bid contracts, no-show consultants, diversity and esteem coordinators, and other non-classroom expenditures for which these schools get little or no value.

[Anonymous]

I think the PTA “fundraising” can look bloated depending on what runs through the PTA. At our school, we pay a field trip fee per student to the PTA either all at once or field trip by field trip. With nearly 500 kids, it probably looks like the PTA took in nearly $40k just based on field trip fees. But that all goes right back out the door to actually pay for the trips, and no kid is left behind if they can’t pay, the PTA covers the difference.

Also, our WOTP school has mice. Tons of mice. They scampered around the floor while the kids were having nap time in PK. I recall before Murch was renovated that parents there complained about mice constantly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you’re understanding of inequality is lacking. The inequality is not because of PTA funding. Sure PTA funding helps with some more resources but you take PTA fundraising out of the picture and you still would get inequality.

Really?! Because I don’t hear about Janet parents doing mold and rat abatement. There is a funding problem!

Mold and rats are problems all over DC.

Yes but do Lafayette or Janney parents spend time cleaning up rat droppings or mold?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you’re understanding of inequality is lacking. The inequality is not because of PTA funding. Sure PTA funding helps with some more resources but you take PTA fundraising out of the picture and you still would get inequality.

Really?! Because I don’t hear about Janet parents doing mold and rat abatement. There is a funding problem!

Mold and rats are problems all over DC.

Yes but do Lafayette or Janney parents spend time cleaning up rat droppings or mold?!

From 1974-2016 yes they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you’re understanding of inequality is lacking. The inequality is not because of PTA funding. Sure PTA funding helps with some more resources but you take PTA fundraising out of the picture and you still would get inequality.

Really?! Because I don’t hear about Janet parents doing mold and rat abatement. There is a funding problem!

Mold and rats are problems all over DC.

OK I'm sorry, have you been to Lafayette campus? It's a palace with a massive park. It's got a digital sign. I went there and gasped (from EOTP, clearly). Not sure if it's the PTA, but please, understand what you have is NOT typical. Also understand that YES the kids who attend those schools are RICH. Just be ok with being RICH people, when your house is worth 2.5 million (oh, right, you're just upper middle class...get a grip on reality).

Not a Lafayette parent but up until 3 years ago Lafayette had not been renovated in many decades, it was one of the last WOTP schools to be modernized. It is serving I think almost 800 kids. I would guess that very few if any of the houses of students are worth 2.5 Million. Over 1 Million, sure, but 2.5, that is private school territory. Are they poor, absolutely not, not even close. But you should get a grip on reality.

Almost 900 kids. 4 Short years ago it didn't have any classroom walls, had almost no control over heat and noise and rats and mice were a significant issue. It hadn't been touched since the mid 1970s. Save your outrage.

Yes, if it makes sense for DCPS to invest in the physical plant of any school, it should be the largest elementary school in the entire system (900+ kids). Apparently, it is already bursting at the seams.

Someone else can make a list of all the renovated DCPS schools that have declining enrollment and/or are failing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find the initial argument for this thread interesting. Our family did 2 years at a Title 1 school with a fledgling PTO, and we are now at a school with a PTO that does a ton of fundraising. Several thoughts:

1) The argument against big PTO fundraising that most resonates with me is the one that posits that wealthier family will concentrate on this rather than demanding more money from the school system (which would benefit all schools). I think that's a decent argument.

2) The argument that parents just shouldn't fundraise or try to get nice things for their kids in general is pretty anti-evolutionary and will definitely drive wealthier families out of the public school system (which in my mind is a bad thing). Plus the PTO fundraising benefits pretty much all of the kids in a school, many of whom are not wealthy.

3) The huge numbers coming from some PTOs aren't really representative of the discretionary money those PTOs can spend on the kids. A $100K fundraiser can cost $60K to run. $40K is still a big number. But it's not $100K.

4) One thing that our school does is collect money at the start of the year for all annual classroom supplies and field trips. This is a big chunk of what you see in our total PTO budget. But it's not an extra. It's just avoiding the nickel and diming of asking for $20 for every fieldtrip and giving out a supply list at the start of the year. Doing things this way is a luxury (most parents are able to front those costs), and I just wish all schools could do it. It so reduces transaction costs and means that teachers can actually buy what they need rather than receiving 56 bottles of Elmers glue from whatever ill-conceived supply list the school administration sent out to parents at the start of the year.

So, yeah, big PTO dollars does make a bunch of things easier/better and buys some nice things which ease the minds of wealthier parents and helps kids at that school. But I agree with all the previous posters that it's not the bulk of what makes public schools unequal/inequitable. That is based on the needs of the kids who come in the door.

+1000. And, not to start another new topic, but this is why the whole Wilson name change movement is just another example of clueless limousine liberals trying to make some sort of cosmetic social justice warrior statement that will have ZERO effect on the kids there that are really struggling. Take the time and money that is being spent on this and invest in real solutions to trying to close the achievement gap.

+1 to both.