Can we get MCPS to allow fundraising for staff positions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before I had finished reading this topic, I had guessed you were in Bethesda. By allowing the PTA or other fundraiser to pay for staff positions just creates more inequity in the schools. So the rich schools would be able to afford to get another staff position and the not so rich schools would not be able to afford it.

There is no chance of changing this. To be born or live in Bethesda already allows great privilege that other places do not have. If you are not getting what you want out our your Bethesda school, you can go private or homeschool.

For some reason, DC sees this differently. Not sure why it's so unthinkable in Moco.

DC doesn't think differently. This is a rule that was imposed on DC by a Republican Congress.

Really? When was that? In what bill did a Republican Congress impose this? Or did they just not prohibit it? And there's no way this is an R/D divide, not in DC. Because I see a WHOLE LOT of democrats in DC funding their schools for aides in the classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Politically, there is really no way for this request from Bethesda not to be seen as wealthy and entitled.

Do you know that Bethesda Chevy Chase High School has an equestrian club? How about an investment club, squash team, and white water kayaking club? They have a rowing team! Schools are unequal enough without parents spending money specifically to make them more unequal.

You know as well as I do that those are not funded by the school and are not part of any curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do DCPS school decide where the extra teachers or aides go? Does each class fund raise for its own or do all work towards extras for the low grades?

I don't know. I do know it is done at the individual school level. It would be easy to ask any PTA member at one of those schools.

[Anonymous]

If you are given $100K, and that's all you have, would you rather have two teachers and pay them $50K apiece, or three teachers and pay them $33K apiece.
Is there a difference in quality between a $33K teacher and a $50K teacher?
Do you think that no one will take the job if it pays only $33K?
Is a higher paid teacher necessarily a "better" teacher?
and FYI: the higher paid teachers many times end up at the "less challenged" schools, because they have more seniority, and are able to transfer to more "preferred" schools.
Would you rather have two $33K teachers plus a $33K reading specialist? what about the "content coaches". What about the Staff Development Teachers? What about the "Consulting Principals?" Do we need all of them-or should we focus our money on more teachers?
Just asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Politically, there is really no way for this request from Bethesda not to be seen as wealthy and entitled.

Do you know that Bethesda Chevy Chase High School has an equestrian club? How about an investment club, squash team, and white water kayaking club? They have a rowing team! Schools are unequal enough without parents spending money specifically to make them more unequal.

I agree that's the political problem. But it's not a valid reason. The real truth is the school system isn't very good and we tolerate these huge class sizes. One group of parents has the financial, but not political, ability to fix it in their schools. They're not allowed to because they can't afford to do it for everyone.
Crabs in a bucket. One tries to crawl out, the others drag him back down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are given $100K, and that's all you have, would you rather have two teachers and pay them $50K apiece, or three teachers and pay them $33K apiece.
Is there a difference in quality between a $33K teacher and a $50K teacher?
Do you think that no one will take the job if it pays only $33K?
Is a higher paid teacher necessarily a "better" teacher?
and FYI: the higher paid teachers many times end up at the "less challenged" schools, because they have more seniority, and are able to transfer to more "preferred" schools.
Would you rather have two $33K teachers plus a $33K reading specialist? what about the "content coaches". What about the Staff Development Teachers? What about the "Consulting Principals?" Do we need all of them-or should we focus our money on more teachers?
Just asking.

You're right. No one should do anything. More teachers or aides aren't needed. Because there are tough questions to figure out, we should just throw up our hands and accept the status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are given $100K, and that's all you have, would you rather have two teachers and pay them $50K apiece, or three teachers and pay them $33K apiece.
Is there a difference in quality between a $33K teacher and a $50K teacher?
Do you think that no one will take the job if it pays only $33K?
Is a higher paid teacher necessarily a "better" teacher?
and FYI: the higher paid teachers many times end up at the "less challenged" schools, because they have more seniority, and are able to transfer to more "preferred" schools.
Would you rather have two $33K teachers plus a $33K reading specialist? what about the "content coaches". What about the Staff Development Teachers? What about the "Consulting Principals?" Do we need all of them-or should we focus our money on more teachers?
Just asking.

Somehow Janney's been able to deal with these important questions. But if your goal is to prevent solutions, then yay you.

[Anonymous]

I'm just asking the question. MCEA's answer is that they prefer 2 teacher making $50K. They are concerned about higher pay and benefits for the staff that are union members-
But what do parents prefer? More, lower paid teachers, or fewer, higher paid ones. ?

[Anonymous]

Op
Pp has offered you a solution that is very parallel to what parents of kids in lower rates schools are told here all the time - just move. Just because it is not easy for you to do so does not mean it is not an alternative. Op also noted you could apply for a COSA if you believe the smaller class size is what is most important rather than the advantage that comes from having an overwhelmingly well off student body and parent group. These are both entirely reasonable suggestions.

It is not so much that I have a problem with your proposal of give $100k yo your school and the same to a fund (although I take pp's point that the same amount goes much less further when spread out across the general fund). It is that I think long term it will not work out this way. There was a thread last year suggesting some small amount of rich school PTA funds be shared with other schools given that some can raise obscene amounts of money and others struggle to pay for things like assemblies and field trip scholarships. On that long thread most from well off schools argued they should have to share nothing since the funds are voluntary. Forgive me if I doubt that over time $100K would keep coming into the General fund. Even if it did it would lessen the interest in he most politically connected areas to support broader funding for the schools since they could have bought their way out of the problem.

[Anonymous]

I am surprised this solution has not yet been suggested. Why not just leave and go to a private? If you have the money to donate, use it to attend a private. There are some great Catholic elementary schools that are not costly. We are only paying $7K a year. My DD is in 1st grade in a class of 27, with one teacher and one aide. Just a suggestion...it may not work for you if you are not up for a Christian education. And we don't have to deal with that horrible 2.0 curriculum. Best decision we ever made.

[Anonymous]

Yes!!! Let's do this!!!

And then let's hire a chef who will only use locally sourced organic food in the cafeteria!!!

And let's make them wear uniforms!!!

And let's get UA to sponsor our athletic program and donate a turf field!!!

Oh, wait...this is starting to sound like private school.

[Anonymous]

That's called private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised this solution has not yet been suggested. Why not just leave and go to a private? If you have the money to donate, use it to attend a private. There are some great Catholic elementary schools that are not costly. We are only paying $7K a year. My DD is in 1st grade in a class of 27, with one teacher and one aide. Just a suggestion...it may not work for you if you are not up for a Christian education. And we don't have to deal with that horrible 2.0 curriculum. Best decision we ever made.

Catholic school isn't a good option for everyone. And most people in my Bethesda public can afford $30k/year for private per kid. But you're right that over time more will shift that way. We will either move or do something drastic to go private within 2 years. As class sizes stay this big, it will shift. I've even considered trying to start a school. I have no interest in the trappings of fancy privates. Just reasonable class sizes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised this solution has not yet been suggested. Why not just leave and go to a private? If you have the money to donate, use it to attend a private. There are some great Catholic elementary schools that are not costly. We are only paying $7K a year. My DD is in 1st grade in a class of 27, with one teacher and one aide. Just a suggestion...it may not work for you if you are not up for a Christian education. And we don't have to deal with that horrible 2.0 curriculum. Best decision we ever made.

Catholic school isn't a good option for everyone. And most people in my Bethesda public can afford $30k/year for private per kid. But you're right that over time more will shift that way. We will either move or do something drastic to go private within 2 years. As class sizes stay this big, it will shift. I've even considered trying to start a school. I have no interest in the trappings of fancy privates. Just reasonable class sizes.

Should have said most people Can't afford $30k for private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op
Pp has offered you a solution that is very parallel to what parents of kids in lower rates schools are told here all the time - just move. Just because it is not easy for you to do so does not mean it is not an alternative. Op also noted you could apply for a COSA if you believe the smaller class size is what is most important rather than the advantage that comes from having an overwhelmingly well off student body and parent group. These are both entirely reasonable suggestions.

It is not so much that I have a problem with your proposal of give $100k yo your school and the same to a fund (although I take pp's point that the same amount goes much less further when spread out across the general fund). It is that I think long term it will not work out this way. There was a thread last year suggesting some small amount of rich school PTA funds be shared with other schools given that some can raise obscene amounts of money and others struggle to pay for things like assemblies and field trip scholarships. On that long thread most from well off schools argued they should have to share nothing since the funds are voluntary. Forgive me if I doubt that over time $100K would keep coming into the General fund. Even if it did it would lessen the interest in he most politically connected areas to support broader funding for the schools since they could have bought their way out of the problem.

+1

The widening gap between rich and poor is problematic enough as it is.