Janney PTA Guerrilla Tactics!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On principle, I refuse to donate to my child’s school. Although I can afford it.

Do you allow your child/children to participate in PTA-supported events at the school? If so, you are a free-loader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On principle, I refuse to donate to my child’s school. Although I can afford it.

Do you allow your child/children to participate in PTA-supported events at the school? If so, you are a free-loader.

Agree. People who pick a well-supported school and then refuse to help support the school are the lowest of the low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On principle, I refuse to donate to my child’s school. Although I can afford it.

Do you allow your child/children to participate in PTA-supported events at the school? If so, you are a free-loader.

There are other ways to contribute like volunteering and bringing food donations. If you help out in other ways, you’re not a freeloader.

[Anonymous]

Nice how OP threw this Molotov and then disappeared. Always the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Per pupil funding is pretty comparable across schools. The variation comes mostly from enrollment and sped. Janney would also see a significant bump I bet if you weren’t using average salary (obvs salary tied to seniority doesn’t necessarily track with quality blah blah).

The crazy thing about that email is how openly it acknowledges that Janney is only nominally a public school, and that making it acceptable for rich kids means raising a ton of money every year.

Not true at all.

At our kids' school (not Janney, but close) the school gets less than $10k per pupil.

At other schools SE they get over $18k per pupil (not to mention school palaces costing over $100m)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On principle, I refuse to donate to my child’s school. Although I can afford it.

Do you allow your child/children to participate in PTA-supported events at the school? If so, you are a free-loader.

+1,000,000,000

I am so sick of wealthy families with multiple kids using the PTA programs and not contributing. Sick of the TAKERS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On principle, I refuse to donate to my child’s school. Although I can afford it.

Do you allow your child/children to participate in PTA-supported events at the school? If so, you are a free-loader.

There are other ways to contribute like volunteering and bringing food donations. If you help out in other ways, you’re not a freeloader.

Except it's always the same people who both give money AND do all the work. I highly doubt PP is out there at the bake sale. If she was, she'd see how much work and effort goes into keeping programs afloat, and would come down off her high horse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per pupil funding is pretty comparable across schools. The variation comes mostly from enrollment and sped. Janney would also see a significant bump I bet if you weren’t using average salary (obvs salary tied to seniority doesn’t necessarily track with quality blah blah).

The crazy thing about that email is how openly it acknowledges that Janney is only nominally a public school, and that making it acceptable for rich kids means raising a ton of money every year.

Not true at all.

At our kids' school (not Janney, but close) the school gets less than $10k per pupil.

At other schools SE they get over $18k per pupil (not to mention school palaces costing over $100m)

They get more because they need more in terms of academics and social, emotional support. If in 20-21 your school admitted 30-50% at-risk kids, your per pupil allocation would increase too. Is it really worth the trade off to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per pupil funding is pretty comparable across schools. The variation comes mostly from enrollment and sped. Janney would also see a significant bump I bet if you weren’t using average salary (obvs salary tied to seniority doesn’t necessarily track with quality blah blah).

The crazy thing about that email is how openly it acknowledges that Janney is only nominally a public school, and that making it acceptable for rich kids means raising a ton of money every year.

Not true at all.

At our kids' school (not Janney, but close) the school gets less than $10k per pupil.

At other schools SE they get over $18k per pupil (not to mention school palaces costing over $100m)

They get more because they need more in terms of academics and social, emotional support. If in 20-21 your school admitted 30-50% at-risk kids, your per pupil allocation would increase too. Is it really worth the trade off to you?

There may well be reasons, but the fact is that they get MUCH more funding per pupil.

That's a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On principle, I refuse to donate to my child’s school. Although I can afford it.

Do you allow your child/children to participate in PTA-supported events at the school? If so, you are a free-loader.

Agree. People who pick a well-supported school and then refuse to help support the school are the lowest of the low.

No, they are DC residents who have a right to send their kids to public school.

As others have mentioned, it’s an arms race, and nothing will ever be enough for some parents. We are at another JKLM, and it’s the same way there (although with less obnoxious tactics); the things wealthy parents believe their kids are entitled to—and that they should be able to buy via PTA fundraising—is mind-blowing.

FWIW, we always contribute the full requested amount at our school. But I don’t question for a moment the parents who choose not to or simply can’t. Their children have a right to be at the school and to take advantage of whatever programs and resources the school has decided to offer. It’s pernicious to impose additional commitments of time or money because a subset of wealthy parents demand it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per pupil funding is pretty comparable across schools. The variation comes mostly from enrollment and sped. Janney would also see a significant bump I bet if you weren’t using average salary (obvs salary tied to seniority doesn’t necessarily track with quality blah blah).

The crazy thing about that email is how openly it acknowledges that Janney is only nominally a public school, and that making it acceptable for rich kids means raising a ton of money every year.

Not true at all.

At our kids' school (not Janney, but close) the school gets less than $10k per pupil.

At other schools SE they get over $18k per pupil (not to mention school palaces costing over $100m)

I'm not seeing that, I'm seeing Ross as the highest at $13255 and Tubman as the lowest at $7669 with Janney near the middle at $9069 but like I said this is based on FTE allotments and then sped and title funding, size variation and other special programs account for the variation. Also like I said it's not really accurate since it uses average salary but that might not be important anyway. No matter what, the differences pale in comparison to the school-specific supplemental funds raised privately by the PTAs.

[Anonymous]

I volunteer at the school and give a few hundred dollars so I don’t get the personalized guilt/shame letters and emails. My last kid is still there. I used to give the full $700 a kid but then I worked more closely with the PTA. I don’t agree with half the crap they spend money on. So I give just enough to get them off my back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per pupil funding is pretty comparable across schools. The variation comes mostly from enrollment and sped. Janney would also see a significant bump I bet if you weren’t using average salary (obvs salary tied to seniority doesn’t necessarily track with quality blah blah).

The crazy thing about that email is how openly it acknowledges that Janney is only nominally a public school, and that making it acceptable for rich kids means raising a ton of money every year.

Not true at all.

At our kids' school (not Janney, but close) the school gets less than $10k per pupil.

At other schools SE they get over $18k per pupil (not to mention school palaces costing over $100m)

They get more because they need more in terms of academics and social, emotional support. If in 20-21 your school admitted 30-50% at-risk kids, your per pupil allocation would increase too. Is it really worth the trade off to you?

Of course they do. And the taxes paid by others in the city provides that extra money. But you don’t want those others to further subsidize DCPS by contributing to their own kids’ school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On principle, I refuse to donate to my child’s school. Although I can afford it.

Do you allow your child/children to participate in PTA-supported events at the school? If so, you are a free-loader.

Agree. People who pick a well-supported school and then refuse to help support the school are the lowest of the low.

No, they are DC residents who have a right to send their kids to public school.

As others have mentioned, it’s an arms race, and nothing will ever be enough for some parents. We are at another JKLM, and it’s the same way there (although with less obnoxious tactics); the things wealthy parents believe their kids are entitled to—and that they should be able to buy via PTA fundraising—is mind-blowing.

FWIW, we always contribute the full requested amount at our school. But I don’t question for a moment the parents who choose not to or simply can’t. Their children have a right to be at the school and to take advantage of whatever programs and resources the school has decided to offer. It’s pernicious to impose additional commitments of time or money because a subset of wealthy parents demand it.

Can't and won't are two different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per pupil funding is pretty comparable across schools. The variation comes mostly from enrollment and sped. Janney would also see a significant bump I bet if you weren’t using average salary (obvs salary tied to seniority doesn’t necessarily track with quality blah blah).

The crazy thing about that email is how openly it acknowledges that Janney is only nominally a public school, and that making it acceptable for rich kids means raising a ton of money every year.

Not true at all.

At our kids' school (not Janney, but close) the school gets less than $10k per pupil.

At other schools SE they get over $18k per pupil (not to mention school palaces costing over $100m)

They get more because they need more in terms of academics and social, emotional support. If in 20-21 your school admitted 30-50% at-risk kids, your per pupil allocation would increase too. Is it really worth the trade off to you?

Of course they do. And the taxes paid by others in the city provides that extra money. But you don’t want those others to further subsidize DCPS by contributing to their own kids’ school.

No. The other schools aren't getting more classroom teachers or aides. They are getting psychologists, social workers, and behavior specialists. They are getting people who are trying to get hte kids to a place where they are available to learn. The families in the schools with $100K + fundraising are taking care of that part of the equation at home (thankfully).

"Subsidizing" DCPS just exacerbates the gap between the haves and have-nots even further.