How much does your school's PTA raise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not when you add in the fundraising that other schools do. And they need much more than they get.

are you arguing schools should not be allowed to do private fundraising? not really following. i don't think you can prohibit families from fundraising for their schools. would you rather diminish family involvement with schools?

No, but to say that title 1 schools have more $ is missing the private fundraising. And title 1 schools definitely need more money, given the populations they are working with.

The point you are missing is that it is not a lack of money that is the problem at title I schools. They get more money, significantly more money and it is not solving the problems.

It is not more money. WOTP school infrasonic more than makes up for additional title 1 funds. And the interventions for failing EOTP schools that wotp parents on this thread have suggested--including longer school days--cost money. Of course the failing schools need more, precisely because they need to meet non-academic needs for their kids. At our school, eg, if kids didn't get free meals, many would not eat. That is a very different set of problems from those who are wotp and needs a hell of a lot more money and services to address.

I haven't decided how I feel about the proposals from the DME office, but to me, the status quo is unacceptable. I at least think minimum FARM set asides at wealthier schools make sense.

Wotp fundraising does not ' more than make up for additional title 1 funds'. In the example above the difference in funding is $3 million , nowhere near what the PTA raises.

When you kick neighborhoid kids out of wotp schools to make room for Farms kids , do you plan on kicking out the ones whos parents donate the least to make sure PTA funding stays the same?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not when you add in the fundraising that other schools do. And they need much more than they get.

are you arguing schools should not be allowed to do private fundraising? not really following. i don't think you can prohibit families from fundraising for their schools. would you rather diminish family involvement with schools?

No, but to say that title 1 schools have more $ is missing the private fundraising. And title 1 schools definitely need more money, given the populations they are working with.

The point you are missing is that it is not a lack of money that is the problem at title I schools. They get more money, significantly more money and it is not solving the problems.

It is not more money. WOTP school infrasonic more than makes up for additional title 1 funds. And the interventions for failing EOTP schools that wotp parents on this thread have suggested--including longer school days--cost money. Of course the failing schools need more, precisely because they need to meet non-academic needs for their kids. At our school, eg, if kids didn't get free meals, many would not eat. That is a very different set of problems from those who are wotp and needs a hell of a lot more money and services to address.

I haven't decided how I feel about the proposals from the DME office, but to me, the status quo is unacceptable. I at least think minimum FARM set asides at wealthier schools make sense.

Wotp fundraising does not ' more than make up for additional title 1 funds'. In the example above the difference in funding is $3 million , nowhere near what the PTA raises.

When you kick neighborhoid kids out of wotp schools to make room for Farms kids , do you plan on kicking out the ones whos parents donate the least to make sure PTA funding stays the same?

Then the EOTP schools must get other non title 1 funds, because title 1 does not kick up $3 million to an individual school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The above discussion is an advertisement for choice sets or some sort of set aside for lower SES kids who want to attend schools with this type of fund raising capacity.

The DME would say so. However, to the more acute observers, choice set would mean that the high SES parents, responsible for the organization and contribution to the PTAs, would just flee the DCPS system, and go do the same job elsewhere (provates, MoCo, etc...). Not a good at all outcome for DCPS.

I'm sorry, but that is just not my EOTP experience. People here work hard at schools that are really struggling. I go to a 99% FARMs school with an active PTA of mainly high SES people. The lower-income families volunteer in other capacities, many by doing so in their kids' and grandkids' rooms. Maybe wotp people would bail, but I have a hard time believing that when you would be assigned to one of three excellent schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not when you add in the fundraising that other schools do. And they need much more than they get.

are you arguing schools should not be allowed to do private fundraising? not really following. i don't think you can prohibit families from fundraising for their schools. would you rather diminish family involvement with schools?

No, but to say that title 1 schools have more $ is missing the private fundraising. And title 1 schools definitely need more money, given the populations they are working with.

The point you are missing is that it is not a lack of money that is the problem at title I schools. They get more money, significantly more money and it is not solving the problems.

It is not more money. WOTP school infrasonic more than makes up for additional title 1 funds. And the interventions for failing EOTP schools that wotp parents on this thread have suggested--including longer school days--cost money. Of course the failing schools need more, precisely because they need to meet non-academic needs for their kids. At our school, eg, if kids didn't get free meals, many would not eat. That is a very different set of problems from those who are wotp and needs a hell of a lot more money and services to address.

I haven't decided how I feel about the proposals from the DME office, but to me, the status quo is unacceptable. I at least think minimum FARM set asides at wealthier schools make sense.

Sorry, should read "WOTP school fundraising"

it is simply not true that PTA fundraising "more than makes up" for additional title 1 funds. I had no idea about the numbers, and after reading this thread I looked at the budged at Murch and Payne. based on current funding, if they had the same amount of students, Murch would get $6.3 Million and Payne (a Title 1 school), would get more than $9 Million (Murch get about $9000 for students and Payne $14,000 per students). the Murch PTA raises less than $400K I believe (not sure frankly). so the statement that PTA fundraising more than makes up for additional titile 1 funds is not correct. if you have info that shows that it is correct let me know because I am eager to learn (not jocking, trying to learn)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The above discussion is an advertisement for choice sets or some sort of set aside for lower SES kids who want to attend schools with this type of fund raising capacity.

The DME would say so. However, to the more acute observers, choice set would mean that the high SES parents, responsible for the organization and contribution to the PTAs, would just flee the DCPS system, and go do the same job elsewhere (provates, MoCo, etc...). Not a good at all outcome for DCPS.

I'm sorry, but that is just not my EOTP experience. People here work hard at schools that are really struggling. I go to a 99% FARMs school with an active PTA of mainly high SES people. The lower-income families volunteer in other capacities, many by doing so in their kids' and grandkids' rooms. Maybe wotp people would bail, but I have a hard time believing that when you would be assigned to one of three excellent schools.

This is confusing. How many high SES families can there be at a 99% farms school?

[Anonymous]

At my title I, 99% FARMs school at full capacity, we receive $318,884 in title I funds, in a school that is community eligible for title I in which almost all the students are poor. That's significantly less money than Janney beings in for fundraising through the PTA, and my school has a population that has much greater academic and non-academic needs than at Janney. Don't bullshit us and say that JKLM schools bring in less than title 1; it simply is not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The above discussion is an advertisement for choice sets or some sort of set aside for lower SES kids who want to attend schools with this type of fund raising capacity.

The DME would say so. However, to the more acute observers, choice set would mean that the high SES parents, responsible for the organization and contribution to the PTAs, would just flee the DCPS system, and go do the same job elsewhere (provates, MoCo, etc...). Not a good at all outcome for DCPS.

I'm sorry, but that is just not my EOTP experience. People here work hard at schools that are really struggling. I go to a 99% FARMs school with an active PTA of mainly high SES people. The lower-income families volunteer in other capacities, many by doing so in their kids' and grandkids' rooms. Maybe wotp people would bail, but I have a hard time believing that when you would be assigned to one of three excellent schools.

This is confusing. How many high SES families can there be at a 99% farms school?

A 99% FARMs school is community eligible--probably has FARMs in the 85-95 percent range. There are a handful of high SES families at most of these schools that take the lead on fundraising. However, they are lucky to raise $10K total between individual and business donations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At my title I, 99% FARMs school at full capacity, we receive $318,884 in title I funds, in a school that is community eligible for title I in which almost all the students are poor. That's significantly less money than Janney beings in for fundraising through the PTA, and my school has a population that has much greater academic and non-academic needs than at Janney. Don't bullshit us and say that JKLM schools bring in less than title 1; it simply is not true.

Is that school as big as Janney?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The above discussion is an advertisement for choice sets or some sort of set aside for lower SES kids who want to attend schools with this type of fund raising capacity.

The DME would say so. However, to the more acute observers, choice set would mean that the high SES parents, responsible for the organization and contribution to the PTAs, would just flee the DCPS system, and go do the same job elsewhere (provates, MoCo, etc...). Not a good at all outcome for DCPS.

I'm sorry, but that is just not my EOTP experience. People here work hard at schools that are really struggling. I go to a 99% FARMs school with an active PTA of mainly high SES people. The lower-income families volunteer in other capacities, many by doing so in their kids' and grandkids' rooms. Maybe wotp people would bail, but I have a hard time believing that when you would be assigned to one of three excellent schools.

so in a school of 300 kids there are three high SES PTA parents? you cannot compare the situation of high SES parents who chose to buy in an up and coming area with struggling schools with same parents who bought in more expensive areas counting on the local school. these people ( and I am one of them) would not be happy to drive their kids farther away to schools that are doing less well and would not spend $$ and a lot of time in fundraising. they will leave DCPS altogether, there wil be less high SES parents in DCPS and I am not sure who is going to gain

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At my title I, 99% FARMs school at full capacity, we receive $318,884 in title I funds, in a school that is community eligible for title I in which almost all the students are poor. That's significantly less money than Janney beings in for fundraising through the PTA, and my school has a population that has much greater academic and non-academic needs than at Janney. Don't bullshit us and say that JKLM schools bring in less than title 1; it simply is not true.

can you identify the school? how many kids are there? how much the school brings in per pupil?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At my title I, 99% FARMs school at full capacity, we receive $318,884 in title I funds, in a school that is community eligible for title I in which almost all the students are poor. That's significantly less money than Janney beings in for fundraising through the PTA, and my school has a population that has much greater academic and non-academic needs than at Janney. Don't bullshit us and say that JKLM schools bring in less than title 1; it simply is not true.

What is per pupil funding at your school, let's do a comparison regardless of source?

Also, I do no get the animosity to wotp parents, there is no pressure to contribute at Janney. There is encouragement, but I have NO IDEA who contributes and how much. Seriously, this is not common knowledge and I do not have judgments about parents and their contributions because I do not know what they are. It is a very involved, supportive and welcoming community.

I think what is going on at other schools with involved parents is great. The question is what impact would not knowing what school your child would go to will have on the sense of community, the ability of parents to invest in schools before they get there (which many now do, especially in gentrifying areas), etc. will it be a plus in areas where communities are currently rallying or will the uncertainty lead more families to leave the city.

Choice sets in upper NW are silly, they would add chaos without adding value and they would reduce walkability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At my title I, 99% FARMs school at full capacity, we receive $318,884 in title I funds, in a school that is community eligible for title I in which almost all the students are poor. That's significantly less money than Janney beings in for fundraising through the PTA, and my school has a population that has much greater academic and non-academic needs than at Janney. Don't bullshit us and say that JKLM schools bring in less than title 1; it simply is not true.

Is that school as big as Janney?

No, but it still comes out to a lot less than the $1000 Janney's PTA spends per child, according to an earlier post, and my school has a much more vulnerable population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The above discussion is an advertisement for choice sets or some sort of set aside for lower SES kids who want to attend schools with this type of fund raising capacity.

The DME would say so. However, to the more acute observers, choice set would mean that the high SES parents, responsible for the organization and contribution to the PTAs, would just flee the DCPS system, and go do the same job elsewhere (provates, MoCo, etc...). Not a good at all outcome for DCPS.

I'm sorry, but that is just not my EOTP experience. People here work hard at schools that are really struggling. I go to a 99% FARMs school with an active PTA of mainly high SES people. The lower-income families volunteer in other capacities, many by doing so in their kids' and grandkids' rooms. Maybe wotp people would bail, but I have a hard time believing that when you would be assigned to one of three excellent schools.

so in a school of 300 kids there are three high SES PTA parents? you cannot compare the situation of high SES parents who chose to buy in an up and coming area with struggling schools with same parents who bought in more expensive areas counting on the local school. these people ( and I am one of them) would not be happy to drive their kids farther away to schools that are doing less well and would not spend $$ and a lot of time in fundraising. they will leave DCPS altogether, there wil be less high SES parents in DCPS and I am not sure who is going to gain

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The above discussion is an advertisement for choice sets or some sort of set aside for lower SES kids who want to attend schools with this type of fund raising capacity.

The DME would say so. However, to the more acute observers, choice set would mean that the high SES parents, responsible for the organization and contribution to the PTAs, would just flee the DCPS system, and go do the same job elsewhere (provates, MoCo, etc...). Not a good at all outcome for DCPS.

I'm sorry, but that is just not my EOTP experience. People here work hard at schools that are really struggling. I go to a 99% FARMs school with an active PTA of mainly high SES people. The lower-income families volunteer in other capacities, many by doing so in their kids' and grandkids' rooms. Maybe wotp people would bail, but I have a hard time believing that when you would be assigned to one of three excellent schools.

so in a school of 300 kids there are three high SES PTA parents? you cannot compare the situation of high SES parents who chose to buy in an up and coming area with struggling schools with same parents who bought in more expensive areas counting on the local school. these people ( and I am one of them) would not be happy to drive p their kids farther away to schools that are doing less well and would not spend $$ and a lot of time in fundraising. they will leave DCPS altogether, there wil be less high SES parents in DCPS and I am not sure who is going to gain

No, a 99% FARMs school is a community eligibility school, and no one knows how many FARMs families there are because the data are not collected. Powell, eg, is 99% FARMs and is becoming more gentrified each year.

[Anonymous]

Of course JKLM families have no idea what a 99% FARMs number means in terms of the community eligibility option. You would run away from a school that was title 1, let alone high poverty. Actually, you probably think that the 40% threshold for title 1 is high poverty.