Janney PTA raised $1.4 million in one year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think this is sloppy reporting, and I really don't care how much a PTA raises in different schools... I get that as a parent you are willing to donate more to a school if it directly impacts your child.

That being said, I would think with a budget as high as some of these schools have, perhaps they could make a small effort to help schools with much smaller PTO budgets. The success of the district as a whole should matter to these schools, even if the number one priority is their own population.

For one, many of these "poorer" schools are extremely inexperienced with fundraising, what works, what doesn't, etc. Reaching out to "mentor" a developing PTO would be so appreciated by schools. Offering advice, maybe a connection or two, sharing information, etc. Maybe developing a "Sister PTO" relationship. Its not just about the money. These schools are struggling just to figure out how to run a PTO, let alone how to raise money.

And if we want to get into the money, perhaps the wealthier PTO's could fund a small grant for other PTO's in the district. Offering a couple $500-$1000 grants a year to other district PTO's for a worthy cause. It would make such a difference to those school's budgets and would make a small impact on the wealthier school budgets.

I just think there are ways that wealthier schools could use a small portion of their resources for the greater good without negatively impacting their own budgets.

These PTAs absolutely do this. Many schools collect books at book fairs to help fill shelves in poorer parts of the city and coat drives to fill sister-school requests. There are organizations who's sole purpose is to make the connection between rich and poor PTOs and many of these school participate in this.

Lafayette, for example, has an entire program called Lafayette Gives back, sponsored by the HSA, whose sole purpose is to give, and to teach kids to give, to others. This includes packing backpacks for foster kids, making care packages for first-responders and collecting baby carriers for refugees.

This is wonderful... however, I am not sure it is well advertised. Being on a PTO at an EOTP elementary with limited resources, I have never once heard from a PTO at a more advantaged school. We have reached out directly to schools and been told specifically that, at this time, they do not offer any assistance. Etc. Perhaps we have spoken to the wrong schools...perhaps we have contacted the wrong people... But if it is something these schools are doing- they should make sure people know about it.

All of these schools have Give Back programs and partnerships. Usually, the need is identified and the transaction processed through school to school contact (often the social workers) not PTA to PTA. It isn't advertised because that would be viewed as self-congratulatory and obnoxious. I think if you were to dig into it and started to learn just how much these parents do to support DCPS kids quietly and in the background, you'd be angry at articles like the one linked in OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents are letting DCPS off the hook by funding the schools through the PTA. If you want something for your kids, it's a better use of your resources to cut a check to the PTA than to lobby DCPS. DCPS makes it that way.

I come from Massachusetts. There, state law bans PTA's from paying for school expenses. State law also requires equality in funding. So if parents in a rich district want something for their kids, they can't pay for it themselves, and they can't lobby for extra resources for their school district. They have to lobby for extra resources for the entire state education system.

Coincidentally, Massachusetts has the nation's highest average SAT score. (DC is 47th out of 51).

How did the state law get this way? Massachusetts has very powerful teachers unions. The unions pushed for them as a way of increasing school spending.

Massachusetts, the state, doesn't come anywhere close to the poverty of DC. That's the issue- we don't have wealthy suburbs to draw from. Apples to oranges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think this is sloppy reporting, and I really don't care how much a PTA raises in different schools... I get that as a parent you are willing to donate more to a school if it directly impacts your child.

That being said, I would think with a budget as high as some of these schools have, perhaps they could make a small effort to help schools with much smaller PTO budgets. The success of the district as a whole should matter to these schools, even if the number one priority is their own population.

For one, many of these "poorer" schools are extremely inexperienced with fundraising, what works, what doesn't, etc. Reaching out to "mentor" a developing PTO would be so appreciated by schools. Offering advice, maybe a connection or two, sharing information, etc. Maybe developing a "Sister PTO" relationship. Its not just about the money. These schools are struggling just to figure out how to run a PTO, let alone how to raise money.

And if we want to get into the money, perhaps the wealthier PTO's could fund a small grant for other PTO's in the district. Offering a couple $500-$1000 grants a year to other district PTO's for a worthy cause. It would make such a difference to those school's budgets and would make a small impact on the wealthier school budgets.

I just think there are ways that wealthier schools could use a small portion of their resources for the greater good without negatively impacting their own budgets.

These PTAs absolutely do this. Many schools collect books at book fairs to help fill shelves in poorer parts of the city and coat drives to fill sister-school requests. There are organizations who's sole purpose is to make the connection between rich and poor PTOs and many of these school participate in this.

Lafayette, for example, has an entire program called Lafayette Gives back, sponsored by the HSA, whose sole purpose is to give, and to teach kids to give, to others. This includes packing backpacks for foster kids, making care packages for first-responders and collecting baby carriers for refugees.

This is wonderful... however, I am not sure it is well advertised. Being on a PTO at an EOTP elementary with limited resources, I have never once heard from a PTO at a more advantaged school. We have reached out directly to schools and been told specifically that, at this time, they do not offer any assistance. Etc. Perhaps we have spoken to the wrong schools...perhaps we have contacted the wrong people... But if it is something these schools are doing- they should make sure people know about it.

All of these schools have Give Back programs and partnerships. Usually, the need is identified and the transaction processed through school to school contact (often the social workers) not PTA to PTA. It isn't advertised because that would be viewed as self-congratulatory and obnoxious. I think if you were to dig into it and started to learn just how much these parents do to support DCPS kids quietly and in the background, you'd be angry at articles like the one linked in OP.

+1
AMEN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are letting DCPS off the hook by funding the schools through the PTA. If you want something for your kids, it's a better use of your resources to cut a check to the PTA than to lobby DCPS. DCPS makes it that way.

I come from Massachusetts. There, state law bans PTA's from paying for school expenses. State law also requires equality in funding. So if parents in a rich district want something for their kids, they can't pay for it themselves, and they can't lobby for extra resources for their school district. They have to lobby for extra resources for the entire state education system.

Coincidentally, Massachusetts has the nation's highest average SAT score. (DC is 47th out of 51).

How did the state law get this way? Massachusetts has very powerful teachers unions. The unions pushed for them as a way of increasing school spending.

Massachusetts, the state, doesn't come anywhere close to the poverty of DC. That's the issue- we don't have wealthy suburbs to draw from. Apples to oranges.

Residents of Fall River and New Bedford would beg to differ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are letting DCPS off the hook by funding the schools through the PTA. If you want something for your kids, it's a better use of your resources to cut a check to the PTA than to lobby DCPS. DCPS makes it that way.

I come from Massachusetts. There, state law bans PTA's from paying for school expenses. State law also requires equality in funding. So if parents in a rich district want something for their kids, they can't pay for it themselves, and they can't lobby for extra resources for their school district. They have to lobby for extra resources for the entire state education system.

Coincidentally, Massachusetts has the nation's highest average SAT score. (DC is 47th out of 51).

How did the state law get this way? Massachusetts has very powerful teachers unions. The unions pushed for them as a way of increasing school spending.

Massachusetts, the state, doesn't come anywhere close to the poverty of DC. That's the issue- we don't have wealthy suburbs to draw from. Apples to oranges.

Residents of Fall River and New Bedford would beg to differ.

But they get money from their STATE. That's the difference. We don't have a state.

[Anonymous]

It's becoming more common to pool PTA resources, and I think it is 100% coming for NW DC as long as they keep up these shenanigans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/08/us/california-pta-fund-raising-inequality.html?_r=1

[Anonymous]

These PTAs absolutely do this. Many schools collect books at book fairs to help fill shelves in poorer parts of the city and coat drives to fill sister-school requests. There are organizations who's sole purpose is to make the connection between rich and poor PTOs and many of these school participate in this.

Lafayette, for example, has an entire program called Lafayette Gives back, sponsored by the HSA, whose sole purpose is to give, and to teach kids to give, to others. This includes packing backpacks for foster kids, making care packages for first-responders and collecting baby carriers for refugees.

Do you not see how forcing poor kids to rely on the noblesse oblige of the .01% is an enormously fucked up way to fund basic social services such as education?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are letting DCPS off the hook by funding the schools through the PTA. If you want something for your kids, it's a better use of your resources to cut a check to the PTA than to lobby DCPS. DCPS makes it that way.

I come from Massachusetts. There, state law bans PTA's from paying for school expenses. State law also requires equality in funding. So if parents in a rich district want something for their kids, they can't pay for it themselves, and they can't lobby for extra resources for their school district. They have to lobby for extra resources for the entire state education system.

Coincidentally, Massachusetts has the nation's highest average SAT score. (DC is 47th out of 51).

How did the state law get this way? Massachusetts has very powerful teachers unions. The unions pushed for them as a way of increasing school spending.

Massachusetts, the state, doesn't come anywhere close to the poverty of DC. That's the issue- we don't have wealthy suburbs to draw from. Apples to oranges.

Median household income, 2014:
District of Columbia $65,124
Massachusetts $64,859

Per Capita income, 2014:
District of Columbia $45,877ts
Massachusetts $36,593

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

These PTAs absolutely do this. Many schools collect books at book fairs to help fill shelves in poorer parts of the city and coat drives to fill sister-school requests. There are organizations who's sole purpose is to make the connection between rich and poor PTOs and many of these school participate in this.

Lafayette, for example, has an entire program called Lafayette Gives back, sponsored by the HSA, whose sole purpose is to give, and to teach kids to give, to others. This includes packing backpacks for foster kids, making care packages for first-responders and collecting baby carriers for refugees.

Do you not see how forcing poor kids to rely on the noblesse oblige of the .01% is an enormously fucked up way to fund basic social services such as education?

Huh? People have spent the last 4 pages complaining that rich PTAs should help poor schools. Now, when it comes to light that they do, in fact, help poorer school, it's fucked up? No one is relying on anything or forcing anyone to do anything.

Poor school kids get often X2 the funding as rich school kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This does look like sloppy reporting. At our school, we pay the HSA for every field trip. So if 100 students pay $10 each to the HSA to go to the Natural History Museum, it would appear that the HSA "raised" $1000. Then if you figure there are 7 grades and each grade goes on roughly 10 trips a year, it now looks like the HSA raised $70,000. But that is not fundraising, that's me paying for my kid to go on a field trip.

If you didn't pay for the field trip, the field trip would not happen. That's fundraising. The fact that the amount of money raised is equal to the cost of the activity is irrelevant.

It is not fundraising to pay for the cost of a field trip. It is not fundraising for parents to PAY for aftercare for their child just because the HSA/PTA is a conduit for those funds to go to the private provider of aftercare services. The aftercare provider could just as easily accept the funds directly from parents who are paying for care and the HSA would never be involved, it would just be a parent paying for a service.

The HSA is used as a pass-through for the fund to then go directly to pay for the bus or Metro to take the kids to the museum. Would you call it fundraising if instead we paid the school directly for the field trip like when I was a kid?

The CAP study is all about supplemental money in public education—in other words, money on top of what is allocated to schools from the school district. The reason is that traditionally most districts only compare resource equity by comparing school budgets. But if—within a single school district—there is one school that consistently receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in supplemental money from an outside organization, and another school consistently receives zero, and the primary difference between those two schools is race, then there is inequity. The question is, what responsibility, if any, does the school district have to address the inequity?

Your example assumes that every parent has the financial wherewithal to pay for the field trip, so it does not matter whether the money is paid to the PTA or directly to the school, because regardless of which entity receives the money, the trip will happen. Not every parent can afford the field trip, and when those parents are concentrated in a single school, the field trip will not happen. Therefore, the school with parents that can universally afford the field trip are receiving a benefit that another school may not receive.

Fine. Forget field trips.

Aftercare. Aftercare is not provided by DCPS at most (any?) upper NW schools. So a private entity provides it. At Janney, it happens to be that the parents on the PTA procured that private vendor so that aftercare would be available. They negotiated the contract and pay over the cost of the aftercare that simply passes through them. This is not additional money in public education. Having aftercare available is not an additional resource that other schools in the system do not receive. In fact, having no DCPS provided aftercare actually costs the parents in those schools more because private aftercare is more expensive. No one is looking at the $80 a month or whatever aftercare costs at DCPSs with DCPS provided aftercare and saying "OMG! They raised $80x10x400 kids, wow, that's $320,000 in resources that Title 1 school raised."

The point is to allow comparisons like this:

Janney ES Budget = $700,000 (excl after-school) + $300,000 (fundraised for after school) = $1,000,000 total resources
Title 1 School Budget = $1,000,000 (incl after-school) + $0 fundraised = $1,000,000 total resources

Since the DCPS doesn't publish this data about supplemental resources, it is impossible to say with any certainty about equity, until something like this report comes

No. That is not the comparison. You are being obtuse. $300k is not fundraised for aftercare. People are not donating money to fund aftercare. It is paid by parents who use it for that service. JUST LIKE THE KIDS WHO PAY $80/MONTH AT OTHER SCHOOLS. The budget of an individual school, Title 1 or not does not include aftercare. Aftercare is an entirely separate thing. Not all children use aftercare. It is not included in the per pupil funding given to schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, there's a way to solve this! It's something called a "tax." It's where you collect money from everyone in a jurisdiction, and distribute it according to need. Perhaps, since there are DC parents who have a demonstrated willingness to pay additional money to fund public schools, Dc could look into an increased property tax for additional schol funding.

No. We are already taxed out the wazoo, and that tax money goes disproportionately to other schools, which is why the parents pay out of pocket to make up the difference in the 4 largest elementary schools in DC.

Actually property taxes in DC are low. We could all pay a bit extra for the schools. Or hey how about if developers had to kick in some money for local school renovations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are letting DCPS off the hook by funding the schools through the PTA. If you want something for your kids, it's a better use of your resources to cut a check to the PTA than to lobby DCPS. DCPS makes it that way.

I come from Massachusetts. There, state law bans PTA's from paying for school expenses. State law also requires equality in funding. So if parents in a rich district want something for their kids, they can't pay for it themselves, and they can't lobby for extra resources for their school district. They have to lobby for extra resources for the entire state education system.

Coincidentally, Massachusetts has the nation's highest average SAT score. (DC is 47th out of 51).

How did the state law get this way? Massachusetts has very powerful teachers unions. The unions pushed for them as a way of increasing school spending.

Massachusetts, the state, doesn't come anywhere close to the poverty of DC. That's the issue- we don't have wealthy suburbs to draw from. Apples to oranges.

Median household income, 2014:
District of Columbia $65,124
Massachusetts $64,859

Per Capita income, 2014:
District of Columbia $45,877ts
Massachusetts $36,593

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

Are you so dense as to suggest that the entire state of Massachusetts, where the median price per square foot for a house is $194K, can be compared in the same way to DC, where the median price per square foot is $435?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents are letting DCPS off the hook by funding the schools through the PTA. If you want something for your kids, it's a better use of your resources to cut a check to the PTA than to lobby DCPS. DCPS makes it that way.

I come from Massachusetts. There, state law bans PTA's from paying for school expenses. State law also requires equality in funding. So if parents in a rich district want something for their kids, they can't pay for it themselves, and they can't lobby for extra resources for their school district. They have to lobby for extra resources for the entire state education system.

Coincidentally, Massachusetts has the nation's highest average SAT score. (DC is 47th out of 51).

How did the state law get this way? Massachusetts has very powerful teachers unions. The unions pushed for them as a way of increasing school spending.

Massachusetts, the state, doesn't come anywhere close to the poverty of DC. That's the issue- we don't have wealthy suburbs to draw from. Apples to oranges.

Median household income, 2014:
District of Columbia $65,124
Massachusetts $64,859

Per Capita income, 2014:
District of Columbia $45,877ts
Massachusetts $36,593

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

Interesting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

These PTAs absolutely do this. Many schools collect books at book fairs to help fill shelves in poorer parts of the city and coat drives to fill sister-school requests. There are organizations who's sole purpose is to make the connection between rich and poor PTOs and many of these school participate in this.

Lafayette, for example, has an entire program called Lafayette Gives back, sponsored by the HSA, whose sole purpose is to give, and to teach kids to give, to others. This includes packing backpacks for foster kids, making care packages for first-responders and collecting baby carriers for refugees.

Do you not see how forcing poor kids to rely on the noblesse oblige of the .01% is an enormously fucked up way to fund basic social services such as education?

Huh? People have spent the last 4 pages complaining that rich PTAs should help poor schools. Now, when it comes to light that they do, in fact, help poorer school, it's fucked up? No one is relying on anything or forcing anyone to do anything.

Poor school kids get often X2 the funding as rich school kids.

The point is that it should be transparent and obligatory, if we're going to keep on allowing PTAs to raise money for specific schools. As in, 10% of the money has to go to grants for other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

These PTAs absolutely do this. Many schools collect books at book fairs to help fill shelves in poorer parts of the city and coat drives to fill sister-school requests. There are organizations who's sole purpose is to make the connection between rich and poor PTOs and many of these school participate in this.

Lafayette, for example, has an entire program called Lafayette Gives back, sponsored by the HSA, whose sole purpose is to give, and to teach kids to give, to others. This includes packing backpacks for foster kids, making care packages for first-responders and collecting baby carriers for refugees.

Do you not see how forcing poor kids to rely on the noblesse oblige of the .01% is an enormously fucked up way to fund basic social services such as education?

Huh? People have spent the last 4 pages complaining that rich PTAs should help poor schools. Now, when it comes to light that they do, in fact, help poorer school, it's fucked up? No one is relying on anything or forcing anyone to do anything.

Poor school kids get often X2 the funding as rich school kids.

The point is that it should be transparent and obligatory, if we're going to keep on allowing PTAs to raise money for specific schools. As in, 10% of the money has to go to grants for other schools.

Because why? Andy you can't not allow PTAs to raise funds, all you can do is tell them you can't pay for things at a school.