Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have kids at an ES with high-ish fees and I’m not comfortable with them asking for them at all. It only reinforces educational inequalities across the city. If the PTOs want to get together and create a central fund that is distributed across public schools city-wide, cool but that will never happen.

I agree with you. It’s gross. It’s the wealthier schools, raising their own little money to make their own little school better if they want more money for schools, they should advocate for more money in the budget or do what you said about equalizing the PTOs. in Montgomery County, the PTO funding is equalized

Have you been to a DCPS budget hearing at the City Council? You'd find that a disproportionate number of people testifying are from the more affluent schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have kids at an ES with high-ish fees and I’m not comfortable with them asking for them at all. It only reinforces educational inequalities across the city. If the PTOs want to get together and create a central fund that is distributed across public schools city-wide, cool but that will never happen.

I agree with you. It’s gross. It’s the wealthier schools, raising their own little money to make their own little school better if they want more money for schools, they should advocate for more money in the budget or do what you said about equalizing the PTOs. in Montgomery County, the PTO funding is equalized

I am a parent at a Title 1 school and disagree with you on this. My kid’s school has so many free activities, extended day clubs and activities, free before and aftercare, etc. The classes are smaller than wealthier neighborhood schools in DC because they are Title 1. I have no problem with families donating to their kids’ school. I donate to our PTO and don’t want those funds going to other schools. I want to support the teachers and field trips at my child’s school.

DCPS' budgets have an equity model. If you dig into the amounts per kid, you'll notice the city factors in that schools serving needier populations (and those without PTA's to supplement funding) get significantly more money per kid to support their needs. Additionally, DCPS teachers working in Title 1 schools are also eligible for significant raises and bonuses that are not available to teachers working in upper NW. It is far more than the standard Title 1 amount and somewhat closer to what is necessary to close the gap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have kids at an ES with high-ish fees and I’m not comfortable with them asking for them at all. It only reinforces educational inequalities across the city. If the PTOs want to get together and create a central fund that is distributed across public schools city-wide, cool but that will never happen.

I agree with you. It’s gross. It’s the wealthier schools, raising their own little money to make their own little school better if they want more money for schools, they should advocate for more money in the budget or do what you said about equalizing the PTOs. in Montgomery County, the PTO funding is equalized

Ummm Montgomery County doesn't equalize PTA funding, it just has clear guidelines on what it can be spent on. It isn't a slush fund to let the county off the hook for hiring additional staff. But it can be used for programs and supplies.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://us-east-1-029060369-inspect.menlosecurity.com/safeview-fileserv/tc_download/25c624f3d394903ec89a7af9680248e277afb638cb6d37d779528455107824b9/?&cid=N98A6CA7BD1DB&rid=7b3e5a78ec2617abe89bf2d276b2641d&file_url=https%3A%2F%2Fww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org%2Fdepartments%2Fpolicy%2Fpdf%2Fcnd.pdf&type=original

A few things

Some schools ask for an activity fee that goes to field trips and should be calculated to be about what will actually be spent. It saves administration and parents from being nickeled and dimed every time there's an activity where family funds will be requested (upper nw schools: around $100-150). At the school my kids went to, the PTA handled the funds as a courtesy to the principal - but spending was at the discretion. They just didn't have an easy way to collect and then make payments from those funds.

This is separate from school-wide fundraising and requests 'per student' where those funds are indeed used sometimes to subsidize part-time staff positions, pay for improvements such as gardens, playground shades... (upper nw schools - $400+ per student request: clearly not all families do that!)

Former DC city council member David Grosso introduced legislation that would redistribute funds raised at each PTA across the city. it didn't go anywhere, but some day it could be resurrected.
-

BASIS is about $400 a season for any sport.

We give a “suggested donation” to the PTA at our school, which we attend OOB. We also spend the same amount on DonorsChoose or Amazon wishlists for our IB Title I school.
Not sharing because I want a pat on the back but highlighting it for anyone else with the means to do both. If you can give $1500 to Mann I challenge you to think what you could do to spread some of that to a less resources school as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just prior to the pandemic, I worked on this project with a professor. I think the "donations" are a problem for equality:
https://medium.com/@harkinna/how-do-inequities-in-parent-fundraising-across-d-c-public-schools-affect-education-8d8899ae3e50

Right, so rather than donating to schools, you want parents to just spend their money solely on their own kids. Or just save up their donations to add to their private high school or college fund.

The question is whether taxes and city budgets are sufficient to provide a solid education for all children.

If you are aiming to solve wealth inequality through controlling PTA spending, you really have the wrong end of the stick.

yup. stop this and then more families just go private. good luck banning private schools....

Our elementary has an activity fee + expected PTA donations

It's also ridiculous to not recognize that schools with Title 1 and other funds have (had until Trump?) more flexibility in their budgets. Yes they have higher needs, and they have higher resources. Class sizes are larger in NW. Our school relies on the PTA for a bunch of basic supplies and resources so they can max out spending on teachers. Otherwise, we'd have 30 kids in every class and no specials.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have kids at an ES with high-ish fees and I’m not comfortable with them asking for them at all. It only reinforces educational inequalities across the city. If the PTOs want to get together and create a central fund that is distributed across public schools city-wide, cool but that will never happen.

I agree with you. It’s gross. It’s the wealthier schools, raising their own little money to make their own little school better if they want more money for schools, they should advocate for more money in the budget or do what you said about equalizing the PTOs. in Montgomery County, the PTO funding is equalized

I didn't know that about MoCo. I would be interested to see if there was any change in fundraising levels before and after that policy. I would tend to agree with PPs who have posited such a policy would depress donations, but it would be very interesting to see actual data on how that plays out. For myself, I think I would contribute significantly less to a shared pot -- I would find alternatives (like buying directly off teacher wish lists) or pay for enrichment for my kid directly -- there are some economies of scale in the school benefits we get from PTO donations, but for the amount of money I donate I could get pretty much the same utility by hiring tutors, etc, just for my kid.

It’s laughable for those that think a citywide PTA fund is going to get any significant amount of money. It won’t.

Parents will just do things directly for their school and kids.

Also you can count that it will hurt the school system overall because many schools will need to find the money to make up the loss or make cuts to current programming or support. Also parents with options will then just leave the system altogether.

It’s obvious that people on here advocating for this can’t see the big picture. The real money is not in PTO fundraising. It’s the inefficiencies, corruption, central office fat, etc….

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have kids at an ES with high-ish fees and I’m not comfortable with them asking for them at all. It only reinforces educational inequalities across the city. If the PTOs want to get together and create a central fund that is distributed across public schools city-wide, cool but that will never happen.

Why would any parent donate to some city wide fund? They want to help their kids school specifically. Of course a city wide fund would be a bust.

The money a school PTO raises helps every kid at their school and some help to subsidize activities, clubs, etc.. for low income income families at the school. Also with the PTO helping to offset some things at the school, that leaves admin to use that saved money for other needed school things.

Title 1 schools get extra funding from the feds and DC. I’m not saying they get enough but they do get extra funding.

Right—taxes already redistribute the wealth among the schools; higher-earners contribute far more tax revenue (and I agree they should!), and then school budgets are distributed throughout the system. You can go after PTO funding I guess, but at bottom kids from families with more money will always have advantages, one way or another. No amount of PTO pooling or other legislating can change that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have kids at an ES with high-ish fees and I’m not comfortable with them asking for them at all. It only reinforces educational inequalities across the city. If the PTOs want to get together and create a central fund that is distributed across public schools city-wide, cool but that will never happen.

I agree with you. It’s gross. It’s the wealthier schools, raising their own little money to make their own little school better if they want more money for schools, they should advocate for more money in the budget or do what you said about equalizing the PTOs. in Montgomery County, the PTO funding is equalized

I didn't know that about MoCo. I would be interested to see if there was any change in fundraising levels before and after that policy. I would tend to agree with PPs who have posited such a policy would depress donations, but it would be very interesting to see actual data on how that plays out. For myself, I think I would contribute significantly less to a shared pot -- I would find alternatives (like buying directly off teacher wish lists) or pay for enrichment for my kid directly -- there are some economies of scale in the school benefits we get from PTO donations, but for the amount of money I donate I could get pretty much the same utility by hiring tutors, etc, just for my kid.

Anonymous wrote:I have kids at an ES with high-ish fees and I’m not comfortable with them asking for them at all. It only reinforces educational inequalities across the city. If the PTOs want to get together and create a central fund that is distributed across public schools city-wide, cool but that will never happen.

I agree with you. It’s gross. It’s the wealthier schools, raising their own little money to make their own little school better if they want more money for schools, they should advocate for more money in the budget or do what you said about equalizing the PTOs. in Montgomery County, the PTO funding is equalized