Well said! Nobody learns a foreign language by having brief classes so infrequently. Such better uses of that money. Typical DCPS stupidity.

Spanish instruction is mandatory in DCPS. The Central office requires principals to waste resources so kids can get instruction every six days or however long it is. PP said it was 2x per week at his/her school. It's every 6 days rotation in our school. It's a complete waste and certainly not a model for learning a foreign language. Let's free up those resources for math enrichment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Give me a freakin break. They don't get it b/c they don't need it. The kids are already coming in at a significant advantage.

We pay for foreign language instruction through our PTA.

We believe this is a need, not a want. I'm sure you also pay for the things your childs needs.

Every school should have a specials teacher who teaches a world language. Your PTA must be paying for additional or supplemental language instruction, which is a want, not a need.

At our nwdc es, our kids had 2 spanish classes per week for 1/2 a year. It was a complete waste of time.

Additional instruction is a must, not a want, if they actually want to learn a language.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Give me a freakin break. They don't get it b/c they don't need it. The kids are already coming in at a significant advantage.

We pay for foreign language instruction through our PTA.

We believe this is a need, not a want. I'm sure you also pay for the things your childs needs.

Every school should have a specials teacher who teaches a world language. Your PTA must be paying for additional or supplemental language instruction, which is a want, not a need.

Anonymous wrote:

Give me a freakin break. They don't get it b/c they don't need it. The kids are already coming in at a significant advantage.

We pay for foreign language instruction through our PTA.

We believe this is a need, not a want. I'm sure you also pay for the things your childs needs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont begrudge those schools. Title 1 schools may raise significantly less but they also get more govt dollars. Either way, the real heart of this is the commitment from parents. You could throw 1 mil at the worst performin elem in DC and I am not sure the test scores are going to jump all that much. It all comes down to what the parents are giving to the kids OUTSIDE of school unfortunately. And 1 million dollars isn't going to help that much.

This is the same argument as saying that political donations do not equal influence. If big donors—to schools or politicians—weren't getting a return on their investment, they wouldn't donate the money. You can argue about the degree to which they're getting a return, but saying the return is nonexistent is silly.

What a strange comparison. The PP is right that the money at a school's disposal has very little to do with the achievement gap. Besides, as others have pointed out, schools like Janney receive significantly less in public funds than schools serving a poorer population, so the parents have to make up for it.

Give me a freakin break. They don't get it b/c they don't need it. The kids are already coming in at a significant advantage.

Kids at Janney don't need toilet paper? The teachers don't need copy paper? They don't need after care? What exactly is it that these kids don't need in your opinion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont begrudge those schools. Title 1 schools may raise significantly less but they also get more govt dollars. Either way, the real heart of this is the commitment from parents. You could throw 1 mil at the worst performin elem in DC and I am not sure the test scores are going to jump all that much. It all comes down to what the parents are giving to the kids OUTSIDE of school unfortunately. And 1 million dollars isn't going to help that much.

This is the same argument as saying that political donations do not equal influence. If big donors—to schools or politicians—weren't getting a return on their investment, they wouldn't donate the money. You can argue about the degree to which they're getting a return, but saying the return is nonexistent is silly.

What a strange comparison. The PP is right that the money at a school's disposal has very little to do with the achievement gap. Besides, as others have pointed out, schools like Janney receive significantly less in public funds than schools serving a poorer population, so the parents have to make up for it.

Give me a freakin break. They don't get it b/c they don't need it. The kids are already coming in at a significant advantage.

I think there is the county educational budget, the school budget, the PTA budget and also money raised by parents through foundations and funds. There is a lot of work being done by parents to raise money and not just through PTA. That should be recognized.

We are at an EOTP Title I school and I have to say this article is unfair to Janney in particular. I don't know the details of the other schools' PTAs but I am aware that Janney funds aftercare through its PTA. This is a fee-for-service activity that could otherwise be done by the Janney PTA or the school inviting a third-party service provider to provide aftercare on school property and charge the parents directly.

And this is exactly what happens at Title I schools in DC. The school invites a third party provider or more often providers plural. One of these is usually DCPS OSTP which I believe gets charged to the school budget at least partially? I say partially because administration of the OSTP program city-wide is handled by DCPS central office and these costs are probably not recovered from the participating schools.

In addition to OSTP, most Title I schools have other service providers that fill in gaps in aftercare, for example providing aftercare to early childhood or providing additional aftercare spots when the OSTP spots allotted to the school do not meet demand. These other providers are 501(c)3 organizations that raise their own funds and provide aftercare free to low-income families. Even the "unsubsidized" aftercare fees that higher-income parents pay at Title I schools may be subsidized by the provider's fundraising. Unless you are paying at least $500/month for your aftercare it's likely subsidized somehow.

If Center for American Progress wanted to make a fair comparison of "all-in" aggregate school budgets, which includes DCPS budget but also PTA budget, then it would also need to calculate the full unsubsidized value of the services provided to Title I schools by the various non-profits that serve them, including aftercare providers, reading or math tutoring providers, everything, and add these to the school's "all-in" budget.

I am not arguing that parental incomes make no difference in education inputs or outcomes! I am just pointing out this flaw in the CAP analysis and the article.

"Poor kids do not need your gently used coats. That is not what is going to address the education gap. That you can't see this speaks volumes.""

They don't? Then why is it that the social worker from a Title 1 school asked our Ward 3 school for this cold weather gear in specific sizes for kids who kept coming to school with no coats in freezing weather? That you can't see this also speaks volumes.

The reason that Mark Zuckerberg's huge donation to the Newark schools didn't help much there is that throwing money at a Title 1 school doesn't magically fix the education gap.

Money for the schools does help, though, and that is why per pupil poor schools receive so much federal and other support. I am all for that, and I know that our voluntary donation to our PTA allows DCPS to shift even more resources to the kids in Title 1 schools. It's a voluntary tax, and there already in effect is a pooling of the resources.

Frankly, I also already donate extra to make up for the parents in my own Ward 3 school (which is in the Post story) who are lower or middle income. We do have them, you know. Plus to make up for the parents who could give more, but don't.

If you want to give the poor schools in DC more money, raise taxes. The Council and Mayor Bowser are supposedly in the process of lowering them!!!!

Anonymous wrote:I think that is great. It would be greater still if Janney sponsored a poor school and that way created charity and community service opportunities for their students. I propose they adopt our school and PTA. We are waiting with bated breath - please sponsor us or adopt us!!!!

Who do I contact to make that request?

We were a Janney family back in the day and I remember clearly attending a PTA meeting when they mentioned this very thing. Something about a 'sister school' in another part of DC? How I recall it was that they had more money than they could use so they connected with another school that could use the funds. Can someone currently at Janney speak to this?

I think that is great. It would be greater still if Janney sponsored a poor school and that way created charity and community service opportunities for their students. I propose they adopt our school and PTA. We are waiting with bated breath - please sponsor us or adopt us!!!!

Who do I contact to make that request?

Our PTA has to buy paper for the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on, as long as every school has what it needs, what's wrong with affluent parents topping up the budget by hiring teachers aides etc.? This happens all over the country.

We're certainly not going to close the achievement gap as a country by limiting PTA contributions. Keeping well-off parents in the public school system benefits the low and moderate income students who attend the school, and swells city coffers by keeping their tax dollars in the city. DC wouldn't be better off if well-heeled JKLM, Brent, Maury, Ross etc. parents who contribute generously to PTA budgets run to the burbs or privates in search of the favorable instructor:student ratios and in-school enrichment PTA contributions help provide.

Please find a new cause, jealous PPs. PTA bashing is pathetic.

Actually if those well-heeled families leave for the suburbs or choose private schools, the city and its coffers would be better off. Families with kids use more city services.

I don't know if your tax vs cost calculations are correct, but aside from that, DCPS would certainly not be better off if it lost most of its high performing students. Then all schools would be low performing.

Right, no they wouldn't be better off. No way. Young high SES families are serious agents of change in DC. They don't just support schools, they do all kinds of things to help make the city a better place. This mother spent several long years lobbying DDOT to get the horribly battered sidewalks on our street changed out (we weren't even on an 10-year paving schedule), and succeeded. According to DDOT engineers, nobody had pushed for new sidewalks, or a radical reworking of the traffic flow at the profoundly dangerous intersection around the corner, until gentrifiers appeared on the scene.

Exactly. Remember how much of a shithole DC was (in fact, DCPS schools didn't even have toilet paper) when Mayor Marion Crackhead and his crooked cronies ran things?!

We just bought toilet paper for our school during a "paddle raise." NWDC school.

In some disturbing respects, the DC government feels like it is slipping back into the Mayor for Life era.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on, as long as every school has what it needs, what's wrong with affluent parents topping up the budget by hiring teachers aides etc.? This happens all over the country.

We're certainly not going to close the achievement gap as a country by limiting PTA contributions. Keeping well-off parents in the public school system benefits the low and moderate income students who attend the school, and swells city coffers by keeping their tax dollars in the city. DC wouldn't be better off if well-heeled JKLM, Brent, Maury, Ross etc. parents who contribute generously to PTA budgets run to the burbs or privates in search of the favorable instructor:student ratios and in-school enrichment PTA contributions help provide.

Please find a new cause, jealous PPs. PTA bashing is pathetic.

Actually if those well-heeled families leave for the suburbs or choose private schools, the city and its coffers would be better off. Families with kids use more city services.

I don't know if your tax vs cost calculations are correct, but aside from that, DCPS would certainly not be better off if it lost most of its high performing students. Then all schools would be low performing.

Right, no they wouldn't be better off. No way. Young high SES families are serious agents of change in DC. They don't just support schools, they do all kinds of things to help make the city a better place. This mother spent several long years lobbying DDOT to get the horribly battered sidewalks on our street changed out (we weren't even on an 10-year paving schedule), and succeeded. According to DDOT engineers, nobody had pushed for new sidewalks, or a radical reworking of the traffic flow at the profoundly dangerous intersection around the corner, until gentrifiers appeared on the scene.

Exactly. Remember how much of a shithole DC was (in fact, DCPS schools didn't even have toilet paper) when Mayor Marion Crackhead and his crooked cronies ran things?!

We just bought toilet paper for our school during a "paddle raise." NWDC school.

Remember that because this year DC schools plan to spend another $20 million on an 'esteem' initiative for 'boys of color.' No doubt it will pay for more consultants.
But you have to buy your school's toilet paper.