Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A very misleading amount as I know for certain the PTA did not raise half, a third, a fourth that amount! This exorbitant amount includes the budget for enrichment and after school care operations. The actual money raised by PTA is way less tha $1.4million.

CAP's source for the Janney fundraising data is the Form 990 Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax. So if it wasn't $1.39M, then Janney PTA lied on its tax return.

The number includes the gross collected for aftercare and other after school programs that parents pay for which are organized by the PTA.

They didnt lie, rather the way the number is presented was intentionally misleading.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kojo did a show on this topic - and a former Janney PTA co-president was on the panel -

Really interesting discussion - love how Kojo nails it by saying that DCPS turns a blind eye because it doesn't want more-connected, knowledgeable about influence-wielding parents to start demanding an increase in DCPS funding (which would then benefit all students - from affluent and non-affluent families)

http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2017-04-27/how-pta-fundraising-may-exacerbate-school-inequities

I'll listen to it later, but please tell me Kojo was smart enough to pull the aftercare figures from the PTA budgets....

Kojo did not need to point this out, as one of the first things the guy from Janney mentioned was that money generated to pay for aftercare at Janney is not really PTA money. The lady on the other side didn't really apologize for over-dramatizing the situation, but everyone listening knew she was full of it. Janney also pointed out that DCPS pays for the aftercare programs for many low-income schools in DC, while Janney has to self-fund theirs. D.C. is not really a good example for what's going on in the country as a whole. We're already socialist.

Good. I'll listen tonight.

The CAP person really wasn't good and just spouted off a lot of platitudes about "educational disparaties" without actually saying anything substantive. It made me question CAP generally, which I've always thought was a solid think tank. For example, Kojo asked her whether she thought the disparaties in PTA funding contributed to poor student performance. She said yes they did because studies show that if more money was invested in poorly-performing schools, they would do better. That wasn't the question. No one doubts that many of these schools are underfunded. But that doesn't necessarily mean that PTA funding of wealthier elementary schools hurts poor schools. The question is also what are these PTAs funding in the first place.
The former PTA president tried to talk more specifically about DCPS routine underfunding of schools, but the CAP representative just talked in generalities and wanted to attack "rich PTAs" as a boogeyman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCPS also wastes a lot of money on fluff, crap and cronyism, which robs funding that otherwise should be going directly into the classroom. How many 'esteem' directors do we need or diversity coordinators (in a majority minority system no less)? How many consultants retained by the central office? The fact that $ are being wasted rather than being put into library resources, enrichment (or remedial) teachers and specialized programs -- or for that matter, basic school supplies -- means that parents are having to raise private funds. They are essentially paying twice, forking over some of the highest taxes in the nation while having to dig into their other pocket for stuff that their taxes should be covering.

Agree with most of what you said, but isn't it property taxes that fund the schools? Those are pretty low in DC, particularly compared to other parts of the country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For example, Kojo asked her whether she thought the disparaties in PTA funding contributed to poor student performance. She said yes they did because studies show that if more money was invested in poorly-performing schools, they would do better. That wasn't the question. No one doubts that many of these schools are underfunded. But that doesn't necessarily mean that PTA funding of wealthier elementary schools hurts poor schools. The question is also what are these PTAs funding in the first place.

If wealthier parents couldn't prop up their schools by contributing to the PTA, don't you think that they might be more likely to agitate for improvement across the whole system? By allowing wealthier parents to do things to improve their situation, you lose their advocacy for improving the situation as a whole which is especially unfortunate because often it is the wealthier people who have the knowledge, time, and ability to successfully advocate for change.

By allowing the PTA funding, it increases the chances that there will be no more money invested in poorly performing schools, perpetuating the problems of underfunding.

Maybe. But I'm also wondering why charters are getting a free pass in this discussion. Janney kids have won the life lottery, and charter kids have at least won the school lottery (and may also be relatively wealthy). I also wonder why private school families don't have a responsibility here, at least as far as families who go private because their local public schools are crappy. Beating up on certain DCPS PTAs and inanely calling them "rich families" is oversimplified, in my opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For example, Kojo asked her whether she thought the disparaties in PTA funding contributed to poor student performance. She said yes they did because studies show that if more money was invested in poorly-performing schools, they would do better. That wasn't the question. No one doubts that many of these schools are underfunded. But that doesn't necessarily mean that PTA funding of wealthier elementary schools hurts poor schools. The question is also what are these PTAs funding in the first place.

If wealthier parents couldn't prop up their schools by contributing to the PTA, don't you think that they might be more likely to agitate for improvement across the whole system? By allowing wealthier parents to do things to improve their situation, you lose their advocacy for improving the situation as a whole which is especially unfortunate because often it is the wealthier people who have the knowledge, time, and ability to successfully advocate for change.

By allowing the PTA funding, it increases the chances that there will be no more money invested in poorly performing schools, perpetuating the problems of underfunding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For example, Kojo asked her whether she thought the disparaties in PTA funding contributed to poor student performance. She said yes they did because studies show that if more money was invested in poorly-performing schools, they would do better. That wasn't the question. No one doubts that many of these schools are underfunded. But that doesn't necessarily mean that PTA funding of wealthier elementary schools hurts poor schools. The question is also what are these PTAs funding in the first place.

If wealthier parents couldn't prop up their schools by contributing to the PTA, don't you think that they might be more likely to agitate for improvement across the whole system? By allowing wealthier parents to do things to improve their situation, you lose their advocacy for improving the situation as a whole which is especially unfortunate because often it is the wealthier people who have the knowledge, time, and ability to successfully advocate for change.

By allowing the PTA funding, it increases the chances that there will be no more money invested in poorly performing schools, perpetuating the problems of underfunding.

Maybe. But I'm also wondering why charters are getting a free pass in this discussion. Janney kids have won the life lottery, and charter kids have at least won the school lottery (and may also be relatively wealthy). I also wonder why private school families don't have a responsibility here, at least as far as families who go private because their local public schools are crappy. Beating up on certain DCPS PTAs and inanely calling them "rich families" is oversimplified, in my opinion.

Most things are oversimplified, and public schools are often, unfortunately, in dire enough straights that oversimplification can still be a reasonable place to start. There are certainly other people who are benefiting by an unfair system, but that doesn't mean we should perpetuate an unfair system we have identified. If the public education available to Janney children without PTA augmentation is unacceptable, then it's unacceptable for all the DCPS children. For a PTA to make their school a quasi-private by using the public education foundation and then adding extras, but not to try to bring public education up to a reasonable level for all, is a problem.

Anonymous wrote:DCPS also wastes a lot of money on fluff, crap and cronyism, which robs funding that otherwise should be going directly into the classroom. How many 'esteem' directors do we need or diversity coordinators (in a majority minority system no less)? How many consultants retained by the central office? The fact that $ are being wasted rather than being put into library resources, enrichment (or remedial) teachers and specialized programs -- or for that matter, basic school supplies -- means that parents are having to raise private funds. They are essentially paying twice, forking over some of the highest taxes in the nation while having to dig into their other pocket for stuff that their taxes should be covering.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For example, Kojo asked her whether she thought the disparaties in PTA funding contributed to poor student performance. She said yes they did because studies show that if more money was invested in poorly-performing schools, they would do better. That wasn't the question. No one doubts that many of these schools are underfunded. But that doesn't necessarily mean that PTA funding of wealthier elementary schools hurts poor schools. The question is also what are these PTAs funding in the first place.

If wealthier parents couldn't prop up their schools by contributing to the PTA, don't you think that they might be more likely to agitate for improvement across the whole system? By allowing wealthier parents to do things to improve their situation, you lose their advocacy for improving the situation as a whole which is especially unfortunate because often it is the wealthier people who have the knowledge, time, and ability to successfully advocate for change.

By allowing the PTA funding, it increases the chances that there will be no more money invested in poorly performing schools, perpetuating the problems of underfunding.

Maybe. But I'm also wondering why charters are getting a free pass in this discussion. Janney kids have won the life lottery, and charter kids have at least won the school lottery (and may also be relatively wealthy). I also wonder why private school families don't have a responsibility here, at least as far as families who go private because their local public schools are crappy. Beating up on certain DCPS PTAs and inanely calling them "rich families" is oversimplified, in my opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For example, Kojo asked her whether she thought the disparaties in PTA funding contributed to poor student performance. She said yes they did because studies show that if more money was invested in poorly-performing schools, they would do better. That wasn't the question. No one doubts that many of these schools are underfunded. But that doesn't necessarily mean that PTA funding of wealthier elementary schools hurts poor schools. The question is also what are these PTAs funding in the first place.

If wealthier parents couldn't prop up their schools by contributing to the PTA, don't you think that they might be more likely to agitate for improvement across the whole system? By allowing wealthier parents to do things to improve their situation, you lose their advocacy for improving the situation as a whole which is especially unfortunate because often it is the wealthier people who have the knowledge, time, and ability to successfully advocate for change.

By allowing the PTA funding, it increases the chances that there will be no more money invested in poorly performing schools, perpetuating the problems of underfunding.

Maybe. But I'm also wondering why charters are getting a free pass in this discussion. Janney kids have won the life lottery, and charter kids have at least won the school lottery (and may also be relatively wealthy). I also wonder why private school families don't have a responsibility here, at least as far as families who go private because their local public schools are crappy. Beating up on certain DCPS PTAs and inanely calling them "rich families" is oversimplified, in my opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
For example, Kojo asked her whether she thought the disparaties in PTA funding contributed to poor student performance. She said yes they did because studies show that if more money was invested in poorly-performing schools, they would do better. That wasn't the question. No one doubts that many of these schools are underfunded. But that doesn't necessarily mean that PTA funding of wealthier elementary schools hurts poor schools. The question is also what are these PTAs funding in the first place.

If wealthier parents couldn't prop up their schools by contributing to the PTA, don't you think that they might be more likely to agitate for improvement across the whole system? By allowing wealthier parents to do things to improve their situation, you lose their advocacy for improving the situation as a whole which is especially unfortunate because often it is the wealthier people who have the knowledge, time, and ability to successfully advocate for change.

By allowing the PTA funding, it increases the chances that there will be no more money invested in poorly performing schools, perpetuating the problems of underfunding.