Based on the JKLM whiners on this thread, I am really glad my kid doesn't go there. I really don't feel I could deal with the parents. At least at my EOTP school, I get along well with the other parents and we have an attitude that we are all in this together/we are all appreciated. We certainly don't scorn parents who do not give money to the PTA. The JKLM parents on this board and especially in this thread make it seem a bit like the Hunger Games.

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"

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "other people can't have nice things" have taken their arguments to a whole new level here. We're talking about private, voluntary contributions. Contributions that have managed to keep the schools afloat while DCPS let them languish and rot. Contributions that have salvaged a semblance of a passable eduction despite DCPS. Contributions that have freed tremendous resources for other schools.

And this is what you want to prevent? You are truly a ideological idiot.

No, I want a level playing field for all schools regardless of the race or socio economic background of the students. It's quite simple.

I come from a state where state law prohibits private contributions to schools, at least for big-ticket items like teacher salaries or facilities. (Or did when I was a kid) If well-off parents want to advocate for increased resources for their school, they have to advocate for increased resources for all schools. This state has strong public unions and this law was passed with the backing of the unions, the effect is increased political support for spending on teacher salaries.

When I came to DC I found the DC way troubling, where schools are semi-privatized, particularly at the elementary level.

Yes! I had no idea that was the case elsewhere but the arguments in favor are very compelling. I don't understand why private citizens are allowed to employ staff at a school. What next having corporate sponsors for teaching assistants? That's not public education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "other people can't have nice things" have taken their arguments to a whole new level here. We're talking about private, voluntary contributions. Contributions that have managed to keep the schools afloat while DCPS let them languish and rot. Contributions that have salvaged a semblance of a passable eduction despite DCPS. Contributions that have freed tremendous resources for other schools.

And this is what you want to prevent? You are truly a ideological idiot.

NP here. No one faults parents for fundraising. But what's unfair is holding schools, along with their teachers and students, to the same standards as those with significant funding boosts and then judging those communities as not valuing education.

Or concluding that low-income kids can't do well because their parents "aren't involved."

The extra funds provided by PTAs is not being protested. It's the ignorance perpetuated on this forum that schools without those funds just can't be helped.

And it's not just parents who believe this. It's fairly obvious that the DME proposals are betting on income distribution to raise struggling schools. I don't disagree that it will help, I'm just tired of the assumption that high SES kids are smarter and that their parents care more.

There's a lot of talk here about "students who aren't prepared" and healthy doses of judgement for their parents, but no consideration for the fact that their school may be without a library, or science equipment, or basic school supplies. These are things that should be in every PUBLIC school, not just those schools with wealthy parents.

You can sit on a high horse (and it's galling how many do) and say if low income parents cared, they would roll up their sleeves and organize for fundraising. But just who would they go to in a community where everyone is just trying to pay the rent?

Education is supposed to be the socioeconomic equalizer; instead, it's the source of a deepening divide.

actually the poster above complained about private fundaisers in schools, saying that it is not fair to schools in poor areas where parents cannot fundraise, as if the difference in edication at these schools was due to the lack of PTA money. also you say that it is not fair to hold schools at the same standards as schools that have "substantial funding boosts" . can you please explain? the example in the post below, if Murch and Payne had the same amount of students, Payne would get over $3millions more than Murch, based on 2015 (Payne gets less in total number because has less than half the students at Murch, but get substantilly more money per students). thus, Payne is the school with the funding boost, not Murch, even counting the PTA fuindraiser. I am with you whan you say that all elementary schools should have a librarian, science equipment and whatever kids need to study (but this also means you may have to close some schools if only a fraction of kids are enrolled, you can keep open school that have 1/4 of the students they could serve). but
saying that schools that are doing well are doign well because they have a boost in funding does not describe reality. schools in poor area do not miss the PTA fundraising, they miss a better net of social services that protect and support very fragile children, and maybe also a better way to spend the money that they already get. if kids do not go to school, are hungry, are homeless, have disfunctional abusive parents, it is not very easy for the school to do its work. we need some type of specific intervention of these type of situations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "other people can't have nice things" have taken their arguments to a whole new level here. We're talking about private, voluntary contributions. Contributions that have managed to keep the schools afloat while DCPS let them languish and rot. Contributions that have salvaged a semblance of a passable eduction despite DCPS. Contributions that have freed tremendous resources for other schools.

And this is what you want to prevent? You are truly a ideological idiot.

NP here. No one faults parents for fundraising. But what's unfair is holding schools, along with their teachers and students, to the same standards as those with significant funding boosts and then judging those communities as not valuing education.

Or concluding that low-income kids can't do well because their parents "aren't involved."

The extra funds provided by PTAs is not being protested. It's the ignorance perpetuated on this forum that schools without those funds just can't be helped.

And it's not just parents who believe this. It's fairly obvious that the DME proposals are betting on income distribution to raise struggling schools. I don't disagree that it will help, I'm just tired of the assumption that high SES kids are smarter and that their parents care more.

There's a lot of talk here about "students who aren't prepared" and healthy doses of judgement for their parents, but no consideration for the fact that their school may be without a library, or science equipment, or basic school supplies. These are things that should be in every PUBLIC school, not just those schools with wealthy parents.

You can sit on a high horse (and it's galling how many do) and say if low income parents cared, they would roll up their sleeves and organize for fundraising. But just who would they go to in a community where everyone is just trying to pay the rent?

Education is supposed to be the socioeconomic equalizer; instead, it's the source of a deepening divide.

What the reformers running DCPS say is poor kids CAN do well, despite their parents lack of involvement, as long as they have an effective teacher. What sane people say is that parent involvement makes a huge difference in kids' ability to thrive and learn. And you may be tired about assumptions about high SES kids, but they are factual. You're right that every public school should have basic supplies and equipment, and if some don't -- look to the school administrators who supposedly care deeply about all children. It's their job to do that; it's not the job of other kids' parents.

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.

you really do not get it. the private fundaising is great because it benefit all kids in school and makes up for a gap in funding "rich" schools have. it is not true, as you seem to insist, that schools in in middle and upper middle class areas have an extra leg, and more money, because parents in those areas basically tax themselves and give money to the school. teh example above of Murch and Payne shows it: per pupil, Murch gets $9,265, while Payne gets $14,336. if Murch got the same amount per pupil as Payne, Murch would get in 2015 $9,748.000. Murch's budget in 2015 is $6.3Million. thus, in percentage, Murch gets more than $3Million less it would get if it was a title 1 school. the PTA raises something around $300k-$400K (I am not sure). as you can see, if Payne had the same amount of students as Murch, Payne would get over $3Million more, which is ten times what the Murch PTA raises. so the problem is not the lack of PTA funding, the problem is a lot more complex.

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.

I agree.

Schools don't have better libraries and full time librarians because of PTA fundraising, they have them because they have more students. It is easier to fund a full time librarian for a school of 600 than a school of 250.

Well then the per-pupil funding model is a flawed one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "other people can't have nice things" have taken their arguments to a whole new level here. We're talking about private, voluntary contributions. Contributions that have managed to keep the schools afloat while DCPS let them languish and rot. Contributions that have salvaged a semblance of a passable eduction despite DCPS. Contributions that have freed tremendous resources for other schools.

And this is what you want to prevent? You are truly a ideological idiot.

NP here. No one faults parents for fundraising. But what's unfair is holding schools, along with their teachers and students, to the same standards as those with significant funding boosts and then judging those communities as not valuing education.

Or concluding that low-income kids can't do well because their parents "aren't involved."

The extra funds provided by PTAs is not being protested. It's the ignorance perpetuated on this forum that schools without those funds just can't be helped.

And it's not just parents who believe this. It's fairly obvious that the DME proposals are betting on income distribution to raise struggling schools. I don't disagree that it will help, I'm just tired of the assumption that high SES kids are smarter and that their parents care more.

There's a lot of talk here about "students who aren't prepared" and healthy doses of judgement for their parents, but no consideration for the fact that their school may be without a library, or science equipment, or basic school supplies. These are things that should be in every PUBLIC school, not just those schools with wealthy parents.

You can sit on a high horse (and it's galling how many do) and say if low income parents cared, they would roll up their sleeves and organize for fundraising. But just who would they go to in a community where everyone is just trying to pay the rent?

Education is supposed to be the socioeconomic equalizer; instead, it's the source of a deepening divide.

Schools don't have better libraries and full time librarians because of PTA fundraising, they have them because they have more students. It is easier to fund a full time librarian for a school of 600 than a school of 250.

Anonymous wrote:The "other people can't have nice things" have taken their arguments to a whole new level here. We're talking about private, voluntary contributions. Contributions that have managed to keep the schools afloat while DCPS let them languish and rot. Contributions that have salvaged a semblance of a passable eduction despite DCPS. Contributions that have freed tremendous resources for other schools.

And this is what you want to prevent? You are truly a ideological idiot.

NP here. No one faults parents for fundraising. But what's unfair is holding schools, along with their teachers and students, to the same standards as those with significant funding boosts and then judging those communities as not valuing education.

Or concluding that low-income kids can't do well because their parents "aren't involved."

The extra funds provided by PTAs is not being protested. It's the ignorance perpetuated on this forum that schools without those funds just can't be helped.

And it's not just parents who believe this. It's fairly obvious that the DME proposals are betting on income distribution to raise struggling schools. I don't disagree that it will help, I'm just tired of the assumption that high SES kids are smarter and that their parents care more.

There's a lot of talk here about "students who aren't prepared" and healthy doses of judgement for their parents, but no consideration for the fact that their school may be without a library, or science equipment, or basic school supplies. These are things that should be in every PUBLIC school, not just those schools with wealthy parents.

You can sit on a high horse (and it's galling how many do) and say if low income parents cared, they would roll up their sleeves and organize for fundraising. But just who would they go to in a community where everyone is just trying to pay the rent?

Education is supposed to be the socioeconomic equalizer; instead, it's the source of a deepening divide.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "other people can't have nice things" have taken their arguments to a whole new level here. We're talking about private, voluntary contributions. Contributions that have managed to keep the schools afloat while DCPS let them languish and rot. Contributions that have salvaged a semblance of a passable eduction despite DCPS. Contributions that have freed tremendous resources for other schools.

And this is what you want to prevent? You are truly a ideological idiot.

No, I want a level playing field for all schools regardless of the race or socio economic background of the students. It's quite simple.

I come from a state where state law prohibits private contributions to schools, at least for big-ticket items like teacher salaries or facilities. (Or did when I was a kid) If well-off parents want to advocate for increased resources for their school, they have to advocate for increased resources for all schools. This state has strong public unions and this law was passed with the backing of the unions, the effect is increased political support for spending on teacher salaries.

When I came to DC I found the DC way troubling, where schools are semi-privatized, particularly at the elementary level.

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.

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.

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.