So a commons problem, in some way—people want what’s best for them and (possibly) their hyper-local community, but doing so ends up being problematic for the wider community.
This means that the disagreements one sees on this thread (and similar ones) possibly actually reflect a deep philosophical divide regarding where a parent’s primary responsibilities lie—are their responsibilities most strongly directed toward their own children, or toward the wider community?
That probably overstates things, but that’s the direction I’m starting to think in. Thoughts?
Regardless of morality or philosophical leanings, I believe we protect our own children (and our grandchildren and their children) by supporting educational policies that have the potential to positively impact the future economy and keep income inequality from becoming even more extreme. Even if my offspring and their offspring end up on the fortunate side of that divide, there will be unavoidable societal upheavals that will impact them. So I see providing an appropriate education for the kids of others as protecting my own descendants long term. fwiw
adding: another way to look at it - adequate public education is probably cheaper than prisons, and there are other benefits to an educated populace than just saving taxpayers money on prison populations.
I am in favor of moral arguments, but self-interest is really probably enough reason to decide to support better public schools, in my opinion.
@austinmshauri I guess I would want to know what “adequate” funding is. This whole argument is certainly reinforcing my support for a voucher system that would give everyone a voucher with a set dollar value that could be used at any school, public or private. We could then decide what an “adequate” amount was and ensure that the vouchers were funded at least to that amount.
If you go back and read the article, the complaint really isn’t that some schools have “inadequate” funding, but rather that some schools are able to provide lavish opportunities due to parental donations.
I know of schools where there is virtually no parental involvement, and I mean none. That means there can never be anything as simple as parents baking cupcakes for a school party. So, if I want to bake 20 cupcakes for my child’s class Valentine’s party, is there some obligation that I bake several hundred or thousand extra and drive throughout the state delivering them to impoverished classrooms? This is essentially the issue we are dealing with.
There is a problem, of course, that many school districts are adequately funded, but the money is squandered. I don’t know the answer, but I do know that if I were to win the Powerball tomorrow and want to give my local school district enough money so that every child could be transported to school in a helicopter and be fed lobster and caviar for lunch I ought to be allowed to do so. (I wouldn’t, by the way, but I ought to be allowed to!).
If more affluent public districts are not allowed to have parent-subsidized PTA activities, all that will happen is that affluent people who want a certain kind of educational community/cooperation with teachers will put their kids into private or parochial schools. Stamping out parental involvement and support at all schools because not all schools can have them at the same level seems like a policy of resentment more than anything else, as it won’t change a thing for the better in the less well-endowed school districts.
The PTA does not just provide money, it provides community. I once worked in a very affluent district in which the PTA funded and staffed an elaborate annual teacher appreciation luncheon. The PTA also gave each teacher a substantial annual “mad money” stipend to buy instructional materials, classroom equipment etc. that were not included in our classroom budget (and there is never enough, no matter how wealthy your district is). These customs fostered a spirit of goodwill and cooperation among the school personnel and the parents.
I live in a state (NJ) where a law was passed in 1985 requiring “equal funding” of all school districts. The “Abbott district” public school across the street from my D’s magnet high school now boasts a gleaming, modern, beautiful facility with a state-of-the-art theater and an indoor competition pool. That school still has dire test scores and graduation rates, though. Meanwhile, the suburbs to the north have leaky ceilings and overcrowded classrooms, and they stlll, after 30 years, have much better educational outcomes in every measurable way.
We could talk about cupcakes or we could talk about childhood hunger. In my rural community elementary school, there is a huge volunteer run backpack buddies program for some students to take home food on weekends so they can count on being fed. I don’t understand why this has to be volunteer instead of provided by the state through the school. I contribute dollars but not labor to the volunteer program. I would prefer to pay more taxes to achieve the same outcome, and the same outcome even in schools where involved middle class parents aren’t around to run these programs. The kids in the schools without parental involvement should also have food available on the weekends. It doesn’t matter to me why the food isn’t there. It isn’t the fault of a child food isn’t available and blaming parents accomplishes absolutely nothing in terms of getting the child fed.
Following up on cobrat’s post, my eyes were really opened when young German friends were flabbergasted to learn their children’s public school educational opportunities would be determined by what neighborhood they bought in. This was completely outside their experience. We all just take it for granted. Why are other countries able to do what we can’t?
The PTA’s I know are fine: they do bake sales and Christmas craft fairs for enrichment. The real inequities lie in the bigger funding sources such as ed foundations, at least in my state.
In our San Francisco bay area Oakland Unified gets over $3,000 more per student per year than our own. Our school asks parents to donate roughly $1,000 per kid to keep programs like orchestra alive but it’s strictly voluntary. I don’t complain about Oakland getting more per student although I would like to see more evidence that it helps the students. But if the state smacked down our school’s smallish-in-comparison fund raising I would be irate.
What is the advantage of public school orchestra, if you are paying for it, over community youth orchestras? That is what homeschool students I knew seemed to be involved in. I do not know how they work.
The state and local governments love fundraising, then they don’t have to pay for it. They love fees too.
If parents have to donate #1K per kid for the orchestra in the school, what happens to low-income kids? A Public school should NOT ask this of parents. Better to go a year without orchestra and make noise at the local and state level, write letters in the media, and get it back free to all students as it is meant to be.
I haven’t read the entire thread, but our district started charging middle school and high school athletes $75 per season. So at one point I had three kids in that age range - $225 in the fall, then $225 in the spring. Yikes. I was secretly happy when one of the kids dropped out of sports!
Your friends are probably white, ethnic-Germans. If they were Turkish, or other non-white Germans, chances are they’d likely have been streamed early on into a low-performance, non-college track school.
Yes we also pay for sports and other things like arts. Our PTO doesn’t do fundraisers but they ask parents to donate a few dollars as well as food and gift cards for teacher events they put on. The fundraising is more at the level of each activity–eg. kids working to raise a few hundred dollars so they can go on an arts trip or to raise money for their sports team. Foreign trips are not a big thing. I am surprised that they would be at a working class school.
@austinmshauri “This is missing the fact that every student is entitled to a free, appropriate education. Low income families shouldn’t have to try to make up for inadequacies in their districts due to disparities in funding.”
The epic failure in this article is that it focuses on inequality, which on its face seems like a good thing. However, it allows the authors to improve equality by reducing positive behaviors that improve student performance in wealthy areas, such as volunteering at science fairs. That benefits no one.
To be beneficial, changes need to be implemented to improve results in lower income school. The tools to close this gap significantly are well known: extend the school day, provide schools with more ability to fire teachers who have the worst outcomes and replace them with better teachers, pay bonuses to teachers who get the best results, lengthen the school year several weeks, allocate more time to the 3 R’s, increase parent/guardian communication and involvement.
The same people who complain about the performance gap among districts, are the same ones who refuse to do what it takes to put the kids first. When you tell them what needs to be done, they refuse to take those steps and start making excuses about why we can’t do those things. Then they go back to complaining about the inequality.
I say the complainers they need to decide to put the kids interests first, and blame themselves for the results gap, until they are ready to do so.
" So at one point I had three kids in that age range - $225 in the fall, then $225 in the spring. Yikes. I was secretly happy when one of the kids dropped out of sports! "
In California, I paid $1500 for one child for one sport at a private school - after paying tuition. Thought if they went to public school that would change. Not really, it was $850 for each child for one sport (2 were going to play, so even more for me). Before I paid it, we moved to Florida where it was $60 per child per sport, but there was a family maximum during the year of about $200 I think. There were a lot of other fees that we paid too - $100 for uniforms, team meals for away games that were $90 or so, coach’s gift, clinics they went to as a team, fall ball which was $100 or so, joining the booster club. Still I know it was difficult for some families to afford and some of us paid the fees for others who couldn’t afford them.
It all seemed so cheap after the $1500.
The biggest benefit to having orchestra or band or drama or art in the schools rather than in the community is that the kids don’t have to be transported to another location. My kids were limited to things they could get to, sometimes by walking, sometimes with rides, usually by me. They did play in a community band, but it was really a pain sometimes to have to leave work, pick them up, drive them to band, wait, and then go home. Much better when it was all at school.
I think the research shows that disadvantaged kids are already a couple of years behind when they enter kindergarten. They need parents who talk more to them and better daycare and pre-school experiences as well. I’d like to see more things like http://hcz.org/our-programs/the-baby-college/
"That’s not quite an accurate description of the research. I’ll fix it to be accurate:
To be beneficial, changes need to be implemented to improve results in lower income school. The tools to close this gap significantly are unclear from the education research literature, but a number are heavily promoted by several groups: extend the school day, provide schools with more ability to fire teachers who have the worst outcomes and replace them with better teachers, pay bonuses to teachers who get the best results, lengthen the school year several weeks, allocate more time to the 3 R’s, increase parent/guardian communication and involvement.
There. Much better."
This is how the excuse making begins:
Confuse people. Argue that spending more time on reading and math isn’t proven to improve reading and math.
Obstruct, and challenge anyone who tries to take action by introducing uncertainty where none exists.
Distract people by redirecting the discussion toward relatively minor issues like donations in poor districts
Offer no substantive solutions yourself
Work to prevent implementation of solutions
Blame other people for the continued failure of the system
Feign dismay when the status quo continues and the performance gap grows
Express concern and sympathy for the poor performing kids whose lives you have destroyed