Why Friday Night?
I had planned, nay, attempted to make my way down to SeaTac for tonight's voting on resolutions set forth at the Washington State PTA Convention.
But it is Friday, after 3 pm. and raining. I tried to take city streets down as far as possible to try to avoid I-5. But they were terrible (and some kind of incident happened around UW because 3 ambulances had to crawl by). I gave up.
But it struck me, as I drove back home, why have voting on Friday night? It's the end of a work week and Friday is notorious for bad traffic. Why wouldn't you have voting on Saturday morning or afternoon? You'd have given people from around the state who needed Friday to even get there, the time to arrive and get a night's rest.
Or why not allow units to vote electronically. It could have been done, with nearly all the units and you'd have the best gauge of what REALLY matters to people.
I get there's a lot to stack in at a convention. But the resolutions are the PTA's public face to the world about what is important to parents in this time and place.
I have to wonder why the voting is at the most difficult time for most people to get there.
But it is Friday, after 3 pm. and raining. I tried to take city streets down as far as possible to try to avoid I-5. But they were terrible (and some kind of incident happened around UW because 3 ambulances had to crawl by). I gave up.
But it struck me, as I drove back home, why have voting on Friday night? It's the end of a work week and Friday is notorious for bad traffic. Why wouldn't you have voting on Saturday morning or afternoon? You'd have given people from around the state who needed Friday to even get there, the time to arrive and get a night's rest.
Or why not allow units to vote electronically. It could have been done, with nearly all the units and you'd have the best gauge of what REALLY matters to people.
I get there's a lot to stack in at a convention. But the resolutions are the PTA's public face to the world about what is important to parents in this time and place.
I have to wonder why the voting is at the most difficult time for most people to get there.
Comments
It does seem that they picked the worst possible time to hold a meeting if they truly wanted a representative body.
Design?
I agree. Our school signed an anti-charter resolution, but haven't been able to get anyone to attend the convention. This issue needs to be addressed for adequate representation.
"Remember, the PTA did conduct an online survey this past year and charter schools were ranked last below all other priorities. Too bad the leadership decided to ignore the actual feedback they were given by the membership."
Personally, I wasn't aware of the survey (my child has graduated, and I don't think I even qualify any more to be a member). But it is pretty extreme for them to support charter schools in the face of clear opposition. I think these guys (SPTA and WSPTA) are "using" the organization to advance their own personal agendas. The question is -- will the membership actually do something about it?
Two suggestions: first, start showing up for the boring "policy and legislative" stuff -- not just the useful fund raising stuff -- and work to take back control. Second, where possible, explore "decoupling" from the PTA altogether. Some alt schools have done it. If enough schools all start to do this, it will cause a HUGE political ruckus -- and much egg will be on many faces. But it can't be just 1 school, or 3. It has to be a sizeable chunk of PTAs, who then form their OWN legislative policy groups and push back.
Wish I still had a kid in public school. I would love to join this fight.
--EmptyNestMom
WhoMe
from a FB update from a friend who was there:
"Spent last night in hospitality room at the PTSA convention. After the resolution votes, most were disheartened by the vote that was cast. The Washington State PTSA now has a resolution that supports charter schools. Are you a member of PTSA? Did you know that this is the route that they were taking? Curious minds want to know."
join in the fight anyway... get busy amongst the PTA people/schools you know...
many of us who are public ed advocates dont have "skin in the game" right now... kids have graduated, moved out of district, retired from teaching etc...
Melissa, me, Dora, Dan, Carol and a whole bunch of others...
If you have the passion, the energy and the time, go for it... you're needed...
EmptyNestMom - you can still join PTA and you can still fight. I, too, will be an empty nester after June. I do not plan to walk away from this.
PTA President
She makes a claim that the PTA is dominated by teacher unions, which I don't know enough about ( & doesn't seem to be the case in our state),
She also has a political viewpoint that is the opposite of ny own in many ways, but I think she has raised some legitimate concerns.
One of the major differences between being a PTA and a PTO is that PTOs--the independent parent organizations--do not lobby. In fact, why should parents pay for lobbyists who don’t represent their interests? When parents are paying dues to lobbyists who actually are working against some of the traditional values of parents in the PTA, then I think it’s really deception. There are plenty of other organizations to represent political interests.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2003/02/01/taking-parent-out-national-ptaan-exclusive-interview-charlene-k-haar
It is a fight worth fighting and not just because of charters but because of what PTA represents especially to the Legislature.
Also,keep in mind there is a professional staff at WA State PTSA and a volunteer elected Board. Maybe we should be talking to the Board.
I am very dissapointed the PTAs that don't support charter schools inclusion in the "equitable educational opportunities" resolution weren't turned out in the numbers that the proponents were. There's the expense of conference fees, travel, staying and eating that rules out quite a few PTAs. There may also be a lack of interest about state PTA - too much to take care of at home and some "what does it matter to us, anyway" mentality or "there's someone else taking care of this, and I'm not really interested". There was a great turn out for the proponents, motivated and able to attend. Disheartening for us "cons", but we're not giving up! They may own WSPTA, but they don't own us.
The other hot resolution - "subsidizing certificated and classified staff salaries" (advises against PTAs to support staff during school hours) - was passed.
There is a motivated group of advocates for public schools who are working against Charter Schools in Washington State via Parents Across America Seattle - also PAA groups in Tacoma and other regions - you can hook up by going to the PAA website as the PAAS website isn't quite ready - but soon!
Also, Melissa, you are not alone wondering why voting is like it is (and why Friday night is a great point - some delegates have to work on Friday - teachers for example): there is a germ of a movement to change the WSPTA voting process so that all voices count and a website that is in its infancy - please check it out: sites.google.com/site/voicescount . Changing the voting process will require educating ourselves on how to develop and introduce a bylaw change.
The proponents of Charter Schools are very organized and motivated, so its time to rally our side and educate, motivate and challenge the citizens to understand what bringing Charter Schools to Washington will mean, bottom line, to intensifying budgetary crises in public schools and to the outflow of taxpayer money into for-profit corporations.
(humm... Obama supports charter schools; for-profits make bundles of money off charter schools - does there seem to be a link? I do like Obama but he is very wrong about charter schools.)
I tried looking at Charter School resources and was stopped by a log in, so maybe its not quite finished - but I've heard it will be soon.
Here is where to find links to affliate PAA groups (Tri Cities, Tacoma, Kennewick, Spokane): http://parentsacrossamerica.org/affiliates/
You knew the pro-charter group would be lining- up the deck.
Online/mail in voting should certainly be a possibility in this day and age. Also, any PTA/PTSA that pays their membership dues should be entitled to vote. You shouldn't have to pay 170 to come to the convention in order to do so.
KPM
Is it possible you knew you would lose, and that by not showing up you could whine about how the rules are unfair?
I'm wonder about all these anti-charter resolutions that have widespread support, but those local units can't find a single person enthused enough to drive to Seatac and vote when it means something. Is it possible that those local resolutions were the result of a small group of activists at the school, who bullied the PTA into voting their way? i've seen it happen a lot.
Nothing stopped any of you from writing an anti-charter resolution, and getting it to the floor of the convention.
Stop whining.
Parents and students voted it a top priority. Teachers voted it last.
I'm betting those teachers who were directed by their union to get online and vote might just have biased the results a bit, possibly.
Too bad parents don't have a vote in WEA.
The same question about widespread support could be asked of the voting delegates who voted yes on the issue too ... Do they have the widespread support of the membership on whose behalf they are voting yes?
In fact, as much as I would have liked to cast our PTA's vote against charters, I didn't feel right doing so since we hadn't polled membership on the issue. I suspect there are members who don't agree with charters, but whose delegates voted that way on behalf of their PTA.
And I still think your membership dues/fees entitle you to a vote - you shouldn't have to pay the convention fees in order to vote.
You may call it whining, I just have different opinion than you do obviously.
KM
I look at polls that said charter schools are favored by about 60% of the residents in Washington. And that's with all the intense negative lobbying from the WEA. (Note, I said WEA and not teachers.)
Over 41 states have charters. The only reason there aren't more is because teacher unions actively work to squelch and block the rights of others to the public education of their choice.
So, yes, I do think the vote represented the general membership.
What it means is, why do those who wish to push their agenda on the majority, jack the schedule around to make it as undemocratic as possible. Does it make your position that more valid? Hardly. Think of it as the poll tax, or ID voting states. Yeah, let's make sure only our friends "care enough".
Gringa
Looking at the data from the WAPTSA survey being referred to in earlier posts.. It looks like 8075 votes were cast on the charter issue. The breakdown is:
1 = insignficant 1633
2 = not important 1797
3 = neutral 2243
4= important 1240
5= very important 1156
So 1 & 2 = 3430, 3 (neutral) = 2243, and 4 & 5=2396. So I wouldn't classify it as very unpopular, or very popular in PTA membership (depending on how you cast the neutrals.) I'm sure some interesting analysis could be done re: the school districts where the votes were cast and how they map against the schools who would purportedly get charter schools (low performing, higher achievement gaps). Dan Dempsey or Charlie will have to take the lead on analysis though - not my forte !
KM
http://www.wastatepta.org/advocacy/association_position/index.html
under Members Weigh In
km
As for your remark, "must not be that important", you certainly are new here then.
All I can say is that charters never win in this state. Not in voting at the ballot box and not in the legislature - where it counts. The longer we hold them off, the smarter we will look in several years.
Parents only need write to their legislators - in numbers - and say Wa State PTA does NOT represent me on this issue. I suspect that is what happened this session and will continue to happen in future legislative sessions.
Charters lost in the legislature because the WEA told the Democrat leadership to either kill it or never see another penny of their money. Same with consolidating health care. Please don't mistake that for the "will of the people".
I also think it would be nice if QFC didn't make me pay for bananas, or Chevron didn't charge me for gas.
If you want PTA dues to increase to cover the cost of the State Convention, in order to provide Convention free to everyone who wants to attend, or free for those who only want to attend the voting sessions, then propose it.
"Free" doesn't mean it doesn't cost money. It just means someone else is paying your way.
What about low-income or financially struggling members? Or single parents who don't have free childcare to attend a Friday night event? Are you saying they are just riff-raff?
The PTA convention system has been set up in favor of people just like you--who vote just like you.
By the way, some people want to do away with public schools altogether, using the "free" rationale of your last sentence. Your logic leads to that same conclusion--but perhaps you are already aware of that.
--enough already
I have no problem with a proposal that subsidizes those who can't afford the prices at Convention, or that would have those units have access to some sort of state-wide fundraising that would pay their way.
I'm just figure it is always better to solve problems than to whine about how unfair life is.
I have no idea what you mean by:
"By the way, some people want to do away with public schools altogether, using the "free" rationale of your last sentence. Your logic leads to that same conclusion--but perhaps you are already aware of that."
Are you saying that my "logic" that nothing is "free" is flawed? Please, do tell.
Boy, you like to twist things. I didn't blame the PTA for the traffic. I blamed them for picking the MOST inconvenient time for voting.
Also, the convention is pretty expensive and there should be a low-cost way to attend and an online way for units to vote.
Lastly, I heard from someone at LEV that KIPP doesn't even want to TRY to come to Washington even if there were a charter law. They fear it will fail at the ballot box...for the fourth time.
The will of the people, you know.
The convention DID support the resolution that calls for innovation in schools -- including non-profit charters.
And, the convention DID vote for the resolution that discourages permitting PTAs to raise money in support of in-school staff (buying extra teachers, aides, etc. to be used during the day) -- on the theory that it's the state's job to up their funding AND if PTAs do it -- the state will just shift the burden, it's inequitable, etc. etc.
Does it follow, then, that the PTA would not support any non-profit charter if it meant that the charter organization would provide (or would fund raise for) any additional in school teachers or staff? Because that would violate the same principles with respect to inequality, shifting of the state's burden onto the school, etc. So, things like the extra South Shore money in Seattle, or a Harlem Zone style charter -- those would all be NOT ok? Right? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right? Because you certainly wouldn't want to give your "innovation schools" any advantages, in terms of funding, that regular ol' schools don't have, right?
If you can figure out a model that works, by all means, propose it to the Legislature.
KIPP knows that the WEA runs things in this state. They have no desire to spend their resources on futile efforts. Too bad. Many children could be getting an education that they currently are not receiving in the current system.
Wouldn't it be nice if we focused our energies on educating children, rather than on preventing options? One size doesn't fit all. But, we are stuck in a box where those who don't fit just fall out. I'm sad you find that to be acceptable.
They need to reconsider their voting procedure. Except our PTSA is considering a divorce anyway.
I agree that online voting can't be verified, but mail voting certainly could. Distribute two ballots to each member PTA to be mailed back.
I am not a teacher, btw.
This is Ramona (WSPTA staff and SPS mom). All of the proposed resolutions passed.
http://wsptagrassroots.blogspot.com/2012/05/resolutions-all-pass-as-written.html
There wasn't a charter-specific resolution, but charter public schools were included in the "equitable educational opportunities" resolution. There was an amendment put forth to strike the reference to charter schools, but it failed. Something many readers here may not realize is that there is (or can be) quite a bit of debate on these issues, and amendments are often put forth. For instance, some of the speakers last night said they would support the resolution IF the charter langauge was taken out.
Sometimes issues are introduced, don't pass, but re-emerge the next year after opponents meet, discuss, collaborate and find some common ground. Our revenue resolution is a case in point. Getting people to gather is key to building advocacy and bridging differences. (WSPTA includes conservative, liberal, urban, rural ... it really helps to meet.)
That said, the ideas around using virtual resources to encourage participation are interesting. If you explore that, just keep in mind we need to enable real-time participation and we need to factor in capacity. We have about 920 local units in the state. And not all members have access to online voting (for both economic and physical/rural issues).
You also need to factor in that sometimes members can debate issues for hours.
This last point explains the "why Friday night." In the daytime, the WSPTA convention runs on a strict schedule -- we offer over 100 classes and we have a number of speakers, plus awards, etc. That makes evening/nights the best time for voting at convention. We can push later into the night without a domino effect.
(At our fall legislative assembly we pushed the bulk of voting to Saturday morning/day. We only offer a half-dozen or so classes at that event. But even then, we have to start on Friday or we won't get through all the issues.)
In the end the association spent about 3 hours on the resolutions and bylaws.
FYI: Those upset about the proposed 7:10 am start time might be interested in the sleep/school start time resolution.
The next deadline for proposals is June 1.
As for the survey last fall, that was specifically about proposals for the short-term platform. The response to the charter proposal fell into the neutral range. PTA members were more favorable than "all" respondents. And PTA parents and students (especially students) were more favorable than PTA teachers. It is still up on the website if you want to poke around. http://www.wastatepta.org/advocacy/association_position/index.html
(See Members weigh in)
I have heard of 3 PTAs that have passed resolutions in opposition to charters. There could be more, but that is all I know of.
The problem with giving local units two absentee ballots is that resolutions change. This isn't a fixed ballot. People discuss, resolutions are amended.
Convention costs money. If more attended, the total cost would likely go down, as fixed costs are spread over more people. But attendance has been declining over the years. Why not get involved, and figure out the answers to this yourselves?
(Why the slam against the GOP? The Democrats spend the same or more on their party. Why go there? Just to make a silly meaningless slam? But if it makes you feel superior, go for it.)
The problem I have is with a system where the new option makes things worse for the other schools (which charters DO if:
1. they end up moving public assets into private hands for less than fair market value, or
2. they set policies that exclude categories of kids (ELL, Special Ed, kids with behavior issues -- leaving even fewer options for those kids) so they don't bear their fair share of educating kids who might cost a little more, or be a little harder to teach, or
3. if they don't actually provide anything better, and their chances of making things worse (in terms of learning as measured by test scores) are actually TWICE their chance of making things better (which is what the Stanford study established).
When charter proponents try to "sell" charters to voters, they don't tell them that they advocate transferring public property to private corporations for less than fair market value (which the proposed WA legislation provided). They don't tell people that, on the whole, they exclude (either through admission or attrition policies) many kids who take more resources to educate -- returning those kids to public schools, or causing them to drop out. And they don't tell people (although troublesome data is starting to aggregate and hit the streets) that on the whole, charters really don't improve anything -- so statistically, at least, parents are relinquishing control of their schools for no gain. (In fact, the Stanford study suggested that the results were more likely to be WORSE outcomes than better ones (17% improved over public schools; 33% did worse than public schools, the others were the same -- no difference).
It wasn't just the unions, pro-Charter. Lots of voters wrote their legislators and the governor, asking that charter legislation not be passed, or that the governor veto it if the pro-Charter lobby managed to sneak it in there during the "horse trading special session."
I would support charters if they were a legitimate, non-profit, community based option that worked. To date, most of them aren't, and don't.
But, I suspect, the fear is they will be in big demand. That has been the experience in those 40+ other states that have them. Demand far exceeds supply. People wants choices.
I find unfathomable why you are more intent on preserving the power of the teacher's union than you are interested in children being educated.
In regards to Jan's comment: The staff compensation resolution was about funding the regular school-day program -- not wrap around services. So no, you are incorrect. The association would NOT discourage fund-raising for a Harlem Zone style set up.
Frankly -- my quibble here is with the amendment that discourages using funding for additional services during the day. I acknowledge all the issues, but my support stops at the point where one child who fails and drops out would have succeeded if the PTA had been able to fund an ia or staff person whose contribution would have saved that kid. But -- if we are going to have a bad policy (which I think that one is), we at least should not be favoring innovation schools over regular schools in the way that policy plays out. At least, that is how I see it.
And congratulations on the late start time policy for high school. Not sure the Seattle board will pay any attention, but maybe someone will.
I understand what you're saying (I think) let's try them out -pull them out of the toolbox, as some say - what's the harm?
But the harm may lie in exactly what you describe, trying it out. Yes, some (many?) parents may opt for them. But all the things Jan summarizes start to happen and,a few years down the road, the public school as we know it is dismantled, the results are no better, maybe worse, and (as literature has recently suggested) it's bloody hard to close down a nonperforming charter.
So then what, we've undertaken this experiment in education, that dismantles public schools for all, on the hope that it falls into the 17% that do better? That's too risky for me. The fact that 41 other states have charters is meaningless if they don't perform better. More than 17%.
SPSparent to2
It's a complex issue, and many PTAs will continue to fund classroom teachers. It is their decision. This resolution raises the issues of sustainability and whether those private funds might end up supplanting tax revenue.
And it helps those PTAs who are NOT comfortable with this level of fund-raising.
It's very interesting the mix of public and private funds that our schools depend on and the reaction it elicits. (Rich PTA OK; rich friend of charter not OK. Rich schools foundation OK -- unless they get too involved in policy, and then not OK...)
Here is that resolution:
Resolved, that the Washington State PTA will continue to advocate for and support education reform measures including adequate and sustainable funding for basic education; and be it further
Resolved, that the Washington State PTA advises affiliated PTAs to use their resources to enhance every student’s educational experience through funding of programs and activities outside of the regular school program rather than by providing resources for additional staff during the school day.
- Ramona H
I still don't see why it needs to be $140 each just to attend. I don't have an extra $140 just to go and find out, either. But that should buy a heck of a party. Honestly, it sounds like the kind of party an organization throws when it has forgotten what it's there for.
No special slam against the GOP intended. I was looking for a way to specify a political party and they were quick to type.
My object to charters is that they take a public asset that my taxes paid for and give it to a for-profit company. State PTA propaganda can keep repeating 'public charters' from now until the second coming, but they remain private unaccountable companies that can cherry pick the best students, and then complain about how the public schools aren't working. If they want to start a private school, go ahead, but don't take public assets to do it.
Again with the union slams? Thank god for the teachers' union, it's the only thing standing between us and 50-student classes.
THE LAST DAY IS SPENT ON VOTING....
If you read my recent guest column in The Answer Sheet at the Washington Post, I laid out all the ways Washington State IS providing options. That's it doesn't include charters, well, that's the choice our lawmakers and voters have made.
Ramona is once again being disingenuous. Yes, resolution only included charter schools and was not strictly about charter schools. But she, and the WSPTA, refused to say, outloud, that much charter legislation, including the one offered this session, would violate the PTAs guidelines, policies, etc. So why include it? Seriously, if most charter law does not pass PTA muster, why include it?
She also left out all the Dem districts that voted against charters.
"If charters aren't wanted by most people, then what's the big deal?"
Because charters cost money and that money comes from existing districts. Did you miss that part about how they are funded? This would not be a experiment or trial - it would be law.
And yes, every time a pro-charter person gets tired, it's go to the teachers union as the problem argument.
There is no way, at all, that all the ills of public education can be laid at the feet of teachers. I have no connection to the union and yes, I see they need to change and be flexible (but hello? look at Seattle's contract) but that they are demonized at every turn is wrong.
Wouldn't it be nice if we focused our energies on educating children, rather than on preventing options?
Here are my thoughts -- and I would be curious to know what you think.
First, no organization has endless amounts of "energy" (time, money, customer goodwill, etc.). Thus, ALL organizations at some point have to make decisions on what options are most likely to benefit their customers (here, kids and society in general) and what they can afford. Now, I will grant you that some of the opposition to charters may come from the union's conclusion that it decreases their membership base and influence. And if that is ALL there is to it -- that is bad (but I think some union members have other, more justifiable reasons to dislike charters, in terms of their cost/benefit to kids and all of us -- but I digress). In any case, those who run the system need to decide whether, given their time and money constraints, charters make sense -- or not. Washingtonians have decided -- 3 times -- that either they didn't, or that the jury was still out on benefits vs costs, and they didn't want to go there. Over time, charter proponents have become increasingly nervous -- because as the data comes in, the answer appears to be -- no. Broadly speaking, the results simply don't justify the "cost" to the rest of the system (and really -- much of that "cost" is still out there, because states are only NOW beginning to grapple with the fact that when they set these up, they failed to put in meaningful rules for how to shut them down when they fail to work -- and that will cost a great deal of money over the next few years, unless we simply decide to leave kids in failing charters -- which was how I thought this whole thing got started on the public side). So, no -- I don't believe that adding "charters" necessarily helps us "focus our energies" in any meaningful way. There are many ways within the public structure to implement "innovation schools" (including getting the unions to agree to more flexible contracts so that they work as intended). Given that we don't NEED to go with private charters to achieve flexible school choices, and that it is an expensive option, I honestly think that the entire charter thing is a net drain on public assets -- we end up making our available money go LESS far -- than if we stuck with innovation schools, MOUs between alternate or option schools and districts to allow autonomy for curriculum, length of school days/years, etc. I see this as further UNfocusing our energies, which could be better spent on whether kids learn, and how much, rather on tussling over making public assets into private ones.
Given the poor results (on an aggregate basis) of charter schools, I don't think we are "preventing options" when we go with innovative public schools, rather than privatizing them. I understand that parents may "choose" charters, thinking that they are getting rid of a load of bureaucracy and that, without it, their kids' schools will dramatically improve -- and maybe that has happened in places like DC or East St. Louis, I don't know, but as an across the board proposition, it isn't happening nationally, and I see absolutely no evidence-based reason to think it will happen here.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/05/ask-melinda-gates-your-question-about-education-reform.html#disqus_thread
Can't say my name because I still have cages to rattle