Parent-funded assistants get the boot
 |
In April, our blogger Jennifer Freeman wrote about the potential for parent-funded teachers’ aides to be pushed out of our city’s overcrowded classrooms. That looming threat has now become a reality, The New York Times reported yesterday.
Parent associations at top schools have a long tradition of raising thousands of dollars to independently hire assistants to help teachers in the classroom, run enrichment programs, or manage students in the cafeteria and at recess. Sparked by a complaint from the teachers union, however, the Bloomberg administration has told principals to put an end to the practice. Any aides hired for the coming school year must be employees of the Department of Education whose salaries are included in the school’s official budget.
DOE employees will cost schools more money. While teaching assistants hired by parents earn $12 to $15 an hour, unionized paraprofessionals earn around $23 plus benefits. Even if schools want to pay their current aides the union wage, they won’t be able to keep them on staff because of the citywide hiring freeze. The future of additional adults in classrooms is now up in the air.
Jennifer’s April post got some great comments from our readers. Is this yet another example of Bloomberg steamrolling parental involvement in schools? Or is it a necessary measure to level the playing field citywide? Please let us know what you think!
Subscribe to 
bloomberg will drive more middle class out of the city with this move. level what playing field? The middle class pays its way and gets creamed for it. The low income classes get all the extra funding
Comment by dan — July 20, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
This is, indeed, another example of Bloomberg steamrolling important parent input. Yes, these schools raise the funds to hire TA’s because they can. But it’s not a case of doing something that is extraneous or dangerous. Schools (at least the one my children attend) vet TA’s carefully, including obtaining the necessary fingerprinting, etc.
Look closely and you will find that the schools hiring these staffers are those that generally do not qualify for class size reduction funding, Title 1 Funds, Stimulus Funding, and many other programs targeted only to schools serving needy populations. As such, the schools in question have ridiculously large class sizes, especially in the lower grades, are overcrowded to the point of losing “specials” classes and classrooms (like libraries, art classrooms, etc.) and are generally ignored by Bloomberg in his “test-scores are everything” approach. Since these schools already have high test scores, he sees no need to listen to the parents there or provide anything that would benefit the students there that might not benefit the vast majority of schools which are struggling to raise test scores. When the parents try to rectify this injustice, they are (big surprise) shut down.
Comment by a parent — July 20, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
OK, we need a little perspective here. The reason many of the schools in Manhattan raise money is that they get A LOT less funding per child than schools serving more disadvantages students. While I think that the latter schools do deserve more funding per child, given that many students in these schools need a lot of extra support, the disparity in DOE funding is still astounding.
My kids went to PS 290 in Manhattan. The reason why they started raising money for teaching assistants in 2002 was because they were facing class sizes of over 30 in kindergarten classes. When my older child started kindergarten in 1999, the school often ran out of paper, did not have enough money to fund teaching aides to oversee lunch or have money to fix the copy machines on a regular basis. Parents started kicking in money to keep things running.
I did a little checking just to illustrate the laziness of the NYT article and other similar commentary. Take, for instance, PS 2 in the Bronx, which is being closed because of poor performance. According the NYC report card for 2005-06 school year, the average spending per child in that school was $19,661. Similar schools (I guess serving populations of similar demographics and needs) received on average of $15,517 per child that same school year. Now take PS 290 in Manhattan, one of the schools mentioned in the NYT article. For the 2005-06 school year it received an average of $9,406 spending per child that year. That’s over 10,000 less spending per child than PS 2!!! Similar schools to PS 290 spent on average $10,911 per child that year. AND, the overall average spending per child citywide that year was $12,511.
So the kids at PS 290, at the height of its overcrowding (123% of capacity in 2005 and 148% of capacity in 2006), with most classes in most grades packed with over 30 kids, got less spending per child than most kids in the city. Even if the PTA at PS 290 raised $400,000 dollars to put teacher aides into the most crowded classrooms (not every classroom got a full-time aide), and to pay for school aides to pay for a steady supply of paper that still only comes to roughly $600.00 per child spending (based upon the NYC supplement report card enrollment figure of 695 for the 2005-06 school year). Yes, PS 2 in the Bronx has a lot of kids with IEPs and a lot kids needing remediation and deserves a lot of funding to help those kids. I don’t begrudge them a dime of it nor do I think that PS 290 kids should get the same level of DOE funding. However, it’s a nonsense argument that you are leveling the playing field by denying the school’s community the ability to raise an extra $600 spending per child, which doesn’t even put them close to the average citywide spending per child.
In case you are interested or think that I’m making up these numbers, here are links to the DOE documents I used:
PS 2: http://schools.nyc.gov/OA/SchoolReports/2005-06/ASR_X002.pdf (scroll to page 3)
PS 290: http://schools.nyc.gov/OA/SchoolReports/2005-06/ASR_M290.pdf (scroll to page 3)
This is a disgrace! No child will ever be lifted up by dragging another one down!!!!
Comment by a furious parent — July 20, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
To me, the arguments above to me are flawed because they ignore a whole segment of the city and schools — those that cater to the working class. These schools do not qualify for Title 1 or other extra funds, but their parents are barely scraping by and do have enough disposable income to raise funds for extra assistants. I have no trouble with fundraising for assistants, but the money should go into a central pot, and then be allocated based on a variety of factors including class size.
Comment by Anonymous — July 20, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
The obstacle is the Teacher’s Union - and their role as an impediment to properly educating our children.The best comments I read on the NYT’s website make the case that the Teacher’s Union is doing for NYC schools what the Autoworkers Union has been doing for the automobile industry - making it less competitive, less innovative, and less effective.
Comment by Roger — July 20, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
did anyone forget to read the part “sparked by a complaint from the teachers union”? people always quick to blame bloomberg while the unions get away scott free.
Comment by Anonymous — July 20, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
This is just standard operating procedure for NYC schools. Bring down those who are advancing and make them stay at a pace with the slowest of the pack. You can see that in any classroom in the city; the lesson plan is tailored to the slowest learner while children who are ahead of the curve vegetate. Without added help in the classroom this will become more and more obvious. I missed the part where the “solution minded” mayor solved this problem, by replacing these pta paid aides with union scale aides. If the mayor is so interested in an even playing field why doesn’t he stop buying elections?
Comment by Anonymous — July 20, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
Part of the problem is the teacher’s union but the mayor isn’t stopping Welfare recipients from sweeping parks because they aren’t earning a union scale.
Comment by Anonymous — July 20, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
dere he go agin fixin whut ain’t broke!
Comment by Anonymous — July 20, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
Bloomberg’s solution to overcrowding. Chase them away!
Comment by Anonymous — July 20, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
and why is it that the chancellor and/or mayor get to dictate what the PTAs, who are raising PRIVATE funds, what they do with those monies?!
Comment by anonymous — July 21, 2009 @ 8:40 am
And again…the DOE hands down a decision without giving anyone the tools to implement it.
Comment by Julie — July 21, 2009 @ 10:04 am
I notice that Bloomberg’s people have been quick to scapegoat the union on this issue, but this union reg has been on the books for a long time, I think it’s pretty clear that the DOE chose now to enforce it. Of course, in these same schools the DOE is nowhere in sight when it comes to enforcing union rules regarding how many children can legally be in one classroom! The hypocrisy is staggering.
Comment by A Parent — July 21, 2009 @ 10:50 am
What would make more sense would be for the DOE to figure out how to help other schools replicate the fund-raising models of schools that have been successful at it. If certain schools have parents with the ability to fill in for DOE budget shortfalls, that should be viewed as a talent that can be taught and shared.
Comment by Bronx mom — July 21, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Major conflict of interest between the students and the union. Why did Bloomberg side with the union on this?
Comment by Outraged Parent — July 21, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
I agree with bronx mom, though I’m not sure if it’s a talent so much as having money to give. In either case, I would say that rather than limiting schools which have parents who are either talented enough or rich enough to do great things for their students, bloomberg should be supporting the schools that don’t. That’s a much more admirable “level playing field.”
Comment by public school student — July 21, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
What next? The City will require the PTAs general fundraising to be put into the general pot too?
So, those of us that stay in private school because we cannot afford, do not want to compete with the private school crowd, want diversity, etc. are punished for wanting to make a better life for our children.
My blood boils every time I see a Bloomberg commercial and his audacity to talk about how he has made the schools better. Really? Is that why there are people paying ridiculous taxes with children on wait lists to their public schools, practically begging to get a spot that is overcrowded, and where they now cannot hire a TA?
Bronx mom, maybe if the other schools cannot replicate the funding, they can replicate the assistance with the help of parents.
Comment by confusedbynycdoemom — July 21, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
From above, I meant “stay in public school” (obviously). I was just so irate.
Comment by confusedbynycdoemom — July 21, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
The truth is the schools have gotten better over the years. The fundraising by PTAs have contributed to the success. So why take away an intricate part of what is working?
Comment by Anonymous — July 21, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
I read or heard somewhere what seemed a reasonable compromise in this situation: allow PTAs to keep fundraising for their own schools, but also have them put some $ money in a common pot or give directly to a specifically identified partner school with fewer monetary resources. I’m not sure how the numbers would work exactly, maybe for every dollar raised 10 - 25 cents would go toward the pot or designated partner school.
In the interests of equity, a common pot, not per-school fundraising, would be ideal. But human nature being what it is, fundraising is likely to be more successful if the fundraisers see a direct benefit, i.e. more personnel in the schools of their own children.
Comment by kk — July 21, 2009 @ 11:55 pm
I believe this common pot is called TAXES, which we already pay.
Comment by Anonymous — July 22, 2009 @ 7:53 am
ha ha district # 3 is now crying poor rich folk send your kids to private schools and let people that can’t afford a good education get one
Comment by Anonymous — July 22, 2009 @ 10:04 am
i was amazed how the most requested school Anderson PTA has a million dollar budget and TAG has a couple thousand it was not fair to the students that these rich schools had better resources than they could afford. About time Bloomberg sided with the have nots now he really isn’t gonna get re elected. New York WAKE UP NO ONE PERSON SHOILD HAVE CONTROL OF OUR KIDS FUTURES
Comment by hate TWEED — July 22, 2009 @ 10:09 am
My daughter went to a Title I school in Chinatown where every class was packed to the max–my daughter’s 5th grade graduating class had 32 kids. The PA dues were $15 or $25. There is no way the Parents’ Association could have raised this kind of money, nor should they.
$12-15/hour is less than these parents pay for their nannies. It is not a living wage and prospective teachers should not be subject to this kind of apprenticeship arrangement, as they have at some of the schools. The median family income in NYC is less than $50k, which does not allow for $600 in PTA dues.
I do question the timing of this publicized policy change, obviously an attempt by the Bloomberg administration to embarrass a segment of the parent population of NYC which is attempting to carve out a meaningful role for parents within the mayoral control system that holds parents in contempt. But this outside hiring is an inequitable system that should not stand.
Comment by Roberta — July 22, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
Who is the union management really representing here — the loss of the TA’s has to have a huge impact on the classroom teachers who have them!
Comment by anonymous — July 22, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
So Roberta, what should happen? People who work hard to deal with the overcrowding situation shouldn’t be able to better themselves? I really don’t understand. We should just sit back and deal with it? And what should happen to these apprentice teachers who, because of the hiring freeze, will now have no jobs?
Comment by anonymous — July 22, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
I’m stealing “Bijou’s” comment from Jennifer’s April Post: “Let us really focus on why the PTAs raise the funds in the first place- Because the DOE has failed to properly support or provide enrichment in our schools. And IF class sizes were lower as they should be and IF the DOE had been actively looking for more space to house more schools and creating said schools and IF the DOE had been using the millions of dollars that they have spent on no-bid contracts in our classrooms instead- then PTAs would not be forced to work their butts off to raise money to pay for TAs.”
Hello???????
Comment by anonymous — July 22, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
The labor issue is a ridiculous one. The schools were aiming to put a thoughtful, caring adult in the room to help the teacher out with an impossible situation like 31 five-year-olds crammed into a classroom in a 100 year old building. The unionized teachers were grateful for the help and the principals inteviewed everyone carefully. Many of the assistants had other jobs and responsibilities in the afternoon and evenings like parents with school-age kids and students who attended school at night and wanted to earn money during the day. Most hired wanted the flexibility (some work less than five days a week or only half days)that these jobs offered or simply the experience of working in a well-run school. Of course, who wouldn’t want more money, but the assistants all understood that their salaries were raised through donations. Also, the schools didn’t necessarily raise all the money up front. They sometimes hired people with the understanding that the job may only last six months and certainly never extended into the summer. It’s called contract work. These people were freelancers. Also, these schools can’t offer job security for the next year, because they never know from year to year if they can raise the money.
I think the most offensive aspect about some of the comments is the nonsense belief that everyone in these schools is rolling in dough. Most families are middle (and I mean middle) class with not a lot of extra money. Yes there are wealthy families in these schools, but most aren’t. I work, don’t have a nanny (my parents help me and I supplement with after school), don’t have a cleaning lady and have always contributed, but never at the suggested level, which was too much for me. No one ever pressured me to give more. Many families pay out a few hundred dollars over the course of 10 months, because they can’t afford $400 in any given month, but they can squeeze out $40/month. Yes, there are many people who don’t have $40/month to spare, but do you really consider a family wealthy if they can afford $40/month, but not a dime more? These aren’t people who come anywhere close to affording private school. It might help some to sleep at night thinking that we’re spoiled, wealthy brats. Lord knows that makes for interesting copy in the newspapers. None of them interviewed me or any of the other parents in similar economic situations. I can’t do anything about that, so I’ll just spend my energy fighting for a decent public education for my children.
Comment by anonymous — July 22, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
A Title I school has a certain percentage of students entitled to free and reduced-price lunch. As a family of 2 (my daughter and myself), my income would need to be below $15k or so for free lunch and $20k or so for subsidized lunch. So we are talking about POOR kids. I don’t think you would want to live like most families in Title I schools.
I have read that some of the schools didn’t even get these aides fingerprinted. And in some schools it was a conduit toward getting a job in the school. Yes, I sympathize with these aides, now jobless, but there are unions and collective bargaining agreements to make sure workers get a living wage, and apparently the teacher’s union is the agent for paraprofessionals in the public schools.
My daughter had 25 kids in Kindergarten, 28 in first, second and third grade, 30 in fourth and 32 in fifth. Her school is ancient, and has 1100 students in grades pre-k to 5. THe principal has always refused to cut class size because she would have to either turn children away or eliminate the music, art and science rooms. Although I know her teachers could do a better job with smaller classes, I also agree with the principal that she would rather have a class size of 40 with excellent teachers than a class size of 15 with poor teachers. It’s not just “middle class” (and above) students that suffer with large class size. And as I wrote before, the timing of this announcement by the city is extremely suspect–it’s an attempt to drive a wedge between the better-off and the not-better-off among the parents in the city. We should not take the bait, but let’s not blame poor kids for their poverty.
I don’t think any public school has any right to ask parents for that kind of money for parents’ association/PTA dues. My daughter was once enrolled in a program for kids in schools in lower Manhattan at risk for learning issues. I had many talks with reduced-price-lunch-eligible families whose kids happened to go to schools where the median income was much higher than theirs, and they felt extremely intimidated by these requests for $500 in PTA dues. THey felt like they didn’t have the right to participate as parents in the life of their schools. This is not right.
The public school system is what it is, and for wealthy(ier) families to make an end-run around the resources allocated by their public schools is just as hypocritical as the millionaire executive who sued the DOE to pay for tuition at private school for his kid. When he won the suit and was called on it, he said he was doing it for the greater good, but of course he was transparently taking advantage of being able to pay for a lawyer. Better to fight the good fight FOR ALL, not just for your kids.
Comment by Roberta — July 22, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
Roberta, you are getting a bit snarky. I understand what POOR means and neither need nor appreciate your lecture. And no one is blaming poor kids. That comment is both insulting and irrational. If you want a discussion, then dicuss, argue if you will, but don’t insult.
Comment by anonymous — July 22, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
ok, then, my quetion to you is: why do schools whose students’ families can pay for these aides deserve relief from large class size and the ones whose families can’t afford it do not deserve this relief? Kids at PS130, PS1, PS2, PS126, PS124 have to go to the nurse, the office or the bathroom as much as kids at PS6 and Lower Lab.
Comment by Roberta — July 22, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
This is not about wealthy vs underpriveldged children. At the end of the day those children in schools where there are no parent funded assistants are not going to benefit from the elimination of fundraising. So by making the playing field even they are lowering the tide. Boats will run ashore.
Comment by Anonymous — July 22, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
It’s a public system and there should be a level playing field. If parents of means have the ability to subvert the system and ameliorate the effects of large class size in NYC public schools, then they have no interest in working to fix it for everyone.
Comment by Roberta — July 22, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
Am I missing something? How exactly does this “level the playing field?” By making all the schools worse? Are the “poorer schools” suddenly going to get assistants in their classrooms? The whole thing is the union watching out for themselves not the children.
Comment by Anonymous — July 22, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
Ok then, now you are just making up facts. Most, but not all, of these schools are operating at under capacity and have small class sizes in at least the lower grades. These schools do have a lot of low income children and deserve the funding. A lot of Title 1 funding often goes to support staff for small group help rather than adding extra classes. Non Title 1 schools don’t have the money for small group and individual help, so kids who are struggling don’t get much extra help beyond the extra period they added on to the school day. And, no one is arguing that schools with a lot of poor kids shouldn’t get the extra funding, which puts their budgets much higher than non-Title 1 schools. We’re not arguing to take away anything from those kids. Nor do any of us expect to get a dime from the DOE.
What do you even mean by “kids at PS130, PS1, PS2, PS126, PS124 have to go to the nurse, the office or the bathroom as much as kids at PS6 and Lower Lab”?
Every school that you mentioned has a blue ribbon on this website. That means they are excellent schools serving the needs of their kids. Yes, I actually looked up the facts on this website. Here they are. PS 1 has kindergarten class sizes of 20 and is at 78% capacity. PS 2 has class sizes of 20 in the lower grades and no higher than 25, even for 5th grade and is at 80% of capacity. PS 130 has kindergarten class size of 16, but they are overcrowded and have large 5th grade classes (this needs to change). PS 124 is in a similar situation to 130 with small class sizes in the lower grades and high ones in the upper grades. PS 126 is at 75% of capacity and kindergarten classes of 20.
Now look at PS 290, which has been covered by a lot of newsapapers. It is at 150% capacity. That’s insane! And I doubt, even with aides, they are letting any kid go anywhere unless it’s absolutely necessary because they’re packed in like sardines. I bet even with the extra help they don’t feel much relief. But without the help, I bet they’re going to feel a lot of pain.
Comment by anonymous — July 22, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
Where did you get these statistics? I don’t believe the 6 Kindergarten classes at PS130 have 16 kids each. My daughter’s class in 2001 had 25.
Comment by Roberta — July 22, 2009 @ 10:40 pm
Roberta, look up the school’s profiles on this website. But now I understand. Your daughter was in kindergarten in 2001. A lot had changed since then. In recent years schools with Title 1 funding (which, again, they deserve) have had flexibility to make younger grade classes very small, with the trade off that the upper grade classes are larger, but no larger than most non-Title 1 schools. Title 1 schools that are not overcrowded get to have reduced class sizes across the board or a lot of extra staff to help out. Look at the top of the profile in the stats box and click on “more stats” to see overcrowding information.
And, you are right, this is problem for kids across the city. But there are over 1 million kids in the system. One size doesn’t fit all when it comes to addressing the needs of the students and individual schools.
Comment by anonymous — July 22, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
The big picture is that a good education is the way out of poverty and latino and black children are being denied a good education in this city. Just look at all the highest performing schools and look at the make up of the student population. What we need is to bus kids all around the city like in chicago and other cities to curtain all these economic barriers put on our kids education. A poor child is in a poor neighborhood meaning he is zoned to a low performing school. Even in the talented and gifted process there is a huge difference between NEST ANDERSON AND TAG. Everybody can not be blind to the fact. U want to do something do not vote for BLOOMBERG. I am so disgusted at tweed that I wish I had lawyer money for a class action suit for educational discrimination and neglect of our children and these zones are almost racist and has been that way for years. STAND UP and LET”S MAKE A CHANGE
Comment by hate TWEED — July 23, 2009 @ 10:16 am
Busing is not the answer. Making every school excellent is the answer. If I was told my child had to be bused to some distant corner of the borough or City, I’d move out of the City. I want my child close to home where I can be involved in the school, and she does not have to waste hours each day on a bus!
Comment by a parent — July 23, 2009 @ 11:00 am
We can’t work out the details of how to get things done until we convince the powers that be that the answer is to bring under performing schools up to par with the better schools. The current plan is to bring the entire system down to the lowest possible denominator. Common sense is giving way to politics. The only thing for certain is that our children will pay the price for bad decisions and neglect.
Comment by Anonymous — July 23, 2009 @ 11:31 am
This is a “shakedown” that uses children as the leverage point which makes it all the more foul. The additional problem is that this shakedown attempt does not result in the schools’ maintaining their status quo because the skill sets of the educators are different — so programs will have to get cut even if the parents are willing pay-to-play. It’s one thing to shake parents down, but to then steal our kids art classes, science fairs and other after school projects is “stupid” and unfortunate (like arresting a suspected burglar after it’s revealed that they are actually the homeowner). It seems far more simple and just to simply impose a luxury tax on those schools that raise money — Yes, school’s in wealthy districts will still have more but they pay a price — just like the Yankees and Red Sox pay a price.
Comment by LA — July 28, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
It is my understanding that this move is not coming from Bloomberg / DOE - but from the teacher aide union. While I have plenty of issues with DOE related to schools, I believe they are not driving this decision.
Comment by Caroline — July 28, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
Let’s face it this has NOTHING to do with the children or their education. This has to do VOTES, VOTES, VOTES. Mr. Bloomberg made a deal with the teachers unions who he is normally at odds with. My child attends a District 3, Title 1 school, where the classes are overcrowded same as many others. Our PTA worked its butt off this last year to raise money for aides so why should we have to hand over our hard earned money to the DOE or a central fund. It does not take rich parents to raise funds for their child’s school; it takes hard work and dedication, rich or white in our Title 1 School was not a requirement. So as voters and parents of Public School children we need to wake up and band together and get rid of Mr. Bloomberg this coming November. Mr. Bloomberg has turned into an out of control dictator who is making up laws as he sees fit! At this point the Naked Cowboy is sounding like a better choice to me.
Comment by K parent in a TITLE 1 school — July 28, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
Roberta, You misunderstand the reason why parents sue the city for their special needs children to attend private school. My son has special needs. The special education class that was offered by the DoE was inappropriate: I had evidence that my son would deteriorate in that class, and also had evidence that the private school in which he’s now enrolled would help him learn like every other kid. I thank the parents who have previously sued the city and paved the way for me to get my child an appropriate education, and you also should be aware that the US Supreme Court is on our side. You have no idea what I’ve been through, and you have no right to judge as you have– the Supreme Court does a much better job.
Comment by Robin T — July 28, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
The vast majority of parents are outraged that the assistants are going to be removed from the classrooms. At my daughter’s school, our PTA is doing all it can to restore assistants. I’m working with the PTA now.
If you are upset about the removal of assistant teachers, please write directly to Mr. Klein and our elected officials (jklein@schools.nyc.gov, BP@manhattanbp.org, gale.brewer@council.nyc.ny.us) to explain the importance of the assistant teacher program.
Comment by Robin T — July 28, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
The children that are being left behind are the ones in the upper & middle class neighborhoods.
Title III schools get all the money for extra books, testing, extended day programs, paras and on and on and on.
Children come in from foreign countries. They get every service in the book. Thousands of dollars are spent on each child in this process. THEN … they “go back to my country”. Our schools are used as baby sitting services in many instances for two weeks to two months. We spend thousands evaluating these children while we babysit, then they leave. Classes are capped at 20 or so, because there is money to hire extra teachers in the budget of a Title III school. Younger teachers are hired so their payscale is lower … result you can hire more teachers. Children are tested easily, therefore paras are hired for specific children. Extra money is placed in the schools budget for that specific child.
Chilren of the upper and middle class families are packed into overcrowded classrooms with one teacher. Usually they are more experienced teachers in these schools … result they use up more of the school’s budget resulting in fewer teachers being hired. 25Q184 is a perfect example of this problem. They have no extra books, extended day (’til 5:15 pm) programs, etc. Parents have to fight to get their child “tested” for learning disabilites.
The Board of Ed needs to figure into the budget for experienced teachers salaries. There should be one teacher for a certain number of children. There $$ salary should not be figured into the schools budget. If a school has say 500 students there should be 20 classroom teachers as well as approximately 5 Cluster teachers. Paras should be placed in every overcrowded classroom. Money should be added to the schools budget to cover this. PTA’s should not have to raise money.
Where’s all the money from the lottery that was supposed to help our schools???? The lottery makes billions of dollars every week … WHERE IS THAT MONEY???
Comment by Kathy C — July 28, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
Re Comment #4 that “the money [raised by schools’ PTAs] should go into a central pot, and then be allocated based on a variety of factors including class size” - I am outraged by that comment. Commenter #3 is absolutely correct - the allegedly “privileged” schools typically get less funding than the neediest schools in the city. The parents at our District 3 school sweat all year long to organize fundraisers and pledge drives to try to stem outrageous overcrowding in the classrooms, fund after school programs, and provide basic supplies for ALL the children in the school. I’m sorry but, why should a penny of our hard-earned dollars, that we sweat to raise with our hearts and souls, and that OUR children need, go to other schools! I’m so tired of hearing this argument.
Comment by Anonymous — July 29, 2009 @ 7:16 am
How about we start marching to raise city funding? I think we need an education tax on those earning 300,000 or more a year. I’m ready to march on Wall Street and City Hall!!
Comment by Suzanne — July 29, 2009 @ 8:18 am
Never underestimate the selfishness and entitlement of the upper class….
I hate Bloomberg more than I can say, but this action is a good one, whatever their motives (which I’m certain are not benevolent but most likely have to do with backroom union agreements or something).
One of the reasons “privileged” schools are overcrowded is because wealthy parents descend upon those neighborhoods and change the make-up of the schools (see schools like 321 and 107 in Brooklyn - once small, once racially mixed, now crowded and overwhelmingly white).
They’re called PUBLIC schools. One school with a wealthy parent population should not be able to make their already cushy school even more cushy while the school down the block filled with poor, non-white kids continues to suffer.
It’s just simply not right.
The Brooklyn PTA Fun Run that was started last year is a great example of pooled fundraising in which many schools take part and all the schools split the pot.
Especially in these times, how about trying to wrap your brain around using the resources you have to help ALL kids and not just YOUR kids…?
Comment by Jim — July 29, 2009 @ 10:21 am
If your child’s school is overcrowded, why not just switch to the nearest school that isn’t overcrowded?
Comment by Anonymous — July 29, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
Roberta 929) The “millionaire”who sued the BOE for a private education for his son actually sued to better help others who were not in aposition to do so. He knew if he won and a precedent was set, that it would be easier for those parents without the resources he and his family had to be better able to obtain an adequate education for their special needs children. He was by no means trying to get a free education for his son at thetaxpayers expense. He probably spent more in legal fees than it would have cost to send his childto a private special needs school for a good number of years. He actually turned around and gave back the monet to those who need it. So please get your facts straight before making quick judgements. If people with children without special needs think they have it hard try putting yourself in the shoes of someone whose child has special needs. Parents with special needs children from all economic walks of life applauded the bravery of this man who spent his money and exposed his private life to the public for the benefit of the greater good as he saw it.
Comment by Alicia — July 29, 2009 @ 11:22 pm
Jim–it’s been shown that this new policy change affects middle-class schools, not upper-class schools, and it affects those schools with some of the smallest amounts of city funding. I already pay TAXES to help ALL kids, what minimal resources I can muster after that should, yes, be focused on MY kid. Why should I work my rear off, scrambling to get enough money from myself and the other middle-class working families in my school, to support TAs at places where the parents can’t be bothered to do their own fundraising? Because, believe me, my income isn’t higher than most of the families in the other middle-class schools. It is higher than many of the families in the Title III schools–but they get far, far more city aid than my school does.
Your post simply reeks of sour grapes. Those who can’t do for themselves, want to take away from those who can.
Comment by Julie — July 30, 2009 @ 10:16 am
Well, I really don’t think that taking something away from certain schools will help any other school. all Schools and classrooms need extra help. Speaking as both a teacher & a parent, I’m all for any extra help in the classroom. It’s a very rare teacher who can successfully handle 25+ kids in a classroom. Let’s coordinate fundraising to help all schools together in one pot and split it. That would be fair & equitable.
Comment by Andrea — August 2, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
Fundraising into a pot and splitting it is in no way fair and equitable. Those schools that already have low parent involvement will have no incentive to work harder, and those with high parent involvement will have less incentive to continue. We all pay taxes that go to all schools. Once it comes to fundraising, parents have every right to work for their own kids, and not have their efforts diluted by sending money to those schools whose parents don’t bother–under the illusion that we are somehow richer or have more free time. No, we aren’t and we don’t…we just scrabble and scramble, and what’s our incentive to do that if we’re going to have to give most of it elsewhere? I’m a full-time working mom who barely makes the median income in NYC, as are most of the other parents at my high-fundraising school. We just make it our priority to get the fundraising done–and I’m not going to do it for any “pool” out there unless the distribution is based on time and effort spent by each school.
Comment by Julie — August 3, 2009 @ 10:24 am
Agreed. The second you see a “pool” go into effect, you’ll see:
1) No more effort at all on the part of the lesser-fundraising schools
2) A sharp drop in effort on the part of the higher-fundraising schools
3) A sharp drop in community businesses contributing, because their contribution will no longer directly impact their own community
People have the right and privilege of supporting their own school and communities. Their incentive is an improvement in their immediate lives and neighborhoods, not providing a drop in the bucket for dozens of anonymous schools that they’ll never have any contact with. For those schools that really are in trouble, the government provides extra $$$. For the rest, perhaps they should be offered assistance and advice in fundraising.
In any fundraising, people’s contributions (both of time and money) are directly related to how attached they feel to a cause. A citywide pool is just not going to have the pull that a local school, with a visible presence of families, is now. People want to see where their money is going.
Comment by Jacinta — August 3, 2009 @ 10:34 am
What a crazy thing to to do in an election year. Why isn’t Bloomberg worried about alienating a core group of voters? It seems he doesn’t care about the needs and desires of his regular working and middle class NYers. He IS running for a THIRD term when voters voted for a two term limit. Dissapointing because I voted for him twice. He’s paternalistic and out of touch with our reality.
If I forego lunch, new clothes or some other necessity in order to give money to my childrens’ school- they shouldn’t be punished for it. We should be rewarded with matching funds from the city. That would be incentive for other schools to raise funds too.
Earlier posters were right. He is chasing the middle class out of the city.
Comment by Sadia — August 3, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Julie, Jacinta & Sadia, can I just say that “I LOVE YOU”!!!
What a great idea to have the city match funds raised by individual schools, rewarding the hard work and sacrifice put forth as oppose to taking our money and giving it to others who have not worked for it. Again fundraising does not require anything but hard work and dedication, if parents are interested in raising money for their child’s school they will do it regardless, people always find time to do what they want to do, it has nothing to do with race, income, F/T work or stay-at-home mom……
Comment by K parent in a TITLE 1 school — August 5, 2009 @ 11:29 am