Another bill being considered by the Utah Legislature this year, SB-199, would require schools to provide equal access to all parent groups, and would bar schools from allowing access to parent groups that charge a mandatory fee for membership. (As last amended, the bill wouldn't exclude any group that would waive it's fee, but the Utah PTA says they'd have to amend their bylaws to waive their annual $5 dues.)
The first question I have to ask about such a bill: Why is it necessary? Why is there a perception that the venerable PTA has a choke hold monopoly on some, if not all, of Utah's schools? And even if it does, why is that a bad thing?
The second question I have to ask is what problem does paying dues present in allowing an organization like PTA or another parent group to have access to schools and other resources within a school?
There is a lot of rhetoric in the media about how this is a revenge bill being pushed by the folks who lost the voucher battle last year. And yes, there are some familiar names associated with the pro-voucher camp associated with the bill, but that doesn't, ipso facto, make it a revenge bill. And even if it is motivated by revenge, the bill should stand on its merits, not on the motivation of its proponents. The revenge argument is an appeal to emotion and an attempt to divert attention from the main issue.
The perception of the PTA that seems to be fueling this controversy is not the involvement of the parents at the school level, but the political agenda of the state and national PTA. It is perceived that the National PTA is joined at the hip with the National Education Association, one of the nation's two premier teachers' unions. As such, so the perception goes, the NEA uses the PTA as a political action arm. Ditto for the perceptions on the state level.
A very large portion of this perception is created by the membership demographics of the PTA itself. The last set of stats I saw (admittedly several years ago) indicate that almost all teachers are members, while only about 5% of parents pony up the membership dues to join each year. A little quick math reveals that the number of teachers is roughly equal to that of the member parents. While the parent members may believe that they have parity in the discussion and debate of school related issues, the reality is that: 1.) the teachers are seen as the "professionals" and are looked upon by the parents as "experts;" 2.) the teachers are organized, at the school level under a Principal, and at higher levels with unions and associations that exist parallel to the PTA. Finally, the parents who do join the PTA are usually individuals who agree philosophicaly with the PTA's values, beliefs and agenda. The net result is that the PTA represents the political philosophy of the education establishment.
Allowing such an organization to have a near monopolistic sway within the public school is problematical for three reasons: 1. Parents (and others) who have opposing viewpoints or who adhere to alternative philosophies are silenced and the synthesis that could result it real progress doesn't occur; 2. The unchallenged appearance of authority that has developed for the PTA often sways the unwashed into voting or acting based on incomplete information, or sometimes based on faulty, often emotional, arguments, resulting in outcomes that favor the established order but do not advance the state of public education; and 3.) A small, unrepresentative minority of parents, allied with the education establishment's agenda, is allowed to represent many who are undecided, uneducated, or who disagree with the organization.
In this sense, SB-199, which is a bill that prohibits a public entity (the school) from discriminating against parent groups, is appropriate, even if the measure is taken only in response to the perception that the PTA is not representative of the majority of parents. Access to the schools should be open to all parent groups, the process should be transparent, and if even one school discriminates, then the measure is not only warranted, but necessary.
Now to the question of paying (or waiving) dues. The PTA claims that they would have to amend their bylaws in order to "waive" dues, but the PTA says it will offer "scholarships" to parents who are unable to pay the $5 fee. Perhaps the legislature should spend some time and define what they mean by "waiving fees." This requirement seems to be superflous. A parent group may very well want to raise money to fund specific projects, or it may want to charge a membership fee as a demonstration of sincerity in those who wish to become voting members. Both of these are perfectly legitimate objectives of a parent group, and a group should not be penalized for using either mechanism. These are questions that the members of the organization should be free, by the right of free association, to decide for themselves.
Although I believe that there should be restrictions on organizations that are actively pursuing a political agenda in using public facilities and resources, I don't believe that an organization should be excluded from using public facilities simply because it charges a membership or other fee or annual dues.
I support SB-199, but I would remove the fees restriction from the bill and rework it to preclude the use of school facilities to further political agendas.
UPDATE: I received an email from Parents for Choice in Education this afternoon. It referred to an article on SB199 that took the position the a parent must be a dues paying member of the PTA in some schools to vote on how some school resources are used. One example they used was the color of the balloons at the prom. The other was how the $5,000 raised in the school fundraiser would be used.
This is an entirely different issue. If the decision is what to do with PTA raised funds, then the dues paying members can be the only folks that vote. If it is school raised funds, then all involved parents have in interest and should vote on the issue, regardless of membership in a Parent Organization. Even if they belong to no parent organization, they should be afforded a vote.
Where I see a problem with this is the annual "PTA fundraiser" that has the kids going door to door selling chocolate bars or gift wrap. Are these PTA funds or are they school funds. Methinks they are school funds... Not to be used or controlled by the PTA.
SB-199 needs to change its language to more accurately reflect this point, rather than simply prohibit the school from working with organizations that charge dues.
The first question I have to ask about such a bill: Why is it necessary? Why is there a perception that the venerable PTA has a choke hold monopoly on some, if not all, of Utah's schools? And even if it does, why is that a bad thing?
The second question I have to ask is what problem does paying dues present in allowing an organization like PTA or another parent group to have access to schools and other resources within a school?
There is a lot of rhetoric in the media about how this is a revenge bill being pushed by the folks who lost the voucher battle last year. And yes, there are some familiar names associated with the pro-voucher camp associated with the bill, but that doesn't, ipso facto, make it a revenge bill. And even if it is motivated by revenge, the bill should stand on its merits, not on the motivation of its proponents. The revenge argument is an appeal to emotion and an attempt to divert attention from the main issue.
The perception of the PTA that seems to be fueling this controversy is not the involvement of the parents at the school level, but the political agenda of the state and national PTA. It is perceived that the National PTA is joined at the hip with the National Education Association, one of the nation's two premier teachers' unions. As such, so the perception goes, the NEA uses the PTA as a political action arm. Ditto for the perceptions on the state level.
A very large portion of this perception is created by the membership demographics of the PTA itself. The last set of stats I saw (admittedly several years ago) indicate that almost all teachers are members, while only about 5% of parents pony up the membership dues to join each year. A little quick math reveals that the number of teachers is roughly equal to that of the member parents. While the parent members may believe that they have parity in the discussion and debate of school related issues, the reality is that: 1.) the teachers are seen as the "professionals" and are looked upon by the parents as "experts;" 2.) the teachers are organized, at the school level under a Principal, and at higher levels with unions and associations that exist parallel to the PTA. Finally, the parents who do join the PTA are usually individuals who agree philosophicaly with the PTA's values, beliefs and agenda. The net result is that the PTA represents the political philosophy of the education establishment.
Allowing such an organization to have a near monopolistic sway within the public school is problematical for three reasons: 1. Parents (and others) who have opposing viewpoints or who adhere to alternative philosophies are silenced and the synthesis that could result it real progress doesn't occur; 2. The unchallenged appearance of authority that has developed for the PTA often sways the unwashed into voting or acting based on incomplete information, or sometimes based on faulty, often emotional, arguments, resulting in outcomes that favor the established order but do not advance the state of public education; and 3.) A small, unrepresentative minority of parents, allied with the education establishment's agenda, is allowed to represent many who are undecided, uneducated, or who disagree with the organization.
In this sense, SB-199, which is a bill that prohibits a public entity (the school) from discriminating against parent groups, is appropriate, even if the measure is taken only in response to the perception that the PTA is not representative of the majority of parents. Access to the schools should be open to all parent groups, the process should be transparent, and if even one school discriminates, then the measure is not only warranted, but necessary.
Now to the question of paying (or waiving) dues. The PTA claims that they would have to amend their bylaws in order to "waive" dues, but the PTA says it will offer "scholarships" to parents who are unable to pay the $5 fee. Perhaps the legislature should spend some time and define what they mean by "waiving fees." This requirement seems to be superflous. A parent group may very well want to raise money to fund specific projects, or it may want to charge a membership fee as a demonstration of sincerity in those who wish to become voting members. Both of these are perfectly legitimate objectives of a parent group, and a group should not be penalized for using either mechanism. These are questions that the members of the organization should be free, by the right of free association, to decide for themselves.
Although I believe that there should be restrictions on organizations that are actively pursuing a political agenda in using public facilities and resources, I don't believe that an organization should be excluded from using public facilities simply because it charges a membership or other fee or annual dues.
I support SB-199, but I would remove the fees restriction from the bill and rework it to preclude the use of school facilities to further political agendas.
UPDATE: I received an email from Parents for Choice in Education this afternoon. It referred to an article on SB199 that took the position the a parent must be a dues paying member of the PTA in some schools to vote on how some school resources are used. One example they used was the color of the balloons at the prom. The other was how the $5,000 raised in the school fundraiser would be used.
This is an entirely different issue. If the decision is what to do with PTA raised funds, then the dues paying members can be the only folks that vote. If it is school raised funds, then all involved parents have in interest and should vote on the issue, regardless of membership in a Parent Organization. Even if they belong to no parent organization, they should be afforded a vote.
Where I see a problem with this is the annual "PTA fundraiser" that has the kids going door to door selling chocolate bars or gift wrap. Are these PTA funds or are they school funds. Methinks they are school funds... Not to be used or controlled by the PTA.
SB-199 needs to change its language to more accurately reflect this point, rather than simply prohibit the school from working with organizations that charge dues.
Comments