Schools should work with parent groups other than just the PTA, according to a bill that passed in committee Tuesday morning.But some say the bill could keep the PTA out of Utah schools all together.
SB199 would require schools to give all parent groups equal access. But it would also prohibit schools from working with parent groups that refuse to waive membership dues upon request.
The PTA, which charges members an average of $5 a year in Utah, cannot waive dues, said Utah PTA President Marilyn Simister. She said those who can’t pay are given scholarships, but the dues can’t be waived. Simister said the state PTA would likely have to change its bylaws and consult the national organization before allowing dues waivers, a process she said could take up to a year.
Simister said the dues are reasonable and passing the bill into law would “be a great disservice to the children of Utah,” given everything the PTA does within schools.
Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo, said he’s sponsoring the bill in response to parents who say they shouldn’t have to be PTA members to have a voice in their schools.
I have to admit I’m not up on the efforts of today’s PTA, but when I was, they seemed to be a great asset to Utah’s education system, one I would hate to see undermined. On the other hand, more voices in public education influencing our schools and our education system overall could be an even greater asset.
So that’s the question. Would this bill improve the education opportunities for Utah’s children, or simply dilute the effectiveness of an already successful organization?
Your view of the PTA is the same as mine was growing up. When my oldest started school one of the first things my wife and I did was look to join the PTA. We quickly found out that it is little more than a fund raising and volunteer arm for the teachers union. I’m not saying that members of the PTA have any less than sincere motive, but in our experience the PTA is not really a parents organization – it is a pro-teachers-union organization that should really be called the pTA.
i take issue to what david has said. i’m on our PTA board, and we are not a pro-teachers-union organization at all. perhaps on the state level it is like that, but not at our school.
our PTA serves the needs of our kids and we do tons of things throughout the school year FOR the kids, including fluoride administration, red ribbon week, a school carnival, book fairs, birthday celebrations and more. we do provide lunch to the teachers on parent teacher conference days, but we are not there for the teachers. we are there for the kids. our money stays IN the pta and does NOT go the teachers.
i’ll be attending PTA legislative day at the capitol next friday. i’d love to call in and give a wrap up if you guys want.
something i forgot: 50% of the dues we collect must be mailed into the state PTA, so our PTA only gets to keep about $2.50.
we’ve NEVER turned anyone away from volunteering, so i don’t get that.
also, every school has a board that listens to the voice of ALL parents, whether they are PTA members or not, and those positions are by nomination and then election. if parents want a voice, they can have one.
i just don’t see the need for this bill.
Jess, definitely call in!
And even if the PTA was “pro-UEA” I’d argue that isn’t a bad thing in and of itself, as long as parents are still getting the opportunity to play a role in their children’s education, but would the recognition of a variety of PTA like organizations give parents even more avenues for input, or would it just dilute the influence of any/all organizations in having an effect on education?
Jess,
I apologize if I offended you. I’m obviously not in your PTA. If we’re lucky in Utah your experience is more typical than mine.
The legislature is overstepping it’s bounds here. Basically they’re telling PTA to sever ties with National PTA or to get out of the schools. We all need to call our Senators and tell them that recognizing the voices of all parents is essential, but putting the PTA out of business would be bad for our schools.
david -no offense was taken…
and jason – i can’t speak directly on behalf of MY PTA board (not my role, LOL) but i think this would detract from the good that PTA brings to schools. your school does NOT have to have a PTA, in fact, some have a PTO, which operates like PTA, but dues are optional.
it will dilute the effect, in my opinion. even with the PTA, sometimes the amount of parental involvement is dismal.
Natalie (and again forgive me if I’m missing something, I’m not well informed on what today’s PTA is/does) but would severing ties with the national PTA necessarily hurt the local PTA groups? Isn’t the goal simply parent involvement in their child’s education?
On the other hand, if parental involvement is dismal, what’s the point in creating several ineffective parent/school interaction opportunities instead of bolstering engagement in the PTA? It does make me wonder if this bill is more a thumb of the nose at the PTA rather than a solution to lack of involvement.
With more mandates coming from Washington, D.C., I think there is a need for state education leaders to have a national connection – both to help shape policy, and to have training in how to implement best practices. But, ultimately, I think that it the organization that some senators have a problem with – they don’t want a statewide organization that can contact local members if there is an education issue they should know about. And, because PTA members pass resolutions, state PTA has leaders that can advocate for the positions in those resolutions. And, I’m sure that some senators wish these moms would go home and bake cookies. So, they can pass a bill and get rid of the organization. Convenient for them, but not in the best interest of Utah’s kids. Just my opinion.
Is not the bigger question why does Senator Bramble want to ligislate parental involvement in schools. Is not that our right and responcabilty?
Natilie is right on the nose. Washington affects education. Do we not want watch dogs on that level as well? Get involved. Speak up, speak out and be heard…..
I love PTA. It has been great for my children and the other children in their classes. I have learned about finances,
leadership, organization, how music influences our brains, how the legislators effect education, and on and on. Thank you PTA!
We have Trust Land money in our schools because of National PTA taking care of this issue on the national level where it needed to be taken care of.
june is right – especially with regards to the point she makes about land trust funds.
parental involvement isn’t dismal, but i don’t think it’s stellar. having disparate groups would probably contribute to decline in involvement.
the other thing being part of the PTA offers is that we are covered under their insurance policy. if we break off and form our own groups, we have to purchase our own liability insurance.
natalie is spot on with her assessment.
Pingback: Save the PTA (The Voucher Empire Strikes Back) | KVNU's For The People
The back and forth here exposes much of the good and bad about the PTA. I have been a member of the PTA. I have seen it do much good. But I disagree with some of the national association’s agenda.
What I disagree with is the de facto monopoly the PTA has on parental organization and direct involvement in many of our schools. I’m all for the PTA doing good things. But I am against it having an effective monopoly status.
Maybe this bill isn’t the right way to fix that. But it at least brings light to the issue.
I don’t get it. Whats wrong with getting involved, organized, and networking? Do the same it is the American way.
The State and National PTA provides liability insurance, organization and training. If a school starts their own PTO, they would need to get an accountant and lawyer to start up a non-profit organization. That would cost a lot more than the tiny fee that we pay that is divided between the local, council, state and national levels. I have never seen a parent be denied involvement in the PTA. We beg people to be involved!
Ultimately the PTA is a political Lobby. So the question is not whether the PTA is good for schools or kids but whether it is a good idea for political organizations to be lobbying schools directly or should they be forced to lobby indirectly through our elected officials.
For those feel that political lobbying should occur at the school level, stop and consider how other lobbying groups would love to get their foot into the doors of your schools. Many may not have the best interests of the schools or children at heart. I wonder if anyone in the PTA would object to say Big Tobacco asking to bring in Joe Camel in to teach kids about something as benign as internet safety.
Much like the issue surrounding the placement of religious markers on public land, once you leave the door open for one group, you must also accommodate those of opposing or deviant views.
As always these issues are never so cut and dry. Is there a single parent here that believes the schools should be open to all groups? If not, how would you limit who has access to your kids through their educators when you are not there?
The comparison you use here isn’t reflective of the actualities, though Rich. PTA is an organization of parents, Big Tobacco is a corporation. Also, you’re ignoring that lobbying is a small part of what the PTA does (additionally, at least in my experience, they lobby school administrators rather than legislators).
Also, we’re getting away from the criticism of the bill into a criticism of the PTA. The bill itself claims to be promoting “more choice” for parents, when in effect it’s actual intentions — based solely on the fact that as it stands now without this bill, any group of parents can organize just as the PTA does and lobby educators just as the PTA does — is to undermine the influence the PTA has using membership dues as a justification. And the membership dues of the PTA aren’t bankrupting families ($5 a year average).
In the end, I still say this is a vindictive effort of Bramble and the “voucher crowd” to undermine the influence of groups who either opposed or did not help them in their efforts to impose a voucher system despite public opposition to such a system.
I say this simply because if you take out the restrictions this bill would place on educators (prohibit them from meeting with any group that charges a “due” of it’s members), this bill serves absolutely no purpose, and is in fact redundant, as existing rules currently allow any group of parents to assemble and lobby their local educators. Without the “dues” prohibition, this bill simply restates what is already a legislated reality.
Jason,
I see your point but I think you may have missed mine. I am questioning whether it is a good idea to have high powered lobbyists pressuring school administrators directly. Of course there is a big difference between the PTA and Big Tobacco, which is why I used Big Tobacco as an example. Unfortunately, while they are near polar opposites as far as ideals and motivations the law currently has little way of distinguishing between the lobbying efforts of either. While this proposed law would certainly force the PTA to amend their bylaws, it would forever prevent corporate special interests from pressuring or enticing school administrators directly.
While you may very well be right about this being payback for the whole vouchers thing, I have yet to see concrete evidence supporting the idea. While I truly cannot say what intended purpose this provision in the legislation is intended to serve, I think I have given a pretty valid reason for its existence.
Ultimately this discussion comes down to some basic questions:
Should lobbyists be able to lobby school administrators directly? Say Mountain Dew wants greater access to our youth and buys the principal of a school a 2 week vacation in Rio to attend a mountain dew retreat. Should that be OK? How about, if Trojan wants to place condom machines in the bathrooms of high schools and flies some school administrators to Hawaii to meet with executives for two weeks while they try to convince them of the benefits of their plan. Is that OK?
While I find the conversation about the value of the PTA interesting we have to remember that currently under state law, they are no different them any other lobbying group. Any decision concerning lobbyists should be made by elected officials that oversee education, not administrators themselves.
I’ll put money that if this legislation were to pass even the PTA Nationals would amend their bylaws overnight rather than forever lose influence in Utah. So what’s the big deal? They would still be able to work with school administrators in the end but high powered lobbyists would be put at arm’s length.