The afformentioned tour was the "America Goes Back to School" bus tour of which Tipper Gore was the co-chair. It was a program designed by the US Secretary of Education to support local, state and community involvement in school life.
www.ed.gov/offices/OPA/success/index.html
She was co-chair in 1999 also, along with PTA President Ginny Markell and Patti LaBelle, the first year (not an election year) that the bus tour took place. (Chairs remained the same both years)
www.ed.gov/PressReleases/07-1999/agbts.html
I have no doubt that if Laura Bush wanted to be on this committee (as a volunteer like those mentioned above) that she would be accepted.
Perhaps you have forgotten that before Tipper Gore was the wife of a VP and Presidential candidate, she heads "Parent's Music Resource Center", one of the groups involved in putting warning labels on music. (starting back in 1985) As part of that group, she worked with the PTA. She was keynote speaker in 1997 also. There is a notable history of her involvement, as a PARENT.

You reference Laura Bush,(former school librarian and a republican)Mrs. Bush was a guest speaker at a PTA event in 1996.

We have had the Governor speak at our state conventions (he's a republican) our senators (democrat and republican)
The National PTA legislative conference includes keynote speakers, Dr. Julianne Malveaux and Deborah Perry Piscione (a popular republican commentator and former appointee for Pres George Bush Sr.)

It's easy to find division when you are looking for it.

....what's even more scary (just thought of this) is the following:

Would it be so that PTA wants to be the only voice for children? Can't parents be a voice? Can't children speak for themselves?

Hmmmmmm.....

Every child----one voice.

That's the slogan for an organization that isn't even present in well over half the public schools in America.....and that's a fact.

And, if the PTA doesn't have an agenda, why did my state's PTA (Virginia) feel compelled to come out with a position statement supporting parental consent before a minor's abortion? If one has no position on the issue, then why is this necessary? Maybe it is to distant themselves from the agenda (some written, some NOT written expressly on purpose) that is found on the national level.

When I see the PTA president go on tour with Laura Bush this election year, to balance the fact the former PTA President was on tour with Tipper Gore in 2000 (while she campaigned for her husband, gee, there's neutrality), I'll begin to believe your message.

The irony here is that Michelle's belief that PTA is inclusive must also be considered opinion. Remember the quote from the original article which, says “We want people who are committed to this agenda, and if they’re not, that’s fine. Go be a PTO and have a nice life.”

An agenda that truly benefits all children doesn't need to support schism. So, what's the aforementioned agenda?

[ 01-14-2004, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: blue67ccm ]

Tim, I agree with you in that there is no right or wrong, just what is best for your group.
Unlike Blue, I am not a personal crusade to hope that one group dominates or eliminates the other.

I completely agree with Tim in his above post.

However, if you are considering the switch and you are basing that need to switch (as Blue had done) based on what you think the agenda is and the content of it, you should be very careful in your research before you promote incorrect information to support your goal.

I adhere to my position that the information posted by Blue is incorrect. I also disagree with the opinion (I emphasize OPINION, since I see only the contrary that it is based on fact) that our slogan is misleading. There is no lack of admittance as to who we are. The information is found on nearly every state, local and the national websites. We do participate politically and we make no excuses for it. Your group should know (if that is to be their focus) that it is the foundation that PTA was built upon. It is the content of that action that was questioned and I feel that I have answered it sufficiently.

Tim:

You're absolutely correct. It is certainly true that the political stand of the PTA doesn't adhere to my political philosophy, but I tell people, and made the point specifically in the speech I gave at our school's dissolution meeting last April that it is better to be a group with truly no political agenda, focusing on the children, than it is to be with a group with an agenda, period, no matter what the agenda is. It's not right for me in order to be a part of my daughter's school's Parent/Teacher group, in the United States, to have to send money to a group whose causes are diametrically opposed to my beliefs.

That should be taken out of the equation. Therefore, that is what truly upsets me about PTA; if PTA would just admit to and be who they really are, I could respect them a whole lot more, rather than using that slogan that makes them sound inclusive, yet they're really not.

Michelle--indeed I would like to see more PTA's go PTO; that's a personal hope; but after making that post, I made the decision that our chapter should not be aggressive in that arena. We are willing, though, should a chapter or chapters become interested in switching, to assist them in any way possible. There's nothing wrong in believing PTO is the best way, most non-partisan way to go.

Sure it takes more time and effort to lobby and do other things where the PTA is more proficient in, but if they refuse to hear my point, what's the use in being there?

[ 01-09-2004, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: blue67ccm ]

I think it's important to point out that the "PTA politics" issue isn't usually as issue-oriented as it is for Blue.

Whereas Blue has strong feelings about specific PTA stances (ie: "it's against my beliefs that PTA espouses this particular position"), this issue usually centers on having stances in general, as opposed to the specific content of those stances. So this Blue-Michelle debate is not really the center of the issue.

Instead, there are a lot of really involved parents who get involved simply for the (still really good) goal of creating a great atmosphere at their child's school. When they (and their like-minded groups) realize that the PTA focus is on a lot more than that, they feel a disconnect between what PTA is trying to accomplish and what they're trying to accomplish at their local school. They're not saying that the PTA is wrong in their positions, just that the PTA's focus on positions and causes is different from what their group is all about. In most cases, groups like this never really investigate the entire PTA platform (pro-this, anti-that, etc.), because it's the existence and prominence of the platform that's the issue, not the content of the platform.

That's why I've often said that the best solution is for groups to decide on what they're trying to do and then choose the option that best fits those goals. There's no absolute right or wrong. There's just best choices for each group's individual situation.

Tim