Oh and with an average # of members )240( the cost is $31 more. Is it worth it to get the training,(and I am referencing NV here since I am using their rates, and I know we do the trainings and support since I do that for my area)support, materials, membership cards, council activities, resource book with reproducibles, and a terrific insurance policy with $0 deductibles for officers and liability, for just $31 more?
Of course, if the school that I am referencing did as you suggested in another post and began their PTO while dissolving their PTA and didn't have a representative from PTA to present their side, then they would never know that they were about to pay close to $300 more than what they are paying now for dues and insurance.
[ 08-29-2003, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Michelle B ]
C'mon now. You add in NPN dues but you don't add in PTA dues?
I've written in this thread and in several articles that -- in most states -- insurance through PTA is the cheapest *insurance* option. Rates and deductibles go hand-in-hand, so with a low rate and a low/zero deductible, you've got a nice price. I've always said that.
But you can't take the total cost of PTA membership (county, state, national dues) out of the equation.
All I'm saying is that it's very fair (in fact, the right thing to do) to look at costs vs. benefits and make an independent decision as to what's best for your group. Not a controversial opinion.
Hi...Im not going to pretend I know much about the PTA process. Our pTA disolved in August of 2001, while looking through the old records last year it was shown that our school paid over 650.00 in dues their last year. Now that might be normal I dont know...the ironic thing I saw was that their last year there were only 4-6 parents actually involved. As Far as insurance costs I dont know But it seems to me that for some schools it seems more logical to spend the money on insurance and actually know you are covered than to spend it on dues for parents who aren't even involved. Talking to parents it seems to be a misunderstanding in that when they paid pta dues they thought it was staying at our school. I get tired of hearing how great PTA compared to PTo is ...I think in these days any level of involvement is what counts. Also for the record we may not actually help other schools in our district but we have adopted anursing home, done food drives, games drives, Pennies for patients for leukemia, oversee cards and decoration making for various homes, Set up student visits at nursing homes etc. Does this mean that we would still be better off as a PTA??
"When you stop learning you stop growing."
Since I started this topic because of insurance comparisons(and as an insurance agent, should have touched on this before) when comparing apples to apples- I have recently found that with 1mil liability, 25k bond-$100 deduct, property 10k-$250 deduct, officers liability-$0 deduct through NV PTA's insurance. Our premium is $155. The differences being with NPN non member rate $675, member rate $689(discounts applied and $179 membership rate added) with a $250 deduct on the bond, and a huge $1500 deduct on officer liability. As a former officer, I would not want to have to pay $1500 out of my own pocket before the insurance kicked in should an issue arise. If that were the case, why would I take that personal financial risk. So apples to apples, aren't you trading one cost for another?
[ 08-28-2003, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Michelle B ]
Again, though, I think you're making assumptions that PTA is the only or best way to work for the good of all. That's an opinion, but there are folks who'd debate it.
I know tons of PTO volunteers who are also very active politically, very active in children's charities and children's causes. It's just that their parent involvement efforts and their political activism (often in fields of education and kids) are separate.
Many folks feel that, for school environment reasons, mixing the state or national political stuff with the local school involvement is a bad mix. Like yours, I think theirs is a fair opinion, too.
So besides the cost-benefit analysis (discussed already in this thread), there are others who find the political stuff to be a negative, not a positive. And often those are folks who are very active politically or with kids causes.
There are ways to be a great defender of children and a great advocate for education and kids causes -- without being a PTA.
I'm not saying they're hurt. The schools themselves are probably fine. Decades of research show that when parents are involved, students have higher grades, test scores, and graduation rates, better school attendance, increased motivation, better self-esteem, lower rates of suspension, decreased use of drugs and alcohol, and fewer instances of violent behavior. What I am saying that you can take that passion and expand it to cover your entire state. To work with your school districts and elected officials. You can take it further by working nationally. Not all schools are blessed. Yes, I care about my son and doing what I can for his school. I work on council for the schools that don't have many passionate parents. I do think that PTO does accomplish many great things for their respective school. I do think that PTA helps those schools that need it most. I don't think that if we as a large group hadn't lobbied and continue to protect the position of the Parent Involvement coordinator that it would have happened. Great time and care and unified effort was put into the mission and guidelines of the coordinator. I know that the lunches with the superintendent wouldn't have happened if we hadn't worked together to accomplish that.
Both groups do great things, it's the scale on which they accomplish them. Your schools aren't hurt but are other schools helped?
