To quote D88 in an earlier post:

"But I hope one day when you PASSIONATELY believe a cause - and you PASSIONATELY want to fight for something...and a "small influential group" tends to get the headlines and tends to sway the way your organization looks, that you would at least STAY and help fight for what is right instead of quitting."


Which "small influential group" would you be referring to?

As long as 1/6th of the PTA population comes from a state like California, you have no hope of changing the minds of the leaders of PTA. Our state, Virginia, has one of the highest memberships in the nation for PTA, and supports, for example, parental notification before a minor receives an abortion. The National PTA won't do it, though. But our point is this: why should an elementary school parent/teacher group be taking ANY stand on abortion?

Supporting school lunches and federal funding is one thing, deciding to engage in the culture war and claim to speak for "every child" is disingenous to say the least.

We ARE PASSIONATE about our children, their future, and their education, and I personally take offense to the above quotation. We didn't "quit". We found a better way to invest our money in our children, while not having to force a political agenda upon our membership. All power to ya if you elect to stay; in fact, I wish you would effect change, but the reality is you probably won't.

Therefore, the most important question is how to best take care of the kids you've been placed over. For us, we determined PTO was the way. As you said, "To each their own. The beauty of our nation". You do what's best for you. But to suggest PTA's that go PTO are somehow quitters has no merit.

Again, I say this is why PTO's need to network to have a way to voice opinions on educational issues, and educational issues only!

Oh, no, what am I doing?? I'm drinking a COKE!! I must cease immediately...... [img]smile.gif[/img]

If it had read there are no people in PTOs that work on a congressional level... then I could see where you might have a reason to be offended. I did not read anywhere in the above posts that there are not concerned citizens in PTOs.
I understood it to mean that there is no organized group called a PTO that lobbies, as a group at the congressional level. That is how it read to me. Perhaps I missed the statement?

I'm just wondering how one person can know that no one in any PTO in the country has never contacted their congressman on an educational issue.

PTO's don't have paid LOBBYISTS. But they do have concerned citizens.

I have to run. The Brinks truck is here and someone has to unload it.


Tim, I rolled on the floor! And if you ever need help unloading, let me know, as our "for-profit" PTO can NEVER make enough money!!!

Hey d88 --

If you read through past discussions, you'll see that my #1 recommendation in this debate is that folks become fully informed and then make a PTA or PTO decision. Sounds like you did that. Good for you.

Now....

A couple of points from my perspective:

1. I sure wish you'd let your memebership in on the decision-making. Why is it that your bylaws require full membership approval (2/3rds approval probably) to disband a PTA, but you didn't see fit to include the membership at all in the "go PTO" analysis? Independent of the PTO v PTA decision, any board which takes a "we do most of the work so we should make the decisions" stance is in trouble involvement-wise. That kind of thinking is why the clique image remains for so many parent groups.

2. Blue67 makes a really good point on the forprofit/nonprofit issue. PTO Today is for profit (hopefully), but PTOs are every bit as nonprofit as PTAs. Let's try and be careful with words on that.

Along those same lines, I'd let you know that PTA has far more employees, pays far more rent (in the Sears Tower for National), brings in more money from for-profit sponsors, etc. than little ol' PTO Today. I guarantee you that PTA's new CEO, Warlene Gary, makes far, far more salary than I do (2x or 3x, I'd wager). NOT KNOCKING THAT THOUGH.

We don't make a dime when a PTA goes PTO. Our magazine goes to all parent groups, regardless of acronym. And all of our services are available to all groups, regardless of acronym. We'll have about 15% PTA leaders at our 4 sold-out conferences this month. They don't have to sit in the back. About 28% of the groups using our School Family Nights program have been PTAs, a number higher than PTA's actual %representation in the country.

We're succeeding because our services -- like this free forum, our free magazine, our free School Family Nights program, and our decidedly less expensive conferences -- are helping so many groups (we hope).

Like the companies that make school buses and textbooks and desks and pencils and musical instruments, etc. -- if we keep providing great products and services at a great price (most often free), then I'm proud to continue our work.

3. On the PTA political positions thing, I like your attitude on "making changes from within." Good luck.

I'll tell you, though, that for most parent groups the problem isn't with the content of the positions themselves, it's with the existence of the positions at all. You see, there are a great many parent groups where the parents are passionate about creating a great school in their community. That's their cause, and it's a good one. It's different from yours (national education activism), but it's by no means wrong. For those groups, the content of the national platform isn't the worry, it's just something that they're not interested in being involved in or funding. Subtle but important difference.

Tim

Originally posted by Michelle B:


Now, the bigger issue was the fact that a Coca Cola exec joined the National executive board. Some seem to think that he can actually change the course of PTA (he has no voting rights and he is a volunteer www.usa.pipeline.com/~rgibson/cokePTA.html )

I'll obviously add some more on this topic when I get a chance, but i had to jump in quickly re: the above quote.

As an FYI -- when Ms. Grotz said in the NYTimes article that Mr. Downs from Coke would not be able to vote on major issues ("Mr. Downs, like other board members, will not be paid for his work on the board and will not be able to vote on the organization's major policy issues.") that was a misdirection (as the nicest word) of the highest order. You'll notice that in all future articles about this topic, that claim was never repeated. It was dead-on wrong.

Mr. Downs is a full-fledged (with full voting rights) member of the National Board of Directors. Go read the PTA bylaws and see what types of decisions the National board has control over. It's a ton.

As d88 says, "I'm not knocking that, though."

I have to run. The Brinks truck is here and someone has to unload it.

Tim