Yes, PTA is political!! Look at all the legistion work they have done.
Did you know that was the PTA that helped get Kindergarten in the schools.
It was PTA that helped with class reduct.
It was PTA that helped with breakfast and lunches in the schools.
PTA isn't better than PTO just different.</font>
I belong to both the PTA and PTO. I enjoy the politics of PTA. I also believe in supporting my children with the PTO.
I must say I can't believe that PTO's have no guide-lines and no council to look at for help.
I am really surprised at the price of the insurance. And that the princial controls the money, not the parents. But again I support my children so I belong to both.
Yes, PTA is political!! Look at all the legistion work they have done.
Did you know that was the PTA that helped get Kindergarten in the schools.
It was PTA that helped with class reduct.
It was PTA that helped with breakfast and lunches in the schools.
PTA isn't better than PTO just different.
I belong to both the PTA and PTO. I enjoy the politics of PTA. I also believe in supporting my children with the PTO.
I must say I can't believe that PTO's have no guide-lines and no council to look at for help.
I am really surprised at the price of the insurance. And that the princial controls the money, not the parents. But again I support my children so I belong to both.
I think its safe to say those PTAers that voted in that referendum are out of their minds. They obviously feel strongly about it, as do I actually, but I certainly wouldn't drag that in to my next PTA meeting--like Michelle said, what for? Somehow I just don't get what they were trying to accomplish--it seems to me there would be more effective platforms to holler their message from!
Whoa Harris! Started off a little strong there but ended up in left field.
I am in Nevada and in Nevada we have an official stance of neutrality regarding issues such as homosexuality, abortion etc.
Do you know why? Because it's divisive. There are people like you who have strong convictions regarding this matter (I'd gather to guess- half of the population)
There are others who feel strongly against.
If the PTA as a whole were to have taken a stand like Palo Alto did, how many members total would be lost nationwide? What if, like a few of my friends in other state PTAs, were to form an opinion that they support an ammendment and to make that an official position of PTA (some of them would like to do just that, but have held back) How many members would we lose?
In taking either stand, how exactly does this further our mission to promote the health and welfare of our children? If we lost half of our membership for either reason, how many dollars would be left to promote the "Doors open After School" initiative? Parental involvement?
By taking no position on a subject which is directly an adult issue (children don't get married and PTA is open to everyone)- we can work on the good things we have always worked on. Child labor laws, immunization and juvenile justice. That is what is important to PARENTS- gay and straight alike.
I too have a strong opinion regarding the proposed ammendment. I am personally against it but that opinion has no place in PTA. There are groups like PFLAG that can work on this. Would you expect PFLAG to work on more education dollars??? NOOOO! It doesn't fall within their mission!!!!!!!!!
Either position is a losing one for PTA and that is why nearly every other PTA in the country, aside from Palo Alto, won't touch it.
Teaching children to respect diversity, tolerance, not to hate, that is a PTA position but whether or not their parents are married? I don't think so.
I want to belong to a PTA that works for children and thankfully, I will only have to deal with a minor amount of backlash from Palo Alto's stand. I've only had to field about 10 calls from angry parents. Not too bad, yet. But if we lose them because of THIS!!! Who has won??? Our kids???
GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!
Ah, the gist of this post string is discussing the theory, widely held, that the PTA does not make political stands on various issues.
As for the Palo Alto situation, first, no one should be discriminated against, period. But, what does an elementary school parent/teacher group have to do with gay rights? It's not a "right" or "left" issue, it's a children issue, and PTA's/PTO's, especially on the K-5 level, have no business wasting their time on topics better served in our State Houses and courts.
But I expect this rhetoric from one who wants people with, what you believe are "biases", to keep them inside their homes and churches. Certainly you do, so the public school system is wide open for your biases. Sorry, it's the community of ideas, we all have a right to speak.
PTA not political??? Founded in 1897, lets see: child labor laws, public health, juvenile justice, mandatory immunization. Just a few of the issues addressed by PTA, also founded the National Congress of Colored Parents and Teachers in 1926. Also one of first organizations to support formation of U.N. - all issues opposed by many but important to those who fought for rights of children and families. If you think that Palo Alto is the only town with gay parents and gay children in their schools, you are simply not paying attention. Do they deserve the support of the PTA - ABSOLUTELY! An amendment to the Constitution is a drastic move, it flies in the face of the intentions of the framers to leave issues regarding family law in the hands of the states. Our children deserve the opportunity AND the responsibility to debate the issues of their times and we have no right to impose our fears and biases on them, at least not past the doors of our own homes and churches. Public schools are the foundations of our democracy, and no child or family should feel unsafe or unaccepted in them. Fundraising and cookie baking are fine and good, but they are not the mission of the PTA, and never have been.
