How's this for a model, Casey?

Eliminate all council-level dues and make your regional council an agnostic (not PTA, not PTO)organization just aimed at helping parent groups in your city do their best.

There could be monthly meetings where all presidents can get together to network and share best ideas. This council could also be the "system" through which your super and administration connect with the organized parent groups. Doesn't really cost a thing to run a council, so you don't need dues.

Why? Because it might help all the groups -- regardless of acronym -- help kids better.

In that way, those groups that want to be PTA still get the PTA services (able to go to convention, insurance discount, PTA resources, the "voice", yadda) and those that decide the investment is not worthwhile, don't get those services. But all groups still wind up working together for the betterment of the kids in your district.

Even if it has been contentious to date, does that mean it has to stay that way? Throw out the olive branch. I think it's the "for all children" solution.

Good luck,

Tim

Well, our PTA Council local units took their votes, and out of our schools, 28, including the cluster that sends the MOST money of anyone in the district to PTA, voted to stay PTA. The remainder either abstained, were not eligible to vote, announced the wrong answer (the question was slightly confusing), or voted to go independent. Definately a majority for staying PTA. Immediately afterwards, the Council President said the Council would remain a PTA Council (although it would have anyway) and any local unit that voted to go PTO could go back and revote for PTA if they wanted to. A few local units said they were probably going to do just that.
During the same meeting, the Council announced the PTO schools were also going to be taken care of by the PTA Council, a semi-large uproar happened. One person even asked why the PTA's should help the PTO's. It was like the PTO's would get all the benefits- training and workshops, without having to pay dues to PTA.
This was my biggest problem with this whole thing- our school district is now split up and we are fighting each other. Before we had unity-now there will be fighting and hurt feelings.

I can't understand why there would be any confusion as to why a parent group would want both NEW AND EXPERIENCED officers. You need the experienced officers there to offer guidance, and you need the new ones there in order to keep it "fresh"...and it's not just California PTA's bylaws...it's National. It would be a good idea for any parent group to have that in the by-laws...don't take anything for granted, because with certain groups of people, it could easily become a "dynasty" if not specifically stated otherwise. Good luck

Continuing with our ridiculous escapade at our school, I wondered why previous board experience (or training) should be mandatory. After all, if one cannot serve on a Board, one cannot get the experience in order to meet this requirement.

Imagine my glee when I came across this quote on the California PTA Website regarding the responsibility of the Nominating Committee.

"Every effort should be made to provide the PTA with a slate of officers that is balanced in terms of new as well as experienced officers , represents the school attendance area, and reflects the diversity of the school population."

(bold emphasis added by me)

Just wondering.

Amen, Tim!

And, after some horrible personal experience this year (maybe one day I'll tell the story), I am sick and tired of PTA people saying they offer "training" and no one else does.

Two points:

1)If you want training as a PTO official, group, etc, let's see, there are no less than FIVE National Conferences yearly, which, by the way, are open to ALL parent-teacher groups (whereas the PTA is a closed society...) In addition, there are thousands and thousands of experienced PTO local board members, volunteer coordinators, etc, who would love to assist new members and new board members (like on this very discussion board) with their questions.

2) We are talking about a PARENT-TEACHER group. Does your local little league board bring in a national figure to help "train" them? How about your high school band boosters club? Doubt it.
So why does the PTA throw around that one must have "training" to run their organization?

You DON'T. You need to be a caring parent, who can take your life skills and put them to good use at your child's school. If you want more training, all the better, but those who believe that no training equals no volunteering, they are simply delusional.

It makes me wonder, is PTA training really "training" and more inclined towards indoctrination?

Originally posted by Casey Magnuson:


The council in my school district has said time and time again that switching to a PTO is only about money- that several local units have expressed interest in "other" options that will help them keep their funds. In our council of 55 local units, only 17 had more members than last year. So conceivably, those local units who need extra money aren't going to have anything more this year....

Don't want to hijack this thread, but do want to jump in and point out how the groups in Casey's district are going to have more money. I may be slightly off -- it's been several months since I've spoken to the folks in Casey's district -- but I believe the 55 or so PTA units in Casey's district spent somewhere north of $75,000 last year in combined state and national PTA dues. Yes -- $75,000!

You could take all the most pro-PTA financial assumptions (insurance differential will be as high as possible, training costs will increase tremendously, etc.) and the math would still overwhelmingly favor going PTO. (save $45,000? save $60,000?)

Now, I agree that it doesn't *have* to be all about the math, but Casey seems to be making the point that the math doesn't work, while it clearly does.

Tim