Comments about ‘House squashes PTA bill’

The PTA said they want local control over this issue. I am confused as to when the PTA wants local control and when they want state control. It seems like they want most things to come from the state level down (with some decisions made by their national board), but this issue, which admittedly would have hit them pretty hard, suddenly requires a local touch. Is there someone out there who can explain the PTA viewpoint on local/state/national control?

The PTA itself can't explain it's viewpoint on control. They tell the legislature one thing to get a deal, then they back off their compromise and stab them in the back. Shame on them!

I sure hope this issue is going to be revisited. There's no reason one group should wield so much control over parent involvement in the schools.

PTAs are governed by by-laws, in order for the PTA to "waive dues" like the first version stated it would take at least one year to amend the State's and every local school PTAs' by-laws to be able to waive dues. The State can only amend the by-laws at their Convention in May and then they have to have them approved by National PTA at their convention in June, but the deadlines for amendments to by-laws to be submitted for both conventions has passed, so it would be May and June 2010 before this could happen. The law was scheduled to go into effect May 1, 2009.

On the "local control" issue, every school should have the opportunity to decide if it will be a PTA, PTO, or something else school.

The "deal" thing, the State PTA Board approved version 2 of the bill and then took it to the members, who brought up questions and concerns about what a "legally organized parent organization" is. PTA changed their position because the questions could not be answered by Sen. Bramble.

Not passing a bad bill is better then trying to "fix" it next year.

On the "deal" thing, I had heard that, but I also read the bill, and there is nothing especially ambiguous about the bill. Surely you're not telling me that you don't know what a "legally organized parent organization" is. Do we no longer consider common sense English sufficient for our legislation? If the PTA members brought up that as an issue, then they were looking for something to hate. I haven't made up my mind about the merits of the bill, but if that's the reason they called off the "deal," then they were just being petty, trying to find something to hate.

As for local control, can you explain to me how this would violate local control? My understanding is that it just said that a school had to allow parents to organize how they want, which would mean that if a school has a PTA with entrenched governance, dissatisfied parents could form a PTO and the school couldn't discriminate against them. How is that a violation of local control? Are you saying that schools should be able to choose whether they discriminate?

The question was brought up about Parent Booster groups and the requirement that the administration had to be invited to every "legally organized parent organization's" meeting. If your high school has 15 parent booster groups and a PTA or PTO and the SCC, and the principal or vice-principal(s) only make it to the SCC meeting, which he is required to by law, PTA or PTO meeting and the Football Boosters meeting, it would look like he was valuing the PTA or PTO and the Football parents and not any other parent organization. So, the "ignored" parents would then sue for equal access or go to their legislator to have him write another law next year to make sure they received equal access.

Even worse would be if there was an existing PTA and some parents decided to organize a PTO and the principal only attended one of the parent groups' meeting. The other group would be upset and then would sue.

Some principals would just say no to all parent groups because that would be the easiest way to avoid any possible law suits or upset parents. You know that there are those principals out there.

As far as "local control" goes. PTA is saying that this is a local control issue, not a Utah Legislature issue. Each school or school district should be allowed to make these kinds of decisions and not be mandated by the State Legislature.

If the parents want to organize a PTO in addition to a PTA, they currently can we don't need a law to mandate it.

I still don't get how this is an issue of local control. Yes, parents can organize a PTO, and right now the school can tell them, respectfully I'm sure, precisely where they can put their new organization. In a school where there is a PTA in place, they have the existing relationship with the school administration and faculty, and it would not be unrealistic to assume that the school would tend to hope that if they ignored the PTO long enough, it would just go away. What is wrong with a bill that says that the school has to take them seriously?

The bill didn't seem to mandate anything other than schools treating all parent organization fairly. If local control means that local schools can play favorites, then I don't want local control. I want all parents to have equal access, without having to go through the local PTA or PTO bureaucracy.

1sub SB199 stated "Parent Group means legally organized parent or parent/teacher group, association, or organization on a local, district, or state level that is comprised of members who are patrons of the school". (Lines 29-31)

"A school shall allow all parent groups equal access to the following:
general meetings with the school;
access to school facilities, resources, and staff assistance;
opportunities and invitations to serve as parent representatives on school committees;
school goods and services; and
volunteer opportunities, leadership opportunities, and voting privileges at the school." (Lines 36-43)

It goes on and says that if the school allows one group they have to allow all groups and if they accept invitations to attend a meeting of one group they have to attend all groups.

A P-FLAG group of parents organizes legally at the state level, which could mean filing paperwork with the IRS and/or State Tax Commission. Now, they want to be involved in your school. The principal has a choice, he either A) recognizes them and meets with them as he would PTA/PTO or B) bans all parent groups.

In all similar instances "B" is the easiest choice and will be used.

"In all similar instances..." In a word, nonsense.

I used to teach economics, and an answer like that would have received a failing grade from me because it evidences a complete lack of thought applied to a complex question.

If a principal has a parent group that is a great help to her/him (all existing PTAs/PTOs likely fall into this category), they are not going to give that up just because the law now requires equal access for new parent groups. The bill required equal access not equal results, so it doesn't require that a new group with a few members get the same amount of time with administrators, the same amount of school resources, etc., as an existing PTA/PTO, unless they are able to generate the same level of parent support.

Nothing in the bill prevents a principal from personally attending the meeting of the PTA which includes 90% of parents at their school, but sending a representative to meet with a smaller group that represents 5-10% of parents at the school. It just says they can't ignore the smaller group.

There are not enough words available to list all the potential groups of parents that could become "legally recognized by the state" and that the school would have had to meet with, allow equal access to all the school supplies, administration, etc. Also the bill stated that one group could not be favored over another group. I get the feeling that you have never been a member of a parent group at a secondary school, as a parent. When the principal will attend the football boosters' meeting and just send a letter to the band boosters' meeting, which group is feeling "left out" and which group is "favored"? I can tell you that the fine arts will always be the ones left out while the athletics are the favored ones.

Are you sure that the PTA is representing 90% of the parents? Or is that just because they are the best organized parent group? In my children's high school the band boosters' represent almost 20% of the student population and is the biggest money raiser in the school, yet the football boosters get the principal and we get the letter.

It should be obvious that the 90% figure was an example, nothing more. I agree with you completely about athletic groups getting all the attention, especially as compared to the fine arts programs, but that's an entirely different subject in my opinion.

I must admit that I'm not sure what your point was in relation to either the bill or my comment. I think that the bill was a good idea, because I think that a school funded by taxpayer dollars shouldn't be picking winners and losers, but should allocate resources as equitably as possible. In other words, a group that represents 80% of the students' parents gets more resources than one that represents 40%, but that both of them have the opportunity to be heard and to make a difference. I wouldn't have thought that such an idea would be controversial, but some people apparently like shutting other people out.

What a shame.