It’s especially unusual since the Texas state PTA has been aggressive in promoting exactly the opposite policies, trying to get local school boards to make PTA the default choice in their schools. I give the Del Valle super credit for guts, as it’s often so much easier to give in to the organized PTA in a state like Texas than it is to stand up for a concepot that doesn’t have an organizational backing (PTOs are stand-alone). The Del Valle reasoning is same as most of the groups we see going PTO – why should parents have to pay dues to belong to the parent group at their own child’s school?  It’s a good question.

While some PTOs choose to charge dues; all PTAs must charge dues.  It’s a fundamental difference.  In the end, my conclusion is the same:  I’m for parent groups and involvement, no matter the acronym.  Did find this article intriguing, though.

Two quick notes:  1. Our PTO v PTA page sheds even more light on the issue; and 2. Our PTO Expo is actually coming to Texas (among other places) this spring.  I’ll be giving a keynote at the Texas event on best PTO and PTA habits.

And a third Virginia PTA going PTO is covered in this smaller article.

This Michigan feature looks at the whole PTO v PTA issue with the main conclusion that both groups do great work for kids.  We agree!

Obviously, it’s a lively issue.  Whether you’re a PTA thinking about switching to PTO or a PTO thinking about going PTA or even a brand new group deciding on a format, our new PTO and PTA Differences at a Glance chart should be a big help.

I’ve always been a fan of the no-dues model for PTOs (not allowed for PTAs and optional for PTOs) for that very reason, seems funny to me that parents have to pay dues to belong to the parent group at their own children’s school.  My column on saying no to dues for parent groups and PTOs and PTAs is here.

The article get a few items wrong, in my opinion, especially where it equates PTOs with bake sales and implies that local PTAs don’t do that kind of work.  Fact on that count is that local unit PTAs and local PTOs are virtually the same on the types of activities they run.  Both great and generous and enthusiastic supporters of their schools and kids.  This political bent is typically reserved for the state and national levels of PTA.

Will continue to follow this story.  Is surprising that the PTA appointee is implying that parents’ own voices should be over-ridden by those who supposedly know better.  That’s the kind of approach schools have taken for far too long and that parent involvement experts (the PTA among them) have been trying to change.  Hopefully, it was a mis-characterization of Ms. Kaplan’s point of view.

Author, though, makes the classic mistake of equating lower PTA membership with less parent involvement in Iowa, when lower PTA membership really just means lower PTA membership. Odds are that a huge chunk of that decline is groups leaving the PTA to form independent PTOs. When that happens, involvement isn’t less; it just has a different name.

Also worth taking a read of the comments section. Good insight there as to what you’re up against (and how groups are often perceived) in trying to engage more parents. Is your group viewed as a clique? The answer to that question I actually wrote a column on this clique topic a couple of years back.

From my reading of various public documents, a few key items:

Membership – 5.16 million in 23,094 units.  Membership year earlier = approx. 5.4 million.

Revenue of national PTA = $12.5 million.  Revenue year earlier = $13.2 million. 

Expenses of national PTA = 13.2 million. Expenses year earlier = $13.1 million.

Net realized and unrealized loss on PTA investments (fancy term for stock market losses) in past year = $3.6 million.   (I think everyone who has a 401k knows that pain this past year. Ouch.)  Still a good chunk of assets ($14 million) as safety net even after that loss.

National PTA Employee Count 2009 = 81.  2008 = 73. 

My reading:  Expenses and employee count going up is going to be a tough mix with membership still going down.  It’s been several years now since last national dues increase.  Next increase has to at least be under consideration.  Was surprised that there seemed to be little if any questions re: these financials at the national meeting.

First, it’s a real look into the passions that are so much a part of local politics, especially around schools. I give credits to both sides here for their engagement.  Much better than the opposite (apathy).

But the debate captures very well what almost inevitably happens when the local PTO or PTA gets actively involved on one side or the other of a political issue. Politics by definition are divisive.  And groups that take political stands need to do so expecting acrimony.

The PTO critic in the linked debate captures the danger:

I did not know that my children were being used to raise money for an organization that can advocate for anything. I would be happy to have my kids raise money for the WEF, since they have it in their by-laws that they can not advocate for any political issue. Whether we like it or not, and I don’t, this has become a political issue.

I’ve been saying for a long time that the vast majority of parents/members of local PTOs and PTAs don’t think of the parent group as a political organization. They think of it as a parent involvement and community-building and support organization.  This debate captures that fairly well.

For the record, I don’t have a problem with this Connecticut PTO.  Sounds like they have a very active, successful group and they were above board in their work here.  We’ve worked with many groups (PTAs obviosulsy and also many PTOs) who do feel like politics is part of their function, especially on school issues.

But it’s my observation that political work and “grow community/build involvement at school” goials are often in direct conflict with one another.  Good for PTOs to be fully aware of that before heading down the political path. 

One missing piece from the article is the possibility that the PTA membership decline does not necessarily mean a decline in parent volunteering as a whole.  If an existing PTA disbands and becomes a PTO (as has happened quite a bit across the country), PTA membership goes down but parent volunteering does not.   Not sure if that’s a cause of the Texas numbers per se, but certainly a possibility.

Do think the article captures an interesting phenomenon that I’m sure *is*a factor in Texas.  Many immigrant parents do not think of parent involvement in same ways that many long-time citizens may think of as “traditional”.  That’s a definite challenge for all schools and parent groups.  Some thoughts on that in this feature story on engaging immigrant parents.

Interested in your thoughts on the Texas PTA membership story as well as your own creative solutions for connecting with multi-cultural parents.

Interesting, therefore, that this state senator is forwarding a bill to open up the state, hoping to prohibit requiring dues for parent involvement.   One obvious implication of the bill — as noted by Utah PTA president — would be a conflict with standard PTA bylaws, which require dues for all members.  Will follow this story as it progresses.