PTOtoday appears to be a good reference and source of discussion on important PTO issues.
June 9th, 2009 by Tim Sullivan at PTO Today
This heated debate between PTO Mom and Anthony Walker about a PTO’s role in a local education vote from a Connecticut website (the Cafe) is interesting on several levels.
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 Anthony Walker 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 obviously 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” goals are often in direct conflict with one another. Good for PTOs to be fully aware of that before heading down the political path.
It appears that Mr. Sullivan wrongly assumed that our PTO got involved in ordinary local politics, such as endorsing a candidate or the like, and became a “political organization” thereby. He then moves on to use the PTO’s recent action as a generic illustration to support his ‘observation’. He really ought to have found a more suitable example because the overall topic is a good one, but his assumption is flawed - our PTO is not a “political organization” and recent events did not change that.
To a reader unfamiliar with the June 9 Vote, this article reads as though our PTO simply decided one day to “take a political stand” and get involved in an ordinary ‘political issue’ – they did not. Historically, the PTO has simply not gotten involved in Politics. The recent Vote was absolutely EXTRAORDINARY and the PTO recognized that this single, extraordinary matter posed an imminent threat of harm to education and required protective action. Their actions are more akin to self-defense against an attack than “taking a political stand”. They simply recognized an extraordinary threat and then rightly took appropriate defensive action – this one time. This does not automatically qualify the PTO as a “political organization” – not by a long shot.
Very well said Con…..right on each and every point.
Why is the Cafe headlining this criticism of the PTO’s rightful actions? Don’t they know this just fans the flames of PTO critics?
Gendarme, All points of view are allowed at the Cafe. We actually read this as coming down in favor of the Woodstock PTO. Re-read Tim’s statement. It’s always refreshing to have an outsider’s view on the goings-ons in Woodstock and Tim is very involved with PTOs. His blog may also be of interest to those in the PTO. This was the other reason for posting the article - to alert others of its existance.