Charlene K. Haar clearly shows she does not understand the National PTA. Here are the facts: Haar implies that the National PTA and the National Education Association, or NEA, are similar types of organizations in terms of membership, funding and mission. The fact is that the NEA is a union , designed to work on behalf of the economic self-interest of its members, whereas the National PTA is a grassroots, volunteer, private, nonprofit organization with an annual budget of less than $6 million. Our 6.7 million members work on behalf of the best interests of all children on issues that affect their health, education and welfare.
Haar alleges that National PTA policies reflect the influence of the NEA. However, since a majority of the board must approve every national position statement and resolution adopted by our organization, it would be nearly impossible for the NEA or other teachers unions to affect the outcome of the vote. It is not true, as is sometimes alleged, that National PTA policies are adopted automatically as state and local PTA policies. No state is compelled to adopt, in part or in entirety, any national position statement or resolution. Each state PTA office is separately incorporated and is autonomous. For example, local PTA President Kay Wall in Greenwich Conn., is working within here chapter to restore high academic standards even though she views her work as a challenge to a PTA position.
In fact, at its most recent meeting in January, the National PTA created a position statement that reads in part, "Challenging and precise standards must be developed which objectively measure achievement in academic areas, no just minimal standards that reduce student achievement to the lowest common denominator, but standards to achieve the highest levels possible."
According to Haar, the National PTA's recommendation for local PTAs to remain neutral during a strike makes the organization subservient to unions. Neutrality and independence, however, give PTA its greatest strengths during a strike. PTA offers a forum for public debate of the issues dividing school boards and teachers. When public debate is not forthcoming, PTA members become legislative activists. In December 1994, the PTA council in Anchorage, Alaska, resolved "actively to seek and support changes to state legislation and regulations which allow for public disclosure and a reasonable time for public comment on all issues being considered between the bargaining group and school board."
The federal government recognizes us as a reliable and unbiased source of ideas about ways to improve the relationship between school boards and unions. On January 10, I testified before a special committee of the Labor Department on ways to improve labor-management relations in public education. Our opinion was sought because our members represent the "customers" -- children and parents -- in the education market.
Additionally, state PTAs are free to adopt their own policies regarding strikes. To quote from the Jan. 12 edition of the Cincinnati Enquirer, "Gathering membership among teachers can be difficult because the PTA and teachers sometimes are on opposite sides of issues... For instance, the Ohio PTA is against teacher strikes. The PTA's major concern is the child, and there are times that the PTA's concern takes precedence over what other employee groups might see as priority, said Louis Benjamin, president of the Valley Area PTA Council."
Does the National PTA defer to teachers for fear of losing their membership dues? Clearly not. The 75 cents the National PTA collects from each member does not begin to cover the broad array of services, programs, awards and publications the PTA produces. Instead, we look to cooperative agreements with other child-advocacy organizations, corporate contributors and private foundations to provide the balance of our budgetary requirements. Without their generous financial support and in-kind contributions of supplies, services and expertise, we would not be so successful in meeting our members' needs.
Even if we took the "T" out of PTA, teachers would still join our organization. We base that belief on the turnout for our first meeting in 1897, when educators, social reformers, fathers and mothers came together with a common purpose -- to improve the health, education and welfare of all children. Teachers care about children, and many teachers are parents themselves. They join the PTA to make a positive difference.
Haar alleges that PTA activists are former teachers with union backgrounds, yet she admits the absence of demographic data to back her claim. National PTA does not track the demographics of its general membership because it's immaterial to what we do ask -- that everyone involved with the PTA, whether at the local, state or national level, be dedicated to putting the needs and concerns of children first in everything they do.
True, the National PTA partners with organizations on a variety of issues to address a specific need from a broad perspective. Such cooperation in no way constitutes a blanket endorsement of the partner organization's positions. The National PTA consistently has been a leader for innovative approaches to schooling that will open up quality public education to all children. In California, for example, the PTA has been a vocal proponent of parental choice in education through the creation of charter and magnet schools, interdistrict transfers and other programs. We consistently have advocated that public tax dollars should pay only for public-school initiatives -- not be siphoned off to support privately funded institutions.
Does the PTA's stance on collective bargaining percent it from serving as an effective advocate for parents? The fact is that the National PTA does not have a resolution or policy statement regarding collective bargaining by teachers unions. We have repeatedly called for appropriate funding authorities to establish salaries commensurate with the professional preparation and dedication necessary for effective teaching.
It is not true, as has been alleged, that the National PTA favors teacher interests over parental ones. In fact, we urge our members to stay on top of all school-board issues and to participate actively in policy-making decisions. As I testified before the Labor Department committee, "We encourage local PTA representatives to attend all school-board meetings and report on issues to the rest of the members. In return, PTAs can and do host administrators and board members at their meetings, opening up the lines of communication to the community and building a relationship among the constituents the schools are designed to serve... PTAs must involve themselves beginning at the local level on questions of curriculum development, achievement standards and budget allocations. And they must participate as members of advisory committees and site-based management teams. We train our members of advisory committees and site-based management teams. We train our members to be effective advocates at the national, state and grassroots levels so that their participation.. is meaningful."
It has been argued that the National PTA's objection to using tuition tax credits and vouchers to fund education is because we have "capitulated to the NEA/AFT." Not true. The National PTA developed its position on tuition tax credits and vouchers independently in 1979. The board reaffirmed the position in 1991. The National PTA believes that using public money to pay for private education will reduce the already meager funds available to public schools. We believe the public-education system is fundamental to teaching the tenets of government and democracy on which our country is based. It also is a vital means of preparing every child to compete on an equal footing in the world marketplace.
Diverting public dollars to private institutions deprives children and families of equal access to a quality education and deepens the disparity between those who are well-equipped to function in society and those who are not. Hobbling our citizens by denying them a quality education ultimately will have a detrimental effect on the productivity of our society as a whole.
Is it a cause for alarm that the vast array of workshops and programs available to parents at our convention address issues outside of the educational field? While it is true that the PTA generally is considered in connection with schools, it is an independent organization with a broad mission that includes, but certainly isn't limited to, educational issues. We also address health and welfare issues including child nutrition, immunization, parent-child communication, TV violence, conflict resolution and a host of other issues vital to our members' interest.
It has been charged that the PTA has "liberal-left leanings" because it supported the nomination of Joycelyn Elders as surgeon general. But the National PTA qualified its support of Elders from the outset. In an August 1993 letter to the National PTA board, I wrote, "The National PTA does not endorse all of the controversial statements made by Dr. Elders. PTA support is based solely on here efforts to increase the level of health services going to children and families." We stand by that statement.
Haar notes that "education reform is introducing new ways for parents to become involved in schools." She neglects to explain that it was largely the work of the National PTA that won unprecedented bipartisan support for goal eight of Goals 2000 -- the goal that calls for "every school [to] promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children." The National PTA and Sen. Mark Hatfield, and Oregon Republican, drafted the language for goal eight. It was opposed initially by the Bush and Clinton administrations, as well as by the NEA. Ultimately, the tireless efforts of 10 Democratic and 12 Republican senators saw the goal included and passed with the rest of the Educate America Act that became law on March 31, 1994.
In light of the discrepancy between Haar's article and the facts, it's important to note that recently the press has received some scrutiny and criticism about unfair practices. It is not unheard of for some who write the news to slate the information they've gathered to skew the reader's perception. Journalists may be bringing their own agendas to an interview and have a preconceived idea of the outcome.
We find it strange that our organization, the only purpose of which, for almost 100 years, has been to improve the well-being of all children, is suddenly called to task for working cooperatively with other organizations that share some similar goals. What proof does Haar offer that there is some sinister plot behind parents and teachers working together to better the quality of education for all children? Insinuation and innuendo are the tools of those who have little to offer in the way of substance to argue their case. Perhaps the author would attend a few local unit meetings so that she could see, firsthand, how deeply the parents there care about what's happening to their children's schools. Perhaps she would understand even better the concerns of those parents who know that the dollars are not available to do everything they want done. So parents roll up their sleeves and get the job done by fighting for a fair share of local budgets by laughing school bond initiatives, raising the awareness of the community and gaining broad support for the schools. In the process, the National PTA cooperates with many partners but is subservient to none.
We hope our work reminds Americans of a premise upon which our country was founded -- that education is the key to advancement. It is the right of every child in the United States to have access to free, high-quality education. We invite all citizens to join us as we work to put children first on the nation's list of priorities.
Copyright by Author