PTA Stands Up For Children, Regardless of Consequences
There is a major smear campaign against the PTA going on right now, and it started on the hill in the guise of a bill (SB 199) that pretended to be in support of parent involvement at schools. The PTA had a problem with some of the language in the bill. The bill in its original form prohibited principals and school officials to work with any parent organization that collected dues (i.e. PTA). The PTA Legislative Action Committee (of which I’m an appointed member) met to discuss this bill and the position that the PTA would take based on resolutions that guide our decisions.
The membership of the PTA are strong supporters of parent involvement, as much as any organization out there if not the most! We’re also strong proponents of local control. We also believe in working with our legislators so that the laws that are passed are in the best interest of all children. It was with great effort that members of the Utah PTA Board met with Senator Bramble to work out a compromise. Based on the compromise (which took out the anti-PTA language) the voting members cast their vote to support the substitute bill. The very next day Senator Bramble paraded the PTA leadership on the Senate floor and praised them for their efforts to come to a compromise.
A week went by and we met again as we do on a weekly basis during the Legislative session. We review the positions we have taken on various bills where the children of Utah are at stake and we discussed SB 199 again. During the time between the compromise and the next meeting we began to understand some unintended consequences of the bill, even in its new form that we had previously agreed upon. There was much debate as we discussed the ramifications of changing positions on a bill that we had previously taken a position on. There were several consequences to consider, including 1) we had worked with legislators and come to an agreement. 2) Legislators were working on “good faith” assumptions. and 3) there were many political reasons why we shouldn’t change our position, despite the unintended consequences of the bill. But when it came down to it, the voting members of LAC stood up for what was right, regardless of the consequences that might follow. Understanding that if the bill passed and became law, it would be bad law even with good intention (and I have some reservations about the original intent of the bill, especially since it contained “kill-the-PTA” language) because of the position it would put district superintendents and school principals in. To fully understand the unintended consequences please read the talking points written by Holly Langton, Alison Walker, Sue Carey and other dedicated PTA Officers and Commissioners.
The original bill, SB 199, was opposed by Utah PTA.  PTA members mounted a great lobbying effort to have changes made to the bill.  The result of that effort was 1st Substitute SB 199.  There were still some concerns with portions of the bill, but Utah PTA was supportive of the fact that parental involvement is essential in every child’s education to support student success.  Therefore, Utah PTA took a position of support on the substitute bill.  Since that vote, additional input and information has been received from our attorneys and PTA members, and we have become convinced that 1st Sub SB 199 will not accomplish the goal of increasing parental involvement in our schools and may even have the potential to decrease involvement.
On March 4, Utah PTA’s Legislative Action Committee voted to change the position to on 1st Sub SB 199 to “Support the Concept.â€Â We appreciate Senator Bramble’s efforts to increase parental involvement in the schools, and we thank him for including Utah PTA in his efforts.  Utah PTA reaffirms its intention of working with all public school groups in an effort to serve the best interests of all children and youth.  However, the overarching concern is that much of the language in the bill takes away the authority of the “School.† The administrator needs to make decisions based on the best interest of the school and its students.  The language of this bill puts administrators between “a rock and a hard place,† forced into the position of deciding what is in the best interest of the parent groups, rather than keeping the focus on the students (lines 44-46).  For example, if a school permits a parent group to sponsor an assembly on a specific issue, then the school must allow other parent groups to sponsor an assembly on the issue.  If the administrator feels that one assembly on that topic is all that is necessary or can be justified in taking up class time, then the only recourse for the administrator is to not allow any parent group to sponsor the assembly.  If this becomes a recurring situation for an administrator, it could seriously hamper parental involvement or activities sponsored by parent groups in a school.
Concerns with the bill language:
What is required to be a “legally organized parent or parent/teacher group, association or organization†(lines 29-30)?
What are “patrons of the school†(line 31)?
Why are employees and officers of the entities included in the definition of the “School†(line 35)? Does this language preclude them from joining a group, because they would be seen as endorsing, supporting, sanctioning, or giving approval to one group over another (lines 53-54)?  Can a teacher be assigned to assist only one group and not be seen as endorsing?  Many employees who are parents of children in the school where they work might not be allowed to join one parent group without joining them all.
Individual employees, especially in secondary schools, may have a vested interest in a specific parent group. Â For example, the band teacher would want to be involved with the band booster group but not necessarily the basketball parent group. Â Would they be required to join all those parent groups in order to support the band group and not favor one over the other (lines 35 and 53-54)?
Would schools now be responsible to ensure that parent groups complete their annual IRS filings and have written fiscal management procedures, conflict of interest policies, and record-retention policies (lines 55-59)?  A school cannot be responsible for all the “applicable laws, rules, regulations, and policies†with which a parent group should comply.  This would take time and energy away from the students.
I couldn’t explain all the complexities of the unintended consequences any better than that. Unfortunately there are other consequences that we’ll now have to deal with, but they won’t affect the children of Utah nearly as much as this bad law would. I’m proud to be a member of an organization that will stand up for the children and stay true to their word, first and foremost, that they act in the best interest of all children. What a noble and great act! I would be ashamed if they took any other action. They did the right thing! No matter how mad Senator Bramble and Representative Lockhart are about the change in course, no matter how badly radio and newspapers spin it, the Utah PTA can be proud that they did the right thing. Read their mission statement and ask yourself how they could possibly do anything different:
The Mission of the PTA is three-fold:
I rest my case…but you haven’t heard the last of me yet!
![[image]](http://mowser.com/img?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdesultorythoughts.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fthemes%2Fartsemerging%2Fimages%2Ffeed-icon16x16.png)
Entries RSS
