A proposal to make PTA attendance a condition for receiving PATH benefits is coming under fire from parent and school representatives.
They argue that, while parental involvement is important, taking away assistance from vulnerable families because of missed meetings, could hurt the very children the programme is intended to support.
The proposal was articulated recently as a way to get more parents involved in their children’s education.
Were it to become government policy, it would result in families lose PATH benefits if a parent does not attend enough parent-teacher meetings.
The proposal calls for parents receiving PATH assistance to attend at least three quarters of PTA meetings held during the school year.
Punishment
But, Stanford Davis, First Vice President of the Association of Principals and Vice Principals, is strongly opposed to any proposal that children be punished for their parents’ actions.
“Parental involvement is critical to student success, but as a principal, and as principals, our duty is to protect first. We cannot support a policy that cuts PATH benefit from students because of their parents’ actions, and also believe that it’s double punishment for the vulnerable,” he asserted.
“There’s already a PATH attendance clause. If the child misses school for a certain time, benefits are taken away. I think this is adding something else that the students have no control over,” he added.
Practical reasons
Stuart Jacobs, President of the National Parent Teacher Association, has also come out against the proposal, arguing that there are practical reasons why some parents may not make it to meetings.
He points to transportation costs, work schedules and safety concerns, particularly for parents working late hours.
“There are many reasons why parents do not come to a PTA meeting. One is the cost. That bus fare that they are going to, to take; the transportation cost to go to a PTA meeting is the same bus fare you need to give to little Johnny or little Mary tomorrow morning, because the person is on the basic minimum wage or is unemployed,” he said.
Additionally, he said, some parents live in volatile areas; “they cannot stay out after 6:00; they need to get home for safety and security.”
Mr. Jacobs contends that the solution should be to make PTA meetings more accessible and worthwhile, rather than threatening the financial assistance families depend on.
Meetings often last too long and, at times, fail to address the issues parents most want to hear about,” he added.
Former beneficiary
Economist Janelle McEwan, a former PATH beneficiary, argues that the debate should also consider the circumstances that may prevent some parents from participating.
“We, we spoke a lot about the child whose mother cannot afford transportation one week, or imagine a child who has stayed home because the parent is sick. We have a lot of single-parent household, and if we look at the kind of persons who are normally receiving these benefits.”
Recalling his own experience as a PATH benefits recipient, he highlighted “the dysfunction within the family,” noting that “it was always evident and it’s no one size fit all. So I think that the policy question I would like us to really think about, are we addressing the cause of absenteeism, or are we simply penalizing the outcome? And that is where I want us to really start to move the conversation.”