Fund-Raising for Public Schools

Re “Funding and Fairness Clash in Public Schools,” Feb. 16: You failed to point out that most schools that serve poorer communities almost always receive Title I funding. This funding is based on the number of students that qualify for free or reduced-price lunch.

I taught in an elementary school downtown (Echo Park) for a few years. While the students were indeed poorer than many of their affluent Valley counterparts, that school wanted for very little. We had two computer labs, ample supplies, teaching assistants, a full-time nurse, a full-time music teacher, textbooks as well as core literature for all and a well-stocked library. Most if not all these items were provided by Title I funds.

Now I teach in an “affluent” elementary school in the San Fernando Valley. There are no Title I funds. Our students have a nurse one day a week. We are lucky to have a music teacher one day a week. The district gives this school next to nothing financially to buy even the most basic supplies such as paper and pencils.

If it were not for our parents and their fund-raising, we would not have even the most basic supplies for our students. Is it like teaching in a private school, as your article suggests? Hardly.

MARY JOHNSON, Van Nuys

*

I found your article disingenuously biased and one-sided. In making the case that private, parent-sponsored school fund-raisers unfairly benefit wealthier school districts, The Times completely ignored the huge reservoir of so-called “entitlement” funds that are specifically targeted for schools in poorer communities. For The Times to fault parent involvement, especially at a time when test scores and achievement levels in L.A. Unified schools are at Third World levels, is both irresponsible and incomprehensible.

BRIAN J. DONNER, Los Angeles