Talk:Parent–teacher association

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Convo

Where should this article go? It's got information about specific PTA organizations in the UK, US and elsewhere but it also discussing the generic concept of a Parent Teach [Student] Association or Organization. That's a pretty broad topic.

Should the National PTA organization in the US be moved to it's own page? Not much to include there at present.

Rtphokie 16:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be best to create a separate section in the present article for the United States and move all the US and PTO information into this section. It's somewhat misleading to have a section on PTOS when this term is only used in the US and the whole section is specific to the US.Dahliarose 18:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other meanings

Are there other meanings for the acronym PTA? I once saw some grafitti that said "Smash the PTA". I found it hard to believe someone was so much against a Parent-Teacher Association. 87.112.4.3 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Entries

I believe PTO and PTA should have their own separate entries. The PTA is a national (U.S.A.) level organization which uses local school & state dues to support its national office for national level political lobby, the NPTA has been closely aligned with the National Education Association (teachers union). PTO's are local school level organizations set-up for that particular school to support parent-teacher projects and stay out of national level politics. More and more PTA's are being dis-established in order to establish local controlled and funded PTO's. There is great deal of confusion about PTO's vs PTA's, separating the entries would insure objective content for both.

Yes id like to say something on the P.T.A. See when i was in school the pta was made up of a bunch of goody good's mom's and they was only there for there children in other words to kiss a**... because most of them worked for the school as it was they where teachers aids or so they clamed mostly it was part of a bigger spy ring to keep an eye on there kids making sure that he or she got the grades they needed while at the same time kepping all the other students inline i could see why some one would say smash the PTA.and that and you never hardly seen those members give any money but wanted to gripe if no one else cared about the school. As far as the front page said about being close to the teachers union id agree.plus as far as this PTO i know here they seem to work as one more often than that the PTO doesnt even exist! Also it sounds as if this article was typed by a teacher or PTA member!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodgermiller (talk • contribs) 06:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background needed

This article has no historical information about the origins of the 110-year-old PTA, which has been influential all around the world. Nor is the item critical. As a start, I've added a sentence from the messy timeline found within the association's website, but much more from all points of view is needed. CallMeHenry (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USA-centric

This article only mentions PTA in the U.S.A. (although it began in the U.S.), ignoring PTAs in other countries, such as Japan and Britain. Hope someone can information about PTAs in these countries to the article. I've put the {{Globalize/USA}} and {{Edu-stub}} to address the issue. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have PTAs in the UK (with similar meaning, the acronym again standing for Parent-Teacher Association); but I don't know of any WP:RS so am reluctant to add info. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture/Trivia

I dont see any reason to disapprove of the references to popular culture, calling it "trivia". What i was looking for was a translation af the title "Harper Valley P.T.A", and I got got my question fully answered. Jens, Denmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.218.206 (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ripped text

the text of much of this article appears to be ripped directly from http://www.pta.org, clean up anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.43.116 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was, anytime all liberal groups like the PTA was given free reign to post all of their own PR-loads. It's only the Conservatives & Christians that are edited, removed & then banned! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.145.94 (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this section removed

The PTA proved their leftist liberal leanings when on May 7, 2010 they allowed homosexual-rights groups to exhibit at its convention, but denies PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays) the same opportunity because it does not comply with the PTA's diversity and inclusion policy.[4]

It is a fact. Now it might not be a fact that Liberal Wakopedia hates because they only allow leftest liberal crap to stay on WAKOPEDIA but as you can see from the link. the PTA did in fact refuse to let the christian group PFOX to attend their conference while that haply welcomed the followers of the "Gay is born" brainwashing groups. I guess since I have now pointed out just how bigoted & liberal-leaning WAKOPEDIA is I'll be banned AGAIN - WAKOPEDIA's - answer to all truth. but I would still like to know why "ElKevbo" removed the truth - let me guess, you voted for Obama, Hate Christians & think that anyone that disagrees with you is ALWAYS WRONG! - OK Ban away, I'll just find another Public Library to post from until WAKOPEDIA has banned every Library in Los Angeles or decides to stop being "Liberal Truth" Fascists!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.145.94 (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're at all interested, but the relevant policies are WP:OR and WP:NPOV. ElKevbo (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So AP & Yahoo News are not "REAL NEWS" no - I don't buy it, If the story were about some Christian or Conservative Group banning Gays, WAKOPEDIA would be all over it. Try as you might, you cannot hide the FACT that Wakopedia is just another liberal rag mouthpiece that edits anything that doesn't fit into their leftest liberal anti-Christian agenda. So tell me, how does it fee to be a mindless cog in the liberal PR Vomit machine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.145.94 (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't providing anything more than a press release and an unreliable, biased sourced.
You're not going to get anywhere with this. We're just going to block you, protect the article so you can't edit it, or both. You probably have more fun and productive things to do. In any case, I'm done conversing with you. ElKevbo (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot, if the source is Christian then it must be full of lies according to WAKOPEDIA, Only liberal rags can be trusted - I think you got that right out of the Little Red Communist Handbook. For your info, the "EVIL CHRISTIAN UNTRUSTWORTHY SOURCE" is just a copy of the letter that the ANTI-CHRISTS at the PTA send to PFOX. Again, your reasons fall short just like WAKOPEDIA reputation which is why no school will allow this Liberal rag to be used in reports. Wakopedia is the retarded joke that tried to be an encyclopedia but was taken over by the loony liberal left who believe they are the gods of all truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.145.94 (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

irrelanvent redirect

I searched for "parents evenings" and got redirected to this almost entirely irrelanvent topic about some group in the USA. Possibly an error that it redirects here? 86.13.218.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Section on UK added

I have added this section because I wrote an article about a school in London Ashmount and I wanted to have a wiki link from that article's reference to a PTA existing at that school; and as its a UK school, well I went ahead and wrote that section so that I could link to it.

Daithidebarra (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merger with Parent Teacher Organization

I do not see the need for two articles for the same thing. EdwinHJ | Talk 19:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC) If you merge them the PTA title is probably more relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowriturner (talk • contribs) 16:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are significant differences between a PTA and a PTO. The link below gives some explanation of the differences.

http://www.ptotoday.com/pto-vs-pta-differences-at-a-glance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.45.129.13 (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I would suggest that the correct thing to do is to recognise that the PTA and PTO distinction is purely an American one, and so the contents of the PTO article should be mereged in to the USA section of the PTA article. Daithidebarra (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the PTA and PTO pages would be like merging pages for the American Automobile Association (AAA) and Allstate Motor Club because they have the same services. They are each unique with their own structure, operations, and most important, Trademarks. See http://toolkit.capta.org/know-the-pta/trademarkservice-mark/ where they say "... “PTA,” and “PTSA” are all registered service marks of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.22.253 (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge:This is not a US-specific topic; the "Parent-Teacher Associations" in other countries are in some cases more similar to the US PTOs, making these terms indistinguishable internationally. So on the basis of WP:WORLDVIEW the merge is appropriate as meaning of the terms are indistinguishable. I agree with Daithidebarra that the PTO could be a separate section in a US section where the distinction between the organizations in the US context can be explained. Perhaps the major section subheadings could be changed to something like "United States" rather than "PTAs in the United States" in order to facilitate the merge. I note the trademark argument; a search at http://www.wipo.int/branddb/en/ shows that that is a US (rather than worldwide) trademark. Klbrain (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Infobox_Union to Infobox_Organization

I wanted to clarify my revision notes for the merge to 'Infobox_Organization' - The Infobox_Union template is specifically intended for Trade Unions. As the template fields do not match verbatim an attempt was made to select equivalent fields, but should be double checked for appropriateness by someone familiar with the organization. Strangerpete (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Members section

I'm confused by the "members" section, since this article isn't about a particular organization, but about PTAs/PTOs in general. What entity are the listed members members of? Marquardtika (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... Biased?

Wow. This is heavily PTA (tm) biased. That's what we get for merging an article for trademarked organization that charges to use its name with an article for a general concept. They should be spit up again, of course. Or better yet, just delete all the pro-PTA(tm) stuff to give it the neutral POV that's appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.197.4 (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merging was a mistake; the title should not be PTS

Although the first paragraph refers to "parent–teacher association/organization, parent-teacher-friend association, and parent–teacher–student association", the article apparently uses the acronym PTA as a generic term. This confuses the subject with the National Parent Teacher Association of the United States. Further, there are at least five other terms, in my experience, for groups which involved parents in education: Home and school association, Parents and citizens' associations, Mother Teacher Associations, Parent Teacher Council, Parent Advisory Council.

Most, if not all, information in the US section is about the P.T.A. rather than the general subject. In my opinion, details such as the history of the P.T.A. and the magazine it publishes don't belong in this article at all. Following that, the article confusingly talks about PTOs. Then the US section closes with a list of notable members. I don't know whether that means members of the P.T.A. or members of a "PTO" in general.

Only the section about India even approaches such detail. There is no information about parent involvement in education in many other countries, including Nigeria, Canada, South Africa, and the European Union. Hence, the article is unbalanced, if not actually US-centric.

I think the article should be split. All the details about the P.T.A. of the US belong in an article entitled National Congress of Parents and Teachers (United States). More general information about parent involvement in education in the United States and other countries should have an unambiguous title. I suggest "Parent Involvement in Education". The generic term, then, could be "PIE groups".

Since I have no children, no involvement in educating them, and more than enough to keep me busy, I can only post my opinion and suggestions. Humpster (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS I noticed that the illustration at the top of the article is specifically about the P.T.A. of the United States. That makes it more US-centric. Humpster (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Parent–teacher_association"