The New York Times article compared NYC PTAs that regularly raise over $1 million a year to fund extras like teacher’s aids, iPads and trips with schools that struggle merely to get enough chairs and text books for each student. Within the first two days of publication, the piece sparked more than 200 passionate comments. Some posters defended parents’ right to financially support their own child's school, while others accused them of being elitist and undemocratic.

P.S. 87’s PTA co-president, Rebecca Levey, took to her own blog to explain precisely why her school needed to raise all the money it did (according to her numbers, $700,000). She also compared how the school measures up budget-wise against lower income schools that receive the same programming that P.S. 87's PTA pays for at no cost.

The Times article also cited a Portland, Oregon law that mandates PTA-solicited funds from all schools be pooled, and suggested that might be the answer to NYC’s inequality problem. Ms. Levey countered that the real solution is to be found in Albany, with higher taxes statewide and a truly universal pre-K program, as opposed to the one we currently have, which doesn’t offer nearly enough seats for every interested NYC family.

As someone who was born in the former U.S.S.R., I tend to think that any kind of forced sharing is bound to result in less to go around for everyone. Parents who are generous with their own child’s school will inevitably prove less eager to donate into a general pool with absolutely no say on how the money might be spent.

The commentators on the Times’ site begged to differ. What do you think?