A reader asks a good question:
Call me a socialist, but I am totally against any & all fundraising for public schools. We as a nation should provide all our children equally with the highest possible standards we as a nation can afford. Private schools can do their own thing, whatever they can afford. (though it is my understanding that private schools pay teachers less than public schools). I don’t support or contribute in any way to fund raisers for either private or public schools. It sickens me that our children are sent out selling candy & holiday wrapping paper & cans of popcorn to raise money for special programs like art, gym, music in their schools, and that teachers have to help fund raise as well. I want to see education as the highest priority in this nation, and all public schools on equal footing, at least within each state. My higher preference is for the nation to equalize public schooling, so that every public school, no matter where they are located or the average income of their districts or the value of the homes in their districts, provides the same education to all students. Of course we have to retain the freedom for private schools, but privatizing education is a whole different matter. And when non-profit foundations start supporting education, it takes away from the responsibility of the citizenry to do so, and distorts and hides what is really happening to to public education.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Not mentioned directly is the way “leveraged philanthropy” is driving education decision-making at all levels. Programs and initiatives need to be judged on their own merits, not the size of the donations they attract.
Wonderfully stated!
Absolutely. If we funded our schools appropriately there would be no need for fund raising. As a music teacher, this is a particularly sore spot for me and my colleagues.
Lets do bake sales to buy tanks, and fund our schools instead.
Here’s a related issue I wrestled with throughout my career as a Superintendent. To what extent should the public pay for athletics? In my 29 years I saw a wide range of responses to this question… When I started in the early 1980s it was a given that taxpayers should fund uniforms, coaches, travel costs, trophies to hand out at potluck banquets, almost everything. By the end of my career in an affluent NE district taxpayers funded coaches for “basic” sports and “basic” transportation… fees covered the costs of everything else…. including coaches for a crew program, a swimming program, and JV programs in boys hockey and girls volleyball.
Parents in our communities accepted the fees because they paid them for the town’s athletic programs and often paid to send their children to summer sports camps. Interestingly other nearby communities who struggled to fund their budgets paid for all their athletic programs on the grounds that they did not want their children excluded from sports because of economic differences.
This is one (of many) examples where “adequate education” can be an elusive term to define. Does an “adequate education” include extra-curricular activities or only academics? If it should cover extra-curriculars should all districts have the same array of offerings as the most affluent districts or not?
Therein lies the problem. “Adequate education” or “adequate funding” means different things to different people.
I couldn’t agree more. Public schools are not charities. The only thing that drives me nuttier is The Wounded Warrior Project. We seem to have plenty of money to send young men and women off to battle, but few resources to care for them when they come home wounded and broken.
ditto that!
Should Public Schools be complelled by inadequate funding to compete in RACES that award the most obedient? It is like a sick version of the Hunger Games: offer up your integrity and moral beliefs for a chance to WIN deprived funding.
RttT,
So sick, so sad, so mainstream……
In Maryland, as in other states, we even rely upon revenue from gambling to help fund public schools. Now I ask you: what message does that send to our children? The wrong one, if you ask me. I do not gamble, I do not want my children to gamble. I do not want public education to rely upon gambling to fund its programs. Children really should come first. We adults should be able to at least agree on that, instead of just providing lip service to the theory.
The very idea that gambling in Maryland will benefit the public schools is simply a lie. The same promise was made when the Maryland Lottery was approved. Schools never saw a dime.
I agree with you, Brenda. To use gambling revenue to fund education is repugnant, on many levels.
So if parents should not be allowed to raise money to keep aides who would otherwise lose their money on staff. Or a hundred other things that get cut from school-level budgets every year. Sorry, I can’t agree with this. And it is really hard to take coming from someone who made the choice NOT to send her children to public school when she had that choice.
The point is that schools shouldn’t have to fund-raise in the first place, certainly not for the essentials. like school aides, and money for music and art.
What does it mean to have adequately funded schools?
There is often money in the education budget for consultants and fancy new textbooks, we’re lifting caps on charter schools, but not enough for aides, and arts education? Well, there is an agenda there that’s worth seeing through.
I agree that parents shouldn’t have to fund-raise. But that’s not the same as what Diane is saying. She says she’s “totally against any & all fundraising for public schools.” She’s not just saying that in a perfect or even a better world, parents wouldn’t need to raise funds. She appears to be saying parents shouldn’t be allowed to.
Diane, if I’m misrepresenting your post, let me know. If you don’t want to make donations to public schools, that’s fine. But are you saying that parents and PTAs should not be permitted to raise money for their school? And you say you don’t “support or contribute in any way to fund raisers for either private or public schools” — does that mean that you never contributed to or participated in any silent auctions or other fundraising events when your kids were at Dalton?
Respectfully, please reread Diane’s posting. It begins with “A reader asks a good question” followed by a colon. The rest is formatted as a single paragraph. What follows is someone else’s opinion. This is not unusual on this blog; Diane has done this numerous times in order to suggest a possible topic for discussion.
I bring this up only because the recent “kerfuffle” should make us all more careful in reading and commenting on other people’s postings.
I considered that possibility, but since there wasn’t a single “question” in the text, I assumed the reader’s “good question” was expressed in the post’s title (“Should Public Schools Depend on Charity?”). Maybe Diane meant to write “A reader makes a good statement” or something. Maybe Diane can clarify whether these are her words or a reader’s words, and whether agrees with them.
“The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves.”— John Adams 1785
John Adams in a letter to John Jebb. 10 Sep. 1785
http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/FOEA-03-01-02-0254
The issue for Adams was that letting benefactors pay our way would create a new corrupt aristocracy, no better than the old one, and thereby make us all beholden to them. He questioned the motives of those who appeared to offer great gifts of service or money, but may have had hidden intentions. Much better in his view that the people should be the active owners of their public institutions. Adams seemed to have a good grasp of human nature, and that really hasn’t changed much over time.
I would love to not have to fund raise. Fund raising takes up a huge part of my time as an orchestra director. I don’t have an assistant to collect money and do paperwork while I teach class, and our school has a very strict policy on the handling of money. Fundraising takes away from my instruction time. My program is funded pretty well compared to many, but I am a perfectionist so we fund raise in order to have the very best supplies, instruments, and master classes. Even with this fund raising we cannot compete with the wealthiest districts in the state as far as quality of instruments and number of students who can afford private lessons. Also we take an out of state trip every other year and the district would never dream of funding that at $1500 per kid.
There is such a wide range of quality in musical instruments, and it is difficult to describe that quality on paper. I can pick up two violins that are described and priced the same on paper and know which one is the better quality instrument by playing it because I am an expert, but all the administrators see are dollar signs. They think a violin is violin (much like some think a teacher is a teacher). I know that my idea of adequate funding would be much more than what the legislators would deem “adequate.” I would be upset if I were forced to accept mediocrity because some non-music person told me what was adequate.
Dr. Ravitch, I agree with you. My particular school is able to raise tens of thousands of dollars each year. Other less affluent schools in my district raise far less. This further creates the “haves and the have nots”. And about 25 miles down the road, we have Baltimore City with many, many dire needs. Truly, where’s the leadership?
I think the best bumper sticker I ever saw said something like, “We will know peace has been achieved when public schools are fully funded and the military has to have a bake sale to buy a bomber.”
It is a huge problem. It can be very hard to fund raise and we could really use the funds. I teach in a Title 1 school, next to housing projects, that is actually set within a relatively affluent community in NYC. The school down the block from where I live , 1/2 mile from the school I teach in, is not Title 1. They are able to raise so much money that their PA paid for a computer teacher one year (the one we had to give up due to cuts) and they are able to hire extra teaching assistants for Kindergarten (Our school still fights to find the budget for them and some years we can and some we can’t.). Their school is a good school. Our school is a good school too. We just have to battle with the cuts that are heaped onto us while teaching a greater proportion of children from high risk homes. Our PA was ecstatic this year after their last bake sale, they raised about $1000. Maybe they can fund some books for our classroom libraries again this year or buy indoor games for bad weather recess.
I was once told by a teacher from yet another school in the community (another well known affluent school) that we were lucky that we got Title 1 funding, we got more money than they do and they have to raise money to get all of their state of the art tech equipment. At that point we had 3 year old computers in some of the classrooms. How is that fair? All schools should be funded fairly.
Not that I support the new trend of For Profit Charter schools (I abhor it!), but I do have to give it up for one policy I know the latest UWS charter has – Parents may not fund raise. All of their schools, as stated by the organization, must be equally funded, no school may have more money than another in their chain. I have to give credit where credit is due on that issue.
I hear the line about the unfairness of Title One (and weighted student formula) a lot too. You might remind those complaining that Title One and similar funds are restricted; ours are required to provide some supports that schools might not find useful (for instance, a full-time position that is largely data analysis). Moreover, those funds are tiny compared to fundraising efforts at many schools in wealthy communities; schools in my own district successfully raise hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. Title One provides nothing near that.
In more civilized countries, schools have professional fundraising staff they call “tax collectors.”
Here in Chicago, some schools raise not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. (Sample annual campaign letter here to give you an idea of $$ amounts: http://www.friendsofburley.org/uploads/8/3/1/5/8315957/2012-13_annual_fund_-_parent_letter.pdf) I’m sure this is the case in most big city districts (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/nyregion/at-wealthy-schools-ptas-help-fill-budget-holes.html), but the problem is exaggerated in Illinois because the state contribution to education is one of the (if not the) lowest in the country and overall education funding is one of the least equitable as well. (And the income tax in Illinois is a very regressive and, even with a recent increase, very low flat tax. And on top of that the city’s own distribution of funding hurts poor schools as well: “[…] open-enrollment neighborhood schools have received just 48 percent of the TIF cash, even though they make up 69 percent of all schools. In contrast, it says, selective schools and privately managed charters have done much better, with nine selective-enrollment high schools that make up 1 percent of the total number of schools getting 24 percent of the money spent on school construction projects.” http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20120605/BLOGS02/120609940/city-tif-spending-on-schools-widens-disparity-report-says
The terrible thing is that all the fundraising work diverts parent efforts from political work to fight for increased funding and more equitable funding. Who has time for political organizing when you are busy organizing fundraisers and writing grant applications and counting Boxtops and soup labels?
And just as detrimental, until education funding and a progressive income tax are in place in Illinois, private fundraising is a major factor in keeping white, middle-class people in the otherwise-ever-segregating city school system. (As are the magnet and selective enrollment schools, with 1 in 4 white students enrolled in one of these schools, vs 10% and 14% of Latino and African-American students, respectively. http://www.chicagoreporter.com/news/2012/03/minorities-fail-get-top-grammar-schools) Without private funds, these schools would be missing many things that are perfectly standard in suburban schools (i.e. arts programming, after-school athletics, books, computers, etc.), and there would be even more white families leaving for the suburbs with their school-aged children or sending their kids to private schools. Chicago Public Schools are only 9% white, although the city population as a whole is about 1/3 non-Hispanic white—which means the wealthiest demographic in the city already has the least stake in the school system.
I think the only real hope here is to get citywide coalitions of parents to organize across race and class lines to make change happen at the state and city level, but it is not easy to get parents to think beyond directly contributing time and money to the school their child attends right now.
No, I don’t think schools or teachers should have to fundraise. It’s unfair – some schools will be able to raise far more than others – and a big, not terribly educational time commitment. I feel the same about most grant programs.
That said, I do hunt down and apply for as many grants as I can find and fundraise too. I don’t have any other way to provide my students with a well-rounded classroom experience. At present, state school financing doesn’t provide enough copy paper for the year, let alone paint, field trips, and other such “extras”. I feel like my choice is to make my students do without or support an unfair system, and I choose the latter.
So I suppose my question is if you don’t support fundraisers, what are you doing to make them obsolete?
I have to admit that I returned to the post and reread it which only added to my usual confusion. I am not sure whose point of view is being expressed but I am certain that it is one that is at least shared by Diane – or at least I think I’m certain!
I agree that government funding should be provided to all schools for optimal education of the students. I also support the local PTAs etc who work hard to make sure that our students/schools have the little extras or even necessities that will enhance our sistuation. Each public school has its own population and personality. In my little burg there is great diversity in our students and their economic and social environs and each of the elementary and to a lesser degree middle schools reflects those differences. I find that the parent teacher organizations bring parents into the schools who might otherwise not come unless summoned for some less that desirable exchange with a teacher or administrator.
Eons ago, when I was a wee little lass we lived in what was apparently an affluent town on the Main Line outside of Philadelphia.- way back in the mid 1950’s to early 60’s. I can remember my mother working on various PTA projects with other moms and dads. There were six young children in our family. Parental involvment was not the deal it is today. Children went off to school and did what they were supposed to do. The PTA was a rare opportunity for us to see our parents involved in our school. I haven’t a clue where the money went but I did enjoy seeing my mother involved in my school.
Fund raising is something that if done is probably best left to the adults or to students working with their parents.
We do not have fundraisers in UK but there are always schemes to collect tokens providing books for schools or computers or sports equipment. for schools. You collect tokens by spending at participating supermarkets, and the scheme lasts about a month at a time. I never really saw this as a bad thing and if I happened to get some of these tokens I would pass them on to people with children. But after reading this article I am seeing this in a different light. Schools in poorer economic areas where people are not spending as much will not get as many tokens, and therefore will not get as many books/computers/sports equipment as those in areas where people can afford to collect tons of these tokens. It’s just not fair, and schools should have these resources anyway.
When my son’s brooklyn public elementary lost Title I funding, we immediately had a $160k funding gap despite only 5 fewer low income students (59.1%) and all the same challenges as the prior year. How is any amount of political advocacy going to help with that kind of immediate crisis, and indeed with the next five years it would take to change the law?
I agree with the sentiment but it seems so impossible, and what of parents who have some amount of money to contribute but not the time to become a part-time “parent advocate?” And I struggle to understand how you’d draw the lines: charter schools can secure grants through their boards, but parents can’t? parents can’t raise money but they can get services donated? As long as there are suburbs like Westchester and Mill Valley, etc., where housing and property taxes protect the schools in various ways, you can’t get rid of fundraising without recreating middle-class flight out of the cities.
I think there is a difference between administrators leveraging private partnerships and kids selling candy for fundraisers. Rather than being all for or against something, let’s think a little more deeply and consider ways to make ideas work positively.
My point is that limiting this work to “administrators” (and removing it from parents) and “leveraging” (rather than direct fundraising) helps the charter schools and already-wealthy schools, because those schools (non-profit or otherwise) are the schools with the connections to deep pockets and those are the schools whose relatively more privileged populations allow the administration the time to focus on these kind of things. Perhaps if the schools didn’t have to be so entirely focused on test scores and budget cuts and closures and co-locations, the administrations could be expected to focus more on gap-filling. But comprehensive changes of that nature don’t look to be coming anytime soon, and as long as it remains the principal’s prerogative to assure that the funds are spent in accordance with the school’s mission and in a manner that is equitable across all students, and as long as the fundraising families aren’t given special treatment, I don’t see how changing the system would help more than it would hurt.
How about places like Arizona where couples can donate to private schools $1,000 tax credit. If you are a public school, you can only give $400. Where is the equity in that? I had to beg my family and friends every year to donate to my grade level at the Title I school I taught at just to take my students on fieldtrips. I knew that many private schools get close to a million to take their students to places like Washington, D.C., Catalina Island, etc. I just wanted to take my students to a day trip to the Grand Canyon or to a local farm.