Publication Date: Wednesday Jan 19, 2000

PTA fund raising: best supporting act for schools

As PTA fund raising sails above $1 million a year among Palo Alto's elementary schools, debate over neighborhood equity and the role of PTAs is back in the news. (Cover Story, Editorial, Dec. 15)

The reason for the PTA income disparity between our schools may be a simple difference in fund-raising philosophy, rather than a wide difference in neighborhood wealth.

Most PTA leaders believe children deserve equal educational opportunities. However, when support arrives in the form of PTA fund raising, we part ways. Some PTA leaders believe fund raising is an excellent tool to boost strained budgets, while others insist it goes against the mission of the PTA.

As a result, PTA income has risen (and programs have been spared) among some schools, as funding dissatisfaction has risen (and programs have been cut) among others.

There are richer and poorer schools in both camps, which upsets the notion that belonging to a wealthy neighborhood is the key to successful PTA fund raising. Local history suggests that when any school commits to PTA fund raising, it succeeds.

PTAs are not the only source of income to schools, as a quick review of local funding reveals. The district pays directly for most personnel, facilities and services--money that the schools never see. Separately, each school receives funds for local goals, staff training and teaching materials. They also receive proportional funds to support special-needs children (low-income, language- and learning-disabled students).

As shown in the accompanying chart, each elementary school received between $279 and $652 per student from the district this year. Added to the PTA income they raise, these funds comprise the total spending money at each school.

With PTA and district revenue combined, the average income at the west neighborhood schools--Barron Park, Briones, Escondido and Nixon--is the highest, at $671 per student. They're followed by those in the north--Addison, Duveneck and Walter Hays--at $656 per student, the south--El Carmelo, Fairmeadow and Palo Verde--at $555 per student, and the alternative schools--Hoover and Ohlone--at $450 per student.

Most people are probably troubled when they read that some schools can't succeed at fund raising because of neighborhood economic vitality, at-risk student populations, variances in home prices, color of the parents' collars and so on. Fortunately, parents at Briones ignored these theories and raised more PTA income per student last year than two-thirds of the other elementary schools in the district.

In fact, the three schools with the most students below the poverty line--Barron Park, Briones and Escondido--raised more PTA income per student than the three schools with the fewest--Fairmeadow, Hoover and Palo Verde.

We would probably be dissatisfied if the schools with the fewest resources had the most special-needs students, but they don't. The three schools with the highest percentage of special-needs children--Barron Park, Briones and Escondido--average $726 per student in total spending money while the three schools with the lowest percentage--Hoover, Ohlone and Palo Verde--average $478.

The school district provides (and funds) the core programs and personnel to support special-needs children. These students represent 27 percent of the elementary school enrollment, and all schools play an important role in their education. While Barron Park, Briones and Escondido have the highest percentages of special-needs students, more than 20 percent of the children at Addison, Duveneck, El Carmelo, Fairmeadow and Nixon have special needs, as do another 23 percent who attend Walter Hays, Hoover, Ohlone and Palo Verde.

There are a few more misconceptions about PTA fund raising.

When local PTA income comparisons are made, fund-raising results are often interpreted as a measure of fund-raising potential. But we can't determine potential by looking at results if fund raising isn't an equivalent goal at all schools.

I've shared many tables with good PTA leaders who are philosophically opposed to PTA fund raising, and their schools do not participate in comparable goal-setting and events development. No one believes that schools should be pressured into raising money. But their leaner results shouldn't be compared to schools that pursue it vigorously.

At some level, neighborhood wealth may be a legitimate fund-raising barrier, but local PTA activity is operating at pretty low altitudes. The most successful schools raise about a dollar a day per student. (Note: If all schools in the district followed suit, PTAs would raise over $3.5 million a year.) In any event, this participation level isn't likely to separate the "have" neighborhoods of $1 million homes from the "have-not" neighborhoods of $600,000 homes.

Successful PTA fund raising is an effort- and strategy-driven process that depends on donations from parents who can afford to help. Successful appeals thrive on 50 percent participation rates and $200 average donations. Scrip programs flourish on 30 percent participation rates (with grocers and retailers donating 100 percent of the income). The most lucrative auction items are often the most personal donations, such as parent-hosted dinners or outings with teachers.

A recent suggestion calls for a district policy to redistribute up to 30 percent of income from successful school auctions and scrip programs to less successful schools (which are not necessarily poorer schools). Ouch! Fund-raising volunteers are not inert money-catchers; they are 12-cylinder dream-catchers who devote incredible time to their achievements.

Like their classroom volunteer cousins who contribute more than 200,000 hours a year to our schools, fund-raisers give their time and talents to accomplish specific goals. They prosper throughout the district, and would probably be repulsed to receive revenue skimmed (I mean shared) from their fund-raising counterparts at other schools.

From a practical standpoint, policing the charity of donors would not inspire more giving. Creating perverse incentives to clip the wings of ambitious PTA leaders would not increase the pool of funds for any school.

If the district were willing to enforce such revenue sharing within our district (which I doubt), officials would then have a tough time arguing against it at the state level. Equity-seeking school districts throughout California would love Palo Alto's new redistribution mindset and the 30 percent of our property taxes that would go with it.

A multimillion-dollar foundation or district development office would be a great complement to existing PTA fund raisers. But they couldn't replace the direct reward parents enjoy when they contribute to goals they help develop with their own children's teachers or with their neighborhood school community.

In the end, all fund raising involves people working toward a goal, whether they're hitched to a foundation, district, school or classroom. If protecting endangered classroom programs is a top priority among elementary schools, we parents can either hitch up or wait for others to hitch up for us.

Focusing energy on a 20-year-old neighborhood feud over PTA fund raising won't pay for classroom aides and instructors, but electing PTA leaders who believe in fund raising will.

If your school has cut valuable programs, consider asking your PTA board and site council to survey parents and staff on priorities and set fund-raising goals to restore them. Next, beg your five most motivated volunteers to help (or become one).

To foster better fund-raising relationships among schools, think about asking the PTA Council executive board to consider a director of fund raising position to cultivate income development among district volunteers.

In any event, let's engage in communications based on facts, celebrate the additional educational opportunities that our increasingly successful PTA fund-raising volunteers provide to children throughout the district, and keep our eyes (and hands) off the income that their efforts generate. Barbara Mitchell, a parent of four children enrolled in Palo Alto schools, is a former PTA president at Walter Hays Elementary School.



Back up to the Table of Contents Page