Supt. Deasy has put forth a laudable goal but an absolutely wrong-headed policy in an attempt to improve education in the District by, in effect, taxing at a 15% rate the voluntary donations given by parents to the local schools attended by their children. He proposes that those District schools with vigorous parent participation (and resulting fundraising activities) should pay 15% of all monies they earn through their fundraising, which includes everything from selling gift wrap to neighborhood swap meets to silent auctions, into an “equity” fund to be redistributed to schools who lack fundraising skills. In this way, he believes, the children at the latter schools can have more “equal” educational opportunities. So what’s wrong with this picture?
Firstly, those schools with robust parent participation raise funds mainly from parents who do so because their own children will directly benefit. Human nature being what it is, does anyone believe that parents will continue to donate at their present high levels when their own children do not benefit completely from their donations? So, while the theory of making perfectly even-sized slices out of the “donation” pie may appear commendable, if the size of the entire pie shrinks considerably, isn’t this policy self-defeating?
Secondly, Mr. Deasy’s proposed policy provides no mechanism, or incentive, for schools who lack fundraising capabilities to ever acquire them. Then, too, Mr. Deasy wants an “outside management” company to administer the collection and distribution of this tax. Of course, such outside management is sure to charge a considerable sum for such services, which will come out of the equity fund, thus reducing our “donation” pie still further.
If the two preceding arguments against this policy are not enough, consider the “non-monetary” provision of this proposed “gift policy.” It requires that all non-monetary gifts to schools must also be taxed at 15% of its cash value. Does anyone seriously believe that a local nursery who donates six trees, some fertilizer, perhaps even some labor, will continue its generosity when it is handed a bill, which must be paid in cash, for 15% of the cost of their gift!
Finally, does this tax, masquerading as a gift policy, really create educational reform, which purports to be the guiding principle of this superintendent and the present School Board members?
Wouldn’t the educational interests of all students be better served if schools that now lack the means to conduct productive fundraising were paired with schools which have such expertise? To do so could not only prevent the creation of a de facto “welfare” society among some District schools, it could ignite in such schools the pride, independence and self-reliance that successful fundraising engenders in parent groups, to say nothing of providing those much need funds.
Diane C. Hines
PTA Past-President, Webster Elementary School
PTA Past-President, Malibu High School
Member, Fine Arts District Advisory Committee