What To Do About PTA Fundraising and Equity in SPS

It's a big question in that headline (literally, as some schools are fundraising giants).  It's a touchy question - challenging parents' rights to raise huge amounts of money that benefit the children at their child's school.
To wit, last Wednesday's Board meeting which saw the introduction of a BAR about McGilvra Elementary and the district "accepting" a grant from them in the amount of $358,705 for next school year for "Tier 2 academic and social emotional intervention support."  It would fund 1.5 FTE Academic Intervention Specialist, .6 FTE Counselor and .5 FTE Office Assistant.  McGilvra is tiny at about 242 students.  It is overwhelmingly white and middle class.

This model started as hourly tutors, but has expanded to provide direct intervention services through certificated staff. The McGilvra PTA grant proposal is essential to the successful functioning of the school and success of the students. The math interventionist, counselor, and reading interventionist comprise the bulk of the school’s MTSS team and are integral to its success.

This absolutely goes to the heart of my argument.  The district says MTSS is the keystone to progress in the district for every single school.  And yet, at least for McGilvra, "the bulk" of that MTSS team is funded by the PTA.  If MTSS is so vital, why is the district not funding it?   The BAR says that the Race&Equity Toolkit was used and that these staff benefit students of color.  But McGilvra's demographics are not large for kids of color.

I absolutely applaud the effort from the McGilvra PTA but I can also see others' discomfort with this massive amount of money spend on staff.

After reading that, here are three points to consider about PTA fundraising:


1) One of the biggest overriding issues in PTA funding is the ability for some PTAs to provide staffing.  This seems to upset many parents.  I hear words like "outrageous",  "ridiculous", etc.

Just to remind readers as an example, the district has several dual language programs.  For dual-language to really work at the elementary level, you must have two instructors in every classroom.  In SPS that means a teacher and an IA.  The district does NOT fund those IAs.  The only reason McDonald and JSIS have them is because of the incredibly hard task each year that their PTAs take on in order to fund the IAs.  (The elementary dual-language programs in the south - with more low-income families - make use of the ELL IAs to fulfill this room.  Those IAs are funded thru Title One.)  So the district gets to continue to have this very desirable program without funding it in its entirety.

Pretty sweet for the district.  So are those McDonald and JSIS parents really terrible people for doing that fundraising or are they helping the district create a system of dual-language schools?  And, if the district said, "No more funding for staff from PTA/PTOs", what would happen to those programs?  

2) Another issue in PTA/PTO fundraising is the ability to provide materials to schools like printers, copy paper, carpet, playgrounds, etc.  When President Leslie Harris came on the Board, the issue of playground replacement really bothered her as schools with fundraising power were able to get this done much more quickly than those who did not.  Because of her concern, there is now a fund in Capital projects to make sure all schools get playground replacement in a fair and timely manner.

3) The third big issue in PTA/PTO fundraising is the issue of extras.  This is more apparent in elementary and middle schools as many high schools have booster clubs that are the source of dollars for areas like athletics and the arts.

It's extras like field trips, funding for arts like putting on plays, science fairs, a stipend for funds for each teacher to spend as he/she sees fit, etc.

What's interesting to me is that the discussion is getting bigger among parents but not really from the district or the Board.  The district is especially silent on the issue of fund-raising sharing which is somewhat hypocritical.

I do want to call this hypocrisy out because the district says equity is the foremost issue for the district.  Basically, the district has a public face of educational justice, seemingly decrying how some schools benefit from having fundraising power to buy staff, materials and experiences.  However, much, much more quietly, the Board and the district continue to accept the fundraising grants from these PTAs which, last I saw at an Operations Committee meeting, totaled about $8M.

I'll go out on a limb here but I believe if PTAs did less fundraising or entered into sharing agreements with schools who either don't have a PTA or don't have the ability to raise funds as others do, the district would be mighty unhappy.  

One big question I'll throw out first - how much is too much?  Because there is a spectrum in SPS of PTAs and how much money they raise.  I'd have to go and check but I'm sure there are at least 10 schools that have no PTA/PTO or tiny ones.  Most PTAs are medium-sized and I'd guess probably raise about $30-50K per year.  Some are large PTAs (and keep in mind, large means a large proportion of  parents belong and contribute - NOT that it's only large population schools.)

I think in this discussion about PTA fundraising, we might take out the high schools as most of their contributions are much more likely to come from foundations or booster clubs.  Naturally, that would be great to know how much all that is but that would take a huge effort to figure that out. 

As some readers have noted, the SCPTSA, at long last, has come out with a resolution about the issue.  They are asking for input on the resolution.  Here are some key passages (partial):

- They state that the fundraising done in school - from all sources, not just PTAs - has grown by nearly 350% between 1995 and 2010.  Then they state:

Given that a substantial ​body of research​ indicates that “parent involvement at home and school is an important factor in improving young children’s literacy and math skills” and that “PTA membership was also associated with student achievement in a 2006 ​School Community Journal study​ authored by researchers at the University of West Florida” the shift represents a major disservice to our communities.

I really don't follow this line of thought because, on the one hand, membership in the PTA was related to improving student outcomes, not the fundraising.  Meaning, membership in PTA doesn't necessarily equate to fundraising for the PTA.   It's still good for a school to have a healthy PTA without that PTA raising a lot of money.

They go onto say:

Moreover, in PTAs with fundraising programs of scale, the relationship between building administration and school community is no longer one of authentic engagement and collaboration but instead one of grant-making and seeking. As such, “If the principal knows that the PTA is not a source for fundraising, depending on the principal they might not go to the PTA and ask parents if [a particular project] is a priority.” When they do depend on family contributions, “parent engagement in gentrifying schools shows that schools tends to accommodate those [wealthy] parents’ interests and concerns​ 3” rather than addressing needs equitably.

I totally agree with the first sentence.  Principals who lean on PTAs to backfill and keep programs going then take for granted those ongoing dollars.  That truly is not "authentic engagement and collaboration."

I'm not sure I agree that fundraising "gentrifies" schools.   As for whether needs are addressed equitably, that should fall to the principal to get right.  In my experience in PTA, the principal is the one who takes the lead on how the money gets spent.  PTAs generally go to the principal and ask, "What are the most pressing needs?"  Because keep in mind that the principal does control most of what happens in any given school, so it's much harder than you might think to just raise and distribute dollars without principal approval.  (See the McGilvra example - they aren't spending that money on arts but I'd bet many parents might like that.)

The resolution goes on:

In Seattle, this is increasingly difficult to manage ethically and is, in many cases, in violation of School District policy and union collective bargaining.

I would agree.  If the latter part of that sentence is true, we then again circle back to my point that the district talks the talk about equity and yet seems to be okay with violating policy and bargaining agreements.

Going on:

Meanwhile, as this dynamic grows, PTA involvement is viewed by families as ​primarily​ a fundraising program intended for the wealthier and therefore influential families, leaving most other parents feeling disenfranchised, driven out, or never engaged. Even those that do have means quickly burn out due to the intensity of the fundraising machine. The result is waning participation and membership in PTA locally, statewide, nationally4.

Again, I agree that many families are turned off by "being ATMs" for PTAs and that fundraising, rather than family engagement, seems to be a more primary function for PTA.   I'm not sure SCPTSA can point to this issue as the main reason for their huge drop in numbers and it might be good to survey parents and find out.   We know that several SPS PTAs went PTO because they did not support all the stands that PTA takes.  The resolution offers no data supporting fundraising as the main/sole reason for membership drops.

Their vision:

As Seattle Council PTSA, we envision a PTA that refocuses and rededicates itself to become that voice for children, a relevant resource for families and communities, and a strong advocate for public education.

Refocus:​ The primary function of PTA is child advocacy. PTA is ​not​ a fundraising organization. The primary emphasis in PTA should be the promotion of the PTA mission, and activities and business of the PTA should serve to further the mission.

Build Community and Engagement:​ Units and councils must recognize that the time and energy of its members are limited and must be harnessed by ​meeting families where they are​. Be a resource for families and staff, and bring them together equitably and representatively.

Balance in Fundraising:​ The real working capital of a PTA lies in its members, not in its treasury. Follow the 3:1 rule - at least three non-fundraising projects aimed at helping parents and children or advocacy to every one fundraising event. 

Then they get to the heart of the matter (color mine):

Mind the gap:​ We must address the ways in which PTAs work within school communities to engage in addressing funding gaps, and how they solve some issues and create others. PTAs should create their annual budgets with specific goals in mind and identify strategies for reaching those goals equitably before determining the dollar amount needed in a fundraising event. Only those funds necessary to meet PTA’s basic organizational needs, along with a nominal operational cushion, should be raised. PTAs should not exacerbate inequities in a school district by excessive fundraising. Our funds are not meant to​ ​replace funds not supplied by governments; our funds are for ​the needs and operation of our organization and mission, for supporting participation on committees, for projects and programs that engage families, and advocacy for kids.

There is a lot to unpack in that paragraph.  First, that's an interesting idea to only budget for very specific areas and only for "organizational needs."  Second, it's hard to tell parents NOT to mind the gap when they want to try to fill the gap left by district/state funding when it is apparent that the district/state is not fulfilling THEIR mission.

That may be the rub - a gap exists at the state/district level and parents want to fill it and yet doing so exacerbates the gap for schools that can't raise funds.  And, gives the state/district a cushion so they don't feel the urgency to close the gap for ALL.

Community Partnership:​ Assist and grow those CBOs working in our school communities and District so as not to duplicate efforts. Support ​their​ fundraising efforts and partner with them. 

Also, interesting because what if there are no CBOs in a school community?  Or, if they are for-profit CBOs?   It certainly might be a good idea to sit down with the CBO in your building and work together collaboratively but what happens when there is disagreement on goals?  Does the principal decide?

ADVOCATE:​ Give members voice and provide resources for advocacy. ​Advocate​ for increased funding through the state legislative process and for equitable application of funding in your school community. If local PTAs and PTOs continue to purchase items for schools that should be provided by our state legislature through the tax system (public funds), the legislature will never see the need to provide an equitable, sustainable source of funding for public schools, and funding gaps between schools and districts will continue.

This statement is one worth repeating, over and over, to parents because it's the same for the district.  Keep filling in the gaps in the district and they will continue to use funding as they please, rather than keep that laser focus on most of the dollars going into buildings. 

There is no list from either the PTA or the IRS of what PTAs can and cannot fund. So while PTA/PTSAs have autonomy to make such decisions for themselves (as approved by their members) they must be aware that nonprofit, tax-exempt status of the PTA might be affected by actions outside of PTA mission and vision.

I'm not sure what the latter part of that sentence is trying to say.  Is SCPTSA saying they know of PTAs violating the terms of what it means to be nonprofit?

The landscape in Seattle Public Schools warrants specific attention to the following topics and issues that arise while fundraising for contribution to Seattle Public Schools (which is again, not the central function of any PTA). Seattle Council PTSA provides the following guidance:

In this section, they say that if SPS' policies/procedures are "inconsistent" with PTA purpose or IRS reporting, then PTA "bylaws, mission and vision must take precedence."

• Funds deposited into building “self-help” accounts, though allowed by SPS policy, are not traceable once deposited. This is not considered an appropriate use of funds if buildings and district accounting systems are unable to transparently demonstrate and acknowledge a) acceptance of such funds and b) confirmed use of such funds.
  

 Yup. 

• The Seattle Public School “Gold Book” provides principals with budgeting guidance and restrictions. These should not be waived for the purposes of receiving PTA funds unless a case can be made for equity, supported by the SPS Equity Tiers and Toolkit.

• Individual PTAs should readily make budgets available to membership, council and Seattle Public School to ensure transparent and inclusive budgeting.

  I would be surprised if any PTA did not want to share their budgets with anyone; that's troubling. 

• PTA funds should rarely, if ever be used to provide any salary for school staff or curriculum. While there will be times when critical exceptions to this occur, it should not be without specific consideration of the aforementioned commitment to mission and advocacy. 
  
  
  Fundraising of scale serves only as a distraction from the important work of advocacy and exacerbates critical inequities in our system that will only be remedied by collective pressure on our state legislature and school board to effectively raise revenue and deploy funds toward that end. We urge our current and future members to ​#TakeBackPTA​ and return to a commitment to community, family and advocacy. The inequity about PTA funding is not just in the ability for some parents to provide better educational opportunities for their child's school, the inequity is also that the district is not fully funding the curricula the district has chosen. 
  
  During the Science adoptions, the district criticized schools for using PTA dollars to better the science classes at their schools. And yet, at one school, Hamilton IMS, their PTA was asked to send the entire science department to a conference where most of their time was spent attending Amplify training seminars. Wasn't that wrong as well?
  
  The district reminds me of the policeman in Casablanca who, upon seeing a raid on a nightclub, says that he's "shocked" by seeing gambling going on, and then another guy comes up and says, "Your winnings, sir", hands him a wad of money and the cop says, "Why thank you."
  
  To note, at the high school level, there is a Science portion of their school budget embedded. It would be interesting to know how each high school decides what portion of the budget will go to Science. It was also stated by Mary Margaret Welch during the Board discussion at last Wednesday's meeting about the Science adoption that the Amplify kits have everything needed for the work and "all kinds of goodies."
  
  I'll throw this out to Science teachers - does the district normally give you everything you need for your lessons? My impression has always been that the answer to that would be no.
  
  But let's get back to the district. Director Eden Mack pointed out at the Board meeting that the State doesn't fund specific subjects, allowing districts to select their own curricula to meet state mandates and therefore, the districts must pay for curricula out the state dollars granted to them. It is hard to understand a district that would then pass on costs to teach that curricula to schools.
  
  So I can understand a school asking their PTA/PTO for help in funding basic teaching and learning.   Would it be okay to say only fundraise for basics and not extras?
  
  It's going to take some real honesty to talk about this issue AND to act on it.