Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work? I'd heard about this before, but have never seen it in print: "Chicago has imposed a cap on how much parents are permitted to raise to help their children -- no more than $1500 a year in schools with fewer than 1000 students." ("Unfair" Parents Helping Public Schools National Center for Policy Analysis). Is this for real? Is it still in effect? What do you think?
Digg
Del.icio.us
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
Schools like Blaine, Hawthorne and Bell raise well over $100,000 per year through their parent organizations. Maybe that is a loophole -- the parent organizations are not-for-profits which give all their proceeds to the school. Perhaps that is permitted since technically an outside organization is doing the fundraising?
Of course, maybe the rule has changed since your link is to an article published in 1997.
Of course, maybe the rule has changed since your link is to an article published in 1997.
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
Alexander, why are you posting articles from 1997? If the $1500 cap ever applied, it certainly does not now. A handful of schools raise over $200K annually in private donations from parents, if I recall correctly, and many certainly raise in the tens of thousands.
If the cap in fact existed at any point, what a strange way of thinking: Refuse free money to help children in one school because students in other schools do not have that same advantage. Of course it would be ideal for all schools to be able to raise huge sums from its parental community, but is the fact that this is not realistic a reason to forbid those who are capable of it? Is this an extension of the teacher’s mantra that if you didn’t bring enough candy for everyone in the class, then you can’t eat your piece either?
The money that is raised is often used to fund “extras” that would not otherwise be available, like a music or art teacher’s salary, better playground equipment, etc. This is in schools like Edgebrook, which compete with private schools for students. If those “extras” are not in place, many parents would likely choose privates instead, and then the school would lose the government funding for that student as well as the private donations that may have come with him.
If the cap in fact existed at any point, what a strange way of thinking: Refuse free money to help children in one school because students in other schools do not have that same advantage. Of course it would be ideal for all schools to be able to raise huge sums from its parental community, but is the fact that this is not realistic a reason to forbid those who are capable of it? Is this an extension of the teacher’s mantra that if you didn’t bring enough candy for everyone in the class, then you can’t eat your piece either?
The money that is raised is often used to fund “extras” that would not otherwise be available, like a music or art teacher’s salary, better playground equipment, etc. This is in schools like Edgebrook, which compete with private schools for students. If those “extras” are not in place, many parents would likely choose privates instead, and then the school would lose the government funding for that student as well as the private donations that may have come with him.
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
It looks to me like this limit only applies to fundraising by the Local School Council. I believe that parents at school like Bell, Hawthorne, and Blaine raise funds for their school through Friends of... organizations rather than through their local school council. CPS Policy Handbook section 401.7 addresses fundraising by the local school council and says:
"The profits that can be generated by, and the items that can be paid for from the profits of the fundraising activities are limited to a cumulative total of $1,500 per school (fiscal) year in schools with a student population of under 1,000 students, and limited to a cumulative total of $3,000 per school (fiscal) year in schools with a student population of 1, 000 and more."
I don't see this policy as limited the amount of money parents can raise but rather limits the amount that local school councils can raise.
"The profits that can be generated by, and the items that can be paid for from the profits of the fundraising activities are limited to a cumulative total of $1,500 per school (fiscal) year in schools with a student population of under 1,000 students, and limited to a cumulative total of $3,000 per school (fiscal) year in schools with a student population of 1, 000 and more."
I don't see this policy as limited the amount of money parents can raise but rather limits the amount that local school councils can raise.
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
Parents continue to fundraising. I love it. I wish more parents would do what Bell, Drake, Franklin, LaSalle, Mayer, Hawthorne, Dixon, Sutherland, Neil, McDade, etc... are doing.
Every CPS school is not getting bad scores, every CPS school does not have a shooting, every CPS does not need a Police presence every day.
Hats off to those who are doing it the right way, regardless of their social status!
Every CPS school is not getting bad scores, every CPS school does not have a shooting, every CPS does not need a Police presence every day.
Hats off to those who are doing it the right way, regardless of their social status!
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
I want to respond to M. Parents who have money apparently by this logic can buy themselves a better school, but poor parents must live with what CPS provides or hope to sneak, weasel, lottery luck their way into the endowed schools. If we take this arguement further should not communities that generate higher property taxes based on assessments and wealth be able to have a greater part of the CPS pie, since after all they do pay more?
Where does all of this stop?
Where does all of this stop?
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
Tom: In our capitalist democracy, people who have money can in fact buy themselves a better school, and those schools are called private schools. Also, many people do in fact believe that if they pay high property taxes, that their own local school should have a greater piece of the pie, and most of those people move to Wilmette, River Forest, or Hinsdale in order to achieve that end. Others decide to stay in the city and stay in CPS, and they often donate time and money to the public school that their child attends, so that he and all his classmates may reap immediate benefits. Is there a problem with that situation? Again, the ideal would be that the federal, state and local government coffers would be overflowing with abundant funds for every school in the nation, but until that happens, it’s a mistake to try limiting private fundraising.
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
THIS IS VERY INTERESTING TO ME AS I THINK IT BRINGS UP A LARGER ISSUE OF A SELECT GROUP OF PARENTS WHO HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE THEIR OWN MONARCHY WITHIN ANY SCHOOL
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE,USING WORLD'S FINEST CHOCOLATE AS A MEANS TO AN END.
I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH FUNDRAISING AS LONG
AS IT IS DIRECTLY AND SUCCINTLY CHILD CENTERED AND THE
FOCUS IS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED ON THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE A GROUP OF "HYPERACTVE" ADULTS RUNNING AROUND AT THE SCHOOL
GATHERING THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT CHILDREN ,THEIR CHILDREN AND THE PARENTS ARE
CARRYING ON LIKE THEY HAD NEVER LEFT THEIR HIGH SCHOOL PROM! I AM HOPEFUL THAT AS ADULTS WE CAN ACCENTUATE THE
POSITIVE AND ELIMINATE THE NEGATIVE.ALSO I HAVE A NEW ENTRY ON MY RESUME_TWIZZLER SALESPERSON EXTRAORDINAIRE!
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE,USING WORLD'S FINEST CHOCOLATE AS A MEANS TO AN END.
I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH FUNDRAISING AS LONG
AS IT IS DIRECTLY AND SUCCINTLY CHILD CENTERED AND THE
FOCUS IS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED ON THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE A GROUP OF "HYPERACTVE" ADULTS RUNNING AROUND AT THE SCHOOL
GATHERING THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT CHILDREN ,THEIR CHILDREN AND THE PARENTS ARE
CARRYING ON LIKE THEY HAD NEVER LEFT THEIR HIGH SCHOOL PROM! I AM HOPEFUL THAT AS ADULTS WE CAN ACCENTUATE THE
POSITIVE AND ELIMINATE THE NEGATIVE.ALSO I HAVE A NEW ENTRY ON MY RESUME_TWIZZLER SALESPERSON EXTRAORDINAIRE!
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
please don't comment in caps -- it seems to readers like you're yelling at us
also, it's not just how much money is raised, or what it's used for. there's also the issue that the ban on LSC fundraising creates an incentive to set up a "Friends of..." organization, which divides parental support and creates a gap between the elected body overseeing the school and another group of parents providing funding.
isn't this what happened at ravenswood, in part?
-- alexander
also, it's not just how much money is raised, or what it's used for. there's also the issue that the ban on LSC fundraising creates an incentive to set up a "Friends of..." organization, which divides parental support and creates a gap between the elected body overseeing the school and another group of parents providing funding.
isn't this what happened at ravenswood, in part?
-- alexander
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
Never Limit fundraising. At my daughter's school, they raised 13,000 for the sports program. Uniforms, buses, fees, etc... This is what suppose to happen.
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
Alexander, I think you made a good point. If CPS lifted the ban and allowed LSCs to raise lots of money, then there would be no need for the Friends of... group and there may be more unity in the school. In reading the comments about Ravenswood, that did seem to be part of the problem there.
I know that schools vary in how their Friends of... group coordinates with their LSC. Some groups raise all the money and then turn it over to the LSC. Others spend it independently of the LSC.
It seems to me that the best schools coordinate their efforts so that all the groups are working toward the same goals. I can see division between groups, such as the LSC and Friends of... groups. But, there can also be division within the LSC or between the LSC and principal. In the best scenario, the Friends of... group operates as just another way for parents and community members to contribute to the school in conjuction with the efforts of the LSC and school administration.
I know that schools vary in how their Friends of... group coordinates with their LSC. Some groups raise all the money and then turn it over to the LSC. Others spend it independently of the LSC.
It seems to me that the best schools coordinate their efforts so that all the groups are working toward the same goals. I can see division between groups, such as the LSC and Friends of... groups. But, there can also be division within the LSC or between the LSC and principal. In the best scenario, the Friends of... group operates as just another way for parents and community members to contribute to the school in conjuction with the efforts of the LSC and school administration.
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
What if there was a cap and for every X amount of $ a school raised over that cap, X% had to be given to the district to reallocate to other neighborhood schools? Because the real issue is that while of course everyone wants to ensure that their students have the best possible education, this kind of activity really only perpetuates the existing achievement gap, which often looks as much like a resource gap.
What would people think about a percentage of funds raised for a specific school having to be applied to other schools in the district? Perhaps even designating that extra money for targeted under-performing schools.
Thoughts?
What would people think about a percentage of funds raised for a specific school having to be applied to other schools in the district? Perhaps even designating that extra money for targeted under-performing schools.
Thoughts?
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
Charlie,
I think your idea gets to the heart of the problem, but I would predict that most fundraising groups would raise up to the cap and then cease their fundraising efforts. Parents and community members involved in these efforts want to see the results of their work and want it to benefit the institutions that they and their children rely upon. Otherwise, I don't think they would volunteer to put forth the extra effort. It's all optional and voluntary.
I think the broader problems we're talking about are income inequality, lack of eduction funding, and CPS budget decisions. Limiting or managing school fundraising efforts may not be the best way of tackling these issues.
I think most people agree that public funds should be targeted to areas with the greatest needs. I would expect that tax revenues that go toward education (federal, state, and local) paid by folks in the wealthiest areas of Chicago would flow more toward schools in the poorest areas in Chicago, but I could be wrong about that. Does anybody know if Catalyst or some other group has reported on that?
I think your idea gets to the heart of the problem, but I would predict that most fundraising groups would raise up to the cap and then cease their fundraising efforts. Parents and community members involved in these efforts want to see the results of their work and want it to benefit the institutions that they and their children rely upon. Otherwise, I don't think they would volunteer to put forth the extra effort. It's all optional and voluntary.
I think the broader problems we're talking about are income inequality, lack of eduction funding, and CPS budget decisions. Limiting or managing school fundraising efforts may not be the best way of tackling these issues.
I think most people agree that public funds should be targeted to areas with the greatest needs. I would expect that tax revenues that go toward education (federal, state, and local) paid by folks in the wealthiest areas of Chicago would flow more toward schools in the poorest areas in Chicago, but I could be wrong about that. Does anybody know if Catalyst or some other group has reported on that?
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
At this moment in time I do not have kids in the public schools, but I think it is a mistake to limit parental fundraising for their schools. I also think it's unrealistic to expect the government to be able pay for public education. I think parental fundraising is one way parents can exert their influence over the school system. If it was my child in that school I want to be sure s/he is being educated not babysat.
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
Oh, how I hope someone from Friends of Blaine--or someone who is not a friend of Friends of Blaine--will comment here, as rumor has it THAT group is a soap opera (talk about high school prom...or is that HIGH SCHOOL PROM?) that illustrates when a good thing--raising $ for your child's school--goes very, very bad. Wowza!
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
I am a parent at Alcott and we are in the midst of fundraising with our silent auction and such. We are raising money to fund having a music teacher, art teacher, etc. The money Friends of Alcott generates helps to cover the gap where we no longer get funding because we do not have as many children below the poverty level. We have two full-time K teachers and our budget only allows for one covering 2 - 1/2 day classes. We wish to have full day K and the money in the past has covered this teacher. This year, it was proposed that the incoming Kindergarten Parents cover this cost with a request of $1800 per child to be paid. After all the money is raised to cover paying for teachers, there is no extra money. Our bathrooms are disgusting and there are definite areas in need of improvement. We are working hard to make our school great for our children. There is not enough money going around and our school receives less every year. I do not live in district, I chose to send my children there and will raise money to make it a great school. Is that wrong?
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
The more low income students, the more public funding. Is that not true? That's why these fund-raisers are necessary in a lot of these schools.
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
Hey, quit pick...
Our school, Sutherland, is great at ignoring the needs of kids with disabilities, has teachers that refuse to meet with parents, has mostly white ladies doing the PTA, etc. Don't buy the bull. Great that they raise money. Now they should try flying right.
Our school, Sutherland, is great at ignoring the needs of kids with disabilities, has teachers that refuse to meet with parents, has mostly white ladies doing the PTA, etc. Don't buy the bull. Great that they raise money. Now they should try flying right.
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
Gee. Like everything it seems like these days, I have such mixed feelings about this...
On one hand, I know of plenty of examples of the ol' Little Red Hen, where you have a few seriously amazing people do all the work--from the brainstorming to the implementation and organizing to the clean up to the hand-written thank yous...and THEN everyone comes running up with their hand out. Doesn't seem quite fair, does it?
You've also got schools and populations where over the years, they have replaced the playground, they have stocked their science labs (and have kids and teachers who take care of it), who have painted murals and planted flowers, and who would now like to offer healthier foods (organic or vegetarian fare) and are berated that they want to use their funds in this way, when there are plenty of kids in shitty schools without chalk, paper, or decent books. Doesn't seem fair for either group, does it?
Then there are schools, and parents, who don't do a damn thing for their school. Who, despite not working, have never volunteered. Who, when provided funds, misused them. Not really sure I want even a $1 of every $5 my kid raises selling over-priced wrapping paper to her grandparents going towards that. Feel gross writing that, as it goes against my white, middle class upbringing, and feels very Republican (ew!), but dang, I have to stretch my dollar and my time--I want to to impact MY kid.
Of course, these kinds of issues take our focus off of the bigger picture--and that's that public schools aren't funded properly. We start focusing on fundraising, and what school spends what on what, and we start arguing amongst ourselves for who gets more of the tiny pie, and stop demanding a bigger damn pie for all.
I also have my doubts about the more low income=more funding. I don't know much about it, but have the feeling that the "more funding" has its limits--like it has to go towards hot lunches or after-school tutoring programs. Low income kids need access to the arts, gifted opportunites, field trips, computers, etc too, but when compared with hunger, well, it's hard to argue for funds going towards Mad Science performances...
AND there is the HUGE issue with the "Friends of" organizations then lording over the money, doling it out to teachers, programs, causes, pet projects they believe in--does someone who donated $5K have more of a say in what things get instituted than me, who gave $500? Does it matter that I make less than $50K and the first donor makes $150K? I don't know! Ai yi yi!
Anyone have a solution?
On one hand, I know of plenty of examples of the ol' Little Red Hen, where you have a few seriously amazing people do all the work--from the brainstorming to the implementation and organizing to the clean up to the hand-written thank yous...and THEN everyone comes running up with their hand out. Doesn't seem quite fair, does it?
You've also got schools and populations where over the years, they have replaced the playground, they have stocked their science labs (and have kids and teachers who take care of it), who have painted murals and planted flowers, and who would now like to offer healthier foods (organic or vegetarian fare) and are berated that they want to use their funds in this way, when there are plenty of kids in shitty schools without chalk, paper, or decent books. Doesn't seem fair for either group, does it?
Then there are schools, and parents, who don't do a damn thing for their school. Who, despite not working, have never volunteered. Who, when provided funds, misused them. Not really sure I want even a $1 of every $5 my kid raises selling over-priced wrapping paper to her grandparents going towards that. Feel gross writing that, as it goes against my white, middle class upbringing, and feels very Republican (ew!), but dang, I have to stretch my dollar and my time--I want to to impact MY kid.
Of course, these kinds of issues take our focus off of the bigger picture--and that's that public schools aren't funded properly. We start focusing on fundraising, and what school spends what on what, and we start arguing amongst ourselves for who gets more of the tiny pie, and stop demanding a bigger damn pie for all.
I also have my doubts about the more low income=more funding. I don't know much about it, but have the feeling that the "more funding" has its limits--like it has to go towards hot lunches or after-school tutoring programs. Low income kids need access to the arts, gifted opportunites, field trips, computers, etc too, but when compared with hunger, well, it's hard to argue for funds going towards Mad Science performances...
AND there is the HUGE issue with the "Friends of" organizations then lording over the money, doling it out to teachers, programs, causes, pet projects they believe in--does someone who donated $5K have more of a say in what things get instituted than me, who gave $500? Does it matter that I make less than $50K and the first donor makes $150K? I don't know! Ai yi yi!
Anyone have a solution?
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 8:45 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
ms g, you are the coolest. I mean it. Love reading your stuff!
I worked at a lower income school, and they had way more money for things like after school programs, computer labs and basic supplies than the school my kids go to (it's not majority low income). The parents at my kid's school are required to donate supplies and to have fundraisers for all kinds of things that other schools just take for granted.
I worked at a lower income school, and they had way more money for things like after school programs, computer labs and basic supplies than the school my kids go to (it's not majority low income). The parents at my kid's school are required to donate supplies and to have fundraisers for all kinds of things that other schools just take for granted.
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 7:30 AM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
ditto on the "ms g, you are the coolest." In a blog filled with negativity and whining and self professed political experts, you are a bright and shining light. Whenever I see your name come up, I read the comment.
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Ms. G for President
Ditto Ms. G. - Thank you for being a voice of reason. It doesn't hurt that I think we (you and I) are coming from the same place. Have a great day and please continue to post!
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
Like many of you, I see this issue as a symptom of a larger disease. The fact that we connect schooling so much to income and status in this society forces these kinds of issues - and the ugly continued bifurcating of the classes. As those who "have" continue to create opportunities for their children, the system they're augmenting continues to neglect those who "have not".
And because the system needs augmenting, those who can want to do right by their children - which shouldn't be hindered, I think. And yet it's another lens through which we assess and blame those parents who can't provide additional support.
And because the system needs augmenting, those who can want to do right by their children - which shouldn't be hindered, I think. And yet it's another lens through which we assess and blame those parents who can't provide additional support.
Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
Wow peeps-thanks for the props. You made my day.
I am the first to admit that the issues overwhelm me, and that others' vast knowledge here has, at times, made me feel like a rube. But I KNEW there were like-minded folk out there, and when I post, it tends to solidify some things for me--which is comforting, as so many of my paradigms have been shifting lately--and even more so when y'all confirm. So thank YOU.
I am the first to admit that the issues overwhelm me, and that others' vast knowledge here has, at times, made me feel like a rube. But I KNEW there were like-minded folk out there, and when I post, it tends to solidify some things for me--which is comforting, as so many of my paradigms have been shifting lately--and even more so when y'all confirm. So thank YOU.
Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 7:02 AM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
Sutherland could have had a more empathitic principal, but the LSC followed the teachers' lead to NOT step up to the next level. Too bad for the school.
Wed Apr 2, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Limiting Parents' Fundraising -- Does It Work?
My child's school has a "Friends of..." that's just getting going, and the process for spending the funds that are raised was agreed on by consensus of the Friends of members, LSC members, and principal: the Friends of will donate all monies raised to the school's unspecified internal accounts. They then become part of the school's unallocated budget, and therefore have to be voted on by the LSC. We felt that this was the most democratic process, because (unlike Friends of members) LSC members are elected by and represent all parents.
I think the funding inequities built into the public education system at all levels are just plain wrong, and I love Charlie's idea of most or all parent-raised money being equally divided between all schools... but I know it'll never happen, because in this competitive, capitalist system, people only want to raise funds that will directly benefit their own children. Unfortunately, that attitude keeps us all focused on fighting over limited resources, instead of looking at the larger issues of why resources for all schools are so limited to begin with.
I think the funding inequities built into the public education system at all levels are just plain wrong, and I love Charlie's idea of most or all parent-raised money being equally divided between all schools... but I know it'll never happen, because in this competitive, capitalist system, people only want to raise funds that will directly benefit their own children. Unfortunately, that attitude keeps us all focused on fighting over limited resources, instead of looking at the larger issues of why resources for all schools are so limited to begin with.
