fundraising equity committee report · successful fundraisers, thanks to “our gracious, generous...

LAKE OSWEGO SCHOOL DISTRICT

FUNDRAISING EQUITY COMMITTEE REPORT

REPORT TO THE SCHOOL BOARD

March 9, 2015

Fundraising Equity Committee Members

Chris Barhyte

Alistair Firmin

Amber Imes

John Lautze

Matt Levin

Dylan Pollack

Lisa Shaw Ryan

Nancy Smith

Beth Taylor

Paul Voss

Jeff Weiler

Jeff Woolard

facilitation provided by Withycombe Scotten & Associates

Table of Contents

Committee Process 1

Guiding Beliefs 2

Coordinating Council 3

Gift Acceptance 3

Meeting Minutes Appendix A

Demographic Information Appendix B

Fundraising Patterns Appendix C

Sample Policies Appendix D

1

Committee Process

Committee Charge and Membership The Fundraising Equity Committee was convened by the Lake Oswego School Board for the

purpose of reviewing the district’s current gift-acceptance policy and recommending whether it

should be retained, revised, or replaced. The 12-member, citizen committee included a parent

representative of each elementary, middle, and high school in the district.

Study Process The Fundraising Equity Committee met six times between November 20 and February 10.

During the first three meetings, they discussed the meaning of equity, studied information about

demographics and fundraising patterns, and reviewed sample gift-acceptance policies. Over the

course of the next two meetings, and in person and by email between meetings, committee

members worked to review and revise successive drafts of their recommendations. At their last

meeting, they reviewed and revised a draft report drawn from their work. (The meeting minutes

appear in Appendix A.)

Demographic Differences The committee requested demographic data because they believed it to be relevant to school

fundraising capability. They reviewed district eligibility data for the federally funded Free and

Reduced-price School Meal Program. As of November 1, 2014, approximately 9% of Lake

Oswego elementary students were income-qualified for either free or reduced-price meals. The

percentages at individual elementary schools ranged from 6.8% to 18.3%.

The committee also reviewed “Income Characteristics by School Attendance Area, 2007-2011,”

American Community Survey data compiled by the United States Census Bureau. The estimated

median “household income in the previous 12 months” districtwide was $89,026. Median

incomes for elementary attendance areas ranged from $66,754 to $117,213. The percentages of

households with incomes less than $30,000 ranged from 9.1% to 20.3%; and percentages of

households with incomes over $200,000 ranged from 6.7% to 24.6%. (Demographic information

appears in Appendix B.)

Patterns of Fundraising The committee reviewed information provided by schools about money raised by their parent

clubs over the last three years. Differences in fiscal years, recordkeeping, and fundraising

calendars make quantitative comparisons difficult, but the data give shape to the differences

among school communities.

2

The committee also requested participation rates by school over the last three years from the

Lake Oswego Schools Foundation, which they regarded as an indirect indicator of school

fundraising potential. In 2013-2014, the districtwide participation rate was 47.2%; 2,801

families (of 5,939 families total) donated $997,813. Elementary school participation rates

ranged from 28.1% to 67.2%, and the amounts donated ranged from $20,290 to $204,795.

(Fundraising information appears in Appendix C.)

Gift Policies and Practices In addition to Lake Oswego’s current policy, the committee reviewed Oregon School Boards

Association sample policies as well as policies and practices shared by the Bellevue School

District and Mercer Island School District in Washington and the Gladstone School District and

Portland Public Schools in Oregon. (District and sample policies appear in Appendix D.)

Guiding Beliefs Our entire community will benefit from ensuring a high standard of excellence at all Lake

Oswego schools.

A districtwide, standards-based assessment of school needs is the necessary first step toward defining and achieving equity among our schools, and it should be based on collaborative school self-assessments.

The standards established for assessing school needs should reflect best educational practice, in that they consider the needs of the whole child.

Consistent use of a districtwide List of Priority School Needs, based on standards-based assessment, will help the district address its equity interests by guiding both gift acceptance and district budgeting.

Schools with less fundraising capacity will benefit when other schools’ needs are met by fundraising or gifts, thus extending the reach of district funds.

Equity may not mean having the same things in the same number. Equity may be contextual or relative; it may reflect the most effective application of current resources in particular circumstances, given a school’s values and goals. However, students in all Lake Oswego schools should have equivalent educational opportunities.

The district should replace or revise its current “Public Gifts to the District” policy, most importantly to update the definition of gifts that require board approval and to incorporate gift-acceptance criteria.

District policy and practices should encourage donations toward critical needs, while continuing to maximize the overall value of gifts and donations.

The district should continue to encourage and support the efforts of the many independent organizations working hard to support our schools.

The district’s gift policy and practices should not impinge upon the autonomy of parent clubs.

3

Coordinating Council LOSD has many independent organizations working hard to support our district schools. The

Fundraising Equity Committee makes the following recommendation as a step the district can

take to address the equity interests of its schools.

Recommendation The LOSD School Board utilize Coordinating Council as a means to ensure balance in

districtwide school fundraising.

The LOSD School Board and Superintendent are to support Coordinating Council in a mission to

establish fundraising best practices for independent, school-affiliated organizations that raise

money for various schools initiatives.

Purpose The Fundraising Equity Committee makes this recommendation as Coordinating Council is

uniquely positioned to help define and meet the fundraising needs of individual schools while

ensuring the preservation of individual school cultures.

Guiding Principles Fundraising occurs with a defined purpose.

Parent Clubs maintain autonomy.

School wish/want/need list(s) will be developed by the principal, teaching teams, additional staff, and parents working together in concert.

Plan development for continuity between council years is imperative.

Fundraising best practices should be consistent and available for all parent clubs to reference and adopt.

Coordinate with the Foundation Board to make sure messages surrounding the missions of each organization are well defined.

Public Gifts to Lake Oswego School District The board is committed to maintaining the high standards of Lake Oswego schools and to the

fair and equitable provision of holistic educational opportunities within the district.

To this end, in conjunction with the principals, the superintendent shall establish a threshold

standard for educational excellence in each school. This standard should be quantifiable and

usable as a measure of each school’s access to resources. This standard shall be ratified by the

school board, published, and updated as necessary.

4

For every academic year, the principals and teachers of each school, working with the parent

councils, shall submit to the district a list of the school’s needs and priorities to achieve the

threshold standard for educational excellence. The district will add any facilities, technology,

and program needs to each schools list to create a complete needs list for each school. The

board’s assessment of each school against the standard shall be public.

No school needs approval to raise funds or make purchases from the school’s priority list.

The district shall budget annually to close any ongoing significant inequities between or within

schools as measured by the established standards.

Policy Statement No approval is required for donations to fund the schools priority needs and we should direct all

donations to the schools priority needs.

Exceptions for donations for items not on a schools priority list can be approved by either the

principle (<$X), superintendent, (<$X), or school board (>$X) in accordance with the criteria

below. This would include onetime gifts from one donor or gifts from a larger group of donors.

Criteria 1. Gifts may not fund full or part time district employees. Only the LOSD foundation may

contribute to employee funding.

2. The purpose or use is consistent with the philosophy, mission, and programs of the Lake Oswego School District.

3. For those items requiring superintendent or above approval, the superintendent will determine if the gift will create significant ongoing inequity issues within or between schools, at the elementary, junior high, and high school levels.

4. If the superintendent determines that the gift will create a significant ongoing inequity issue between or within schools the superintendent must create a written plan to fix the inequity issue which must be resolved within 3 years of the date of the gift.

5. Gifts shall not be accepted which carry unsuitable conditions or obligate the district to initial or continuing financial commitment from general funds that are out of proportion to the value of the gift as measured over a period of five years.

All gifts to the schools become the property of the district and are subject to the same controls

and regulations that govern the use of other district owned property.

APPENDIX A

Meeting Minutes

Withycombe Scotten & Associates │ Portland, Oregon

Lake Oswego School District Fundraising Equity Committee

Meeting Date: November 20, 2014

Overview: (I) Superintendent Heather Beck welcomed committee members, thanking them for volunteering their time. Facilitator Dick Withycombe asked them to introduce themselves. (I) Board Member Liz Hartman delivered the committee’s charge, and she and Heather answered questions. (III) The committee agreed upon meeting dates and identified the key elements of their study approach.

Next Meeting: December 1, 2014

I. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

Superintendent Heather Beck welcomed committee members, thanking them for volunteering their time “to help shape the future of the district.” She introduced Dick Withycombe, who will facilitate the group’s work. After he had expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to work with them, Dick asked committee members to introduce themselves. The 12person committee includes one parent representative from each school and two citizens representing the community at large.

II. CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE

Board Member Liz Hartman also thanked people for volunteering, saying that they had been chosen for their diverse perspectives and that the board is confident their recommendations will be the right ones for this community. She said their task is to review the district’s current giftacceptance policy and to recommend whether it should be retained, revised, or replaced. She emphasized that their focus should be on the whole district and on the future, rather than on the past.

Liz read the current policy, which committee members will receive before the next meeting. In response to questions, she added that this policy review pertains to gifts to individual schools as well as those to the district and to funds raised by parent groups, but not to those raised by the Lake Oswego School Foundation. Also that the current policy was adopted in 1983 and readopted in 2009 and that gifts in excess of $5,000 are not uncommon.

Heather provided a context for the committee’s work. Every school conducts successful fundraisers, thanks to “our gracious, generous community.” However, those efforts raise different amounts of money, and that leads to differences among schools; over time, those discrepancies grow. That’s a problem because the district is committed to providing equal opportunities for kids in all schools.

Liz described other aspects of the issue. If one school acquires something through fundraising (e.g., additional computers), other schools naturally want the same thing; and responding to those needs can inadvertently divert the board’s agenda away from

Fundraising Equity Committee: November 20, 2014 2

planned expenditures. In addition, many gifts come with costs (e.g., maintenance), which the district must incorporate into its budget.

Liz told committee members theirs would be public meetings; community members may attend as observers. As a board committee, they will submit their recommendations to the school board.

III. COMMITTEE STUDY PROCESS

Meeting Dates

Four committee meetings had been scheduled in December and January. Dick requested that one be changed, and the committee agreed. The revised meeting dates are December 1, December 17, January 7, and January 21. All meetings will be held in the board room from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Study Elements

Dick told the committee he prefers a collaborative approach that involves “spending the time to talk among ourselves about the nature of the issue, how each one of you feels, and what perspectives you bring to it.” He will try to create an environment that enables conversation and urged committee members to let him know if they have any concerns about how the process is going. “I won’t put my fingers on the eventual recommendation,” he said. “I will help as much as possible, but at the end of the day this must be your solution.”

Tonight’s task was to develop a conceptual approach to the task: how best to work together to meet the board’s expectations.

We need to gather information. What worked and didn’t work in other school districts? What are the equity differences across schools over time? There are cycles, so we need to look over the long term.*

It will be a challenge gathering some of that data; recordkeeping varies at the parent club level.

There are also boosters, clubs for the different sports and activities. There are different categories of parent groups.

If there’s an equity problem, we should consider what we can do to raise the level at all schools, rather than go for the lowest common denominator. If there’s something wrong, let’s work on it.

It’s about the three legs of the stool: foundation giving, parent club fundraising, and volunteer time. If one leg takes too much, there’s less for

* The comments of committee members appear in italic print, those of the facilitator and of identified presenters in regular print. Unless enclosed in quotation marks, comments have been edited for clarity and brevity.


the others. It’s all part of the same school district. We can’t leave the foundation off the table.

We have to talk about things like turf fields to get to talking about the policy, and we all know we need to talk about recent auctions. I also want to raise the bar everywhere, but it’s difficult to talk about equity because it’s not applestoapples. We need to have a conversation about what’s being given, how the community feels about that, and how kids are affected.

We should talk about what equity across schools means, or should mean. Before we can develop a policy, we need to talk about philosophy.

Dick said he understands that there have been concerns, sometimes infused with strong feelings, and that people hold different opinions about what ought to be done. “Left to simmer,” he said, “those concerns will cause hard feelings within a community. The challenge for this committee is to find a common ground that will enable the district and community to move beyond the conflicts of the past.”

Summarizing the committee’s conversation, Dick listed these study elements:

establishing a set of guiding principles;

developing a shared definition of equity;

reviewing Lake Oswego’s current policies and practices and their impacts;

reviewing the policies and practices of other school districts;

reviewing historical patterns of giving across Lake Oswego’s schools; and

talking carefully about the implications of our findings, so we can find a pathway to the future.

Questions and Discussion

Noting that Heather and Liz will be present only at this first meeting, Dick asked committee members if they had additional questions for them.

Are we looking for a policy that addresses everything or that establishes the spirit of the issue? Are there highimpact areas that cause the problems? Heather: Not detailed regulations, but advice from the community to help us ensure that every child has equitable access to a positive experience at school. Things can’t be exactly equal, the question is: when does the discrepancy become greater than what our community wants? We’re not looking for something in the weeds, but for something more global that helps us make good decisions. Liz: Some gifts come with costs, such as maintenance or staffing, as well as benefits, like a new program. And then, if not everyone has access to that benefit, is that what we want?

Can you give us an example? Liz: A few years ago, one elementary school wanted to give every student an iPad, which wasn’t where the district was


going. We didn’t have the staff to support iPads; but they were accepted, and now we must keep the iPads and the staff. Then the next school says that school is getting better test results, so all schools should have iPads for everyone. And now, the board must change the budget.

Is there a law that applies to this policy area, or are we free to decide what we think is fair? Heather: There is no law. Liz: The committee will make recommendations, the board will decide.

From the donor’s perspective, the question is: where’s the money going? In my children’s school, there’s a lot of parent involvement, but not a lot of dollars. In another school, it could be the opposite. We’re not going to say we need to bring schools level before we start: we are where are. There should be simplicity and clarity, so people who give money know where it’s going. Most people think that all the money from a fundraiser at their school goes to their school and that, if they give to the foundation, the district decides where the money goes.

A significant number of people are confused about gifts to schools and gifts to the foundation.

It’s the hope that, because of this committee, some of this is clearer and there’s an end to the talk about north and south. As a parent community, we can help to improve communication and get better information out there.

When we’re gathering information, should we look at whether the money is going to the highest priorities? Do principals make up their wish lists based on district priorities? If so, the district’s budget wouldn't be adversely affected. Liz: That’s part of the problem. It’s also about what the state pays for and what some parents can pay for. One example is playgrounds. We have parent groups funding things that should be built to a district standard and paid for with state dollars. Private funding means having something different in every school.

We need a baseline understanding of how the system works now.

And some understanding of the demographics of our community and of individual schools.

The fundraising inequity (we’re acknowledging it exists): is it affecting the base education? Heather: “The base education? The base is not affected; everybody’s going to get the same thing at all the schools. If you’re putting in additional computer labs, for example, right now one of the things we’ve discovered is that we don’t have enough wireless access points in our schools. So if one school runs out and buys enough oneonone devices, then we’re going to prioritize to put in the wireless access points in that school so those machines can be used as opposed to everybody being frustrated because they can’t use those machines. That means somebody


else is sitting on hold. So does it start to impact the base? Yes, the base is actually planned to be equal, as the base is originally prioritized.”

But there is an inequity in educational tools? Heather: “There does become that inequity at that point.”

It’s not froufrou stuff, like you get an extra party; it’s real stuff, things that expand education. “Right. It becomes tricky on how you plan to meet all those needs, knowing that it has to unfold in the process; but yes, the base is the same in every school.”

So it makes budgeting more difficult? Heather: “It make prioritizing more difficult.”

Is your question around, there are some things that affect base education equity and some that don’t? If some of this funding around technology starts to exacerbate that base inequity, that’s a challenge, but if it doesn’t…

It could still be a problem. I would consider it more of a problem if affects base education, if it affects technology. The kids have to have it, if they’re going to be successful.


Lake Oswego School District

Fundraising Equity Committee Meeting Date: December 1, 2014

Overview: (I) Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed committee members; the committee greeted a new member and reviewed the minutes of the last meeting. (II) The committee discussed the meaning and implications of equity. (III) They formulated an information request for the superintendent.

Next Meeting: December 17, 2014

I. WELCOME, INTRODUCTIONS, MINUTES

Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed committee members, who greeted a member attending for the first time by introducing themselves. The committee reviewed the minutes of the November 20 meeting, agreeing on one change; the revised minutes will be posted on the district website.

II. THE MEANING AND IMPLICATIONS OF EQUITY

Saying he wanted to begin developing a shared, operational definition of equity, Dick asked: what does equity mean to each of you, in this context?

For me, equity means that every school at every level (elementary, junior high school, high school) should have equal access to funding for projects that are not funded by either the school district or the foundation. By equal, I mean identical, perhaps per student.*

I’ve been involved in fundraising for many years; I’ve worked with the foundation to try to bring things to equal. But as the person asking for money, I can tell you there are people who won’t give unless it goes to something they believe in. So where is the balance? I agree with you, but realistically we won’t get the donations. We shouldn’t have parents donating money to landscape schools; that should be state money. But this is the position we’re in. I love Oregon, but it’s pathetic how we fund our schools.

Each school is different: different physical plant, administrators, and teachers. As a small district, we’re in a unique position to customize each school to be its most efficient. The other junior high has space for several computer labs. We don’t have space for labs, so we fundraised for carts and WiFi hotspots. That didn’t make our technology significantly greater; it just solved a physical plant problem. We now have similar technology. We just had a very successful auction, specific to what was lacking in our school,

* The comments of committee members appear in italic print, those of the facilitator in regular print. Unless enclosed in quotation marks, comments have been edited for brevity and clarity.

Fundraising Equity Committee: December 1, 2014 2

which brought our school to the base level. So when I think about what’s equitable, I think about whether the baseline is where it needs to be. Are schools addressing their individual needs? I would have difficulty with a policy that says, across the board, it’s one pot of money. I feel protective of the individual school’s ability to raise money for its needs. Parents have the option of giving to the foundation, but they can also give to their child’s school; I want to make sure we have the ability to cater to that.

I agree with this definition, in that: if there are significant differences between schools once we’ve established a baseline, we have to do something to address that discrepancy. But in this example, what if the school with the labs raised money to go above and beyond? Would that be different?

For me, there needs to be “even spend,” not just among parent groups, but also from the school district. Let’s assume the district is spending its money correctly. If that’s true, how did we get here? How did it come to be that parents at one school felt they had to raise money to bring their school up to a level? Did someone donate something that created an inequity? I would like to see the district say it’s dollars for dollars, the same amount per student, and tell the foundation it must do the same. But on the private side, the parent group side, you tell donors 50 percent will go to your own school and the rest will be shared. If someone says, “In that case I’ll give nothing,” I’m okay with that because that person isn’t donating for the right reasons.

The foundation has created a brand everybody understands. People move here, not for the district, but for individual schools. The problem with our district right now is that there’s no brand. I agree with your idea; if forced to choose a policy right now, I’d take this one. But to capture the person who wants to give only to one school, the district must improve the way it’s viewed. It needs to work harder on its brand, which will benefit the individual schools.

In the 20 years I’ve had kids in district schools, it has evolved from parent clubs funding field trips to funding things the school district used to pay for, like facilities, equipment, and landscaping. I think it’s important to keep that piece of motivated principals, teachers, and parents who know what’s going on in their schools. You don’t want to totally remove that piece because those creative ideas move on to other schools. The data are important; it isn’t clear from school websites how to compare things like auctions. School enrollments differ; the auctions may not have taken place in the same year or even as often. So it’s hard to know about equity. But for me, the huge gifts are in a different category.


What if (just to get things moving, subject to looking at the data) we say: the equity problem is not with the parent clubs, it’s with the very large gifts; over time, the differences between parent groups are not a significant enough equity issue to worry about. Now we’re talking about the bigger donations, outside the parent groups.

But that’s not true. I remember trying for two years to raise $15,000 for a slide at our old school, without success — and going to the another school’s auction where someone gave a sixfigure donation for a new playground. These are just anecdotes, but that’s all we have because we don’t have data. We don’t have the numbers, but I’m confident they correlate with the Free and Reduced Lunch numbers, which range from 4.5 percent to 18.3 percent. You know those parent clubs are raising different amounts of money and that it’s not about effort or efficiency.

I agree that, from a philosophical perspective, equity is a fair distribution. That’s how I do it in my house: the kids don’t always get the same things, but it’s fair and there are no resentments. From a logistics standpoint, there are a lot of challenges; but from a values perspective, it’s about fairness. I asked my 12yearold son what fair means to him, and he said: it’s when everyone has the same thing or everyone is happy with what they have. It won’t always be the exact same.

It’s all relative. Less may be acceptable at one school, while people at another school are expecting even more. I think that’s why it’s easier to solve the question of the bigger gifts.

I think equity would be fantastic if we could do it. At our school, we need about $370 per family to keep our budget whole. Do we get everyone to do $370? Absolutely not: there are approximately 50 families who paid for our budget, and those are the major gifts. So the question is, would they participate at a higher level or would they say, “The allin is $370, we’ll just pay that.” And then we wouldn't get them at the auction to make up for the people who can’t contribute at the baseline level. People tell us they’re sick of us always asking for money, but when you ask which programs to take away they say, “Oh, don’t do that!” That’s the operational challenge of creating equity.

I agree it’s a really difficult problem, but to me equity is having a certain standard we want all schools to achieve: a standard for each grade level and a plan to get all schools there. If fundraising gets some schools there sooner, great — because then the district can use its money to get other schools there too. Equity means moving every school toward a districtwide standard. You can’t wait until your kids are at a school; they move from elementary to junior high to high school, and those schools have to be ready when they get there.


I think that’s a good definition of equity: the district establishes a standard it’s meeting or trying to meet at all schools. For me, that would apply only to the academic program.

I liked the idea raised at the last meeting, which was that we should try to raise the level of fundraising at all schools, rather than risk discouraging donations at some schools.

I don’t think that would work as well as using district funds to equalize schools. Some schools don’t have the same fundraising potential.

But if there’s a baseline, and other schools raised money to get themselves there; there would be more money for those schools.

The high school stadiums are an example of how that could work. A donation meant the school district had to fund one field rather than two. We need to spend money on afterschool activities; a very large percentage of our students participate in them, and parents really support that.

I like the first definition of equity, but it’s dangerous to make judgment calls about people who have pride in what their children are involved in and want to fund it — because they will take their money someplace else. The differences in median income are not large. The median is a good measure because it means half the household incomes are above that point, half below; it isn’t skewed by a few really high or low numbers. I would like to see foundation participation rates by school because that’s the one mechanism we have for raising funds districtwide. The challenge is the big gifts — how to get more big gifts. There are plenty of potential big donors. How do we get them to see themselves as a districtwide PTO?

Equity to me is fair, which isn’t always equal. For our discussion, the question is: at what point does unequal become unfair? I think it’s a dollar amount. The lowhanging fruit is the $1 million gift that throws an elementary school off, or maybe it’s a $500,000 gift. The current policy is $5,000 and above, back to 1983. It’s a judgment call. When is the money so big it’s affecting kids’ access?

No one can tell a PTO what gifts it can receive. Where the district comes in is when the school wants to buy an asset the district has to approve. Is that the point we’re talking about?

There’s also the issue of the board having to make adjustments after the budget is set. At what point does a gift to one school throw off the equity across schools, so the board has to allocate money that could have been used for something else to try to balance it?

Especially if it’s a large adjustment and something has to be put off at another school. Something those parents wanted.


It comes down to how schools are working with the district. Are you working off the plan, or are you doing something completely sideways?

The fundraising at the junior high was described as bringing one school up to the level of the other, in different circumstances. She was talking about equivalence: not the same, but equivalent.

I think we can all agree that fair is not always the same, but is equivalent.

I want to separate the large gifts and the parent group fundraising. Thinking about large gifts, does it matter what I donate money for? If I want to build a new field the whole city can use, would we really refuse it, reduce access for everyone, because it’s not duplicated somewhere else? But if I want to give $1 million to an elementary school to double the number of teachers, that’s different because I am creating an inequity.

The distinction between large gifts and parent groups seems purposeful and logical. There does appear to be a need for a policy revision for large gifts, if only to update the amount. With respect to parent groups, I heard that equity is best imagined and achieved when the district first establishes an educational standard at each grade level that serves as the framework for applying foundation funding and donations to schools. The committee may choose to recommend that the district develop that standard, that framework, as a way to move toward equivalency across schools.

I worry about the balance in the education we want to provide to our kids. I think if we had standards, we would see deficits at so many of our schools that we would encourage people not to donate to things like upgrading fields until we can fix a handful of other problems. At the same time, I think the standard should be holistic. We all want our kids to be busy after school; that’s something we all value.

Maybe the wording is not a dollar amount, but a percentage difference — or that the district can’t make it equitable with its funding.

If you give money to a Portland school, some of it goes into a shared pot; and some people are moving their kids to private schools. Only 30 percent of the people in Lake Oswego have kids in school, and we need every enrollment dollar we can get. We need to find the balance point, because we don’t want to lose the big gifts. I think Bellevue did an interesting thing to keep things equal.

We haven’t yet spent time looking at Lake Oswego’s existing policies. What do we see there, in light of this conversation?

The current policies don’t address equity.

I agree, but I don’t think the policy needs to. I’m still wondering what the real problem is; I want to make sure we solve the right problem.


I don’t think we know yet what direction we’re heading. I hear three philosophies: all schools get the same; all schools get a (yet to be defined) threshold and can keep anything they raise beyond that; and all schools keep all the money they raise.

In the second option, if the discrepancy got beyond a certain level some of the funds raised would be shared with other schools.

I still see this as a fundraising problem. We need to go in and see where it’s successful, where it’s not, what’s working, what’s not. We have schools here with the same median income raising different amounts of money. We’re not looking at the root problem.

We can’t say that fundraising efforts at one school are consistently worse than those at other schools. Fundraising is correlated with neighborhood income. The one thing we know about a school is the Free and Reduced Lunch rate. The median income data don’t account for people who do not have children at that school.

We need to see the data, to be sure about the nature of the problem, before we change the policy. If you lose donor momentum, it takes a long time to get it going again.

III. INFORMATION NEEDS

The committee discussed information needs, agreeing to ask the superintendent to request on their behalf:

from each school, the amount of money raised by the parent club over at least the last three years (more if possible) and the number and amounts of gifts that fell under the current policy (i.e., exceeded $5,000); and

from the foundation, participation by school over at least the last three years (more if possible) and (if possible) the amount of money contributed by school.

Dick will communicate the committee’s request to the superintendent, asking that the information be provided before the next committee if possible.

Dick told the committee the district has established an email account where community members can submit comments: [email protected]. The district’s communications department with provide those comments to all committee members.



Meeting Date: December 17, 2014

Overview: (I) Facilitator Dick Withycombe opened the meeting; the committee approved the December 1 minutes. (2) The committee discussed the requested fundraising data and assigned two ad hoc committees to draft recommendations. (3) The committee discussed issues related to large donations.

Next Meeting: January 7, 2015

I. WELCOME

Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed people and provided supplemental information about the gift policy and procedures shared by the Mercer Island School District. The committee approved the December 1 minutes as submitted.

II. DISCUSSION: PATTERNS OF FUNDRAISING AND GIFTS

The committee discussed the fundraising information the superintendent collected at their request:

from each school, the amount of money raised by the parent club over the last three years and the number and amounts of gifts that fell under the current policy (i.e., exceeded $5,000); and

from the foundation, participation by school over the last three years and the amount of money contributed by school.

Discussion

This information is interesting, worth reviewing, but there are limitations to its usefulness. It’s presented differently by each school and lacks context. We need to bear in mind that we don’t have a picture of where a school was, what its needs were.*

What struck me is that we have two neighboring elementary schools that will never raise the same amount of money because they have very different demographics. For me, that encapsulates the problem we’re dealing with. Is that difference okay, or does it lead in the long term to problems for the district? Do we need to do something about balance? Are we okay with this if it leads to very different kinds of education in those schools?

Every parent club is an independent organization. You can’t take money from one to give to another. The district can’t tell them what to do with the

* The comments of committee members appear in italic print, those of the facilitator in regular print. Unless enclosed in quotation marks, comments have been edited for brevity and clarity.


money; they can just accept it or not, and obviously we want to accept every dollar. I think we need to update the policy so gifts are in line with district priorities; and maybe coordinating council should help all schools come up with a more standard way of spending money.

In this discussion as in earlier ones, it’s clear that all of you believe that all schools should continue to raise as much money as possible and that district policy should not, intentionally or inadvertently, diminish gift giving.

How would you equalize schools?

If a school is unable to raise sufficient funds for technology or some other bigticket item, the district should use its funds to address those needs.

So would the policy be that, if a school is 15 percent less than another school, it gets backfilled?

We have an elected board that has to make priority decisions on a slew of issues and rank where the highest need is. We could recommend that half of one percent of the annual budget goes into an equity fund, and they have the discretion to look back over two or three years of fundraising. Our school has had $450,000 more to spend over a threeyear period. I don’t think we can allow that to continue if we care about equity. Maybe not every year, but there may be a year when the board says: it’s time to balance the iPad carts, or it may be the fields. I don’t think the board wants us to get down to specific projects or PTA dollars. What they want to know from us is: when is the imbalance so big that the community has an interest in that and wants the board to act to address it?

We started at the first meeting with the understanding that the base education hasn’t been affected yet, but that it could be if we continue along this path. So we have to agree that this is about going forward. The district knows what the buys have been and where resources are needed.

What about nonacademic gifts — playgrounds for example?

I would be cautious of excluding things, such as playgrounds and fields; many people would argue that they are related to the education program and that the nature of those facilities has implications for students.

We got to this place because the district said it didn’t have the money to correct playground issues and had to target educationoutcome things first. So the parent groups offered to take care of that. The flexibility of that is still important because, why take away from the education program?

The needs are different at elementary, junior high school, and high school. I would want schools to have the flexibility to identify their needs. The district should be looking at needs related to educational standards. They could set


aside a certain percentage for equity, which could change from year to year depending on need, and let the parent groups work on other things.

It has been suggested that there are obvious, in some cases extreme, differences between schools in the threeyear patterns of fundraising and gift giving and that extreme differences could have implications for our concern about equity. If that’s true, what could be done to correct that situation? It has been suggested that, like the Bellevue and Mercer Island school districts, Lake Oswego should establish a setaside to create an equity fund. This would be governed by the board, as other line items are, and a trigger would be established for determining those allocations.

The trigger should be based on needs, not on gifts.

But need doesn’t capture the problem. Many of the things our parent group spends money on are not needs, like paying for field trips so parents don’t have to.

It has to be a dollar amount, because there will always be different needs in different places. If one school raised $147,000 and another $89,000, the size of that difference would cause the district to bring the second school, not up to the same amount, but to within five percent.

But then you would have parent groups working, in effect, to provide funds for other schools. And maybe the district wouldn't have the money.

For 20 years, ours has been the smallest school, with the fewest parents, the highest percentage of Free and Reduced Meals, the lowest median income. For 20 years. If you want to talk about inequity, that’s inequity. I felt bad when I looked at foundation participation by school, but not really: because we need every single dollar for our school. I felt bad about it, but kind of not, especially when I saw these parentgroup numbers. And to add insult to injury, there are people in this community who ridicule and belittle our school community for not being able to keep up. It’s crazy, and it is very, very hurtful; and it does not make people in our parent community want to participate in larger community issues. Why would they? People did the best they could with the resources they had. We have worked really hard over the last two years to strengthen our parent group, but it will take us a long time to catch up. Even with a larger enrollment and a higher median income, it will take a long time.

Do you see a district role in helping your school become more effective at fundraising, maybe using some funds to help you create a more successful auction?

Some of that has already been done through our participation in coordinating council, which is a fantastic group of parents who have provided resources and support. But we are behind, and it will take time for us to catch up.


It’s demographics, the way the lines are drawn. They’re doing a great job, given their constraints; but there will always be different capacities to raise money. That’s true across all the schools. It comes down to whether we help this school. I believe that would be good for the district in the long run. I care about preserving this city and this school district, and all schools being at a certain level is part of that.

Coordinating council is the place to address this. I understand working hard, trying to get people involved; that happens in all parent groups to a greater or lesser extent. The council is the place to say: what does the school need, what do its teachers need to enhance the learning environment?

People in my community want education, and technology is part of that. We want our kids to have the same things kids in the other schools have. If it’s a public school; the experience should be the same. The community is building, it will be fine. But you don’t overcome a 20year deficit in two years.

Coordinating council can help, but it’s made up of very busy people, who come and go every year. To be more efficient, it needs continuity. The district should set up a centralized fundraising function, have a staff member who helps all of the schools, even if coordinating fundraising is a small part of their job.

The issue is: what is the district standard, how does each school look in relationship to that standard, and, where there are gaps that translate into needs, how do those needs get corrected. It’s difficult to ask the leaders of a school to assess how it differs from other schools. They’re unaware; the comparison has to come from another source. There is an overarching need for evaluation and judgment.

It sounds like we have broad agreement around two things. One is that there are differences, at least at the elementary level, and there should be some mechanism for leveling out those differences, which would be good for all of us collectively, as well as for the schools helped. Second, we seem to be leaving money on the table because parent groups are reinventing the wheel, and there should be some way to avoid that. If we have agreement on those two things, we can start debating the best way to address them.

We need a list from the district about how things are actually different. When I reread the policy, I struggled to know what the problem is, because it says that any gift over $5,000 has to be approved by the superintendent; so they should have list of all gifts over $5,000 and what that money’s going for. If a gift doesn’t take the school and the district in the right direction, don’t accept it.


The policy doesn’t mean that every $5,000 gift has to have district approval, only if the gift is for a capital improvement; and that doesn’t happen very often. Most of the money parent groups raise, the district doesn’t touch it.

Anything that comes into schools has to be approved by principals, and we can assume they’re acting on behalf of the school district.

The district allows principals as much flex and control as possible, which is appropriate because they know what the school needs. When we bought Chromebooks, the district knew about it because they came and put little stickers on them. But we didn’t ask for approval. That’s not how it works. The parent group takes in the money and spends it.

The core of the problem the board identified is that schools get gifts that throw off the district plan. The example was having to redirect money for WiFi because one school acquired a lot of devices.

Principals should have leeway, but they should follow the plan formulated by the district. Where is the accounting by the district? If we’re trying to determine whether there are differences between schools, shouldn’t we have that?

I think the superintendent is beginning to develop that kind of assessment; and Joe Morelock is working to evaluate technology across the schools.

But do we really need a list to make a recommendation about policy?

We may recommend that there be such a list, because the district should know how schools compare, where they’re going, what they need. We may wish we had that list now, but we don’t need to know the specific items.

Policy is broad. We leave our elected officials to interpret it as they see fit, using their good judgment, without micromanaging them. The point of policy is that it’s broad, based on values and the direction you want to go.

I’ve heard four things that may have potential recommendations embedded in them.

o An interest in developing a consistent, overarching framework for the coordinating council for the purposes of helping to improve fundraising and helping to focus on the district’s equity interest

o An interest in district support for school fundraising, which may involve a central administrative assignment

o An interest in developing a district equity fund intended to offset significant differences in levels of funding support and to address needs

o An interest in a comprehensive, schoolbyschool assessment of significant differences between schools in relationship to the district’s mission and education program standards


These themes may be combined, and they obviously need further work. But if you agree we’ve reached a point where we can refine these ideas toward the development of recommendations, we have done good work.

I like the idea of helping schools raise money more effectively, because we can’t fix the problem of demographics.

We talked last time about some needs being relative. Helping schools raise funds allows them to identify their own needs and raise funds to address them.

That’s positive because it leaves room for individuality. Each school has its own needs. I don’t think we should tell the board that every school needs 132 Chromebooks, that a school with 100 should get 32 more.

If we agree on that, it means that we leave all of the PTOs alone, to identify needs relative to their schools.

Except that, if a PTO can’t meet the school’s needs, the district will make it up.

I think we could combine the first two, empower the coordinating council to communicate and share resources (within their ability, because the district can't direct parent clubs). It’s important because there is no district person to do this, and we shouldn't recommend adding administrator time.

Ad Hoc Committee Assignments

At the conclusion of their discussion, the committee assigned two ad hoc committees the task of drafting, for review on January 7, recommendations that reflect tonight’s conversation in two areas.

The role of the coordinating council, including ways to help parent clubs align fundraising with school and district priorities as well as ways to help increase fundraising effectiveness at all schools

The need for the district to conduct periodic, comprehensive, districtwide assessments of significant differences between schools that are related to its mission and its education program standards

III. DISCUSSION: EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS AND LARGE GIFTS

The committee discussed the various considerations related to large donations.

At some point, if the district has done the annual assessment across schools and has a list, the problem corrects itself because the district would fill those gaps. If a school needs computers and the parents buy them, the district would fund something else; those computers would come off the list. School fundraising would shift the list. So would you need an equity fund, if the


equity assessment is used to redirect district spending? Aren’t they trying to fill those equity gaps to the best of their ability now?

The answer is no, because they don’t have the prioritized list; but it could work that way. If the numberone item on the list is new computers at school A, and that gets funded by the PTO; then the next thing on the list, the next school, gets the money. It’s possible that one school has the top five needs, and over time those would be met naturally.

I believe in the natural fillin, because we want to achieve a standard of excellence and to do well on tests, and I see how that could happen. But what about the big gifts? They may not be related to education priorities.

The reason we need the priority list is so that, if someone comes with a big gift, the district can use it to encourage them to fund the next big need on the list.

But these people are almost always interested only in a particular project at a particular school. The way to manage large gifts is to say that a certain percentage goes to the equity fund.

When people have come with large gifts, did anyone sit down with them and look at the list and tell them the district has a desperate need elsewhere? They may say no, but — as a policy recommendation — someone should make the attempt.

If someone offers a principal $100,000 or $500,000, it would take a lot of fundraising expertise to redirect those funds; and people who can write those kinds of checks are likely to be really tied to the projects they have in mind. Would we really say no?

If one school receives a large gift to their athletics program, then the next money the district has to spend on athletics at that grade level would go to another school.

But the district should still be following its priorities.

If the highest priority is fixing the roof at one school because it impacts the educational environment and someone comes in with a large check for something else, does the board say no if they can’t redirect that gift? Because there is that list too, the facilities list.

It seems there is common ground: if someone comes with a large gift, someone should try to redirect them.

We’re judging people to say that they wouldn't change their minds if they were made aware of the district’s priorities.

There seems to be an assumption that, in cases of large donations, the process begins with the principal. Is that right?


It should be the superintendent.

Think of the good will if the superintendent brought a big donor together with the principals of both schools at a grade level to talk about priority needs. If he still wants to go with a single school, he can. But at some point, the district may have to say that a gift will put things so out of balance that it wouldn't feel like one district any more — and say no.

I think one of the things the board needs from our committee is some coverage for what to do in that situation, some guidelines that would support that decision.

That’s why I like this line in the Mercer Island administrative procedure about the criteria gifts must meet: “the gift will create no significant ongoing inequity of programs available for students within or between schools.” If that’s in the policy, that’s what they will do.

I don’t think that provides enough specific guidance.

I would go as far as saying, whatever the size of the gift, a certain percentage goes into the equity fund, and those funds are applied to the priority list.

Would it apply to all gifts or only to gifts over a certain amount?

Would that apply only to individual donors? You can’t compel the parent groups to do that.

We already said we would leave parent groups alone. If a PTO wants to fundraise to replace an athletic facility, for example, they can do that.

But what if one donor gave 80 percent of money? That’s a workaround.

I would say that a certain percentage of the money a school raises goes to the equity fund because, as a district, we value supporting all schools equitably.

The district could set a threshold (say, $10,000) for individual gifts, whether they go through a PTO or through the district. However it arrives, if it’s over the threshold some of it is shared. So you need to set the threshold high enough that the majority of the gifts are not affected.

Some PTOs have policies stating that their money can go only to their own schools, that they cannot put money into a shared pot.

The committee will continue this discussion at their next meeting, focusing on the definition of a large donation and the process for accepting it.



Meeting Date: January 7, 2015

Overview: (I) Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed committee members and reviewed their tasks. (II) The committee reviewed an ad hoc committee’s draft recommendation about the role of Coordinating Council; they will consider a revised recommendation at their next meeting. (III) They reviewed a second ad hoc committee draft, about an assessment of school needs; this group will also bring back a revision.

Attendance: Chris Barhyte, Alistair Firmin, Amber Imes, John Lautze, Matt Levin, Dylan Pollack, Lisa Shaw Ryan, Nancy Smith, Beth Taylor, Paul Voss, Jeff Weiler, Jeff Woolard

Next Meeting: January 21, 2015

I. WELCOME AND OVERVIEW

Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed committee members and reviewed their tasks: to determine whether the district’s current policy should be retained, revised, or replaced and to decide whether to recommend other steps the district could take to address its equity interests. The draft recommendations presented for review tonight fall within the latter category. On January 21, the committee will return to their discussion about large gifts, which are the focus of the current policy. That is the last scheduled meeting. Dick said the committee may choose to add a meeting if they feel it is necessary, but he is inclined to try to finish the task January 21.

II. ROLE OF THE COORDINATING COUNCIL

At the December 17 meeting, four committee members volunteered to draft a recommendation about “the role of the Coordinating Council, including ways to help parent clubs align fundraising with school and district priorities as well as ways to help increase fundraising effectiveness at all schools.”

Tonight the committee reviewed their draft, which appears below. The ad hoc committee will revise their draft recommendation based on the committee’s input and distribute the revision in advance of the January 21 meeting.

Recommendation The LOSD School Board utilize Coordinating Council as one means to ensure equity.

Charge Coordinating Council to adopt a mission statement which includes collaboration between parent clubs with regards to fundraising and develop a plan to improve continuity between council years.

Guiding Principles Mission statement and objective development is at the discretion of Coordinating Council and may address best practices for items such as: budget, school need/want list development, communication outlets, event management, and community building tools.

Fundraising Equity Committee: January 7, 2015 2

Defined best practice guidelines, available for all parent clubs to reference, streamline core information across all clubs and demonstrate transparency. Coordinating Council should schedule planned communication with the Foundation Board to make sure messages surrounding the missions of each organization are well defined.

Though Coordinating Council is not charged with ensuring equity between schools, they are charged with ensuring best practices are easily adopted and relatively consistent from one year to the next.

Notes The Fundraising Equity Committee makes this recommendation because Coordination Council is uniquely positioned to support each school to define their fundraising needs and preserve individual school cultures.

We acknowledge the key role parent clubs play at each school. PTO/PTA/ Parent Organizations should maintain autonomy while implementing best practices. Fundraising should occur with a defined purpose in concert with principal and teaching teams, and support staff.

Members of the ad hoc committee provided the following clarifications in their introduction and in response to committee questions and comments.

We wanted to keep this simple and still include all of the elements we thought were important; after reading the minutes of the last meeting, we may want to add something about alignment with district goals.*

The essence is that Coordinating Council would serve as a clearinghouse, keeping information flowing among parent groups and also with the foundation (with the understanding that the parent clubs and the foundation do two separate things). Coordinating Council is a tool the board can use to help ensure balance and equity because it already exists and has representation from every school.

At the elementary and middle school levels, parent clubs would continue to do their fundraising, and Coordinating Council would help them to be more purposeful and successful.

It would enable the district to checkoff some of the needs on its priority list by allowing schools to fulfill some of them.

We believe Coordinating Council will be receptive to this idea, because it will help parent clubs as well as the district; and we think we can get district staff support for developing continuity. Several of us are motivated to help make this work within the council, and there are people who would volunteer to help create some continuity. These pieces will fall into place.

* The comments of committee members appear in italic print, those of the facilitator in regular print; unless enclosed in quotation marks, comments have been edited for brevity and clarity.


District staff support would be helpful, but we also want to keep this within the purview of the Coordinating Council.

Discussion

This appears to be more about support; it can’t be about directing the parent clubs.

Is there anything more concrete and practical we can do to help Coordinating Council implement this, such as connecting them with district resources or assigning a centraloffice staff liaison?

It may be helpful if the superintendent encouraged principals to work with their parent clubs to help ensure continuity and to plan collaboratively to meet school needs.

We need to specifically call out district support for parent club continuity.

We need to include the foundation, make that connection.

Look at the original purpose for Coordinating Council and add some of that language. What was the board trying to do when they created it?

Can we recommend that officers’ terms be more than one year?

We should let that develop within Coordinating Council as part of identifying best practices, which might include longer terms or outgoing presidents attending Coordinating Council meetings.

It is possible to weave into this a certain level of accountability, and that may address these concerns.

The recommendation suggests Coordinating Council can be used as one means of ensuring equity, and I think I understand that; but is it possible to make that more clear? A board member might ask: how would that work?

Would it be advisable to suggest a channel of communication from Coordinating Council to the board, so they function something like an advisory group? So the district knows what support Coordinating Council needs to fulfill its charter?

III. ASSESSMENT OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SCHOOLS

A second, fourmember ad hoc committee drafted a recommendation about “the need for the district to conduct periodic, comprehensive, districtwide assessments of significant differences between schools that are related to its mission and its education program standards.”

The committee reviewed the draft below; this ad hoc committee will also distribute a revision in advance of the January 21 meeting.


Set the standard for each school level (high school, junior high, and elementary school) and evaluate how each school compares to that standard and identify specific gaps. School board will use identified gaps to generate a list of the top needs of the district. Donations will be used for the district’s top priorities. The priorities and standards will be refreshed annually. Standards will include everything needed [to] complete their school’s charter.

Exceptions can be approved by the School Board and Superintendent for donors requesting to fund for a specific purpose.

For school specific fundraising, programs can fund up to each specific level (level TBD) for each school, after funding level is set X% of each dollar is set aside for an equity fund.

Members of the ad hoc committee provided the following clarifications in their introduction and in response to committee questions and comments.

This is just the policy; this statement doesn’t include the rationale we discussed.

The idea is that the district would set a standard, which specifies what every school should have, and compare each school to that standard to identify the gaps. The resulting list of gaps would become the district’s priority list. When people come in with donations, they would be asked to fill in from the top down, from the greatest need down. The standards and priorities would be refreshed annually.

There could be an exception for donors who aren’t interested in working from the list, but are interested in providing value someplace else.

This is primarily about large donations; the exception piece applies to large donations, not to parent groups.

It is also about the need for a districtwide assessment, without trying to address how that assessment gets done.

Instead of “school specific,” this should say “school level.” At the school level, the district would set a certain level (we put TBD because we don’t know what that number should be). Each school fundraises, but a portion of the funds over that threshold would be allocated to an equity fund. We didn’t look at specific numbers, but say the level was set at $100,000 and a school raised $125,000. A portion of that $25,000 difference would go to an equity fund to help schools that are falling behind.

We don’t believe there would be a problem with parent club charters, because the money paid into the equity fund would not necessarily go to another school. It may come back; it would depend on the priority list.


Gaps are identified in relationship to the standard, not in relationship to other schools; and the standard has to include everything a school needs to complete its charter, which might include technology or playgrounds or other things people have talked about as being related to the education program.

The parent groups would still be independent, free to raise whatever they can for whatever they want. The difference would be that, if they raise more than a certain amount, some portion of the money over that threshold would go to an equity fund to help schools that are falling behind, even with the efforts of Coordinating Council.

We meant for the schoollevel funding provision to apply — in aggregate — to all school fundraising, including booster clubs.

Discussion

I suggest moving the sentence that begins “Donations will be used…” to the second paragraph.

The parent club charters preclude their spending cash for anything but their own schools.

The district doesn’t currently have anything like a districtwide assessment; and without that, there can’t be an equity fund. The recommendation has to be: this must be done.

What is the standard? What the bestequipped school has? What the average school has? What an individual school wants to have?

There are multiple recommendations embedded in this proposal. One is that the district establish a standard that is applied to each school, by grade level, from which the district can identify where there are significant differences, so it can determine gaps, priorities, and funding allocations.

Rather than talk about gaps, we should talk about what we expect each school to have — use more positive language and emphasize Lake Oswego’s standard of excellence.

I want to make sure the language reflects our prior discussion about school culture and the idea that schools may have different ways of meeting the standard. I wouldn't like to see this result in needing to provide the same numbers of the same things to all schools.

The problem is that parent clubs don’t always talk to the principals; they identify the gaps independently and may or may not identify the most important needs, or even genuine needs. That’s why there has to be a standard.


How about this: we say the district must set a standard and work toward allocating resources so that all schools meet the standard? That removes the negative language about gaps.

We need to know about the gaps; otherwise we can’t work toward equity.

There may be different ways of achieving the district standard, so we need to allow for some judgment on the part of the people doing the assessment.

For example, the standard should be that students have access to the internet, not that the school has laptop carts or that it has a computer lab. If the parents at a particular school that meets the standard in one way choose to raise funds to go with a different option, let them. The standard should be whether the educational function is in place.

You have to know the needs before you can understand the equity issues. The school district needs to know that anyway, to manage the money they receive from the state, whether they receive donations or not.

If the parent organization or donors pick off some things at one school, that frees up money for other priority needs. It shuffles the list. We won’t need equity funding; the district will cover those needs anyway because, at some point, one or two schools will cover the list.

That’s why you need to funnel donations to the list.

We need a districtlevel entity to facilitate large donations, current and potential. Maybe that’s a recommendation.

A lot of donations come in for things that are arguably not educational needs, like repainting the office or a new scoreboard. A lot come in for sports. How is the district going to determine what constitutes a need? Is it a need because another school has it?

The policy would be that the district says: while we appreciate your generosity, we would prefer you fund off this list. The exception is for donors who won’t fund off the list, assuming the proposed purchase is appropriate.

We already do something like this at our school because, why fund something that’s not education?

If you’re saying the district will make a list and parent clubs have to work off that list, that goes against what we just talked about, which was helping parent groups work with principals toward purposeful fundraising.

Don’t you think the principals will be involved in the district assessment, in identifying the gaps?

Principals should be involved, but the district shouldn’t accept gifts it doesn’t need; and needs should be related to the education program.


Is the problem the perception of top/down? Would you be more comfortable if local school communities identified their needs and those were aggregated to create the list large donors are encouraged to fund?

But you can’t ask a school to decide which school’s roof needs repair most.

We need to be clear: there are two lists; parent groups can’t fund facility needs.

Some schools’ lists may have both facility and education items; and if the board knows what the parent groups will try to fund, it can direct funds to other needs.

It comes back to the need for a districtwide standard, what we expect all schools to have.

The teacher/student ratio (class size) is an example of a district standard.

We may be making this too hard. It would be easier to determine how much money is raised collectively in the district, decide what minimum amount each school should have, and come up with a mechanism for doing that. Whatever amount each school gets — $10,000 or $100,000 — the parent group works with the principal to spend the money.

But you won’t get $100,000, or even $10,000. Why should parent clubs raise money for other schools?

If we’re talking about standards, aren’t we talking about redirecting money anyway?

It’s like the foundation funding teachers. If it didn’t, the district would have to fund those teachers, and it wouldn't have money for other things.

I don’t believe the district has standards, that it can identify the gaps. I want this assessment to be in place, so the district can consider a bond to fund some of these gaps (facility and technology issues). Then a lot of this would go away.

The district has a facilities committee, which is developing that list for the purpose of a bond.

I believe we need to make education right first. The gaps are a problem, in part, because not everyone believes that. People have different priorities. We need to be careful about how we write our recommendation, because people may define the gaps differently. Gaps to what standard?

The district must set the standard.

Nothing stops the superintendent from telling principals: when money comes in to your school, work with us.


It’s not always that clean. Principals and teachers may have different perspectives. Teachers may not want technology, for example. This must be cultural, because people are adults and will choose. How do you promote an environment in which people choose to go to the place you want them to be? The choice factor has to be there. You need buyin.

What if someone just describes the ideal working relationships?

That’s a matter of best practices, one of the things Coordinating Council can address.

You asked the superintendent to gather school fundraising data. When those data came in, one of you asked: are we okay with the significant differences between some schools? Most of you indicated you were not, that you believe there’s a need to address those differences. What we’re trying to figure out here is how to do that. Whatever you call them, gaps or differences, their existence is the equity question.

Have we got away from the fact that some schools have relative needs, which don’t need to be fulfilled equitably across the district?

It’s not about the amount of money, but whether every school has enough to meet its own needs. We may be talking about whether parents pay for field trips through fundraising or directly; either way, they pay. That’s why we need an assessment of where schools are, not just what they have.

If we’re talking about technology, unless there’s a bond our school will be vastly outpaced; and that affects education.

That’s what we were trying to get to with the standard. Your school’s technology needs would be a priority, not only for how the district spends its money but also for working with donors.

Is the issue how that list is created? Are people okay with district staff creating that list?

Each principal should do that with his or her teachers. The district’s technology director is doing that for technology; and the facilities person and committee are working on infrastructure. Then the parent clubs would work on the principal’s list, the district would fund the technology list, and the bond would fund the infrastructure list.

You wouldn't have one person creating the list.

I’m okay with broad statements, such as a technology standard that talks to internet access; because if that gets out of sync, it’s an education problem.

There’s another list, which speaks to the educational excellence we expect in all Lake Oswego schools.


Was your concept of a baseline (maybe the average amount schools fundraise) that we need a mechanism for bringing all schools to that level?

We are the equity committee, and we’ve been pussyfooting around the issue of equity. I look at the last page of our data, and I see one school at $29,000 and another school at $149,000. So yes, I think money has to be a component of this. I am confident this means schools that have traditionally raised less money have greater needs, however you define them; and we need to find a way to move money to those schools.

Wouldn't those greater needs show up as priorities?

Yes, but the question is: how does the district fund the priorities?

How is it allocating its money now? In theory, if one school is out of whack and the district has a priority list, the school with nothing gets more.

People aren’t going to offer to share with the schools that have less; that isn’t the way things work in this world.

That’s why we went with an indirect way to address equity. If the district creates a needs list and one parent group funds its school’s need, the district goes to the next priority. It’s an indirect solution to equity without redistributing wealth.

I wouldn't be in favor of taking money from one school to give to another. There was a district that had an equity fund to take care of that. I think it’s important to understand that many schools are funding things that wouldn't show up on a list of needs, like the Missoula Children’s Theater and better curriculum and education programs. A minority of parents are funding those. We don’t want to discourage raising money. The question is how to help the schools that don’t have the means to raise as much money. It’s unfair to continue to say that all those extra things that help the education in the school will show up on a priority list, because they won’t.

I think the ad hoc committee has enough input to revise the first paragraph. The issue is the third paragraph. Someone has suggested that the district use general fund resources to establish an equity fund, to be used to offset the differences identified by the assessment of school needs.

It’s the same thing because the district’s resources are fixed and already spent. The only place to take funds is from schools, and doing that just makes the list longer.

The only way to get there is through large donations. You say: you can give whatever you want, but a portion goes to an equity fund.

The risk would be that donors avoid going over that threshold.


People who want to donate that much won’t be concerned about a small portion going to an equity fund.

We need to put some more thought into what that number would be, to avoid changing people’s behavior.

We need a districtwide PTO to pursue the untapped donor potential in our community. It would coordinate with the foundation, but raise money for other needs.

What do you want the ad hoc committee do with this last item?

I think there needs to be an equity fund, but we need to find a better way to fund it.

Perhaps our recommendation is simply that there are inequities across schools and the board needs to address those as soon and as effectively as it can. In the end, we’re relying on our elected officials.

We have to assume we have board members who have the intelligence and courage to make good decisions.

If we think it’s okay to have such large discrepancies between schools, we don’t need a mechanism to address differences. But if we’re not okay with that, we need to replace that third paragraph.

Dick said, “Let’s ask ourselves that question: does the recommendation need a statement that addresses equity?”

Yes, and I like Mercer Island’s equity language. (2)

The gaps should be part of the list, and we should let the board solve for it. (1)

There should be a statement about equity, but not that one. (4)

Yes. (2)

It depends on your definition of equity, and there are choices about how to do it: no. (1)



Meeting Date: January 21, 2015

Overview: (I) The committee approved the minutes of the January 7 meeting and chose a date to present their recommendations to the school board. (II) They discussed the second draft of an ad hoc committee’s recommendations about identifying priority school needs and directing donations toward meeting them. Another ad hoc committee had drafted a recommendation regarding the role of Coordinating Council, which the committee discussed January 7. Both ad hoc committees will revise their drafts for review by fellow committee members by February 2. (III) The facilitators will incorporate those final drafts into a draft report for committee review and possible adoption at the next meeting.

Attendance: Chris Barhyte, Alistair Firmin, Amber Imes, John Lautze, Matt Levin, Dylan Pollack, Lisa Shaw Ryan, Nancy Smith, Beth Taylor, Paul Voss, Jeff Woolard

Next Meeting: February 10, 2015 (6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.)

I. BOARD MEETING DATE

Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed committee members and asked them to review the minutes of the January 7 meeting, which they approved as submitted. The committee considered upcoming school board meeting dates and agreed that March 9 would be their preference for submitting their recommendations.

II. REVIEW OF DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

District Standards, Priority Needs, and Gifts

At the December 17 meeting, four committee members volunteered to draft a recommendation about “the need for the district to conduct periodic, comprehensive, districtwide assessments of significant differences between schools that are related to its mission and its education program standards.” That first draft, reviewed at the January 7 meeting, incorporated three elements.

Establishing standards for each school level (high school, junior high, and elementary school) that enable the district to generate a list of the top school needs

Directing donations to these school needs to the extent possible, providing exceptions for donors committed to specific purposes

Setting aside a portion of the schoolfundraising proceeds that exceed a certain threshold to create an equity fund that the district applies to the list of top school needs

The committee discussed this first draft at length on January 7, and the ad hoc committee used that input to revise their draft recommendation for a second review


tonight. In addition to revising content related to the elements above, the second draft proposed a guiding principle.

We want all schools in the Lake Oswego School District to meet the high quality standard the Lake Oswego School District is known for and, to that end, the district needs policies, procedures, and funding mechanisms to accomplish that. To that end, we need to focus on driving donations to the critical needs of the district, while continuing to try to maximize the total amount of donations to the district.

For the purpose of generating discussion, the ad hoc committee also proposed the elements of a gift policy. That draft content addressed both individual donations and schoolspecific funding groups, under this introductory statement:

All gifts shall be consistent with the philosophy, mission, and programs of the district. All donations will be directed to the top needs of each school and become the property of the district.

The Fundraising Equity Committee dedicated tonight’s meeting to a detailed review and expansive discussion of this second draft. The ad hoc committee will draw upon this conversation to revise their draft recommendations. They will send those revisions to the whole committee, asking for input by February 2.

Role of Coordinating Council

Another ad hoc committee drafted a recommendation about “the role of the Coordinating Council, including ways to help parent clubs align fundraising with school and district priorities as well as ways to help increase fundraising effectiveness at all schools.” The Fundraising Equity Committee discussed that draft January 7, and the ad hoc committee revised it accordingly. They will give committee members an opportunity to provide additional input until February 2.

III. NEXT STEPS

Both ad hoc committees will send their final drafts to the facilitators, who will incorporate them into a draft report. Committee members will have an opportunity to review the draft report in advance of the February 10 meeting, when they plan to adopt final recommendations.



Meeting Date: February 10, 2015

Overview: (I) Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed committee members. (II) The committee reached agreements regarding their final recommendations and their presentation in the written report. (III) The committee will present their recommendations to the school board on March 9.

Attendance: Chris Barhyte, Alistair Firmin, Amber Imes, John Lautze, Matt Levin, Dylan Pollack, Lisa Shaw Ryan, Nancy Smith, Beth Taylor, Paul Voss, Jeff Weiler, Jeff Woolard

Report to School Board: March 9, 2015

I. WELCOME AND MEETING OVERVIEW

Facilitator Dick Withycombe welcomed committee members and provided an overview of the evening’s task, which was to review the draft report and reach agreements about final recommendations and their presentation. The committee approved the January 21 minutes as submitted, and these will now be available on the district website.

II. ADOPTION OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The committee reviewed the draft report and reached agreements on the content of their final report. In summary those agreements were that the final report will comprise: the introductory sections of the draft report; the revised ad hoc committee drafts pertaining to Coordinating Council and gift acceptance; and four appendices, containing the meeting minutes, demographic data, fundraising pattern data, and sample policies. The specific changes in content and language will be reflected in the final report.

III. REPORT TO THE SCHOOL BOARD

The Fundraising Equity Committee will present their recommendations to the school board on March 9. Dick will work with the superintendent’s office to determine their place on the agenda and to arrange a room in which they can meet before the meeting to prepare for their presentation.

APPENDIX B

Demographic Information

APPENDIX C

Fundraising Patterns

Note: In our districtwide equity analysis, the committee requested financial data

from a number of different sources, including financial statements from

parent clubs. All committee members recognized that different

accounting practices and ways of presenting the data did not allow for an

accurate analysis, and some committee members believed these limitations

made it impossible for them to draw any relevant conclusions.

APPENDIX D

Sample Policies

Policy No. 6114 Management Support

Donations Bellevue Schools gratefully accept donations from PTSA's, P- FO's, and other citizens and non-governmental agencies which will assist in the education of students. The following provisions apply to all donations:

A. Donations may be used only for purposes consistent with federal and state laws/regulations and with School Board policies/procedures;

B. Specific authorization must be obtained from the Superintendent or his/her designee prior to the receipt of any donation;

C. The District may make an advanced commitment to individual(s) or groups to use funds in a particular manner. However, generally the District will only contract for or otherwise obligate itself for expenditures after the funds are received from the individual(s) or do-nating group;

D. Items donated to the District become the property of the District to use and dispose of as directed by policies and procedures of the District; and

E. The District does not accept donations from individuals or groups affiliated with one school or program for the direct purpose of hiring or employing additional certificated staff to provide services primarily to that same program.

The Superintendent will establish procedures indicating which employees are authorized to re-ceive donations and specifying steps to be followed to assure that there is a District awareness of the quantity and purpose of various donations.

Cross Reference: Board Policy 3515 Student Incentives

Legal References: RCW 28A.320.030 Gifts, conveyances, etc., for scholarship and student aid purposes, receipt and administration

Adoption Date: 09.04.12 Bellevue School District Revised:

Board Policy 6114 Management Support

Mercer Island School District #400, Mercer Island, WA Page 1 of 1

GIFTS

The board recognizes that individuals and organizations in the community may wish to contribute additional resources, supplies or equipment to enhance or extend the instructional program. The board is committed to the fair and equitable provision of educational opportunities within the district. Gifts for designated purposes will only be accepted if:

• The purpose or use is consistent with the philosophy, mission and programs of the district.

• The superintendent has determined that there is equity between buildings and programs, between or within schools, as measured over a period of 3 to 5 years. Equity is to be measured in terms of individual school and program needs, which does not always equate to equity in dollars.

• The superintendent has given prior approval for gifts to fund additional staffing.

• The superintendent has given prior approval for any related fund raising activities that exceed $50,000.

Any gift to the district of real property can be accepted only by board approval. Any gift to the district or to an individual school or department of money, materials or equipment having a value of $500 or greater shall be subject to board approval. In no event shall any commitment be made by a staff member or other individuals in return for any gift to the district or to a school or department without the board's authorization. The board shall not authorize the acceptance of gifts that are inappropriate, which carry with them unsuitable conditions or which shall obligate the district to future expenditures from the general fund which are out of proportion to the value of the gift. All gifts shall become district property.

The superintendent shall establish criteria to be met in the acceptance of gifts to the district.

Legal References: RCW 28A.320.030 Gifts, conveyances, etc., for scholarship and student aid purposes, receipt and administration

Adoption Date: February 15, 2001 Revised: November 17, 2010

Public Gifts to the District - KH 1-1

Gladstone School District 115 Code: KH Adopted: 9/12/01 Readopted: 4/14/10 Orig. Code(s): KH Public Gifts to the District All gifts to the district will become the property of the district. The superintendent is authorized to accept gifts to the district, and others whom he/she may designate will be authorized to accept gifts for particular schools on behalf of the Board. The donor will be officially thanked in the Board’s name, and all major gifts will be reported to the Board. The Board welcomes gifts of books and other materials that meet the same standards of selection as those applied to the purchase of library materials. The Board will accept entrusted funds in instances when such funds are deemed to be advantageous to the district. Records of such funds, their expenditures, and audits thereof, shall be made a matter of public record. The superintendent/designee reserves the right to refuse gifts. Restricted gifts accepted by the district shall be used for the purpose for which they were donated. END OF POLICY Legal Reference(s): ORS 294.326 ORS 332.075

ORS 332.107 ORS 332.385

Cross Reference(s): GBI - Gifts and Solicitations IIA - Instructional Resources/Instructional Materials

http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/294.html




Gifts and Solicitations - GBI 1-1

Gladstone School District 115 Code: GBI Adopted: 9/12/01 Readopted: 10/14/09 Orig. Code(s): GBI Gifts and Solicitations Students and their parents shall be discouraged from giving gifts to district employees. The Board welcomes as appropriate the writing of letters by students to staff members expressing gratitude and appreciation. Collecting money for group gifts is discouraged except in special circumstances such as bereavement, serious illness or for retirement gifts. Staff-initiated “sunshine funds” are exempt from this policy. Individual employees need to be accountable for maintaining integrity and avoid accepting anything of value offered by another for the purpose of influencing his/her professional judgment. All employees are prohibited from accepting items of material value from companies or organizations doing business with the district. Material value is defined as $50 from a single source in a single year. No organization may solicit funds from staff members within the schools, nor may anyone distribute flyers or other materials related to fund drives through the schools without the superintendent’s approval. Staff members may not be made responsible, or assume responsibility, for collecting money or distributing any fund-drive literature within the schools without the superintendent’s or designee’s approval. The soliciting of staff by sales people, other staff, or agents during on-duty hours is prohibited. Any solicitation should be reported at once to the principal or supervisor. Advertising is not allowed in the building without the superintendent’s or designee’s approval. END OF POLICY Legal Reference(s): ORS 244.010 to-244.400 ORS 339.880

OAR 584-020-0000 to-0045 OAR 199-005-0005 to-199-020-0020

Cross Reference(s): BBF - Board Member Standards of Conduct DJG - Vendor Relations GBC - Staff Ethics KH - Public Gifts to the District KI - Public Solicitation in District Facilities KJ - Advertising in District Facilities KJA - Materials Distribution



http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_500/OAR_584/584_020.html

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_100/OAR_199/199_005.html

!"

#"

$"

%"

&"

"

'"

#"

("

)"

*"

+"

7.10.020-P Parent Groups And The Schools

Portland Public Schools Page 1 of 1 Portland, Oregon

7.10.020-P

Parent groups functioning in various support and communications capacities have made important contributions to Portland schools. The Board recognizes that the assistance of parent organizations in cooperation with the schools is necessary and desirable to achieve the goals established for the schools. The school principals, supervising administrators and the office of the superintendent shall regard as an important aspect of their work cooperation with parent organizations in order to assure the most effective liaison between such organizations and the schools in behalf of good education for Portland children.

Legal Reference: ORS 332.107

History: Adpt 6/71; Amd 9/9/02; BA 2422

Administrative Directive 7.10.021-AD


7.10.021-AD Parent Groups And The Schools – Implementation

School personnel shall cooperate with parent support organizations to assure increased understanding between the school and home and to utilize the assistance to good educational programs that may be provided by interested parents.

(1) Guidelines for Parent Organization Enrollment Drives.

(a) Membership enrollment envelopes and materials may go out from the principal's office.

(b) No comparisons among rooms and students are permitted.

(c) No rewards for parent enrollment offered except on a school wide basis.

(d) Membership enrollment is to be conducted actively by the parent organization itself.

(2) Fund-Raising Limits and Guidelines.

(a) Because the major efforts of parent organizations should not be directed toward fund raising, gifts to schools of money, equipment, or supplies should be limited. In keeping with the policies of the Board, gifts to schools from such organizations should not be directed to the basic instructional program. Gifts to the school by parent organizations, private individuals or private businesses in an amount greater than [$5,000] should not be accepted without the approval of the office of the superintendent.

(b) Whenever possible, purchases should be made through the district purchasing department or from an approved list of equipment to assure adequate safety factors, etc. (See also Board Series 8.00.000 on Specifications for Equipment and Installations.) In keeping with principles in the policy on shared-time programs, such funds shall not be used to underwrite costs of instructional programs.

(3) General Criteria for Fund-Raising Projects.

(a) Children shall not be exploited in any way. (Activities imposing on classroom schedules, unnecessary involvement of children during school time, etc.)

(b) Health and sanitation codes shall be observed. This rules out such activities as pony rides, beauty shops (danger involved in the use of cosmetics), etc.

7.10.021- AD


(c) Activities wherein the result is determined primarily by the laws of chance rather than through the skills of the individual are contrary to the laws of the State of Oregon.

(d) Activities that may endanger students, staff or others by their actions as participants or spectators are prohibited.

(4) Examples of Fund-Raising Projects:

(a) Projects approved by the district:

(A) Auctions;

(B) Auditorium shows;

(C) Book sales;

(D) Coin pitch;

(E) Dinners, luncheons, food sales and refreshment centers operated under appropriate health regulations;

(F) Gift wrap sales (with approved vendor through Purchasing Department);

(G) Hobby shows;

(H) Home tours;

(I) Movies;

(J) Plant sales;

(K) Play and movie sponsorships;

(L) Rummage sales (off school premises);

(M) School store;

(N) Sporting events;

(O) Staff talent shows;

(P) T-shirt, sweatshirt sale.

(b) Projects not approved on district sites.

(A) Bingo;

(B) Cake walks based on chance;

(C) Donkey basketball;

(D) Door prizes;

(E) Fish ponds based on chance;

(F) Guessing number of articles in a receptacle;

7.10.021- AD


(G) Lotteries and raffles;

(H) Pony rides (danger involved);

(I) Roulette-type games;

(J) Sales of home-baked goods;

(K) Used clothing sales;

(L) Balloon rides/Bungee jump;

(M) Wine/Alcohol tastings.

(5) Playground Equipment. The desire for parent groups to have additional play equipment on school grounds to occupy and stimulate children's development during out-of-school hours is desirable and constructive. Guidelines established to help parent groups wishing to purchase such equipment accomplish their goals in ways that do not conflict with Board policies and regulations or create additional hazards for children will be maintained and made available through the Facilities and Asset Management Department. Such guidelines will include, but not be limited to the following:

(a) Parents shall coordinate all activities with the building principal to determine playground equipment needs;

(b) A sketch of their plan, as well as sketches of the individual play installations, should be prepared.

(c) All such projects shall meet requirements set forth by the Facilities and Asset Management Department, including the district's "Guide for the Development of Playgrounds," "Specifications for Playground Equipment" and "Specifications for Chain-Link Fencing," as applicable.

(d) Mobile or moving equipment, such as swings, should be avoided, as it contributes the highest incidence of serious accidents.

(e) Play equipment should be of such a nature that it is immovable. For example, loose tractor tires and items of that kind will be rolled by older youth, thereby endangering smaller children or occupants of automobiles if rolled into the path of oncoming cars. Concrete tunnels should be large enough and securely enough fastened so that a group of teenagers cannot roll it over and endanger other younger children. Climbing apparatus should be designed in a fashion that eliminates pointed or sharp parts below higher areas. Pilings and other posts used for climbing must be set deeply into the ground so they cannot be pulled loose.

(f) Work parties consisting of parents may, subject to district requirements, work on playground installations but only under the direct supervision of

7.10.021- AD


properly designated persons from the Facilities and Asset Management Department;

(g) All installations must be approved in advance by the Facilities and Asset Management Department;

(h) Contributions for equipment and other materials may not be solicited in the community or from business firms without approval of the office of the superintendent.

Policy Implemented: 7.10.020-P

History: Adpt. 6/71; Amd. 2/75; Amd. 7/80; Amd. 10/83 ed.; Amd. 2/88; Amd. 7/88; Amd. 5/30/96; Amd. 9/01/02

For official use only Approved: ____________________________________ _______________ Superintendent Date

For official use only Approved:

� � � �� Superintendent Date

B 7.10.030-P District Foundation

7.10.030-P

O

A

R

D

P

O

L

I

C

Y

The Board authorizes the establishment and incorporation of a foundation for the purposes of accepting, holding and administering funds and gifts to the district for special and general purposes. The purposes of funds administered by the foundation may include pay for instructional staff (FTE), educational enhancements such as equipment, supplies, extended day activities and contracts and other activities of benefit to the district and its students. It is the intent of the Board that the foundation be guided by priorities of equity, educational excellence, preservation of a strong public school system and support district wide implementation of the Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century, district mission and goals. Both the Board and the foundation board of directors will receive annual evaluations for all funded projects.

The foundation will be incorporated under Oregon Revised Statutes and registered as a tax-exempt corporation under Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Service Code.

The foundation will be operated in conformance with established district wide foundation principles and governed by a board of directors whose selection, membership and functions will be set forth in the foundation's by-laws.

Legal References: ORS 294.305 - 294.565; ORS 332.107

History: Amd 9/9/02; BA 2422


DISCLAIMER Attached are the policy samples you requested. You may print these policies but should present them to the school board for discussion, any modifications and final adoption. The policies CANNOT be adopted in their current formats. You must make a choice for all text in brackets and you must make a choice regarding any redline and strikeout text.

Oregon School Boards Association Selected Sample Policy

Code: JL Adopted: Student Gifts and Solicitations The solicitation of charitable contributions from students will be restricted to drives approved by the [Board]. Any charitable organization desiring to distribute flyers or other materials to students in connection with fund drives may do so with the approval of the [principal] [superintendent]. The Board also expects the solicitation of money for gifts for activity sponsors, teachers or other individuals to be under school control. END OF POLICY Legal Reference(s): ORS 332.107 ORS 339.880

2/09/94│GP

DISCLAIMER Attached are the policy samples you requested. You may print these policies but should present them to the school board for discussion, any modifications and final adoption. The policies CANNOT be adopted in their current formats. You must make a choice for all text in brackets and you must make a choice regarding any redline and strikeout text.

Oregon School Boards Association Selected Sample Policy

Code: DFC Adopted: Grants from Private Sources Grant proposals for external funds from private sources will be submitted to the Board for evaluation and approval. In the event an opportunity arises to submit a grant proposal and there is insufficient time to place it before the Board, the superintendent is authorized to use his/her judgment in approving it for submission. The superintendent will review the grant proposal with the Board at its next regular meeting. The Board reserves the right to reject funds associated with any grant which has been approved. END OF POLICY Legal Reference(s): ORS 294.100 ORS 294.305 - 294.565

12/28/00│MW

fundraising equity committee report · successful fundraisers, thanks to “our gracious, generous...

Documents