PTA Equity Project (PEP) - Frequently Asked Questions
What is the PTA Equity Project?
For many years, there have been anecdotal conversations (at both the district-level as well among parents) about potential fundraising disparities across PTAs. The sense has been that such fundraising disparities have resulted in inconsistent and inequitable experiences for children across District 65 schools. The PTA Equity Committee (the “Committee”) was formed in December 2016 to examine PTA policies, practices, and procedures to determine (1) what, if any, inequities actually exist and (2) what, if any, interventions could address any inequities uncovered. It was created with the support of the Evanston/Skokie PTA Council, whose Racial Equity Statement supports District 65’s commitment to equity (as encompassed in its Racial and Educational Equity Statement and Board Policy 7:12) and “recognizes that all stakeholder groups must play an active role in increasing equity across our District.” The PTA Equity Project (“PEP”) is the result of two years of highly collaborative work to analyze the situation in our district and propose an intervention to ensure greater equity for our students.
Who makes up the PTA Equity Committee? How does it work?
The PTA Equity Committee is comprised of one representative from every PTA in District 65 (as selected by that PTA), as well as representatives from PTA Council and Foundation 65. In addition, to provide additional perspective and information, the committee includes a teacher representative and a principal representative and is co-facilitated by Biz Lindsay-Ryan, an equity, diversity, and inclusion facilitator/consultant, and Suni Kartha, a member of the District 65 school board. Both Biz and Suni also have children in District 65. Each member of the Committee has been a vital part of the conversation, guiding the collective thought process to ensure we consider the perspectives of every PTA as well as of teachers and school leaders.
The Committee has been meeting monthly since January 2017 as a collaborative working group to gather and discuss data around resources and what PTAs provide for their school and students, current PTA practices, and what important contextual information we need (for example, school demographics) to understand how PTAs decide to support their school communities. The Committee spent time studying models from other school districts that have attempted to address fundraising inequities, using them as a base to model what might work (or not work) in our school district. We spent significant time discussing best practices and what the group believed should be provided to every student in the district, including what is appropriate for PTAs and what should be the responsibility of the District. Over the summer of 2017, the Committee designated a small working group of treasurers in our group to create a uniform budget template so that the Committee could more accurately identify potential gaps. When we reconvened in the fall of 2017, the treasurers group collected data via the uniform budget template and analyzed it, allowing the Committee to better come to a consensus around existing inequities and the need for intervention.
Our PTA works so hard to fundraise specifically to help decrease inequity in our school. Why should we consider sharing our efforts with other schools?
We absolutely recognize and appreciate that PTAs have been instrumental in helping to address inequities within their school buildings and specifically to provide services and opportunities to their school’s free and reduced lunch population. We think there could be great power in taking that collective energy and expertise to address inequities districtwide - to expand our thinking from “my school” to “my district.” As noted above, District 65 and PTA Council, reflecting the values of our community, have embraced an intentional lens toward educational equity - the idea that all students should get what they need to reach their full educational potential regardless of personal or social circumstances such as race, ethnic origin, gender, or socioeconomic background. The reality, though, is that children at different schools are getting an inequitable experience, in part due to the difference in ability to solicit donations and in-kind services from the school community.
The PTA Equity Committee did extensive fact-gathering around PTA fundraising efforts, taking into account the demographics of each school. The results of our research uncovered a fundraising range in 2016-17 (of the schools that have PTAs) from $32/student to $286/student. The Committee also had extensive discussions around how this fundraising difference leads to inequitable experiences for students and families. For example, while most PTAs sponsor at least one school wide social event at their school, the number and scale of such events, which are so important for building community among students and families, varies significantly. Also, while most PTAs offer scholarships to participate in after-school clubs, the numbers (and need) vary greatly across schools. The Committee discovered that these inequities also affect teachers - several PTAs are able to provide their teachers a stipend for things like school supplies and magazine subscriptions.
Another important inequity that schools experience based on the PTA’s fundraising ability is related to capital expenditures. Several PTAs have been able to fundraise and pay for things like playground and library improvements, while some struggle to pay for more modest things like auditorium sound systems. The Committee recognizes this as an area for intervention but concluded that the District would need to be heavily involved in setting policy and monitoring any such intervention. Therefore, it is something that will require further discussion and brainstorming over the 2018-19 school year.
Wouldn’t it be better to focus on sharing ideas and knowledge across PTAs rather than dollars?
We understand and agree that there is immense value in having greater knowledge-sharing happening across PTAs. In fact, the Committee did spend time sharing best practices and strategizing together about issues all PTAs face with fundraising, field trips, after school programs, bulk school supplies, etc. However, the Committee and the PTA Council agree that these types of discussions are more appropriately within the purview of PTA Council. During the school year, the PTA Council hosts monthly meetings and an email forum with an intentional focus on sharing PTA best practices on common responsibilities, events and initiatives. The Committee agreed we should focus on parent fundraising, which is not currently being addressed anywhere else.
Shouldn’t it be the District’s responsibility to make sure that resources are equitably allocated across schools? Why focus on PTA fundraising?
There is no question that the District needs to continue to be pushed, as part of its equity agenda, to ensure equitable allocation of resources, and the upcoming Every Student Succeeds Act requirement to break down spending by school should help shed a light on this. It is important to note, though, that the Committee’s discussions have been about the enrichmentand community-building opportunities that PTAs provide to students and families, not staff or high-level resource allocations that are the purview of the District. We understand that parent fundraising is just a small part of the overall financial picture of a school; however, it is a piece that can contribute to inequities that, given the District’s and PTA Council’s adopted equity statements, the Committee felt important to tackle in a collaborative and grassroots way. For more information about the national conversation around these issues, see this report from the Centers for American Progress and this article from the Washington Post.
What is Title One? Why do we need to support a shared fund if some schools get Title One funding?
Title One is part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and provides financial assistance to schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families. Prior to receiving Title One funding, school districts have to specify exactly how the funds will be used to support student achievement. Title One money generally cannot be used to cover the items typically found in a PTA budget, including, but not limited to, field trips, club scholarships, Camp Timberlee scholarships, artists in residence, family supports, etc. In District 65, the primary use of Title One funds is for reading specialists. It is important to note, though, that District 65 provides reading specialists at all schools, whether or not they are Title One schools, based on need as evidenced by data. The only difference is the source of the funding for the reading specialist: some specialists in a Title One school are funded through Title One monies, while the specialists in other schools are funded by other D65 monies. The allocation of specialists is based on quantitative data so that all students get support regardless of their school.
A school’s Title One designation may also open up other programming to the school. For example, in District 65, all Title One schools and Kingsley participate in the Federal Breakfast program. This means that students who are on free and reduced lunch at those schools have access to a free breakfast program. In District 65 many, but not all, of the non-Title One schools partner with Books and Breakfast, a program that provides breakfast, mentoring, and academic support and is funded by community donations. There are additional programs that some Title One schools may be eligible for based on their population. Examples of this include Y.O.U. and community schools. However, these programs are provided to meet the specific needs at any individual school and are not provided universally to all Title One schools.
Ok, we understand there are fundraising inequities. How did you determine how to address the inequities?
After reviewing the possible models from other school districts that we had initially looked at, the Committee collectively determined that our most sustainable option is to create a shared PTA fund (the “PEP Fund”) that can be distributed to lower-resourced PTAs. To have real impact, the PEP Fund should total around $50,000-$60,0000 (which represents about 10% of the total amount that PTAs raised in each of the last few years). A significant portion of the PEP Fund will consist of contributions from PTAs, based on each PTA’s fundraising capacity. The PEP Fund will also include proceeds from districtwide fundraisers with local business.
A PTA’s fundraising capacity will be determined based on that PTA’s actual budget and its school’s total free and reduced lunch (“FRL”) population. Based on the last several years of PTA budgets, the Committee grouped PTAs into 3 categories of annual fundraising capacity*: the lowest tier raising up to $70/student**, the middle tier raising $71-$90/student, and the highest tier raising more than $90/student. The contribution amount requested from PTAs in the highest tiers is up to 12% of their total income*** (with the actual percentage varying depending on the school’s FRL population). The distribution amount to PTAs in the lowest tier was calculated with the intent of getting those PTAs to a minimum of $70/student.
*These tiers do not include the 3 district middle schools. The Committee’s analysis is that the fundraising disparities at the middle schools are not as wide and the student and school community needs are different than at elementary and magnet schools. Therefore, the Committee determined that PTA funds at the middle schools will be reallocated separately, but based on a similar formula as that used for the elementary and magnet school PTAs.
**This tier includes 2 schools in the district that serve very high needs populations - Park School, a self-contained therapeutic day program that serves students ages 3-21 who have severe cognitive disabilities, and Rice Education Center, a therapeutic day school program connected to the Daniel F. and Ada L. Rice Child + Family Center (a Children’s Home & Aid center). While Park has a PTA, its student and parent population (and, thus, its fundraising potential) is small. Rice does not have a PTA, and its entire student population is on free and reduced lunch. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the allocation formula above be weighted to provide additional funds to these schools.
***Because of the timeframes the Committee has come up with to determine contributions/distributions, as well as the timelines during which PTAs finalize actual budgets and draft proposed budgets for upcoming years, there is a 2-year lag between the PTA budget year that forms the basis for these numbers and the year in which contributions are being requested (so, for example, we are asking PTAs to make a contribution in FY19 that is based on their actual budgets from FY17, FY20 contributions will be based on FY18 actuals, etc.).
Who will be responsible for collecting, maintaining, and distributing the shared fund?
Foundation 65 has generously agreed to be the fiscal agent for the shared fund. The Committee, working closely with PTA Council, will collect the funds, transfer them to Foundation 65 to hold as a fiscal agent, and direct Foundation 65 on how and when the funds should be disbursed.
What was the fundraiser that collected over the summer for a D65 PTA Equity Fund through GoFundMe? Is that part of the PEP Fund?
The Committee settled on a model to address PTA fundraising inequities in the spring of 2018. At that point, we recognized that given PTA budgeting and fundraising deadlines, it would not be fair to ask PTAs to fully fund our model for the 2018-19 school year. But we also didn’t want to wait a full year to address the inequities we uncovered and wanted, at a minimum, to provide some funding at the start of the 2018-19 school year for Rice and Park. Thus, we created a “seed the pot” campaign that is being filled in 3 ways: (1) proceeds from the GoFundMe that was launched in the spring; (2) contributions from several PTAs (either by donating excess fundraising from 2017-18 or dipping into reserves, if they have any); and (3) proceeds from the districtwide Restaurant Week happening at the end of this month. We were thrilled to have exceeded our initial fundraising goal for the GoFundMe, and in combination with the other measures, we hope to have enough funding to cover needs at Rice and Park and, if possible, to distribute an impactful amount to our lower-resourced PTAs.
What is the difference between the PEP Fund and Foundation 65?
Foundation 65 is the independent foundation that raises funds and makes grants to improve the educational experience for all students across District 65. F65’s strategic grants support literacy and arts programs identified by administrators and educators to address specific challenges and opportunities across all schools. Its responsive grant program also funds innovative, teacher-proposed programs at specific (usually multiple) schools. The PEP fund, by contrast, is focused on equalizing District 65 students' experiences as beneficiaries of PTA fundraising. The goal of the PEP fund is to ensure that students in the same school district are not disproportionately affected by their school's fundraising capacity, and that PTA resources are more evenly spread across District 65 schools. F65 serves as fiscal agent for the PEP fund, but is not a PTA entity.
If financial resources are shared in some way, won’t that lead to a loss in donations because people don’t want to donate outside of their school?
With any intervention plan we are proposing, the vast majority of a PTAs fundraising dollars - at most schools, 90% or more - will remain with that PTA. In fact, every PTA in the highest fundraising tier (with annual fundraising capacity of $90+/student) still nets $90+/student after making the requested contribution to the PEP Fund. It is possible that some donors may donate less if they feel like their entire donation isn’t going directly to their school. It is also possible that some donors will donate more because they have not felt compelled to donate as much as they can to their own school because they don’t see an immediate need. In addition, there are many opportunities that don’t exist now that could be taken advantage of with a new structure. We are hopeful this demonstration of unity across the schools could lead to other partnerships with organizations and companies that may choose not to be involved with individual schools.
Why not do a joint fundraiser for all PTAs rather than making PTAs contribute to a shared fund?
The Committee strongly opposed a joint fundraising event out of concerns of “event fatigue” for PTA volunteers and because such an event could compromise Foundation 65’s annual fundraising gala. But the idea of a joint fundraising effort did appeal to the Committee, which is why a key component of PEP is a districtwide restaurant week, which seemed to strike the balance of collaboration between PTAs without adding greatly to individual PTA responsibilities or competing with existing events.
The amount our PTA is able to fundraise changes from year to year. Is the contribution being requested of a PTA going to be the same every year?
We absolutely understand that PTA budgets are not static, and the formula the Committee developed takes into account annual budget variations as well as changing total student populations and FRL populations at each school (which will be taken each year from the District 65 Opening of Schools Report). Thus, we anticipate that contributions and distributions will change from year to year to accurately and fairly reflect what is happening with parent fundraising across our schools.
How will the PTAs receiving PEP Funds be monitored?
After significant discussion, the Committee determined not to monitor spending of PEP funds for a couple of reasons: (a) the logistics of monitoring such spending would be onerous and likely difficult to find volunteers to do; and (b) from an equity perspective, there are significant concerns about requiring PTAs with deep needs to account to higher-resourced PTAs. Our lens is that every PTA is making the best decisions with the resources they have to provide for their school and that no PTA would want an outside entity telling them how to spend their money; we don’t want to create a system that limits PTA autonomy and ability to respond to their school’s unique needs. In addition, because the Committee was able to review PTA budgets as part of the process, the Committee acknowledged and agreed that we can trust all PTAs to be acting in good faith to assess and provide for the specific needs of their schools. At the same time, we recognize the importance of sharing the impact of this initiative and will develop a way to highlight anecdotes of how the funding generated from PEP is bettering our school communities.
For many years, there have been anecdotal conversations (at both the district-level as well among parents) about potential fundraising disparities across PTAs. The sense has been that such fundraising disparities have resulted in inconsistent and inequitable experiences for children across District 65 schools. The PTA Equity Committee (the “Committee”) was formed in December 2016 to examine PTA policies, practices, and procedures to determine (1) what, if any, inequities actually exist and (2) what, if any, interventions could address any inequities uncovered. It was created with the support of the Evanston/Skokie PTA Council, whose Racial Equity Statement supports District 65’s commitment to equity (as encompassed in its Racial and Educational Equity Statement and Board Policy 7:12) and “recognizes that all stakeholder groups must play an active role in increasing equity across our District.” The PTA Equity Project (“PEP”) is the result of two years of highly collaborative work to analyze the situation in our district and propose an intervention to ensure greater equity for our students.
Who makes up the PTA Equity Committee? How does it work?
The PTA Equity Committee is comprised of one representative from every PTA in District 65 (as selected by that PTA), as well as representatives from PTA Council and Foundation 65. In addition, to provide additional perspective and information, the committee includes a teacher representative and a principal representative and is co-facilitated by Biz Lindsay-Ryan, an equity, diversity, and inclusion facilitator/consultant, and Suni Kartha, a member of the District 65 school board. Both Biz and Suni also have children in District 65. Each member of the Committee has been a vital part of the conversation, guiding the collective thought process to ensure we consider the perspectives of every PTA as well as of teachers and school leaders.
The Committee has been meeting monthly since January 2017 as a collaborative working group to gather and discuss data around resources and what PTAs provide for their school and students, current PTA practices, and what important contextual information we need (for example, school demographics) to understand how PTAs decide to support their school communities. The Committee spent time studying models from other school districts that have attempted to address fundraising inequities, using them as a base to model what might work (or not work) in our school district. We spent significant time discussing best practices and what the group believed should be provided to every student in the district, including what is appropriate for PTAs and what should be the responsibility of the District. Over the summer of 2017, the Committee designated a small working group of treasurers in our group to create a uniform budget template so that the Committee could more accurately identify potential gaps. When we reconvened in the fall of 2017, the treasurers group collected data via the uniform budget template and analyzed it, allowing the Committee to better come to a consensus around existing inequities and the need for intervention.
Our PTA works so hard to fundraise specifically to help decrease inequity in our school. Why should we consider sharing our efforts with other schools?
We absolutely recognize and appreciate that PTAs have been instrumental in helping to address inequities within their school buildings and specifically to provide services and opportunities to their school’s free and reduced lunch population. We think there could be great power in taking that collective energy and expertise to address inequities districtwide - to expand our thinking from “my school” to “my district.” As noted above, District 65 and PTA Council, reflecting the values of our community, have embraced an intentional lens toward educational equity - the idea that all students should get what they need to reach their full educational potential regardless of personal or social circumstances such as race, ethnic origin, gender, or socioeconomic background. The reality, though, is that children at different schools are getting an inequitable experience, in part due to the difference in ability to solicit donations and in-kind services from the school community.
The PTA Equity Committee did extensive fact-gathering around PTA fundraising efforts, taking into account the demographics of each school. The results of our research uncovered a fundraising range in 2016-17 (of the schools that have PTAs) from $32/student to $286/student. The Committee also had extensive discussions around how this fundraising difference leads to inequitable experiences for students and families. For example, while most PTAs sponsor at least one school wide social event at their school, the number and scale of such events, which are so important for building community among students and families, varies significantly. Also, while most PTAs offer scholarships to participate in after-school clubs, the numbers (and need) vary greatly across schools. The Committee discovered that these inequities also affect teachers - several PTAs are able to provide their teachers a stipend for things like school supplies and magazine subscriptions.
Another important inequity that schools experience based on the PTA’s fundraising ability is related to capital expenditures. Several PTAs have been able to fundraise and pay for things like playground and library improvements, while some struggle to pay for more modest things like auditorium sound systems. The Committee recognizes this as an area for intervention but concluded that the District would need to be heavily involved in setting policy and monitoring any such intervention. Therefore, it is something that will require further discussion and brainstorming over the 2018-19 school year.
Wouldn’t it be better to focus on sharing ideas and knowledge across PTAs rather than dollars?
We understand and agree that there is immense value in having greater knowledge-sharing happening across PTAs. In fact, the Committee did spend time sharing best practices and strategizing together about issues all PTAs face with fundraising, field trips, after school programs, bulk school supplies, etc. However, the Committee and the PTA Council agree that these types of discussions are more appropriately within the purview of PTA Council. During the school year, the PTA Council hosts monthly meetings and an email forum with an intentional focus on sharing PTA best practices on common responsibilities, events and initiatives. The Committee agreed we should focus on parent fundraising, which is not currently being addressed anywhere else.
Shouldn’t it be the District’s responsibility to make sure that resources are equitably allocated across schools? Why focus on PTA fundraising?
There is no question that the District needs to continue to be pushed, as part of its equity agenda, to ensure equitable allocation of resources, and the upcoming Every Student Succeeds Act requirement to break down spending by school should help shed a light on this. It is important to note, though, that the Committee’s discussions have been about the enrichmentand community-building opportunities that PTAs provide to students and families, not staff or high-level resource allocations that are the purview of the District. We understand that parent fundraising is just a small part of the overall financial picture of a school; however, it is a piece that can contribute to inequities that, given the District’s and PTA Council’s adopted equity statements, the Committee felt important to tackle in a collaborative and grassroots way. For more information about the national conversation around these issues, see this report from the Centers for American Progress and this article from the Washington Post.
What is Title One? Why do we need to support a shared fund if some schools get Title One funding?
Title One is part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and provides financial assistance to schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families. Prior to receiving Title One funding, school districts have to specify exactly how the funds will be used to support student achievement. Title One money generally cannot be used to cover the items typically found in a PTA budget, including, but not limited to, field trips, club scholarships, Camp Timberlee scholarships, artists in residence, family supports, etc. In District 65, the primary use of Title One funds is for reading specialists. It is important to note, though, that District 65 provides reading specialists at all schools, whether or not they are Title One schools, based on need as evidenced by data. The only difference is the source of the funding for the reading specialist: some specialists in a Title One school are funded through Title One monies, while the specialists in other schools are funded by other D65 monies. The allocation of specialists is based on quantitative data so that all students get support regardless of their school.
A school’s Title One designation may also open up other programming to the school. For example, in District 65, all Title One schools and Kingsley participate in the Federal Breakfast program. This means that students who are on free and reduced lunch at those schools have access to a free breakfast program. In District 65 many, but not all, of the non-Title One schools partner with Books and Breakfast, a program that provides breakfast, mentoring, and academic support and is funded by community donations. There are additional programs that some Title One schools may be eligible for based on their population. Examples of this include Y.O.U. and community schools. However, these programs are provided to meet the specific needs at any individual school and are not provided universally to all Title One schools.
Ok, we understand there are fundraising inequities. How did you determine how to address the inequities?
After reviewing the possible models from other school districts that we had initially looked at, the Committee collectively determined that our most sustainable option is to create a shared PTA fund (the “PEP Fund”) that can be distributed to lower-resourced PTAs. To have real impact, the PEP Fund should total around $50,000-$60,0000 (which represents about 10% of the total amount that PTAs raised in each of the last few years). A significant portion of the PEP Fund will consist of contributions from PTAs, based on each PTA’s fundraising capacity. The PEP Fund will also include proceeds from districtwide fundraisers with local business.
A PTA’s fundraising capacity will be determined based on that PTA’s actual budget and its school’s total free and reduced lunch (“FRL”) population. Based on the last several years of PTA budgets, the Committee grouped PTAs into 3 categories of annual fundraising capacity*: the lowest tier raising up to $70/student**, the middle tier raising $71-$90/student, and the highest tier raising more than $90/student. The contribution amount requested from PTAs in the highest tiers is up to 12% of their total income*** (with the actual percentage varying depending on the school’s FRL population). The distribution amount to PTAs in the lowest tier was calculated with the intent of getting those PTAs to a minimum of $70/student.
*These tiers do not include the 3 district middle schools. The Committee’s analysis is that the fundraising disparities at the middle schools are not as wide and the student and school community needs are different than at elementary and magnet schools. Therefore, the Committee determined that PTA funds at the middle schools will be reallocated separately, but based on a similar formula as that used for the elementary and magnet school PTAs.
**This tier includes 2 schools in the district that serve very high needs populations - Park School, a self-contained therapeutic day program that serves students ages 3-21 who have severe cognitive disabilities, and Rice Education Center, a therapeutic day school program connected to the Daniel F. and Ada L. Rice Child + Family Center (a Children’s Home & Aid center). While Park has a PTA, its student and parent population (and, thus, its fundraising potential) is small. Rice does not have a PTA, and its entire student population is on free and reduced lunch. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the allocation formula above be weighted to provide additional funds to these schools.
***Because of the timeframes the Committee has come up with to determine contributions/distributions, as well as the timelines during which PTAs finalize actual budgets and draft proposed budgets for upcoming years, there is a 2-year lag between the PTA budget year that forms the basis for these numbers and the year in which contributions are being requested (so, for example, we are asking PTAs to make a contribution in FY19 that is based on their actual budgets from FY17, FY20 contributions will be based on FY18 actuals, etc.).
Who will be responsible for collecting, maintaining, and distributing the shared fund?
Foundation 65 has generously agreed to be the fiscal agent for the shared fund. The Committee, working closely with PTA Council, will collect the funds, transfer them to Foundation 65 to hold as a fiscal agent, and direct Foundation 65 on how and when the funds should be disbursed.
What was the fundraiser that collected over the summer for a D65 PTA Equity Fund through GoFundMe? Is that part of the PEP Fund?
The Committee settled on a model to address PTA fundraising inequities in the spring of 2018. At that point, we recognized that given PTA budgeting and fundraising deadlines, it would not be fair to ask PTAs to fully fund our model for the 2018-19 school year. But we also didn’t want to wait a full year to address the inequities we uncovered and wanted, at a minimum, to provide some funding at the start of the 2018-19 school year for Rice and Park. Thus, we created a “seed the pot” campaign that is being filled in 3 ways: (1) proceeds from the GoFundMe that was launched in the spring; (2) contributions from several PTAs (either by donating excess fundraising from 2017-18 or dipping into reserves, if they have any); and (3) proceeds from the districtwide Restaurant Week happening at the end of this month. We were thrilled to have exceeded our initial fundraising goal for the GoFundMe, and in combination with the other measures, we hope to have enough funding to cover needs at Rice and Park and, if possible, to distribute an impactful amount to our lower-resourced PTAs.
What is the difference between the PEP Fund and Foundation 65?
Foundation 65 is the independent foundation that raises funds and makes grants to improve the educational experience for all students across District 65. F65’s strategic grants support literacy and arts programs identified by administrators and educators to address specific challenges and opportunities across all schools. Its responsive grant program also funds innovative, teacher-proposed programs at specific (usually multiple) schools. The PEP fund, by contrast, is focused on equalizing District 65 students' experiences as beneficiaries of PTA fundraising. The goal of the PEP fund is to ensure that students in the same school district are not disproportionately affected by their school's fundraising capacity, and that PTA resources are more evenly spread across District 65 schools. F65 serves as fiscal agent for the PEP fund, but is not a PTA entity.
If financial resources are shared in some way, won’t that lead to a loss in donations because people don’t want to donate outside of their school?
With any intervention plan we are proposing, the vast majority of a PTAs fundraising dollars - at most schools, 90% or more - will remain with that PTA. In fact, every PTA in the highest fundraising tier (with annual fundraising capacity of $90+/student) still nets $90+/student after making the requested contribution to the PEP Fund. It is possible that some donors may donate less if they feel like their entire donation isn’t going directly to their school. It is also possible that some donors will donate more because they have not felt compelled to donate as much as they can to their own school because they don’t see an immediate need. In addition, there are many opportunities that don’t exist now that could be taken advantage of with a new structure. We are hopeful this demonstration of unity across the schools could lead to other partnerships with organizations and companies that may choose not to be involved with individual schools.
Why not do a joint fundraiser for all PTAs rather than making PTAs contribute to a shared fund?
The Committee strongly opposed a joint fundraising event out of concerns of “event fatigue” for PTA volunteers and because such an event could compromise Foundation 65’s annual fundraising gala. But the idea of a joint fundraising effort did appeal to the Committee, which is why a key component of PEP is a districtwide restaurant week, which seemed to strike the balance of collaboration between PTAs without adding greatly to individual PTA responsibilities or competing with existing events.
The amount our PTA is able to fundraise changes from year to year. Is the contribution being requested of a PTA going to be the same every year?
We absolutely understand that PTA budgets are not static, and the formula the Committee developed takes into account annual budget variations as well as changing total student populations and FRL populations at each school (which will be taken each year from the District 65 Opening of Schools Report). Thus, we anticipate that contributions and distributions will change from year to year to accurately and fairly reflect what is happening with parent fundraising across our schools.
How will the PTAs receiving PEP Funds be monitored?
After significant discussion, the Committee determined not to monitor spending of PEP funds for a couple of reasons: (a) the logistics of monitoring such spending would be onerous and likely difficult to find volunteers to do; and (b) from an equity perspective, there are significant concerns about requiring PTAs with deep needs to account to higher-resourced PTAs. Our lens is that every PTA is making the best decisions with the resources they have to provide for their school and that no PTA would want an outside entity telling them how to spend their money; we don’t want to create a system that limits PTA autonomy and ability to respond to their school’s unique needs. In addition, because the Committee was able to review PTA budgets as part of the process, the Committee acknowledged and agreed that we can trust all PTAs to be acting in good faith to assess and provide for the specific needs of their schools. At the same time, we recognize the importance of sharing the impact of this initiative and will develop a way to highlight anecdotes of how the funding generated from PEP is bettering our school communities.