On School Levies and PTA Fundraisers

from the mom

Our recent primary election included two proposed school levies. Both were huge increases in property taxes at a time when our county is experiencing a high foreclosure rate. The usual tactics were used; the schools and unions offered all kinds of dire predictions if the levies weren't approved.

They weren't. Which surprised me in our liberal community that gives lip service to wanting more services and "better schools". But the feedback people gave to the local paper suggested that most are much too smart to fall for fear-mongering. There is also a disconnect between what most want "others" (or "the government") to do and what they want to pick up the tab for personally.

Similarly, Ben received a fundraising packet earlier this month. The PTA wanted him to sell small buckets of cookie dough for $14. They would take 50% of the money. The problem being that while Ben has received a marvelous benefit at our local public school, the PTA failed to tell me anything about how the money would be used, or give an accounting for the multitude of funds raised in similar ventures in the less than a year we've been at the school. If you need money for the coffee and donut fund in the teacher's lounge, tell me. But don't ask me to raise money for what purpose I have no idea.

I think the accountability issue is fixable, but the unions have a way of saying "How dare you ask how we are spending your money? We are educating the future of America." To which I say, "Then you should have no problem with public disclosure."

However, I am not sure you can ever change human nature and expect people to all joyously shoulder the burden of public education. I really believe in personal responsibility but when asked for money for Ben's school, my thought is "we pay taxes." I think contributing to the public good and an educated citizenry is critical. I'm all for it. But when I worked in college admissions, I worked at one school that didn't charge an application fee and two that did. The thinking for not was that more people would apply and give us a better chance to convince them to attend our college. However, I ended up squarely in the second camp. People who paid an application fee believed they were applying to a better school (and usually were) and wanted to attend there more. At the schools with the fee, we had a higher rate of attendance from our applicants. It is the same reason why most of us work out more when we pay for it. A financial investment usually compels commitment of other kinds.

So how does that apply to public schools? Simple. Perhaps if we charged a small "fee" (and correspondingly lowered taxes) for a child to attend a public school, parents would be more involved, and would place a higher value on that education. Just like college admission fees, there would be a process for having the fee waived for families who truly could not afford it. It will never happen. For one thing, many parents would probably choose a private school (for more) if they had to pay something anyway. Or so the teacher's unions would predict. And feel threatened by any competition. But I still think the idea has merit.