Grossly Inaccurate and “What’s Wrong with This Picture?”

January 20, 2004

Dr. Editor,

We am writing to you with regard to your January 12 article on the SMMUSD fundraising. (“Malibu Schools Leave Santa Monica’s Far Behind in Fundraising,” January 12, 2004)

While we cannot attest to the accuracy of the information you stated in regard to the other schools in our district, your information regarding Roosevelt Elementary School is grossly inaccurate. Some of the numbers reported appear to be from fundraising over the course of years, while other numbers stated do not appear to have any basis whatsoever.

Additionally, your enrollment numbers for the school are approximately 80 students short. Since several paragraphs were about Roosevelt specifically, we would appreciate if you had verified your data before making representations about the fundraising of our school specifically, and the district generally.

In sum, you did not specify the period of time you were referring to in the article when discussing Roosevelt, and gave the misimpression that all the contributions were from one year. You also then compared Roosevelt's numbers from various fundraising sources with contributions that came solely from the PTA at other schools. Finally, some of your numbers were clearly inflated.

While we appreciate your intention, it does all of us a disservice when the information reported is just plain wrong.

Debbie Mulvaney Jody Kasten
Booster Club President PTA President
Roosevelt Elementary School Roosevelt Elementary School

(Ed.’s note: The enrollment figures used in the article were provided by the School District and are based on attendance for “the month ended 10/24/03.” The numbers were revised on 1/6/04. The fundraising figures were also compiled by the district and printed in a list titled “Direct or In-kind Support Through Donations/Fundraising.” The district list was compiled using fundraising statistics for the 2002-2003 school year and the 2003-2004 school year through November 2003.)

January 19, 2004

Dear Editor

Supt. Deasy has put forth a laudable goal but an absolutely wrong-headed policy in an attempt to improve education in the District by in effect taxing at a 15 percent rate the voluntary donations given by parents to the local schools attended by their children.

He proposes that those District schools with vigorous parent participation ( and resulting fundraising activities) should pay 15 percent of all monies they earn through their fundraising -- which includes everything from selling gift wrap to neighborhood swap meets to silent auctions -- into an “equity” fund to be redistributed to schools who lack fundraising skills. In this way, he believes, the children at the latter schools can have more “equal” educational opportunities. So what’s wrong with this picture?

Firstly, those schools with robust parent participation raise funds mainly from parents who do so because their own children will directly benefit. Human nature being what it is, does anyone believe that parents will continue to donate at their present high levels when their own children do not benefit completely from their donations? So, while the theory of making perfectly even-sized slices out of the “donation” pie may appear commendable, if the size of the entire pie shrinks considerably, isn’t this policy self-defeating?

Secondly, Mr. Deasy’s proposed policy provides no mechanism, or incentive, for schools who lack fundraising capabilities to ever acquire them. Then too, Mr. Deasy wants an “outside management” company to administer the collection and distribution of this tax. Of course, such outside management is sure to charge a considerable sum for such services, which will come out of the “equity fund, thus reducing our “donation” pie still further.

If the two preceding arguments against this policy are not enough, consider the “non-monetary” provision of this proposed “gift policy.” It requires that all non-monetary gifts to schools must also be taxed at 15 percent of its cash value. Does anyone seriously believe that a local nursery who donates six trees, some fertilizer, perhaps even some labor will continue its generosity when it is handed a bill which must be paid in cash for 15 percent of the cost of their gift?!

Finally, does this tax, masquerading as a gift policy, really create educational reform, which purports to be the guiding principle of this Superintendent and the present School Board Members? Wouldn’t the educational interests of all students be better served if schools that now lack the means to conduct productive fundraising were paired with schools which have such expertise?

To do so could not only prevent the creation of a de facto “welfare” society among some District schools, it could ignite in such schools the pride, independence and self-reliance that successful fundraising engenders in parent groups -- to say nothing of providing those much-needed funds.

Diane C. Hines

PTA Past-President, Webster Elementary School
PTA Past-President, Malibu High School
Member, Fine Arts District Advisory Committee