Great Expectations

January 29, 2004

Dear Editor,

After reading your article entitled “A Tale of Two Schools,” I wonder if a more appropriate literary analogy might be “Robin Hood Visits SMMUSD.”

First of all, I applaud Point Dume for their fundraising efforts and successes. Their PTA works hard for the money they bring in and ensures the funds are spent on enhancing the students’ overall education experience. (Point Dume tops the list in the District’s test scores, by the way.)

Second, I admire Point Dume’s principal for supporting her PTA’s efforts and thanking the parents for their generosity.

So what is your article really about? The inference is that Point Dume has too much and John Muir has too little, therefore the district must take from Point Dume (and other schools like it) to give to the schools that have less.

Shouldn’t the District instead model the efforts and accomplishments of schools like Point Dume, while at the same time find ways for all schools (including Point Dume) to increase their fundraising? I guarantee there is not a school in the District without a list of unmet needs.

It’s great to hear that a local Republican’s group is considering adopting John Muir. Why, though, is the District not taking this kind of positive action inside its own boundaries?

One suggested alternative to the Equity Fund policy has been to partner schools together to raise money and share fundraising successes. The district’s reply to this suggestion was that it would be demeaning for a less-advantaged school to accept help from another school. (But please go ahead and just write a check.)

I wholeheartedly agree with John Muir’s principal that we should all work together to increase funding for all schools throughout the District. I have yet to see how the Equity Fund policy does this. This proposed policy has fostered what she calls the zip code segregation mentality by pitting schools against each other vis-a-vis fundraising achievements, by imposing an additional tax on private donations, and by ignoring suggestions of voluntary, positive and collaborative alternatives, just to name a few ways.

Further, it contains no design for assisting all schools in increasing their fundraising. Controversial? Yes. Bold? Definitely. But also lacking in responsibility, creativity and vision. I can only hope the next article of yours I read regarding this issue will be entitled “Great Expectations.”