The tricky problem of school fundraising

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 18/10/2024 (351 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

WHEN superintendent Matt Henderson publicly raised a concern about school fundraising and announced that the Winnipeg School Division was initiating a pause, he opened up a necessary but controversial conversation with the usual reactions.

Our views on fundraising reveal our deeply held views about funding schools, societal aspirations, parental responsibilities, and educating our youth for democratic citizenship.

From our reactions, we recognize this is a highly charged political issue rather than simply a sticky administrative problem. Tricky or not, divisive or not, school fundraising would benefit from a thorough airing, not necessarily to resolve the matter once and for all, but rather to put our biases on the table.

First, a small matter of clarification of roles and responsibilities. In one sense, Henderson was courageous to put his name out there but, as this is clearly a matter to be resolved by trustees and other politicians, questioning his motives makes no sense.

Even though he might be in complete agreement, it is very likely that he was simply communicating the views and wishes of the board on their behalf.

Second, school fundraising activities go to the very heart of the financing of education and what is mean by equality of educational opportunity for children and young people. Governments everywhere, always with limited resources, struggle with the impossible task of providing fairness as equity — in taxation (the revenue side) and goods and services (the expenditure side).

Flat taxes and the same resources for everyone do not constitute equity. The old adage holds, “there is nothing as unequal as the equal treatment of unequals.”

Third, the question as to whether equality of opportunity is even possible or desirable and at what cost to local initiative remains. On the one hand, we do not wish to interfere with parents’ desires and abilities to give their children the best educational experiences available, we also believe that if they’re good for their children, they should be available to all children.

Clearly it is the responsibility of the provincial government, and in the public interest, to pursue a reasonable measure of equality across the province. It is a school division’s responsibility to do so across a school division, which is what this case is about. It is also in everybody’s interests to not kill local initiative in the process, and that’s the rub in the current situation in Winnipeg.

The provincial grant, determined by political will and distributed provincewide, signals the maximum that a government believes people are willing to pay to support schools, and they count on local school boards to top that amount up to provide a measure of provincial equality and local responsiveness.

Local school fundraising represents a challenge to equality when, as Henderson suggests, some schools can raise virtually unlimited monies to offer untold experiences to their children, while others struggle to provide the bare necessities. The resulting inequalities have real affects on real people, young and old.

Some of the following situations are more common than we might wish to acknowledge.

While some students go to the various museums, theatres, social and sporting events with their schools, others cannot because the choice is between paying the rent and putting the food on the table or paying for your child’s field trip or team sports.

We know of young people who cannot and do not attend their own graduations because of associated costs and because fundraising goes to the individual rather than the school. On another matter we have already determined, for safety reasons, that young children should not be going door-to-door soliciting support, something which children without means had to do more than others.

While more affluent children have parents, friends and relatives who can afford to support fundraising activities, children living in poverty do not have people they can tap on the shoulder to support them.

Furthermore, some children do not attend various school activities because they do not feel they have appropriate wardrobes for public events or cannot bring lunches which others have. Relatedly, parents feel guilty because they cannot provide their children with the means to participate in various school activities, including sports teams. These are recipes for resignation and resentment from both adults and their children.

Finally, there is the question about whether children and their parents should have to assume personal responsibility for participating in public education, a public good with public rewards and consequences.

The whole premise of public education is the creation, fostering and nurture of a public, as in democratic, disposition and mentality which should be equally achievable by all.

Equality is and, may always be an elusive political goal but in a society which wishes to be known as democratic, it must be a matter of continuous public consideration. This means that school fundraising remains a political issue of the highest order, because it contributes to an exclusive have-have not separation.

Might it be better not to have any rather than the current situation, thereby placing the onus for equality where it belongs, on provincial and local governments?

John R. Wiens is dean emeritus at the faculty of education, University of Manitoba.