  |
|
        |
|
|
 Printer Friendly Version (PDF Format) Assisting K-12 Education through the Dave Else, Director Schools in America are faced with increasing demands and diminishing resources. Rapid social change, increasing diversity, and demands for accountability characterize the education landscape. Schools are expected to change to meet new needs of society and the workplace. At the same time these schools have limited resources to apply to meet these new demands. Support from public sources is not likely to be sufficient to provide the resource base necessary to create and operate the schools of the future. It is, therefore, incumbent on schools throughout the nation to look for sources of funding to supplement those received from public sources or from tuition income raised to support private schools. Increasingly, school districts and private schools across America are turning to foundations. Education foundations are “privately operated, nonprofit organizations established to assist public schools” (and private schools) and who qualify as charitable organizations, “different from school districts, public institutions or local governments” (Clay, Hughes, Seely, & Thayer, 1985, p. 1). Foundations are involved in three main activities: raising, handling, and redirecting money. A public school foundation “is designed to augment, supplement, or complement programs and activities currently being provided by the district” (McCormick, Bauer, & Ferguson, 2001, p. 2). Currently in the United States there are over 4,800 school foundations (McCormick, et al., 2001). They have their own board of directors and their own staff, both paid and volunteer. A foundation mainly provides for what a school district falls short to cover; however, in some cases, foundations help cover basic educational expenses. De Luna (1998, p. 385) notes that local school foundations are “the hottest fund-raising trend in public education.” Locally funded and operated, education foundations emerged during the 1980s -- particularly in states like California, Massachusetts, and Oregon, with voter-approved property tax limitation measures. Foundations are “popping up all over the country,” says Howie
Schaffer, a spokesperson for the Public Education Network, a
national association of local education funds, based in Washington
DC (Chmelynski, 1999, p. 2), “Shrinking tax revenues, budget cuts, a shift of state funds
to poor districts, a fear of losing students to private schools,
and parents’ rising expectations of what their children deserve
are factors fueling the explosive growth of school foundations”
(Chmelynski, p. 3). Nationally, foundations are found in all types of schools and vary greatly in size. The average amount raised by most school foundations is only about .3% of a typical district’s budget. Similarly
the utilization of funds varies greatly.
A 1995 study of school foundations conducted by Carol Merz,
Dean of the School of Education at the University of Puget Sound
in Tacoma, Washington, and Sheldon S. Frankel: ...found
those that raise less than $10,000 annually, usually provide
mini-grants and scholarships.
Foundations that raise $20,000 to $50,000 a year tend to
fund curriculum enrichment programs, teacher training, and teacher
resources. And those
that raise more than $100,000 annually often underwrite teaching
positions (Chmelynski, 1999, p. 6,
7). Rather
than raising monies to replace public dollars, some school
foundations stress systemic reform, working in “policy areas,
such as school governance, school finance, educational leadership,
and curriculum and assessment” (de Luna, 1998, p. 386).
They also try to re-engage citizens and recapture financial
support for education. A
common question rises: How
much money will make a difference?
McCormick et al. (2001) answer that $20 per student can
have an impact and an extra $20 can produce a change in education.
Literature Review and Research Findings
The
success of school foundations is well documented in California.
In 2000, California school foundations raised more than $30
million for public schools, impacting more than 3.5 million
children. Additionally,
more than 3,500 community volunteers served on the boards of
school foundations (California Consortium of Education
Foundations, 2001). “The
emerging view is that the number of school foundations is growing
and school foundations are providing districts with more flexible
funding” (Zimmer, Krop, Kaganoff, Ross, & Brewer, 2001,
Appendix D, Study Results, p. 1). While there may be some indication that school foundations
may lead to greater inequities between wealthy and poor districts,
it has been argued that school foundations actually help close the
gap between higher-income and lower-income districts (Zimmer).
Crampton and Bauman (1998) did find that entrepreneurship
activities, such as developing school foundations, did increase
per pupil spending and led to inequities. Merz and Frankel (1995) found that the number of nonprofits
did not differ much across economic communities (cited in Zimmer,
et. al., 2001). Studies
by McLaughlin (1988) and Brown and Rinehart (1991) suggest that
most school foundations raise small amounts of money and therefore
are more effective as public relations tools than revenue-raising
mechanisms.
Analysis of a survey conducted by the New Jersey
School Boards Association indicates that foundation fundraising
activities enhance public school programs in five major areas: (a) innovation/teacher mini-grants, (b) enrichment/cultural
arts activities, (c) school/community
equipment,
(d) improved community-school relations, and (e) technology (NJSBA
Policy and Library Resources Department, 1999) Steps in Developing School Foundations
The
literature is clear that careful planning is essential to the
establishment of a foundation. Determining the need for a
foundation in the community, assessing the real level of giving,
identifying donors, engaging initiators who have relevant
experience in evaluation and fundraising, clarifying the scope of
education to be served, defining the purpose of the foundation,
and developing objectives that are the expression of purpose in
specific terms are critical steps in planning (Clay et al., 1985). The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) views education foundations as tax-exempt organizations under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. State laws must be investigated before forming a foundation and foundations should not start fundraising until tax exempt status is granted both for the foundation and its donors (Clay et al.,1985). Fundraising
Guidelines The
funds acquired as donations can be unrestricted (the foundation
board decides how to use them) or restricted (the donor specifies
the way he/she wants the funds to be used), recurring (one can
donate on a regular or a predictable basis) or non-recurring (the
donation will not be repeated for a long time or at all) (Grace
& Wendroff, 2001). Fundraising
activities can range from art projects, athletic events, auctions
for students’ services, book and craft fairs to Christmas cards,
calendars, yearbooks and school symbols (Clay et al., 1985).
Muro (1995) suggests a new and challenging approach to
fundraising: […] your first task as a fund raiser is to forget
the need approach to soliciting private funds.
Your school district is not a problem, and you are not
seeking funds to shore up a sagging curriculum or poor athletic
field. Your school, and you, as a fundraiser, are the ones who
provide solutions to society’s problems Thus, the donation is no longer charity, but an
investment. People who provide support…do not want to
contribute to programs and activities that are perceived as
problems. In the larger sense, the request for support for a
project should be addressed in terms of an opportunity (p. 51). Muro (1995) further suggests that a volunteer who
solicits a peer is more likely to be successful than a paid
professional person. In
this case the solicitor and the prospective donor have a similar
financial status, which facilitates the process.
Donors need to see the donation
as an
investment in quality education.
He considers face-to-face solicitation more effective than
telephone and mail soliciting.
Planning is essential to fundraising. The
literature suggests that fundraising should apply the principle of
proximity (those closer to the school or the foundation) are more
likely to donate (McCormick et al., 2001; Muro,1995).
Thus, we can involve the members of the school staff,
administrators, board members, parents, alumni, major donors, and
businesses, any of the school district business partners.
Outside the school district regional and national
corporations can become allies. Grace and Wendroff
(2001) identify practices that could improve the relation between
the donor and the foundation the former has dealt with.
The donor should be given the opportunity to reinvest in a
program if both parties consider that program worthwhile.
Donors need to be informed on the impact their gift had.
Foundations shouldn’t just assume that a donor would not
want to be contacted again. The
foundation must cultivate the relation with its donors by frequent
relevant feedback. Feedback
includes: Ø
program
brochures Ø
donor
recognition events Ø
volunteer
recognition events Ø
newsletters Ø
websites Ø
program
proposals for new funding based on the successful investment of
previous funding Ø
board-meeting
presentations by program staff who have benefited from the funding
(p.161) Direction for Establishing a Board of Directors
The
literature identifies three types of foundation boards (Clay et
al.,1985; McCormick et al., 2001): 1. School
board-controlled foundation
-- all
foundation directors are appointed or controlled by the Board of
Education. 2. Autonomous
foundation board -- the
foundation board is entirely separated from the school board; the
school doesn’t need to give its approval to the changes the
foundation board may want to operate. 3. The embedded model -- the foundation is a separate, autonomous corporation. As members of the foundation board, school administrators represent the school’s interest. Changes need to be approved unanimously by the school board representatives and the other members of the foundation board. While
deciding on the type of board that will be most appropriate for
the foundation, the relationship between the foundation and the
school or the school district must be envisioned. The basic format of a
board includes a chairman, a president, a vice-president, a
treasurer, and a secretary. The board must be
able to: Ø
understand
the needs of the school. In
order to determine the school or the school district needs
suggests looking at education programs, financial data (the local
budget for education), external environmental factors (inflation,
demographic changes); and Ø
involve
the parents and community leaders (McCormick et al., 2001, pp.
25-26). Findings on
Foundation Leadership The
Public Education Network Study on Local Education Foundation
Leadership (Raphael & Anderson, 2001) revealed a number of
findings: Ø
If
school foundation executive directors had control over their time,
they would focus more time on strategic planning. Ø
School
foundation executive director leadership can best be described by
a community collaborative model of leadership. Ø
School
foundation leadership is likely to be a strong factor in the
development of public capital. Ø
Some
evidence pointed to a need on the part of executive directors for
increased understanding of how to develop a board’s autonomy.
Project
Design
To
meet the needs of K-12 schools in the United States to raise funds
from alternative sources, the University of Northern Iowa (UNI),
through its College of Education, has established the “National
Center for Public and Private School Foundations,” (NCPPSF) (www.intime.uni.edu/foundationsK12NC/).
The Center is housed in the Institute for Educational
Leadership (IEL) and is supervised by Dr. David Else, Director of
the IEL, and Associate Professor in the UNI College of Education.
The Center will engage in a variety of initiatives to
prepare local school personnel to establish and sustain
foundations. Most, but not all, of the activities will be conducted
electronically using a specially designed website. The University of Northern Iowa is nationally known for its teacher education program, research, and leadership in educational innovations. In response to recognized needs, the IEL (a Division of the College of Education), at UNI, is committed to bringing educators and community leaders together to analyze and dialogue about fundamental issues related to pre-kindergarten through post-secondary education. The Institute’s mission is to promote the improvements of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education throughout the State of Iowa and the nation. To
fulfill this mission the Institute serves as a catalyst for
informed dialogue on educational issues impacting the schools of
Iowa, region, and nation; developing collaborative relationships
with individuals and/or organizations external to schools; and
education policy development. The
IEL at UNI is unique because of its focus on capturing the
thinking of the nation’s best practitioners who possess a
knowledge base built on day-to-day experiences in a variety of
school and non-school settings.
The Institute strives to bring this knowledge base of
practice into relationship with the knowledge base of the
University resulting in stimulating interplay which addresses
complex leadership and educational issues and results in fresh
ideas and innovative perspectives.
Management PlanWhen establishing
a center for public and private school foundations consideration
needs to be given to collaborating with professional education
associations within the state.
The NCPPSF at the University of Northern Iowa has worked
closely with the Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB) and
School Administrators of Iowa (SAI) in identifying an advisory
board. The Iowa State
Education Association (a teachers professional organization) IASB
and SAI all have association leaders on the advisory board. Others on the board include representatives from K-12 public
and private schools, public and private colleges/universities,
legal entities, banking and financial planning firms. The
purpose of the advisory board is to “provide recommendations,
advice and assistance to NCPPSF.”
The function of the advisory board includes working with
the project manager to clarify structure and content of a national
working conference; identify legal and organizational contacts for
the critical elements for the success of school foundations; serve
as a link to practitioners, receive feedback and suggestions;
provide direction for continuous development of the Center; and
direct ongoing assessment of the impact of the Center on schools.
Advisory Board By-laws clearly articulate objectives,
offices, membership, officers, committees, and records of the
Advisory Board.
Objectives of the
National Center
The objectives of the National Center for Public and Private School Foundations at the University of Northern Iowa are responsive to the rapid growth of school foundations and research findings on school foundations and are designed around the needs of local public school districts and private schools as they seek to build relationships, and impact the education of children by establishing and sustaining school foundations. The objectives of the NCPPSF are to: Link people and
organizations in their communities with public and private schools, developing awareness and support through
school foundations.
Activities
to Meet Objectives Design of
activities to meet objectives of the NCPPSF is an evolving process
based on research and new knowledge on best practice.
Initial activities are aligned with objectives of the
Center: Ø
Activity: Identify one partner in each state to establish a National Network on School Foundations. The Center will start with the Renaissance Group, a
consortium of 42 institutions of higher education committed to the
preparation of teachers. Aligns with
Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Ø
Activity:
Operate a clearinghouse/website on K-12 school foundations which
includes a library of current literature; research findings; best
practice; and key contacts relative to legal issues, foundation
start-up, the relationship of school foundations to other
organizations, organization and management, policies and
procedures, and fundraising strategies.
Aligns with Objectives 2, 3, 5, 6. Ø
Activity: Use the website to provide
access to experts on the formation and operation of public and
private school foundations. Aligns with Objectives 1, 2, 4, 6, 7. Ø
Activity: Develop
an electronic “hot line” to answer questions about the
formation and operation of a K-12 school foundation.
Aligns with
Objectives 1,
2, 3, 4, 7. Ø
Activity: Deliver a specially designed web-based course to prepare
local school personnel to design and operate a school foundation
and to teach them the intricacies involved in gift giving.
Aligns with Objectives 2, 3, 4, 6,
7.
Ø
Activity: Identify legal experts to
provide legal counsel on fundraising issues.
Aligns with Objectives 2, 3, 4, 7. Ø
Activity: Conduct
a national working conference to identify critical issues in the
formation of K-12 public and private school foundations and to
identify an action agenda to address these issues.
Aligns with
Objectives 1, 3, 4. Ø
Activity: Conduct a series of
web-based workshops on the critical issues in the formation of
K-12 public and private school foundations and action steps
schools can take to develop and sustain foundations. Aligns
with Objectives 2, 3, 4, 6, 7. Outcomes Because of the
activities offered by the NCPPSF it is expected that: Ø
Public
and private K-12 schools will view the NCPPSF as the preferred
choice for information on school foundations. Ø
The
number of school foundations will increase from the current 12-15%
nation-wide to 18% by 2005 due in part to the NCPPSF. Ø
Use
of the NCPPSF website will increase steadily to a minimum of 150
hits per day by 2004. Ø
An
electronic monograph, which is a product of the National Working
Conference on School Foundations, will be utilized by schools
developing and sustaining school foundations. Ø
Executive
directors of school foundations will utilize web-based workshops
offered by the NCPPSF for professional development in the areas of
strategic planning and director/board relations. Management of Outcomes A
very specific and intentional process will be used to measure the
extent to which outcomes are realized. Ø
Outcome:
Public and private K-12 schools will view the NCPPSF as the
preferred choice for information on school foundations. Ø Measurement: A questionnaire will be designed to assess the value of the NCPPSF website to those using the website. Additionally a random sampling of schools with foundations will be emailed a questionnaire to determine their use of the Center. Statistical treatments will be applied to responses from both questionnaires.
Ø
Outcome: The number of
school foundations will increase from the current 12-15% nation-wide to 18% by 2005 due in
part to the
NCPPSF. Ø
Measurement: Data from the Public Education Network housed in Washington,
DC, which tracks school foundations, will be used to monitor the
increase in school foundations. Ø Outcome: Use of the NCPPSF website will increase steadily to a minimum of 150 hits per day by 2004. Ø
Measurement: The website will be designed to tabulate the number
of “hits” daily, weekly, and monthly.
It is expected there will be a steady increase in usage
leading up to the 150 hits per day by 2004. Ø Outcome: An electronic monograph which is a product of the National Working Conference on School Foundation, will be utilized by schools developing and sustaining school foundations. Ø
Measurement: An electronic tracking system will be used to
determine the number of schools “pulling up” the monograph or
downloading it on their computers. Ø Outcome: Executive directors of school foundations will utilize web-based workshops offered by the NCPPSE for professional development in the areas of strategic planning and director/board relations. Ø Measurement: Records of registrations of executive directors for the Center’s professional development workshops will be maintained and analyzed.
Purpose of State CentersWhile
the establishment of a state center for public and private school
foundations may follow a similar design, hold like objectives,
subscribe to common activities, and use a management plan modeled
after the NCPPSF, the approach may change based upon the purpose
of the state center. Rather than replicating services state
centers may choose to supplement the work of the National Center. The NCPPSF is seeking partners in each state to establish a National
Network on School Foundations.
The purpose of the state center then becomes that of
serving as a partner with the National Center.
As a partner the state center could: Ø
be
a contact for schools within the state wishing to link with their
communities in establishing and sustaining school foundations; Ø
clarify
state specific and federal laws as they apply to school
foundations; Ø
identify
activities for the National Center that would meet the needs of
its state; Ø
recognize
schools in the state with successful foundations, encouraging them
to share their expertise; Ø
assist
in providing data on school foundations; Ø
share
successful fundraising strategies with other states and the
National Center; Ø
identify
and conduct active research on school foundations within the
state; Ø
collaborate
with other states and the National Center in the development of
web-based courses in establishing and sustaining school
foundations to assist local schools and web-based training
workshops for leaders of school foundations; and Ø
assist
in constructing an action agenda to address critical issues in the
development of K-12 public and private school foundations. Depending
upon the size and purpose of the state center, a technology
coordinator and technology support team may be needed.
The NCPPSF also has a Center director who leads the
day-to-day operations. Working
as a partner with the National Center, a state center will have
much less technology and needs less technology support.
Summary
Perhaps
never before in recent history have economic conditions in states
across the nation been so stressed.
Such conditions have put added pressures on public schools
receiving reduced state support
or private schools that may have had to limit or curtail
tuition increases. Local
school foundations may provide financial assistance that improves
education at the local level. Developing and sustaining successful foundations require
expertise, community support, strong school-community
relationships, and common commitment. The National
Center for Public and Private School Foundations in cooperation with state partners serves as
a rich resource for schools and communities. Planning steps, legal guidelines, web-based courses and
workshops, consultant support, fundraising ideas, and a library of
current literature are just a few of mechanisms to be put in place
to aid schools and communities foundation boards, and foundation
directors. Characteristics
of successful school foundations characterize the National Center for Public and Private School
Foundations; well informed and enthusiastic leaders, supports that meet the needs
of schools and communities, objectives and action plans for
implementation, and positive, supportive relationships with
partners (Oklahoma Foundation for Excellence). If
you wish to become a state partner or if you wish to participate
in the National Working Conference, contact Dave Else david.else@uni.edu
; (319-273-3358) or Les
Huth les.huth@uni.edu
(319-273-3838).
ReferencesBrown,
J., & Rinehart, J. (1991,
Spring/Summer). Private
foundations: An empowerment tool.
Record, 53-57. California
Consortium of Education Foundations.
(2001). Starting
an educational foundation.
Retrieved April 18, 2002 from http://www.cceflink.org Chmelynski,
C. (1999, February 23). Non-profit
foundations raise millions for schools.
School Board News.
Alexandria VA: NSBA. Retrieved
April 18, 2002 from http://www.nsba.org/sbn/1999/022399-all.htm Clay,
K., Hughes, K. S., Seely, J. G., & Thayer, A. N.
(1985). Public
school Crampton,
F. E., & Bauman, P. (1998).
A new challenge to fiscal equity: Educational
entrepreneurship and its implications for states, districts, and
schools. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association, San
Diego, CA. de
Luna, P. (1998,
January). Local education foundations: Right for many schools.
Phi Delta Kappan (79)5, 385-389. Grace,
K. S., & Wendroff, A. L.
(2001). High
impact philanthropy: How donors, boards, and nonprofit
organizations can transform nonprofit organizations.
New York: Wiley & Sons. McLaughlin,
M. (1988).
Business and public schools: New patterns of support.
In D. Monk and J. Underwood, (Eds.), Micro level school
finance: Issues and implications for policy, (pp. 63-80).
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. McCormick,
D. H., Bauer, D. G., & Ferguson, D. E.
(2001). Creating
foundations for American schools.
Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen. Merz,
C., & Frankel, S. S. (1995). Private funds for public schools: A study of school
foundations. Tacoma,
WA: University of Puget Sound. Muro,
J. (1995).
Creating and funding educational foundations: A guide for
local school districts. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon. New
Jersey School Board Association (NJSBA) Policy and Library
Resources Department. (1999,
June). Local education foundation survey results.
Trenton, NJ: NJSBA. Retrieved
April 18, 2002 from http://www.njsba.org/members_only/policy_information_systems/lefsr/content_template.html Oklahoma
Foundation for Excellence. (2002).
How to start a local foundation in Oklahoma.
Retrieved April 18, 2002 from http://www.ofe.org
Raphael,
J., & Anderson, A. (2001,
October 17). The
public education network study of LEF leadership: Report on
baseline survey findings. The Urban Institute. Retrieved
April 18, 2002 from http://www.urban.org/education/LEF-Leadership.html Zimmer,
R., Krop, C., Kaganoff, T., Ross, K. E., & Brewer. D.
(2001). Private
giving to public schools and districts in Los Angeles County: A
pilot study. Santa
Monica, CA: Rand. Retrieved
April 18, 2002 from http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1429/
|
|
Last Modified - 08/04/2003 |
