Introduction

At both school and division levels, educational leaders continue to experience unprecedented changes and challenges in the structures, functions, systems, and resources available to them for conveying educational programs and services to their constituents. Many factors, including economic restraint and role-mandate diversification have placed extraordinarily complex fiscal issues and dilemmas before school system leaders. With these challenges, Gardner (1990) says that "the only hope for vitality in large-scale organizations is the willingness of a great many people throughout the organization to take the initiative in identifying problems and solving them" (p. 152). We know that arrangements and practices such as education and corporate partnerships or contracts, fundraising campaigns, fees for services, beneficiary fees, student recruitment for tuition, establishment of educational foundations, private sponsorship, and other entrepreneurial activities have been utilized to generate resources to augment the public funding of schools. Section 92 (t, h, and i), of the Education Act, empowers Saskatchewan school Boards to make regulations and acquire resources by non-traditional means. This research sought to identify and describe these non-traditional funding practices and policies in Saskatchewan K-12 educational jurisdictions. The study describes the nature of, and issues related to, alternative and non-traditional funding for K-12 education in Saskatchewan.

Scholars in the field of educational administration have only begun to conduct research into the nature of non-traditional funding, in an exploratory and descriptive fashion (Lawton, 1987; Cameron, 1969; Waters, 1969; Foutch, 1975; Kirkman, 1982; Stabler, 1982; Baulthaus, 1984; Salloum, 1985; Vetere, 1986; Hamm & Crosser, 1991; Bouman, 1994; Brown & Bouman, 1994). Prior to this study there had not been a comprehensive study of alternative and non-traditional funding of K-12 education at both the school and division level in Saskatchewan. Despite the decade-old reports produced in other provinces that indicate particular school districts/divisions have private accounts totaling in the millions of dollars (Salloum, 1985), no inventory or direct inquiry had been conducted. With the exception of some groundbreaking work in British Columbia (Brown, 1994 and Brown and Bouman, 1994), the economic, ethical, entrepreneurial, and financial exposition of non-traditional funding of K-12 education at the system and school level is unexplored. This is an area of expanding interest and activity that needs to be understood in its divisional and local school contexts.

The analysis of the impact of alternative and non-traditional funding arrangements dictate that new skills and knowledge is required for those training for educational administration and for those practicing educational leadership, as elected trustees and professional educators. This study represents a natural and geographic adaptation of the work done by Brown (1994) and Brown and Bouman (1994) in British Columbia and was conducted concurrent with the work of J. Lawrence Tymko for the Canadian Education Association (1996).

The research contained in this report may be described as a non-experimental or non-manipulative study in that it utilized descriptive statistics and interpretative inquiry techniques to establish "parameter estimates" or "best-guess" descriptions of the responses from the selected population (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1985, p. 11). The research consisted mainly of the use of surveys.

A random sample of 200 school-based administrators plus 150 division office and Board representatives (L.E.A.D.S. and S.A.S.B.O. members together with Board chairpersons) were asked to participate in this study. Each of those sampled from these groups were asked to complete a group-targeted survey.

Questionnaires were mailed to these school-based administrators(principals) and to central office educational leaders (including secretary-treasurers, board chairpersons and directors--the Saskatchewan term for chief superintendents) in late June of 1995 and data set was closed to incoming responses in early October 1995. These two sets of questionnaires were only different as suited the positions of the respondent groups. The questionnaires were organized into six sections incorporating a combination of open ended questions, five point Likert scale response questions, and choice of best response from a number of predetermined responses (See Appendix A).

The data collected from this instrument were analyzed using the SPSS statistical package. Frequencies, means, standard deviations and Independent Sample T Tests were calculated for all the five-point Likert scale response questions and for the questions that asked the respondents to choose the best response from a number of response alternatives. Frequencies were also calculated for those questions seeking a yes/no response. The open-ended questions were subjected to a structured analysis of data consisting of a determination of themes of response and the assignment of all individual responses to these inductively determined theme categories by a multiple-rater protocol. Hunches, tendencies, frequencies, significant relationships and verstehen interpretations were synthesized to present a profile of the alternative and non-traditional funding of K-12 education in Saskatchewan.

A total of 350 questionnaires were mailed to a random sample of 200 school-based administrators and 150 divisional educational leaders (50 secretary-treasurers; 50 directors; and 50 board chairpersons). The group identified in these findings as "school" refers to school-based administrators and the group identified as "division" refers to the secretary-treasurers, directors and board chairpersons. Table I indicates the questionnaire respondents rate of return: 131 of -a possible 200 school-based respondents (65.5%), and 78 of a possible 150 division respondents (52%). This was an overall response rate of just less than 60%.

Table 1
Summary of the Rate of Response of the Questionnaire
 

Respondents	Questionnaires Sent	Questionnaires Returned	Percentage Returned
School	200	131	65.5
Division	150	78	52.0
Late returns	--	2	.6
Total	350	211	60.3

 

The demographics specific to school divisions and to the school were gathered from the two questionnaires used for this study. For the purpose of this paper the demographics will be discussed under separate headings.

The demographics for the school division included: location of school division; number of schools within each division; type of school division; size of school division according to pupil enrollment and size of divisions' operating budget. Table 2 indicates that 65% of the respondents in this sample came from a rural geographical location, with 32% from urban centres. Two respondents indicated that they serve both rural and urban geographically located school divisions.

Table 2
Geographical-- Location of School Division. (N = 78)
 

Location	Frequency	Percentage
Urban	25	32.1
Rural	51	65.4
Both	2	2.6

 

Table 3 presents the number of schools in the respondent's division. The responses indicate that 85% of the respondents worked for school divisions with one to 10 schools, followed by 8% working for school division with 11 to 20 schools. Three percent of the "division" respondents came from divisions with 21 to 30 schools and 31 to 40 schools respectively. The lowest number respondents were in the categories of 41 to 50 and 51 or more schools, both of which had 1% of the respondents.

Table 3
Number of- Schools in Divisions (N = 78)
 

Number	Frequency	Percentage
1 to 10	66	84.6
11 to 20	6	8.2
21 to 30	2	2.6
31 to 40	2	2.6
41 to 50	1	1.3
51 or more	1	1.3

 

Table 4 indicates the frequency and percentage for the type of school division in which the respondents worked. Eighty-one percent of the "division" respondents worked for the public system, where as 14% worked for the separate system and 5% indicated that they worked for an other system such as Fransaskois.

Table 4
Type of School Division (N = 78)
 

Type	Frequency	Percentage
1. public	63	80.8
2. separate	11	14.1
3. other	4	5.1

 

Table 5 indicates the frequency and percentages for the size of school division according to pupil enrollment. Fifty-five percent of the respondents came from, divisions with a student enrollment of 1,000 to 2,999, followed by 28 % from school divisions with a student population of 300 to 999 pupils. -- The third most frequent response was from school divisions with less than 300 pupils at 6%; 5% of the respondents worked for school divisions with 10,000 of more pupils; 4% for school divisions with 5,000 to 9 999 pupils and 1% from a school division with a pupil enrollment between 3,000 to 4,999.

Table 5
Size of School Division According to Pupil Enrollment (N = 78)
 

Size by Pupil Enrollment	Frequency	Percentage
1. Less than 300 pupil enrollment	5	6.4
2. 300 to 999 pupils	22	28.2
3. 1,000 to 2,999 pupils	43	55.1
4. 3,000 to 4,999 pupils	1	1.3
5. 5,000 to 9,999 pupils	3	3.8
6. 10,000 or more pupils	4	5.1

 

As indicated in Table 6 the size of the respondents school division's operating budgets varied from less than 2 million dollars to over 41 million dollars, with the most frequently occurring operating budget being that of 6 to 10 million dollars (46%); the second most frequently occurring budget was 2 to 5 million dollars (24%), followed by respondents from school divisions with operating budgets between 11 to 15 million dollars (9%). The percentages for the remaining operating budgets in descending order were: less than 2 million dollars (8%), 21 to 40 million dollars (5%), 41 million dollars or more (5%), and 16 to 20 million dollars (3%).

A portrait of the most frequent "division" respondent is as follows: from a rural public school division with 1 to 10 schools, a student enrollment between 1,000 to 2,999 pupils and an operating budget of 6 to 10 million dollars.

Table 6

Size of School Division's Operating Budget (N=78)
 

Size of Budget	Frequency	Percentage
1. Less than 2 million dollars	6	7.7
2. 2 to 5 million dollars	18	24.4
3. 6 to 10 million dollars	32	46.2
4. 11 to 15 million dollars	7	9.0
5. 16 to 20 million dollars	2	2.6
6. 21 to 40 million dollars	4	5.1
7. 41 million dollars or more	4	5.1

 

School-based Administration

The demographics for school-based administrators included: geographical location, grade level, student population of school, type of school division, size of the community, percentage of staff actively involved in school fund-raising and the entrepreneurial skills of the school-based administrator. Table 7 presents the geographical location of the school for the respondents. Fifty-nine point five percent of the school-based administrators worked for schools in a rural setting and 40.5% worked for schools in an urban setting.

Table 7

Geographical Location of School (N = 131)
 

Location	Frequency	Percentage
Urban	53	40.5
Rural	78	59.5

 

Table 8 indicates the frequency and percentage for the school grade levels where the school-based administrators worked. The greatest number of the school-based administrators worked in schools with K to 8 grades (27%), followed closely by administrators who worked in K to 12 schools (26%) and in K to 6 schools (21 %). The remaining grade levels in decreasing order were: K to 9 (9 %), 9 to 12 (5%), 6 to 12 (5%), 7 to 12 (4%), 10 to 12 (3%), and 7 to 8 (.8%).

Table 8
Grade Level of School (N=131)
 

Grade Level	Frequency	Percentage
1. K to 6	27	20.6
2. K to 8	35	26.7
3. K to 9	12	9.2
4. K to 12	34	26.0
5. 7 to 8	1	.8
6. 9 to 12	7	5.3
7. 6 to 12	6	4.6
8. 10 to 12	4	3.2
9. 7 to 12	5	3.8

 

The frequency and percentage for the student population of school is represented by Table 9. Forty-one percent of the 'school' respondents worked in schools with a student population of under 200; 38 percent in schools with a student population of 201 to 400; and 14% in schools with a student population of 401 to 600. The least frequent were administrators who worked in a school with a student population of 601 to 800 at 3%, schools with a student population of over 1,000 at 2%, and schools with 801 to 1,000 students at 1.5%.

Table 9
Student Population of School (N = 131)
 

Size by Pupil Enrollment	Frequency	Percentage
1. under 200	54	41.2
2. 201 to 400	50	38.2
3. 401 to 600	18	13.7
4. 601 to 800	4	3.1
5. 801 to 1,000	2	1.5
6. over 1,000	3	2.3

 

Table 10 indicates the frequency and percentage for the type of school division with which the "school" respondents were associated. Eighty percent of the respondents worked in public school divisions, 13% worked in separate school divisions and 6% indicated they worked in other school divisions. One respondent did not answer this question.

Table 10
Type of School Division (N = 131)
 

Type	Frequency	Percentage
1. public	105	80.2
2. separate	17	13.0
3. other	8	6.0
4. no response	1	.8

 

Table 11 presents the frequency and percentage for the size of community where schools were located. Twenty-eight percent of the respondents indicated that their school was located in a community of less than 500 residents; 26 percent in communities with 10,000 or more residents; and 17 percent in communities with 500 to 999 residents. The remaining respondents fell into the following categories: 1,000 to 2,999 residents (12%), 5,000 to 19 999 residents (12%), and 3,000 to 4,999 residents (5%).

Table 11
Size of Community in which School is Located (N = 131)
 

Size by Pupil Enrollment	Frequency	Percentage
1. Less than 500 residents	37	28.2
2. 500 to 999 residents	22	16.8
3. 1,000 to 2,999 residents	16	12.2
4. 3,000 to 4,999 residents	7	5.3
5. 5,000 to 19,999 residents	15	11.5
6. 20,000 or more residents	34	26.0

 

The respondents were asked to indicate on a 5 point Likert type scale if other educators would consider them (the respondent) to be 'an entrepreneurial school leader." The scale ranged from not likely (=1) to very likely (=5). Table 12 presents the means, standard deviations and modes for the responses. A mean of 3.3 indicated that the majority of the respondents fell on the likely side of the Likert scale. The most frequently occurring response for this question was 4.0, the standard deviation of .96 indicated that the answers did not vary greatly.

Table 12
Entrepreneurial School Leader (N = 130)
Mean = 3.3
Standard Deviation = .96
Mode = 4.00

The last demographic question for the "school" respondents asked what percentage of their staff were actively involved in school fundraising? Table 13 presents the findings for this question and shows that 33% of the respondents indicated that 75 to 100% of their school staff were actively involved in school-fund-raising, 31% indicated that 0 to 25% of their staff were involved, 19% indicated a 50 to 75% involvement level and 18% indicated an involvement of 25 to 50%. One respondent did not answer this question.

Table 13
Percentage of School Staff Actively Involved in Fund-Raising (N = 131)
 

Percentage of School Staff	Frequency	Percentage
1. 0 to 25%	39	29.8
2. 25 to 50%	23	17.6
3. 50 to 75%	25	19.1
4. 75 to 100%	43	32.8
missing response	1	.8

 

Two portraits of the most frequent "school" respondent can be ascertained from the data. One portrait is of a school-based administrator from a rural, public school division in a community of less than 500 residents, in a K-12 school with a student population of under 200. The other is a portrait of a school-based administrator who is from an urban, public school division in a community of 20,000 or more residents, working in an elementary school with a student population of 200 to 400. In 33% of the schools, 75 to 100% of the staff were seen as being actively involved with fund-raising and, in 30% of the schools, 0 to 25% of the staff were seen as being actively involved.

Section B of the questionnaire asked respondents 24 questions related to fund raising in schools or divisions, responsibility for fundraising in schools or divisions, groups participating in raising funds and the long-standing phenomenon of agencies asking the schools or school divisions to raise funds for them.

Table 14 indicates that the majority of the respondents in both the school or division level engage in fund raising. At the division level 64% of the respondents said yes and at the school level 96% of the respondents said yes to fund-raising being conducted.

Table 14
Does School/Division Conduct Fund-raising Activities?
 

Response	Division (N = 78)		School (N = 131)
	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
1. Yes	50	64.1	126	96.2
2. No	28	35.9	4	3.1
Missing	0		1	.8

If respondents answered the above question with a "no" they were asked to indicate why the school or division chose not to be involved in fund-raising. The division level respondents indicated that division levels did not do fund-raising at their level, but that it was done at the school level or through the Parents' Association. Division level respondents who did not participate in fund-raising gave the following reasons for this: "believe it is the role of taxation to provide;" "does the department want us to have professional fund-raisers?" "fear of public's perception of being a publicly funded school system;" and "the use of taxation is fair, equitable and efficient." Only four of the 131 (3%) schools reported they did not do fund-raising. Their reasons were that fund-raising was not allowed or that they worked for a Hutterite school community.

When asked where school level fund-raising was done, both school and division respondents responded in the same fashion. Table 15 presents the frequency and percentage for where school fundraising was done. Both within and outside the school were the most frequent responses, according to 82% of the division respondents and 85% of the school respondents. The second most frequent response was within the school at 12% for the division respondents and 8% for the school respondents. One division and one school respondent indicated that the question was not applicable to them. Two division and five school respondents did not answer this question.

Table 15

Where is School Level Fund-raising Done?
 

School Level	Division (N=78)		School (N=131)
	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
1. Within the school	9	11.5	11	8.4
2. Outside the school	1	1.3	3	2.3
3. Both	64	82.1	111	84.7
4. Not applicable	2	2.6	1	.8
Missing	2	2.6	5	3.8

 

Respondents were asked about the extent each group should be responsible for school fund-raising. A five point Likert scale was used to solicit responses to this question ranging from 1 (=not responsible) to 5 (=very responsible). Table 16 presents the means and standard deviations for the responses to this group of questions. At the division level the responses were ranked in the following order: parent group(s) (M=3.9), secondary students (M=3.76), elementary students (M=3.21), community organizations (M=3.07), individual parents (M=2.94), school administrator (M=2.89), teachers (M=2.85), and local trustees (M=2.79). At the school level the responses were ranked in the following order: parent group(s) (M=4.12), secondary students (M=3.81), school administrator (M=3.31), individual parents (M=3.22), elementary students (M=3.19), local trustees (M=3.06), teachers (M=3.00) and community organizations (M=2.96). No significant differences surfaced when the responses to these questions were analyzed.

When response means are ranked from highest to lowest and comparison is undertaken between the two groups both groups ranked the parent groups and secondary students as the groups that should be the most responsible for fund-raising. At the school level respondents thought that the school administrator should have a more active role in fund-raising and that community organizations should be the least responsible. This contrasts the division level respondents who perceived the elementary students as being more responsible for fund-raising than the school administrator and ranked the local trustees as having the least responsibility for fund-raising.

Table 16
Who is Responsible for School Fund-raising?
 

Group	Division (N = 78)		School (N=131)
	Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.
1. Individual parents	2.94	1.16	3.22	1.25
2. Parent group(s) associations	3.9	.87	4.12	.94
3. Teachers	2.85	1.11	3.00	1.16
4. Elementary students	3.21	1.05	3.19	1.08
5. Secondary students	3.76	.90	3.81	.95
6. School administrators	2.89	1.14	3.31	1.23
7. Local trustees	2.79	1.09	3.06	1.30
8. Community organizations	3.07	1.07	2.96	1.24

 

Respondents were asked to what extent each group had actively participated in fund-raising activities. Here, again a Likert scale (1 = not active to 5 = very active) was used for recording responses and Table 17 presents the means, standard deviations and Independent Sample T Test results for these responses. At the division level the groups were ranked in the following order: secondary students (M=3.1), elementary students (M=3.7), parent group(s) (M=3.6), teachers (M=3.3), school administrators (M=3.1), individual parents (M=2.8), community organizations (M=2.7), and local trustees (M=2.3). At the school level the groups were ranked elementary students (M=3.6), parent group(s) (M=3.2), individual parents (M=3.0), community organizations (M=2.2), and local trustees (M=1.8).

An Independent Sample T Test found a significant difference at the .05 significance level between the mean for the division respondents and the mean for the school respondents for the groups of parent group(s)/association, secondary students and local trustees. The mean for division respondents parent group(s) was 3.6 significantly greater than the mean for school respondents at 3.2. The division respondents perceived the parent group(s) to be more actively involved with fund-raising at the school then the school respondents actually thought this group was. The division respondents (M=3.8) perceived the secondary students to be more involved with fund-raising at the school level than the school respondents (M=3.6) perceived them to be. The division respondents (M=2.3) also indicated that, in their experience, the local trustees were more involved with fund-raising at the school level than the school respondents (M=1.8) indicated they experienced local trustee involvement. Teachers and school administrators were seen as more actively involved by the school level respondents than by the division level respondents. Both groups of respondents ranked the local trustees as participating the least with fund-raising. The school respondents ranked the elementary students as the greatest contributors. However, this could simply be a result of the number of respondents who identified themselves with work in elementary schools (n=74) compared to the number of respondents associated with secondary schools (n=16).

One might ask: what are the discrepancies between who should be responsible and who are actually involved in active fund-raising? A comparison between the responses to two survey questions revealed that the division level respondents ranked the parent group(s) as being the most responsible for fund-raising followed by secondary and elementary student, with teachers ranked seventh. When compared to those actively participating in fund-raising the order changed to rank students first, followed by parent group(s), and then teachers (in fourth rank). This indicates that division respondents perceived teachers as more actively involved in fund-raising than they believed teachers should be. The division respondents ranked the local trustees as not responsible for fund-raising at the school level and they also ranked the local trustees as the least actively involved. However, as mentioned previously, there was a significant difference between the level of perceived degree of involvement of local trustees by the division respondents and the school respondents.

For the school level respondents the parent group(s) ranked first in the responsibility question, however, on the active participation question they ranked fifth; whereas teachers ranked seventh on the responsibility question and ranked second on the active participation question. Although the school administrators see the parents as being the most responsible and the teachers as having a minimal responsibility for fund-raising, in reality the opposite is happening. Again the placement of elementary students as the most active participants could be a result of the large number of respondents from elementary schools. However, it could also be a real reflection of the general interest elementary students have in their school and the amount of fund-raising activity taking place at that level.

Table 17
Extent of Group Participation in Fund-raising
 

School Level	Division (N=78)		School (N=131)		T Test
	Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.
1. Individual Parents	2.75	1.14	2.98	1.3	.705
2. Parent group(s) or associations	3.56	1.24	3.19	1.5	.002*
3. Teachers	3.34	1.14	3.58	1.1	.784
4. Elementary students	3.67	1.12	3.62	1.1	.975
5. Secondary students	3.80	.93	3.56	1.1	.036*
6. School administrators	3.12	1.19	3.57	1.2	.620
7. Local trustees	2.31	1.18	1.83	1.0	.039*
8. Community organizations	2.65	1.15	2.24	1.2	.746

*p>.05

Table 18 gives the frequency and percentage for responses to a question regarding parental encouragement of fund-raising. At both the division and school levels 73% of the respondents indicated parents encouraged fund-raising. Perhaps there is a need to ask the question "Why do parents encourage fund-raising?"

Table 18
Do Parents Encourage Fund-raising?
 

Response	Division(N=78)		School (N=131)
	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
1. Yes	57	73.1	96	73.3
2. No	14	17.9	28	21.4
Missing	7	9.0	7	5.3

 

Respondents were asked for information on - charities supported by the schools in terms of fund-raising initiatives. Tables 19 indicates the frequency and percentage of responses and shows that 77% of the division respondents and 76% of the school respondents reported being asked to raise funds for charities. The main agencies cited by division respondents were UNICEF (73% of divisions were asked by UNICEF), Telemiracle (63%), Heart and Stroke Foundation (50%), United Way (23%), and 'other" (14%). The percentages of schools asked to raise funds for particular charities at the school level were as follows: UNICEF (55%), 'other' (55%), Heart and Stroke Foundation (30%), and United Way (21 %). "Other" organizations that involved schools in fund-raising activities, where mentioned more than once, included: Terry Fox, Multiple Sclerosis, Legion, Foster Child/Parent Agencies, Project Love, Jump Rope for Heart, Ronald MacDonald House, Red Cross, Interval House, Friendship Inn, and Foodbank. It is interesting to see the comparatively high volume of requests by "other" groups at the school level.

Table 19
Do Other Agencies Ask You to Raise Funds?
 

Agencies	Division (N = 78)  Frequency	School (N = 131)  Percentage
1. UNICEF	73	55
2. United Way	23	21
3. Heart and Stroke	50	30
4. Telemiracle	62	47
5 . Other	14	55

 Please note percentages are greater than 100 because many respondents indicated more than one agency requested funds.

As indicated by Table 20, 78 % of the division respondents and 84% of the school respondents believed there are potential hazards or problems associated with fund raising.

Table 20
Potential Hazards or Problems with Fund-raising?
 

Response	Division (N=78)		School (N=131)
	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
1. Yes	61	78.2	110	84.0
2. No	13	16.7	16	12.2
Missing	4	5.1	5	3.8

 

Table 21 presents the hazards or problems associated with fundraising: overkill and saturation (division=31%; school=30%); accountability and accounting (division=10%, school=18%); interference with instruction (division=19%, school=18%); safety and liability (division=10%, school=8%); double taxation (division=19%, school=8%); inequality of educational opportunity (division=8%, school=2%); quality of merchandise sold (division=4%, school=l%); potential reductions in grants (division=4%, school=O%); ethical implications of advertising and children (division=l%, school=5%); requests for matching funds from division (division=l%, school=O%); not the role of the school (division=l%, school=2%); competing with local businesses or charities (division=8%, school=0%); some do all the work (division=0%, school=4%); control the number of events (division=0%, school=l%); expect too much (division=0%, school=l%); unhealthy student competition (division=0%, school=l%); taking for granted students will fund-raise (division=l%, school=0%).

As clearly indicated, the top five concerns at the division level were overkill, interference with instruction, double taxation, accountability, safety and liability, inequality and competing with local businesses. The top five concerns for the school level respondents were overkill, accountability, interference with instruction, safety and liability and double taxation. Of the five top concerns inequity of educational opportunity and competing with local businesses were concerns for division respondents but not for school respondents. The overkill or saturation 'problem' was perceived to present the greatest potential hazard for both division and school level respondents. Double taxation was a greater concern for division respondents than for school respondents, whereas accountability (proper accounting procedures and handling of money) was a greater potential hazard for school level respondents than for division respondents.

Table 21
Potential Hazards or Problems Associated with Fund-raising
 

Response	Division (N=78)  Percentage	School (N=131)  Percentage
Overkill; saturation	31	30
Accountability	10	18
Interference with instruction	19	18
Safety and liability	10	8
Double taxation	19	8
Inequality of educational opportunity	8	2
Quality of merchandise sold	4	1
Potential reductions in grants	4	-
Ethical implication advertising/children	1	5
Requests for matching funds from division	1	-
Not the role of the school	1	2
Competing with local business/charities	8	-
Some do all work	-	3
Controlled # of events	-	1
Expect too much	-	1
Unhealthy student competition	-	1
Taking for granted students will fund raise	1	-

 

Table 22 lists the means, standard deviations and Independent Sample T Test results for questions asked to determine if schools explicitly instructed students with respect to safety conscious behaviour when fund-raising. A five point Likert scale, ranging from I (=rarely) to 5 (=usually) was used to obtain data. Both division and school respondents indicated their perceptions that the elementary students were better prepared by schools to behave in a safety conscious manner when fund-raising. The mean for both division and school respondents was 3.7. The means for instructions to secondary students were 3.3 for division level and 3.0 for school level respondents. The T Test was not significant for either.

Table 22
Students Given Explicit Instructions on Safety
 

Students	Division (N=78)		School (N=131)		T Test  Sig.
	Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.
Elementary	3.72	1.22	3.74	1.3	.619
Secondary	3.31	1.32	3.04	1.25	.452

 
 

Section C of the survey consisted of three questions directed toward discerning the perceived educational values associated with fund-raising by division and school levels. Two of the three questions used a five point Likert scale to solicit responses on: the extent that educational values are gained by students through fund-raising (1 = low educational value and 5 = high educational value) and the extend to which students understand the goals of and benefits to the charities/agencies that involve their school in fund-raising activities (1 = rarely and 5 = usually). Table 23 provides the means, standard deviations and Independent Sample T Test significant levels for both division and school respondents with respect to the extent that educational values are perceived to be gained and the extent to which students have a clear understanding of the goals and benefits of fundraising for charities. The mean for educational values gained by students was 2.9 for division respondents and 3.1 for school respondents. These means were not. significantly different. The means for a clear understanding of goals and benefits of the charity were 3.8 for division and 4.0 for school level respondents were significantly different. It would appear that school-based administrators believe that students have a clearer understanding of the goals and benefits of fundraising activities than did those who work out of the division office.

Table 23
Educational Values/Goals and Benefits
 
 

	Division (N=78)		School (N=131)		T Test  Sig.
	Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.
Educational Values	2.85	1.06	3.06	1.13	.867
Goals and Benefits	3.77	.81	4.02	.83	0.33*

*p>.05; Sig. = significant difference

Which educational values do educational leaders perceive to be associated with fund-raising? Respondents were asked to select up to five educational values from a list of 21 values generated from previous research in this area. According to Table 24, the top seven educational values for division level respondents, in order of percentage, were: school spirit (63%), student contribution (53%), responsibility (45%), school-community cooperating (37%), help worthwhile causes (37%), pride or togetherness (32%), and teamwork (32%). The top five educational values for school level respondents, in order of percentage, were: school spirit (63%), responsibility (56%), student contribution (46%), school-community cooperation (46%), and help worthwhile causes (37 %). When the educational values are compared it is found that similarities exist for school spirit, student contribution, responsibility, school-community cooperating, and help worthwhile causes. Those educational values (cultural exposure and language development) which were least associated with fund-raising were also identical for the two groups of respondents.

Table 24
Educational Values Associated with Fund-raising
 

Value	Division (N=78) Percentage	School (N=131) Percentage
1. School spirit	63	63
2. Pride or togetherness	32	33
3. Responsibility	45	56
4. Organizational skills	19	31
5. Accounting, arithmetic skills	10	15
6. Awareness of less fortunate	15	26
7. Help self and others	15	28
8. Money management	19	15
9. Help worthwhile causes	37	37
10. School-community cooperation	37	46
11. Teamwork	32	24
12. Social consciousness	28	21
13. Continuation of school program	13	30
14. Work for common good	28	31
15. Polite salesmanship	6	7
16. Develop talents	1	5
17. Language development	1	5
18. Learning to greet and meet people	15	16
19. Build self-esteem, self-image	1	7
20. Cultural exposure	0	2
21. Students feel they have made a contribution	53	53

 
 

This section of the questionnaire asked respondents to indicate, to the best of their knowledge, the extent to which each of a group of programs and activities are financed through fund-raising at the school level. The response options were 0 (=non applicable to our division) and the 5 points of a Likert scale (ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = completely). The data from this section were analyzed in the following manner by running percentages for those respondents in both groups who answered "not applicable in our division." Then means and standard deviations were run for the remaining respondents who answered using the Likert scale. Independent Sample T Test were also executed to compare the means of the division respondents and the school respondents. Table 25 presents the percentage, means, standard deviations and T Test significance level for these items.

Table 25
Programs and Activities Financed through Fund-raising at the School Level
 

Division		School
Yearbook athletics-uniforms, refer 3.5	3.76	S.R.C. activities	4.13
S.R.C. activities	3.68	Athletics-uniforms, refer	3.56
Graduation program	3.65	Field trips	3.47*
Student rings, jackets	3.47	Graduation program	3.43
School dances	3.37	Yearbook	3.27
Field trips	3.31*	Sports tournaments	3.25
Athletics-uniforms, refer	3.17	Playground equipment	3.24*
Drama variety nights	3.13	Transport for school activities	3.16*
Sports tournaments	3.12	School club activities	3.13
Playground equipment	3.03*	School dances	3.23
School club activities	2.94	Outdoor ed.	3.07
Outdoor ed.	2.92	Drama variety nights	2.97
Transport for school activities	2.88*	Student rings, jackets	2.56
Cultural programs	2.34	Cultural programs	2.34
Instructional equipment	2.11	Instructional equipment	2.24
School nutrition program	2.02*	Library purchases	2.04
Library purchases	1.83	Regular instruction	2.62
Ind. Arts, Home Economics	1.68	Ind. Arts, Home Economics	1.61*
Regular instruction	1.36	School nutritional program	1.61*
Substitute teachers	1.25	Substitute teachers	1.27
Classroom supplies	1.24	Classroom supplies	1.15

1 = not at all to 5 = completely; *p> 5

When the means are ranked in order of highest to lowest three groupings emerge. The first of these grouping has 13 program and activities which are similar, but varied in ranking. In this first group, the means for division respondents range from 3.76 to 2.88, and for school respondents from 4.13 to 2.56. The highest rankings for the division level respondents were: yearbook; S.R.C. activities; graduation program; student rings and jackets; school dances; field trips; athletics uniforms, referees; drama variety nights; sport tournaments; playground equipment; school club activities; outdoor education; and transportation for school activities. The highest rankings for school level respondents were: S.R.C. activities; athletics-uniform, referees; field trips; graduation program; yearbook; sports tournaments; playground equipment; transportation for school activities; school dances; outdoor education; drama variety nights; and student rings and jackets.

There is not much consistency within this first grouping, in the way the division people answered compared to the way school level personnel answered. This is evident by the number of differences that were significant at the .05 level. The Independent Sample T Test revealed that there were three significant differences between the division respondents responses and the school respondent responses: field trips (division = 3.31, school = 3.47), playground equipment (division = 3.03, school = 3.24), and transportation for school activities (division = 2.88, school = 3.16). In all three instances the means for the school respondents perceived these programs and activities were resourced to greater extent by fund-raising than did the division level respondents.

The means for the second grouping ranged from 2.34 to 1.36 for the division respondents and from 2.34 to 1.61 for the school respondents. This grouping included the following six programs and activities: cultural programs, instructional equipment, school nutrition program, library purchases, industrial art and home economics, and regular instruction. Within this grouping, three of the six programs and activities have the same rank order: cultural programs, instructional equipment and industrial art and home economics. The Independent Sample T Test found significant differences for the programs and activities of instructional equipment (division = 2.11, school = 2.24) and regular instruction (division = 1.36, school = 2.62). In both cases, the mean for the school level respondents was greater; indicating that the school respondents perceived these programs and activities to be financed more through fund-raising than did the division level respondents. It is of interest to note that division respondents felt that regular instruction was "not at all" supported by fund-raising dollars but that the school respondents felt that a certain percentage was funded by fund-raising dollars.

The final grouping included substitute teachers and classroom supplies. The means for this grouping were 1.25 (substitute teachers) and 1.24 (classroom supplies), for division respondents, and 1.27 (substitute teachers) and 1.15 (classroom supplies) for school respondents. The data show that these programs and activities are seldom, if at all, funded by fund-raising dollars.

As shown on Table 25b, percentages were generated for those respondents who stated that the programs or activities were "non applicable in our division." The programs and activities were then grouped according to the following percentages: Group 1-18 to 36%; Group 2-15 to 17%; Group 3-10 to 14% and group 4-0 to 9%. Group 1 had the following programs and activities for division respondents school nutrition program, substitute teachers, student rings and jackets, cultural programs and yearbook. The similarities between these two groups of respondents include school nutritional program, substitute teachers, classroom supplies, industrial arts and home economics, and cultural programs. When these similarities are compared to the low end of the Likert scale responses, there is some overlap within the bottom two groups. This overlap indicates some consistency in the responses. Those programs and activities which are seldom funded by fund-raising (evident by a low mean score) were very similar to those programs and activities which some respondents stated their division never funded by fund-raising.

Those programs and activities in Group 2, the 15 to 17% group, included only responses from the school respondents. These included: regular instruction, outdoor education, school club activities, library purchases, athletics-uniforms and referees, and drama variety nights. The programs and activities in Group 3, those with a percentage between 10 to 14%, included for the division respondents student rings and jackets, and library purchases; and for the school respondents outdoor education, sport tournaments, school club activities, library purchases, athletics-uniforms and referees, and drama variety nights. The only similarity in this group was library purchases.

Table 25b
Where Use of Fund-raising Revenue Non Applicable in Division
 

Use	Division (N = 78) Non Applicable			School (N=131) Non Applicable			T Test Sig.
	%	Mean	S.D.	%	Mean	S.D.
Regular instruction	18	1.36	.60	16	1.62	.99	.004*
I.A. H.Ec.	19	1.68	.89	31	1.61	.81	.477
Field trips	0	3.31	1.06	1	3.47	1.09	.483
Instructional equipment	6	2.11	.93	7	2.24	1.09	.028*
School dances	6	3.37	1.51	15	3.12	1.66	.122
Drama and variety nights	6	3.13	1.13	10	2.97	1.42	.003*
School club activities	6	2.94	1.15	11	3.13	1.33	.028*
Athletics-uniforms, refer,	1	3.17	1.16	10	3.56	1.09	.615
S.R.C. activities	1	3.68	1.09	15	4.13	1.16	.911
Substitute teachers	21	1.25	.77	32	1.27	.75	.909
Classroom supplies	21	1.24	.77	24	1.15	.49	.047
Graduation program	6	3.65	1.19	15	3.43	1.40	.015*
Sports tournaments	4	3.12	1.15	12	3.25	1.35	.073
School nutritional programs	29	2.02	1.28	36	1.61	1.23	.308
Cultural programs	18	2.34	1.09	18	2.34	1.24	.175
Student rings, jackets	13	3.47	1.63	23	2.56	1.79	.086
Outdoor ed.	6	2.92	1.23	12	3.07	1.18	.450
Library purchases	12	1.83	.91	11	2.04	.99	.482
Transportation for activities	3	2.88	1.09	9	3.16	1.20	.283
Playground equipment	6	3.03	1.07	8	3.24	1.32	.004*
Yearbook	6	3.76	1.16	18	3.27	1.59	.000*

*p>.05; Per. = Percentage; Sig. = significant difference

The final group, Group 4 included those programs and activities with a percentage of 0 to 9%. For the division respondents this included: school dances, drama variety nights, school club activities, graduation program, outdoor education, playground equipment, yearbook, instructional equipment, sports tournaments, transportation for school activities, S.R.C. activities the field trips. For the school level respondents this included: transportation for school activities, playground equipment, instructional equipment and field trips. Those programs and activities which were similar between division and school levels were transportation for school activities, playground equipment, instructional equipment and field trips. When Group 4 is compared with those programs and activities which had the highest mean scores (category one from the Likert scale responses) the similarities include: transportation for school activities, playground equipment, and field trips. These represent the main programs and activities funded by fund-raising activities.

Section E consisted of two parts: the first asked respondents to indicate to the best of their knowledge the frequency that the listed fund-raising activities are used by circling the most appropriate number (1 = never and 5 = always) and the second asked respondents six open ended questions. Results from analysis of means, standard deviations and Independent Sample T Test are displayed in Table 26.

When the means were ranked in order of highest to lowest four groupings emerge. In the first group the means for division level respondents ranged from 4.10 to 3.07, for school level respondents range was from 4.13 to 2.87. The top seven fund-raising activities for the division level respondents included: sales within school-pizza, drama and variety nights, sales within the community-cookies, student fees for specified purposes, national or provincial programs (such as POPPY Sales), donations' from school-related agencies, and commissions from photos and book fairs. The top seven fund-raising activities according to the school; level respondents included: sales within school pizza, sales with the community, commission from photos and book fairs, national or provincial programs (such as poppy sales), student fees for specified purposes, donations from school-related agencies, and fun nights/carnivals. A comparison between the two respondent groups revealed that the following activities were ranked within the top seven for both division respondents and school respondents: sales with school-pizza, sales within the community-cookies, commission from photo and book fairs, student fees for specified purposes, national or provincial programs (such as poppy sales), and donations from school related agencies.

Table 26
Fund-raising Activities
 

	Division (N=78)		School (N=131)		T Test Sig.
	Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.
Student fees for specified purposes	3.17	1.27	2.97	1.65	.000*
Student fees non-specific purposes	2.09	1.27	1.95	1.26	.851
Fun nights-carnivals	2.71	1.19	2.87	1.2	.983
Raffles, bingos gaming activities	2.53	1.23	2.52	1.31	.375
Sales within school - pizza	4.10	.93	4.13	1.0	.787
Community dances - alcohol	1.05	.22	1.19	.71	.001*
Sales in community - cookies	3.22	1.09	3.30	1.25	.035
Spell-a-thons, math-a-thons	1.99	.94	2.02	1.23	.001*
Rental fees - lockers	2.39	1.44	1.75	1.29	.019*
Student work activities	2.82	1.09	2.35	1.20	.082
Donations - school related agencies	3.13	1.19	2.88	1.38	.100
Partnerships corporations	1.97	.92	1.70	.98	3.95
Student dances	2.96	1.18	2.67	1.45	.001*
Contracts with suppliers - Pepsi	2.32	1.3	2.04	1.26	.246
Drama and variety nights	3.28	1.13	2.82	1.32	.056
Estates and bequests	1.65	.79	1.32	.68	.058
Commissions - photos, book fairs	3.07	1.12	3.21	1.34	.009*
Sales of surplus goods	2.26	1.06	1.87	.99	.293
Advertising - yearbook, newsletter	3.04	1.33	2.60	1.46	.059
Sale of supplementary instructional materials	1.84	.84	1.43	.76	.294
Bottle drives	2.26	1.12	2.14	1.19	.434
Pupils distribute flyers	1.33	.67	1.16	.39	.000*
National poppy sales	3.15	1.13	2.98	1.4	.005*

*=p>.05; Sig. = significant difference

The Independent Sample T Test indicated that there were significant differences for two of the seven programs and activities in this grouping. These significant differences occurred for national or provincial programs (such as poppy sales), and commission from photo and book fairs. National or provincial programs had a mean of 3.15 for the division level respondents compared to a mean of 2.98 for the school respondents. The mean for the school respondents (M=3.21) was greater than the mean for the division level respondents (M=3.07) when considering the commission income from photos and book fairs.

The second grouping included those activities that ranked 8th to 12th. For the division respondents this group included: advertising in yearbook, student dances, student work activities, fun nights-carnivals, and raffles, bingos, and gaming. For the school level respondents this group included: drama and variety nights, student dances, advertising in yearbook, raffles, bingos, and gaming, and student work activities. Those fund-raising activities common to both division and school respondents were: advertising in yearbook, student dances, and student work activities. The only significant difference in this group was between the means for school dances. The mean for the division level respondents (2.96) was significantly higher than was the mean for the school respondents (2.67).

The third grouping included those activities ranked 13th to 17th, inclusive. In this grouping all fund-raising activities were in both division and school level groups. The division respondents rankings were as follows: rental fees-lockers, contracts with suppliers, bottle drives, sales of surplus good, student fees for non-specified purposes, and math-a-thons, spelling-a-thons. The school respondents rankings were as follows: bottle drives, contracts with supplies, math-a-thons, spell-a-thons, student fees for non-specified purposes, sales of surplus good and rental fees-lockers. Although the order varied between groups, the fund-raising activities are the same.

For this grouping the significant differences between the division and the school respondents were identified. Rental fees-lockers had a mean of 2.39 for division respondents and a mean of 1.75 for school respondents. Student fees for non-specified purchases had a mean of 2.09 for division respondents and 1.95 for school respondents. In both instances the means for the division respondents were greater than were the means for the school respondents. This would indicate that these programs and activities were not used as frequently as the division level respondents perceived them to be. Whereas math and spell-a-thons had a mean of 1.99 for division respondents and 2.02 for school respondents and were perceived to be used more by school level respondents than they were by division respondents.

The final grouping includes those fund-raising activities which ranked 19th to 23rd. The rankings for the division respondents included: partnerships with corporations, sales of supplementary instructional materials, estates and bequests, pupils distributing flyers, and community dances where alcohol was served. The rankings for the school respondents were: partnerships with corporations, sales of supplementary instructional materials, estates and bequests, community dances where alcohol is served, and pupils distributing flyers. This group clearly represented those fund-raising activities which were used with the least frequency. Two significant differences occurred when Independent Sample T Tests were run for this grouping. These differences occurred for pupils distributing flyers on a fee basis and community dances at which alcohol is serviced. In both instances the means were the lowest in the section, indicating that these programs and activities are almost never used as fund-raising activities. The mean for the community dances where alcohol was sold was 1.05 for division respondents and 1.19 for school respondents. Division respondents perceived this activity to be used significantly less frequency than did their school level counterparts. The mean for the use of pupils to distribute flyers on a fee basis was 1.33 for division respondents and 1.16 for school respondents. School respondents perceived that this was used significantly less frequently than did division people.

The policy issues and directions section of the questionnaire consisted of two parts,: 1. respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement or disagreement with a number of statements related to policy issues and directions for fund-raising (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) and 2. respondents were asked to select from alternative responses and then complete six open ended questions.

When the statements are ranked according to the means from highest to lowest, the following similarities surfaced. The top three ranked statements are the same and in the same order for the division and the school level respondents. These statement are: the mission of the school can be distorted if fund-raising goals replace learning goals; school fund-raising activities have increased over the last five years; and the amount of money raised at the school level, on a per pupil basis, for student activities is increasing. As indicated on Table 27, the 6th, 10th, 19th and 20th statements were also identical for both groups. The 6th ranked statement was fees for such things as workbooks or shop materials are justified because those who benefit are asked to pay. "The 10th ranked statement was "the main payoff from fund-raising activities is program enhancement." The 19th ranked statement was "school fund-raising teaches job skills." The 20th ranked statement was 'increased fund-raising at the school level causes the school to be more efficient in the use of financial resources.'

The last three ranked statements (the 23rd, 24th, and 25th) were also identical . for. both groups. The 23rd ranked statement was 'the fund-raising function should be formally recognized as part of the school-based administrator's work load.' The 24th and 25th ranked statements respectively were "the fun-raising function should be formally recognized as part of the central office administrator's work load;" and "fund-raising competencies should be one selection criterion for school-based administrators." It is interesting to note that, although fund-raising would seem to be on the increase and the amount of money raised through fund-raising avenues increasing, division and school respondents strongly disagree that it should be formally recognized as part of their work load and that it should be considered as apart of the selection criterion for the position of school-based administrator.

Five significant differences between the division responses and the school responses were identified: policy direction statements of school division boards should establish and/or review policies that govern school-level fund-raising activities; the fund-raising function should be formally recognized as part of the school-based administrator's work load; the fund-raising function should be formally recognized as part of the central office administrator's work load; success with school level fund-raising will provide a further incentive for the province to cut back further in its financial support for schools; and record keeping for fund-raising activities detracts energy from instructional pursuits.

Both division and school respondents scored high in response to the statement that school and division levels should establish and/or review policies that govern school-level/fund-raising activities. The means for division and school respondents were 3.66 and 3.42 respectively. This indicates that both groups would agree that there is a need to establish clear policies for school-level fund-raising and that they have a role to play in establishing these policies.

Both groups tended to agreed that "the fund-raising function should be formally recognized as part of the school-based administrator's work load' and "the fund-raising function should be formally recognized as part of the central office administrator's work.' The mean for the school-based administrator's wok load statement of 1.91 for the division - respondents was significantly less than was the mean of 2.25 for the school level respondents. The mean for the central office administrator's work load statement was 1.70 for the division respondents, significantly less than 'the mean of 2.25 for the school respondents.

Table 27
Policy Issues and Directions
 

Policy Issues and Directions	Division (N=78)		School (N=131)		T Test  Sig.
	Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.
Amount of money raised increasing	3.74	1.03	3.9	1.03	.642
Fund-raising = program enhancement	3.15	1.08	3.32	1.21	.258
Cut in programs increased dropout	2.83	1.22	2.93	1.33	.329
Conflict between school and parents	3.48	.98	3.79	1.04	.966
Who benefit should pay	3.45	1.14	3.55	1.29	.148
Poor areas disadvantaged	3.01	1.17	3.42	1.27	.109
Fund-raising increased last five years	4.00	.97	4.06	.97	.526
School equality of education opportunities	2.53	1.17	2.90	1.31	.485
Division equality of education Opportunities	2.48	1.14	2.59	1.24	.241
School-based administrator more informed about fund-raising activities	2.97	1.00	3.25	1.14	.041*
Establish/review policies	3.66	1.03	3.42	1.34	.001*
Entrepreneurial principal	2.88	1.11	3.26	1.16	.342
Mission distorted if fund-raising goals replace learning goals	4.08	.99	4.20	1.01	.981
Fund-raising should be part of school-based administrator's work	1.91	.86	2.25	1.34	.000*
Fund-raising should be part of central office administrator's work load	1.7	.76	2.06	1.28	.000*
Fund-raising encourages province to cut back further on financial support	3.40	1.10	3.10	1.43	.004*
Record keeping for fund-raising detracts from instruction	3.09	1.03	3.46	1.23	.015*
Changing fund-raising behaviour to accommodate changing social environment	3.29	.83	3.65	.85	.818
Fund-raising competencies selection criterion for school administrators	1.64	.79	1.61	.88	.259
Increased fund-raising = efficient use of financial resources	2.58	1.00	2.65	1.1	.288
Door-to-door sales unsafe	3.18	1.07	3.52	1.14	.134
Fund-raising teaches job skills	2.64	.94	2.87	.98	.653
Improve opportunities for students	2.67	1.06	3.11	1.05	.329
Educational value in fund-raising	2.96	.86	3.22	.83	.697
Fund-raising is an effective way to support school activities	3.01	.94	3.18	1.09	.050*
Using children to fund-raise is improper	2.60	1.01	2.48	1.16	.076

*p>.05; Sig. = significant difference

Both groups raised concern about fund-raising providing further incentive for the province to keep cutting back on its financial support for schools. The responses for both groups strongly agree on this point. The mean for the division respondents was 3.40 which was significantly greater than was the mean of 3.10 for the school respondents.

The last of the significant differences between the division and school respondents was found for the statement that record keeping for fund-raising activities tended to detract from instructional pursuits. Here the mean for the school respondents (3.46) was greater than the mean for the division respondents (3.09). In contrast to the division respondents perceptions, it appears that the school respondents perceived record keeping for fund-raising activities as an activity that consumed a great deal of time and energy and that this distracted from teaching. The responses for both groups did however, fall on the strongly agree side.

Respondents were asked at what level in their school divisions were the majority of the alternate or non-traditional funding decisions made. Table 28 lists the frequencies for the division and school responses to this question. According to the table, both division (f=50) and school respondents (f=102) perceive the majority of fund-raising decisions to be made at the school level. The response with the fewest responses for both the division (f=2) and the school respondents (f=2) was at the division level.

Table 28
Level in Division Majority Fund-raising Decisions Made
 

Level	Division (N=78)  Frequency	School(N=131)  Frequency
1. School level	50	102
2. Local board level	7	10
3. Division board level	2	2
4 . Jointly between school and local board	9	13
5. Jointly between school and division board	11	7
6. Jointly between school, local and division board	7	5
Missing	2	4

Respondents were asked if they were aware of policies in their school division that deal explicitly with school fund-raising. Table 29 presents the frequencies and percentages for the responses to this question. Although the majority (division 56%, school 60%) answered in the affirmative there was a large percentage for both division respondents (42%) and school respondents (36%) who did not know if there school division had policies in place to deal explicitly with school fund-raising.

Table 29
Policies in Division that Deal with Fund-raising
 

Response	Division (N=78)		School (N=131)
	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	44	56.4	78	59.6
No	33	42.3	47	35.9
Missing	1	1.3	6	4.6

In response to the question: does your school division have a specific policy to deal with the handling of money generated by school fund-raising? -- 51% of the division respondents said 'no' and 52% of the school respondents said "no." This is a startling discovery considering that one of the potential hazards associated with fundraising was accountability which included proper accounting procedures and proper handling of the money collected. What is further disconcerting is that 10% of the division respondents and 13% of the school respondents were not sure if their division had policies in place to deal with the handling of money generated by school fund-raising.

Table 30
Division Policy re Money from Fund-raising
 

Location	Division (N=78)		School (N=131)
	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
Yes	28	35.9	42	32.1
No	40	51.3	68	51.9
Not sure	8	10.3	17	13.0
Missing	2	2.6	4	3.1

 

A number of open ended questions were asked to solicit information in the following areas: fund-raising practices tried and found to be administratively impractical and ethically or socially problematic; fund-raisers refused on ethical or educational grounds; fund-raising activities or offers for commercial relationships turned down; major factors that determine the success of -a fund-raising activity; effective fund-raisers; factors that influence fiscal decisions. relative to alternative or non-traditional funding; fund-raising practices that have increased in the last number of years; trends and strategies in the next five years; advice to other school leaders and policy issues generated by fund-raising. As indicated earlier, to analyze the data generated from these questions, responses were grouped according to emerging themes. Total numbers of responses for each theme were then converted to percentages for ease of comparison. Frequencies and percentages were assigned to both division and school respondents, however, discussion is based on percentage of total responses.

Fund-Raising Practices Deemed to be Administratively Impractical

Respondents were asked to identify fund-raising practices that had been tried and were found to be administratively impractical. This question generated only 14 responses from the division level respondents and 22 responses from the school-based personnel. However, those who did respond gave examples and explanations to explain their reasons for claiming administrative impracticalities. Their main concerns were with those activities which were found to be too time. consuming. These time-wasting activities included: garage sales, carnivals, paper collection, raffles and fruit sales. The reasons that these activities were seen as too time consuming were the amount of time involved in record keeping, distributing the product, collecting the money and the product, and procuring enough volunteers. The next administratively impractical response was quantity (too many fundraisers and too often), such as yearly magazine sales. School dances and the sale of light bulbs were seen as administratively impractical because they cost too much and were unpopular.

 
Fund-Raising Activities Deemed to be Ethically, Culturally or Religiously UnacceptableSome fund-raisers were seen to be ethically, culturally or religiously unacceptable. These included bingos, raffles, and other gaming activities as well as activities where alcohol was present and, in some cases, fund-raising in general. Door to door sales campaigns and raffles were impractical because of community opposition. Fund-raisers that were in competition with local merchants (receipts from Super Store and Safeway; and gift wrap) and those that promoted competition between students (Jump Rope for Heart)- were also seen as problematic. One respondent indicated that fund-raising created inequities in education and another respondent was concerned about fund-raisers that were age appropriate and mentioned a car wash with students that were too young as not good.

Division respondents identified 22 fund-raising activities and school respondents identified 30 fund-raising activities considered to be ethically or socially problematic. The data in Table 31 describes the problematic fund-raisers, their frequencies and percentages. Sixteen division respondents and 32 school respondents did not identify fundraising activities considered to be ethically or socially problematic. Of those who answered in the affirmative, the responses were generated around the themes of advertising, sales, gambling, UNICEF, school dances, alcohol related activities and Halloween insurance.

Table 31
Ethically, Culturally, or Socially Problematic Fund-raisers
 

Fund-raiser	Division (n=38)		School (n=62)		Total- (n=100)  %
	Freq.	%	Freq.	%
Gambling	8	21	13	21	21
Sales	6	15	8	13	14
Advertising	6	15	2	3	8
UNICEF	2	5	2	3	4
Cabarets	0	0	2	3	2
School dances	0	0	2	3	2
Halloween Ins	0	0	1	21	1
No	16	42	32	52	48

Freq. = frequency; % = percentage

Gambling was seen as the most problematic activity, identified by 21% of respondents. This included gaming activities at fun-nights, fortune telling, and bingos. Gambling was seen as problematic because it tempted the poor, was contrary to religious beliefs, and students were too young to be involved with such activities. Several respondents in both groups indicated that sales (14%) was a problem because it was in direct competition with local merchants and with other groups for community funds, students were competing for prizes and going door to door, young students were handling money, funds were not always being turned in, candy was being sold to children, and monetary gain was at the expense of family income.

Eight percent of total responses saw advertising as a problem. Respondents saw the school as a captive audience and were concerned about businesses that promote their product such as scoreboards with Pepsi or Coke on it and advertising in the yearbook. A few respondents were concerned about the planned parenthood philosophy of UNICEF and saw this as ethically or socially problematic. Cabarets were a problem because alcohol was sold at them. School dances presented behavior problems due to lack of supervision. Halloween insurance was perceived by one respondent to be a form of extortion.

 Fund-Raising Activities Refused on Ethical or Educational Grounds

When asked if there were any fund-raising activities not considered because of ethical or educational grounds, the responses were more in-depth than were the responses regarding fund-raisers found to be ethically or socially problematic (See Table 32). Division level respondents identified 45 activities and school level respondents identified 78 activities which they have refused on ethical or educational grounds. Thirteen percent of division respondents and 11% of school respondents did not refuse activities on ethical or educational grounds.

Gambling (with 20%) and cabarets (with 19% of the total responses) were the activities most frequently rejected. Gambling included Nevada tickets, casino nights, selling tickets, bingo, hockey pools, carnivals with gambling tables, and raffles. Cabarets (dances) were refused because of the selling of alcohol.

"A-thons" were refused by 12% of the total respondents. The reasons given were that students should produce a product or service and 'a-thons' were perceived to be a form of begging. Advertising and sales were each identified by 9% of the total responses. Reasons for refusing advertising were related to the promotion of a private business, the situation of the captive audiences that school environments produce and any advertising in the school in general was a problem. Sales were refused because of problems with gift wrap, cookies and chocolates; seen as a form of begging; seen as hurting local merchants; hazards associated with door to door sales, and not environmentally sound.

Degrading activities such as dunk tanks, slave auctions, kiss a pig and pie in the face were refused by 2% of the responses respectively. Dances (2%) were refused because of religious beliefs. One percent of the total responses identified UNICEF and Halloween insurance as activities they have refused based on ethical or educational grounds. Other reasons for refusing certain activities included anything that "does not have an educational purpose;" "do not fund-raise for groups outside the school;" avoid activities which put excessive pressure on families; avoid activities that do not support family values; avoid activities that are contrary to Catholic teachings; avoid any materials that are not available in French and anything that takes up class time.

Table 32
Fund-raisers Refused on Ethical or Educational Grounds
 

Fund-raiser	Division (n=53)		School (n=88)		Total (n=141)  %
	Freq.	%	Freq.	%
Cabarets	10	19	17	19	19
Gambling	11	21	17	19	20
A-thons	7	13	10	11	12
None	7	13	10	11	12
Advertising	8	15	5	6	9
Sales	3	6	10	11	9
UNICEF	2	4	0	0	1
Degrading activities	0	0	4	5	3
Halloween ins.	0	0	1	1	1
School Dances	0	0	3	3	2
Other	5	9	11	13	11

Freq. = frequency; % = percentage

Fund-raising Activities Refused on Other Grounds

When asked if their school ever turned down fund-raising activities or offers for commercial relation-ship(s), 46 responses came from the division respondents and 85 responses from the school respondents. As indicated on Table 33, of the total 131 responses, 22% said "no" and 5% said "yes" and gave no other response. Of the remaining percentage, requests from businesses had the highest percentage at 30%. Reasons given for turning down the requests from the various businesses included: too commercialized; benefited only one company; pressure to transfer business placing local retailers at a disadvantage; self-interest far out weighted students benefits, helping kids was seen as one thing but exploiting them was quite another; too captive an audience; alcohol and tobacco sponsorships; junk food vendors; and the company wanted to high a percentage of profits.

Table 33
Reason Fund-raising Activities Turned Down
 

Reason	Division (n=46)		School (n=85)		Total (n=131)  %
	Freq.	%	Freq.	%
Requests from businesses	14	30	25	29	30
No	14	30	15	18	22
Ethical reasons	15	33	7	8	17
Time and quantity	0	0	16	19	12
Comfort level of community	0	0	11	13	8
Others	3	7	4	5	5
Yes (no other response)	0	0	7	8	5

Freq. = frequency; %=percentage; Due to rounding off total percentages may be greater or less than 100.

Ethical reasons for turning down fund-raising were identified by 17% of the responses. These ethical reasons included: alcohol being sold, gambling and gaming, direct selling, door to door sales, religious content, inappropriate entry into a commercial relationship and some religious sects wanting to use facility. Other reasons for refusing included: too time consuming, too many charities were requesting fund-raising, and the community was getting over-canvassed. These were reasons for provided by 12% of the responses.

Some "fund-raisers" were rejected based on the comfort level of the community (5%). Not all communities felt comfortable with every different type of fund-raising activity. For example, one parent association rejected magazine sales because the community did not feel comfortable with this particular fund-raiser.

Major Factors that Determine the Success or Failure of Fund-Raising Activities

Respondents did not appear to have any difficulty identifying the major factors that determined the success or failure of various fundraising activities (See Table 34). Division respondents generated 72 factors (not necessarily discrete) and school respondents generated 180 factors for a total of 252 responses. The main themes related to success (or measures of failure where achievement fell short) were, in order of total percentage: participation and support (40%); clear goals (19%); time (17%); organization (13%); quality of product or event (8%); profit (3%); and learning experience for children (1%).

The participation and support theme included responses such as: parent, student, community and teachers support, motivational levels, enthusiasm, student ownership and pride, communication, community acceptance, and effort expended. The clear goals theme included responses such as: purpose clearly defined to community, objectives laid out, personal and social benefits, curriculum related, and a worthwhile purpose. The theme of organization included: planning, teacher coordinator, advanced preparation, ease of accounting, and well organized. The theme related to quality of product or event meant to respondents that the product or service was worthwhile, in demand and that good service had been provided. Several of the school level respondents were concerned that the fund-raising activity ought make a profit and one respondent mentioned that the activities would succeed if the fund-raising activity provided a learning experience of the children involved.

Table 34
Factors that Determine Success of Fund-raising Activities
 

Factor	Division (n=72)		School (n=180)		Total (n=252)  %
	Frequency	%	Frequency	%
Participation and support	35	49	67	37	40
Clear goals	14	19	34	19	19
Time	9	13	34	19	17
Organization	8	11	26	14	13
Quality of product or event	6	8	14	8	8
Profit	0	0	4	2	2
Learning experience for children	0	0	1	1	1

 

Factors Influencing Fiscal Decisions with Respect to Fund-Raising

Respondents were asked to identify major factors or principles that influenced the fiscal decisions they were involved in making relative to alternate or non-traditional funding. As indicated on Table 35, the responses to this question were grouped into the following categories: need or purpose of fund-raising, programs, ethics, educational value, time and effort, budget cuts at the division level, student benefits, not associated with alcohol, community, profit, policies, Parent Council/Home and School, and "others.'

The category of need or purpose of fund-raiser was identified by 25% of the total respondents. This category included: identifying goals and having a long term plan, needs versus benefits and wants, value of the project, resources versus needs of schools, and not for curriculum related programs. Ethical factors were indicated by 24% of the responses. Responses in this category were socially acceptable, does not interfere with education, method of fund generation, does not contradict with philosophy and policies of school division, morally correct, ethically acceptable, appropriateness, and fairness to the public.

Table 35
Factors that Influence Fiscal Decisions Relative to Alternative Funding
 

Factor	Division (n=45)		School (n=112)		Total (n=157) %
	Freq.	%	Freq.	%
Need or purpose of fund-raiser	5	11	35	31	25
Programs	12	27	26	23	24
Ethics	7	16	8	7	10
Educational value	6	13	8	7	9
Time and effort	2	4	6	6	5
Budget cuts at division level	2	4	5	5	5
Student benefits	2	4	5	5	5
Community	0	0	6	6	4
Profit	4	9	0	0	3
Policies	0	0	4	4	3
Parent Council/Home & School	0	0	4	4	3
Others	3	7	4	4	4

Freq. = frequency; % = percentage; Due to rounding off total percentages may be less or greater than 100.

Insuring that the fund-raising activity has educational value was a concern for 9% of the respondents. These responses included: consistent with goals of education, impact on instruction and school climate, enhancement of learning opportunity, time away from educational goals and program, educational value in operating a fundraiser and use of students for purposes other than education. Five percent of the responses related to time and effort involved in doing the fund-raiser, as a factor that influenced the fiscal decisions involved in fund-raising. Budget cuts at the division level were a major factor in the view of 5% of the respondents. When the division cut funding for certain activities or programs the school decided to generate its own funds to make up for the loss. Benefit to the students was a major factor indicated by 5% of the responses.

The notions categories under the understanding the needs of the community theme included: acceptability, not a burden, availability of funds, number of events planned each year and not in competition with local businesses. These perspectives were identified by 4% of the responses. Making sure that the fund-raising activity made a profit was a major factor for 3% of the responses as was the factor of policies being in place at the division level. Three percent of the responses indicated that the major factor that influenced the fiscal decisions made relative to alternative or non-traditional funding was the Home and School Association because they fund-raising was their "thing." The category of "others" included those factors that were not incorporated in the above categories, including examples: accounting practices, safety, legality, public relations, personal judgment, not the role of the school to fund raise, fund-raising is an expectation and equals the administrator's success.

 Effective Fund-Raising Activities

 Those fund-raising activities that the respondents found to be particularly effective are presented on Table 36. The fund-raising activity that was considered to be the most effective was sales with 62% of the total respondents. Sales included food (chocolate covered almonds, hot dogs, fruit sales, spices, hot lunches, fall suppers, bake sales, hams, milk program, catered dinners, nut trays, pizzas, cookie dough, canteen, and meat), magazines, Christmas gift wrap, community calendars, book fairs, posters, and 'others' (saran wrap, movie nights, Sask. Tel gift certificates, cookbooks, fridge magnets, and talent auctions). The respondents gave the following reasons for their belief that food sales were effective: people like them, they were a popular service, consumable, inexpensive and in regular demand. Magazine sales were seen as effective because people ordered them anyway, there was a yearly clientele and there was no competition with local businesses.

Gambling was the second most frequently identified activity (15%). Gambling included bingos, raffles, and carnival/fun nights. These activities were low in cost, carnival/fun nights involved the whole family and the public seemed to "love them." "A-thons" were identified by 10% of the total respondents as effective means for fundraising. Different types of a-thons such as walks, biking, reading, math, and spelling were identified. These activities were thought to be effective because the school received 100% of the money.

Table 36
Effective Fund-raising Activities
 

Activity	Total Responses (n=260)
	Frequency	Percentage
Sales
Food	71	27
Magazines	27	10
Christmas wrap	12	5
Community calendars	4	2
Book fairs	7	3
Posters	2	1
Others	7	3
Gambling	40	15
A-thons	25	10
Student work projects	20	8
Admission to school functions	9	3
Advertising	8	3
Donations	6	2
Degrading activities	5	2
UNICEF	3	1
Jump Rope for Heart	2	1
Student fees	2	1
Others	10	4

 

However, in previous responses, some respondents saw "a-thons" as a form of begging. Student work projects were identified by 8% of the respondents. These activities were the activity of choice because students provided a worthwhile service for the funds they received. Student work projects included: car washes, rent-a-kid, cleaning, tree planting, dinner theatre, picking seeds, ditch picking, bottle drives, washing windows, picking up garbage, recycling and small entrepreneurial companies developed for selling a product or service.

Those activities identified by fewer then 3% of the total respondents were admission to school functions (graduation, drama productions, fashion shows, variety nights, dinner theatre, dances, and season tickets to football games); advertising (yearbook campaign, Coke and concession machines, discount cards from local merchants and Cherrydale Farms); donations (tax receipts for donations, service clubs, scratch and give, dry grad canvassing); degrading activities (slave auctions and slave days); Jump Rope for Heart and student fees.

 
Special Arrangements with Businesses, Service Clubs or Others

 
The following special arrangements, advertising revenues, partnerships, corporate sponsorships or unique contracts were identified. Partnerships with Pepsi or Coke gave the schools scoreboards and scholarships. In turn, Pepsi or Coke were given exclusive use of the school for selling their product and could have their name on the scoreboard. However, one school stated they were able to get the scoreboard without the company name on it. One division had an arrangement with a local cable company who were getting free labour from students and the school received access to equipment and the community billboard. A partnership with Saskatchewan Telephones was established for the purpose of pursuing common interests, technology upgrading, and a job shadowing program.

A special not-for-profit arrangement with the Saskatchewan Centre of the Arts was mentioned as was the situation where a school gave a theatre group access to the school in exchange for funds. A unique contract with a regional community college allowed the college to use the school facility in exchange for the use of equipment such as computers. Dealings with corporations included the selling of magazines, chocolates, gift wrap-type products. Other arrangements ranged from a sponsorship with a corporation to provide computers for a school to a corporation paying for a school to produce a drama production for them. Some divisions have become registered charities. With this status they can issue official tax receipts for donations or "in kind" donations, subject to Revenue Canada regulations. Taking out a lottery license allowed one school to raise funds for field trips, special guests, and music and sports equipment.

These seems to be an emergence of entrepreneurial schools and divisions. Some of this activities include sign rentals, selling manure, picking seeds for the PFRA and contracting building projects. The funds from these activities were used to purchase playground equipment, and to fund the industrial arts program. In many responses it was indicated that funds raised would go into the general school fund-raising account for special purchases.

Arrangements with local businesses such as money paid to the school for coupons returned to the business, discount credit cards, donated merchandise for raffles, advertising in school yearbook and newsletter, and general sponsorships were mentioned. The benefits to the schools were new gym floors; athletic equipment; playground equipment; free used computers; scholarships; fine arts evenings; enhancement of computer hardware; reduced cost for yearbooks; the cost of the school newsletter; sponsorship to SADAD and Model UN workshops. Money was used for many other specific ventures.

Service club and church group arrangements provided schools with funding for unique projects such as the swimming programs and cost-shared religious education programs. Parent associations sponsored school milk and skating programs and helped generally to raise funds for school-generated project requests. For one school, 10% of the funds raised by students who participated in the annual Rotary Club Bike-a-thon were returned to the school. Arrangements with local towns provided the schools with playground equipment and landscaped school grounds in exchange for students helping the town work on landscaping projects and on community grounds.

Other arrangements of interest included grants from Federal Patrimoine Canada for computers; sponsorships with major northern resource-based companies for special projects; partnerships with organizations that provide services and resources to assist hungry children and young mothers; and special discounts arranged with suppliers and freight operators. One of the respondents stated that "all this fund-raising talk sounds like a business concerned about profits rather than a school whose main purpose is to educate their students." Another respondent wrote that there was a definite interest on the part of corporations to explore various types of arrangements and that companies were trying to find access to the school.

Non-Traditional -Fund-Raising Activities Recently Adopted

We know that sources other than base-budgets, government grants, and taxation have been around for a long time in schools and school divisions but we were interested to know if there were any examples of non-traditional funding practices in their school or division that have arisen over the last number of years. A total of 57 responses came from the division level respondents and 172 responses came from the school respondents. Table 37 lists the practices, frequencies, and percentages for both the division and the school respondents and the total percentages for this question. The practices were grouped into the following categories: increased activities (41%), partnerships (8%), fundraising to purchase specific items and activities (7%), student fees (4%), "no new practices" (4%), grants (3%), register as a charity (2%), and "others" (4%).

Table 37
Non-traditional Funding Practices Emerging Over Last Few Years
 

Practices	Division (n=57)		School (n=172)		Total (n=229)  %
	Freq.	%	Freq.	%
Increase in activities	24	42	71	41	41
Partnerships	12	21	7	4	8
Fund-raising to purchase	5	9	12	7	7
Student fees	2	4	8	5	4
No new practices	4	7	5	3	4
Grants	3	5	3	2	3
Register as a charity	3	5	1	1	2
Others	4	7	8	5	5

Freq. = frequency; % = percentage; Due to rounding off total percentages may be greater or less than 1 00.

The theme category 'increase in activity' included a listing of all the activities that respondents stated have increased over the last years. The category included: bingos, raffles, dinner theatres, "a-thons,' magazine sales, festivals-carnivals, hosting conferences, ditch picking, silver collection at school functions, bottle drives, car washes, bequests, catalogue gifts, community calendars, slave days, auction sale of donated articles, garage sales, saran wrap sales, newsletter advertising, seed picking, school dances, book fairs, Cherrydale farms, and food sales (popcorn, nachos, pizza, hot lunches, chocolate, hot dogs, cafeteria, mil, catering, canteen, drink machines, cookie, fruit and nut sales, community suppers, and meat packages). While some of these activities are long-time alternatives for fund-raising in some school jurisdictions, the message of these responses was that "for them' these were new and emerging means.

The category with the second highest percentage of responses was that of partnerships (8% of the total responses). This theme category included: corporate alliances, partnerships with businesses, sharing costs with other agencies, participation with community on joint projects and approaching service clubs. Seven percent of the responses indicated that there had been an increase in the amount of fund-raising to purchase particular items and activities for the school. These items and activities included exchange trips, field trips, athletic teams and travel, uniforms, outside recreational activities, playground equipment, library books, computers, instructional supplies and improvement to the facilities.

Students paying for the articles or activities that they used was identified by 4% of the responses as a non-traditional funding practice that has arisen over the last years. The student fees category included students paying for such things as mileage, photocopying, computer paper and disks, calculator batteries, consumables (i.e., in industrial arts and home economics), yearbook, band and extra curricular activities. An indication that there were no new or non-traditional practices for fund-raising was the response for 4%. Applying for special federal and provincial grants was a funding practice that had increased according to 3% of the total responses. Registering as a charity is a new phenomenon reported by 2% of the respondents. The advantages of being a charitable organization included receiving gasoline rebates and the ability to give tax receipt for scholarships and school furnishing donations. The category of "others" (5%) identified such practices as more parental involvement in school projects, 'fund-raising is getting more aggressive," and giving funds raised to "have-nots" and ecological projects.

Future Trends and Strategies

 
When respondents were asked to identify trends or strategies they foresaw emerging over the next five years with respect to alternate or non-traditional funding 47 responses were generated from the division level respondents and 68 responses from the school level respondents. As indicated on Table 38, these strategies and trends were grouped into six theme categories: increase in fund-raising, partnerships, student fees, clear direction and guidelines, maintenance of the status quo, estates and bequests, and 'others." Of the total responses, 54% indicated that they foresaw an increase in fund-raising. Respondents identified several problems that they felt were associated with an increase in fund-raising. They said that there was more competition for fund-raising dollars in an already saturated marketplace and that people were becoming less enthusiastic in their willingness to help out. Respondents foresaw an ever increasing need for fund-raising dollars as there was a greater reduction in funding provide to and from the division level. 'Fund-raising will be needed to finance things other than traditional activities like sports' said one respondent. "It will be needed for computers, books and field trips." One respondent stated that "we must educate the parents to expect less. " Another perceived the need for greater parental. involvement in fund-raising in the next five years.

The development of more partnerships with business and industry in addition to more entrepreneurship was seen as a trend by 17% of the respondents. Ten percent of responses indicated that there would be a trend towards more student fees. Clearer directions and guidelines for fund-raising activities was foreseen as a need by 5% of the participants in this study. Another 5% perceived that there would be a maintenance of the status quo over the next five years and 3 % saw an increase attention to estates and bequests as sources of revenue for boards and schools.

Other trends and strategies identified were: need for someone to focus specifically on grant applications, decrease in program initiatives, more competition between schools, and more fund-raising for equipment projects. Some respondents cited their view that the rural schools will be at a disadvantage because of the increased reliance on fund-raising and that more private schools would emerge over the next five years.

When the trends and strategies that respondents felt would emerge in the next five years are compared to the alternate or nontraditional funding practices that have arisen over the last five years the similarities are that fund-raising activities have and will increase, that more students fees have and will continue to be solicited and that more partnerships with business and industry have and will be developed.

Table 38
Trends and Strategies in Fund-raising in the Next Five Years
 

Trends and Strategies	Division (n=47)		School (n=68)		Total (n=115) %
	Freq.	%	Freq.	%
Increase in fund-raising	20	43	42	62	54
Partnerships	9	19	10	15	17
Student fees	6	13	5	7	10
Clear direction/guidelines	6	13	0	0	5
Status quo	1	2	5	7	5
Estates and bequests	1	2	2	3	3
Others	4	9	4	6	7

Freq. = frequency; % = percentage; Due to rounding off total percentages may be greater or less than 100.

Advice to Other Leaders Regarding Alternate or Non-Traditional Funding

Thirty-three division respondents and 93 school respondents provided advice to other school leaders on fund-raising. As indicated on Table 38, 32% of the respondents advised the use of restraint with respect to fund-raising activities. Responses that fit into this category included: weigh gains versus losses; think about long range implications; get the facts and stay informed; choose carefully; cut back on wants, needs and requests; beware of an overtaxed public; keep it legal and moral; do not attempt too much; do not go to the well too often; know your values; and beware of the motives of others. Twenty percent of the respondents advised leaders to have a goal for fundraising. This category included: make sure the board and public know why and how the money will be raised; plan wisely; and do worthwhile projects.

Sixteen percent advised leaders to obtain parent and community support. Get community input, use parents to coordinate programs and use a parent support group were some of the comments in this category. Eight percent of the respondents perceived that the solution to fundraising rested in the hands of government and taxes. Comments that belonged to this category included: increase taxes, keep tax-base, give some taxable benefit for a contributions and pressure the government to be more responsible for funding. Accountability advice included: double signing authority, proper accounting procedures, monitoring closely and always identifying who is in control and responsible.

Fund-raising was seen as a role that the schools should not be involved in by 6% of the total respondents. The main comment accompanying this claim was "do not sacrifice educational goals for financial goals." "Making sure that there is a policy in place to deal with fund-raising' was advice given by 5% of the total responses. Comments intended to elaborate on this advice were: develop policy first, know the ground rules, control the advertising sector and know your existing division policy. The "others" category included the following comments or advice: ensure your students are the key beneficiaries; do not use it; keep decision making with those who raise the bucks; we are dangerously close to an educational system seen as "business;" and do not put yourself in a position where programs depend on fund-raising.

Table 39
Advice for Educational Leaders
 

Advice	Division (n=33)		School (n=93)		Total (n=126)  %
	Freq.	%	Freq.	%
Restraint	11	33	29	31	32
Goal of fund-raising	0	0	25	27	20
Parent community support	4	12	16	17	16
Taxes	3	9	7	8	8
Accountability	3	9	6	6	7
Not the role of the school	1	3	6	6	6
Policy in place	7	21	1	1	6
Others	4	12	3	3	5

Freq. = frequency; % = percentage; Due to rounding off total percentages may be greater or less than 100.

Policy Issues

When respondents were asked to identify policy issues (fiscal, ethical, administrative, legal) that alternate or non-traditional funding have raised for them, 36 responses were garnered from the division level respondents and 81 responses from the school level respondents. As noted on Table 40, these responses were grouped into the following policy issues: accountability, ethics, equity of educational opportunity, time and quantity, double taxation, legal, role of the school, and "others."

The policy issues with the greatest number of responses were accountability and ethics, both themes with 23% of the total responses. Accountability included such comments as: who keeps track of funds, who assigns money when the budget is greater than money earned, use of proper financial practices and how can commercial donations be appropriately recognized. Ethical concerns included: selling junk food to children; advertising in schools with a captive audience; the use of gambling, raffles, bingos or alcohol to raise funds; to what extent should one affiliate with specific corporations; the good of the venture for students versus the financial gain to the school; the use of children to raise funds to education themselves; using children to raise funds for charities; and denying access to groups because of religious or cultural concerns.

Equity of educational opportunity was a policy issue for 13% of the respondent. Concerns that belonged to this category were: making "have and have-not" jurisdictions; unequal resources for schools translates into unequal education among students; how is money divided among the student population; and should school funds be collected at the school level or be pooled at the division level and distributed to all schools through a central budget?

Table 40
Policy Issues Raised Fund-raising
 

Issues	Division (n=36)		School (n=81)		Total (n=117) %
	Freq.	%	Freq.	%
Accountability	11	31	16	20	23
Ethics	10	28	17	21	23
Equity of educational opportunity	3	8	12	15	13
Time and quantity	2	6	10	12	10
Double taxation	4	11	3	4	6
Legal	5	14	1	1	5
Role of the school	0	0	6	7	5
Others	1	3	4	5	4
None	0	0	12	15	10

Freq. = frequency; % = percentage; Due to rounding off total percentages may be greater or less than 100.

Timing and quantity of fund-raising were policy issues for 10% of the responses. This theme category included comments like: 'when is enough, enough;" there is a need to find funding that does not directly use students' and teachers' time and energy; and how much time does a school need to devote to fund-raising issues; shouldn't time that should be spent on more important issues? Six percent of the responses reflected the view that double taxation was a policy issue arising from fund-raising. Those who raised this as an issue asked questions such as: who is responsible for education and how much can a community pay both directly and indirectly? Liability and the legal aspects related to who is responsible if a fund-raising activity fails were concerns expressed by 5% of the respondents. Concerns about the role of the school were brought forward in 5% of the responses. One respondent asked "is this our job?" 'Other" policy issues included: "have clear goals,' involve the S.R.C., sell your school philosophy, who should be the target of the fund-raiser and is the fund-raiser in competition with local businesses. Ten percent of the total responses stated that they had no policy issues as a result of fund-raising in their school or division.

Funding school programs and activities through non-traditional sources is increasing in Saskatchewan. Millions of dollars are being collected almost exclusively at the school level in a' variety of ways including sales, raffles, bingos, 'A-thons," car washes, carnivals, fun nights, advertising, partnerships, and so on. What was in the not too distant past the occasional or special initiative in Saskatchewan schools is now common place.

Much of this fund-raising activity is occurring on an ad hoc basis. Fewer than half of the respondents indicated any knowledge of school division policies to govern fund-raising. For the most part, each school-based administrator is left to his or her own devices in finding ways to supplement traditional funding sources to finance programs and activities.

As well, non-traditional funding sources are being used to finance programs that, at one time, were fully funded through taxation. The data suggest that school division respondents view the scope and purpose of fund-raising activities to be narrower than the actual experience reported by school-based respondents. School division respondents tended to view fund-raising activities to be more in support of co-curricular programs such as graduations, yearbooks and drama nights and seemed less aware or willing to acknowledge that non-traditional funding was being used increasingly to support instructional programs.

While the respondents identified several positive outcomes from fund-raising activities, including improved school spirit, student understanding of goals, better school-community cooperation and helping worthwhile causes, more than 75 percent identified concerns with the practices. They included, among others, overkill and saturation in the community, inadequate accountability and accounting at the school level, interference with instruction, and double taxation. A tension between the desire to provide more opportunities for pupils or helping worthwhile causes, on the one hand, and the need to engage in fund-raising, on the other hand, appears to exist. School-based administrators were very mindful of community expectations and attempted to guide their schools accordingly. However, without policy direction, it can be expected that, as the number of activities increases, the potential for conflict within the school community and the larger community will also increase.

Given these trends, boards of education should consider the development of policies and guidelines to assist school-based personnel in determining the scope and nature of non-traditional funding activities within the school division. School-based personnel are entitled to know school division expectations and limitations pertaining to fund-raising programs. For example, does the board of education support corporate sponsorships, and, if so, under what conditions? Does the board approve monopolistic practices such as exclusive rights to sell particular products in a school in exchange for free service or equipment? Does the board encourage schools to support charitable organizations? Does the board permit the selling of products in direct competition with local merchants who pay taxes in support of the school? In most cases, these are political and ethical decisions now being made by administrators seeking funding sources for worthwhile school functions.

In addition to knowing the parameters within which they can raise funds in support of school functions, school-based administrators must also be provided with the necessary tools to manage funds appropriately. Respondents identified accounting and accountability as a serious concern -- likely with cause. Issues related to safekeeping of funds, spending in accordance with stated objectives, financial accountability to the community, reporting of activities to school division authorities, and sound purchasing practices should be addressed within a policy context.

As the scope and nature of fund-raising 'activities expands, school division administrators can expect to be called upon more frequently to resolve conflicts among competing interests. Conflicts will take different forms including opposition to fund-raising for school purposes in principle, objection to specific activities, concern about competition with local businesses, inappropriate use of funds, and inadequate reporting. Administrators will be expected to deal with the fund-raising industry which is also expanding as they find willing clients. They will also be asked with increasing frequency to permit the administrators within their divisions to participate in national and provincial fund-raising programs. These administrators should be responding within a policy framework rather than responding solely on their personal beliefs and particular values.

Educators should also be concerned about the student involvement in these activities. What lessons are learned when the decision is made to undertake a particular fund-raising program? Is time spent fund-raising a sound educational practice or does it detract from the primary mission of the school? The respondents indicated that there are both benefits and costs for students engaged in these activities. As it pertains to students, it would seem the issue is not so much whether or not fund-raising is to be done but whether it is managed in an appropriate manner.

Finally, as fund-raising activities increase to supplement tax-based funds, the relationship between the school, on the one hand, and the parents and community, on the other, may be altered in a significant way. Schools can expect increased resistance to their initiatives for a variety of reasons. For example, at what point does support for school programs become unfair competition for the local business paying school taxes? Does the selling of raffle tickets offend the values of some families? Should the tax supported school compete for funds with other community groups, not tax funded, providing services on a volunteer basis? Will fund-raising lead to tax resistance?

Fund-raising in support of school programs and activities has been increasing, partly in response to funding reductions and partly to support an ever widening range of opportunities available to pupils. It is unrealistic to expect that fund-raising activities will not expand in the future. The issues to be confronted deal with the appropriate management of these activities to ensure that community support for schools will continue.

1. That the Saskatchewan School Trustee Association encourage boards of education to develop policy statements to govern fund-raising activities with particular attention to the following issues:

• Statements of purpose of fund-raising activities
• Acceptable fund-raising practices - competition, partnerships, gambling
• Student involvement - nature and scope, school time
• Reporting requirements - community and board
• Limitations - number of activities, national and provincial initiatives
• Authority - board of education, local boards, Home and School, administrators, teachers
• Financial management - accounting and safekeeping

3. That the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association develop an information guide for boards of education and administrators to highlight legal obligations and responsibilities and sound management practices with respect to fund-raising activities.

4. That the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association, in collaboration with the League of Educational Administrators, Directors and Superintendents, the Saskatchewan Association of School Business Officers, the Saskatchewan Council for Educational Administrator, and the Saskatchewan School-based Administrators, develop and conduct workshops or seminars to deal with the issues identified, above.

The primary purpose of this study was to identify and describe the alternative and non-traditional fund-raising practices of Saskatchewan educators. As the first such study in the province, it is intended to provide benchmark information about the nature, extent, end uses, considerations and concerns of board chairs and administrators relative to the newer entrepreneurial ventures and long-standing, but evolving funding-raising practices.

This study did not attempt to establish the amount of money actually raised through non-traditional activities. Those data are simply not available on a provincial basis, or, for that matter, in many school divisions. However, millions of dollars, perhaps as many as $20 million, are being raised to supplement funds raised through taxation.

The fact that 60 percent of those sampled responded to the questionnaire is an indication that this issue is of concern to many board chairs, secretary-treasurers, directors, and school-based administrators. The responses indicated that fund-raising activities, through worthwhile and necessary, raised several concerns among educators that need to be addressed through policy development at the school division level and improved practices at the school level. More than 80 percent of the respondents saw potential hazards or problems with fund-raising. In other words, there appears to exist a significant level of discomfort among fund-raising participants for a variety of reasons ranging from philosophical or ethical concerns to inadequate or inappropriate administrative practices.

The data also show that school division and school-based personnel saw the nature and scope of fund-raising activities differently. School division personnel saw these activities from a more traditional perspective than the school-based personnel who were actually doing the fund-raising. Whatever the reason for these differences, some school division personnel do not appear to have the information available to make informed policy judgments about fund-raising activities undertaken in the schools within their jurisdiction.

Boards of education and administrators should consider seriously the development of policies and guidelines on the issue of fund-raising, if they have not already done so. When asked what advice they would give others, respondents indicated that fundraising activities should be -undertaken with caution and constraint. As dependence on non-traditional funding sources increases, it is inevitable that more and more concerns will be identified and responses will be demanded. Pre-emptive policy development will reduce the potential for conflict within the school community and with the larger community that schools serve.

Please return this questionnaire to:

Drs. Keith Walker and Herve Langlois
Department of Educational Administration
University of Saskatchewan
28 Campus Drive
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Canada S7N OX1

This study seeks to explore various means of funding education beyond provincial grants and local property taxation utilized by educators and to understand their perception of these expanded efforts to garner various types of alternative and non-traditional funding for K-12 education at the division and school levels.

Please be assured that all individual responses will be treated with complete confidentiality and that your anonymity is secure. Do not put your name or any form of identification on this questionnaire. The coded box on the cover of this questionnaire will be used for mail survey follow-up purposes only (Dillman, 1978). The code box will be clipped immediately upon receipt of the questionnaire. Your completion and return of this questionnaire, using the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope, will be considered an indication of your consent to participate.

This questionnaire consists of 9 pages of quick response statements and open ended questions. Your willingness to complete and return this questionnaire will increase the value of this study.

If you have any concerns or questions regarding this questionnaire please contact either of the researchers: Keith Walker (966-7623), or Herve Langlois (242-8540). Research results will be: disseminated through the usual S.S.T.A. Research Report Format; available directly from the researchers, and available in published and presentation form. Thank you for your participation.

Drs. Keith Walker and Herve Langlois
Department of Educational Administration
28 Campus Drive
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Canada, S7N OX1

This research is funded by a grant from the Saskatchewan School Trustees' Association Research Centre.

THIS QUESTIONNAIRE CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING SIX SECTIONS:

Section A: Demographics

Section B: Responsibilities and Practices

Section C: Educational Values

Section D: Use of Funds

Section E: Fund-raising Acti-,ities

Section F: Policy Issues and Diections

PLEASE CIRCLE THE MOST APPROPRIATE NUMBER

SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHICS

1. What is the geographical location of you, school division?

        1. Urban 2. Rural

2. Ho. many schools are within your division?

        1. 1 to 10 4. 31 to 40

        2. 11 to 20 5. 41 to 50

        3. 21 to 30 6. 51 or More

3. What type of school division are you associated with?

        1. Public 2. Separate

4. What is the size of your school division according to number of pupils served?

        1. less than 300 pupil enrollment

        2. 300 to 999 pupil enrollment

        3. 1.000 to 2,999 pupil enrollment

        4. 3,000 to 4,999 pupil enrollment

        5. 5,000 to 9,999 pupil enrollment

        6. 10,000 or more pupils

5. What is the size of your school division's operating budget?

        1. Less than 2 million dollars

        2. 2 to 5 million dollars

        3. 6 to 10 million dollars

        4. 11 to 15 million dollars

        5. 16 to 20 million dollars

        6. 21 to 40 million dollars

        7. 41 million dollars or more

SECTION B: RESPONSIBILITIES AND PRACTICES

1. Does your school division conduct fund-raising activities?

        1. Yes 2. No

If no, why has your school division chosen not to seek alternate or non-traditional funding through fund-raising?

2. When fund-raising at the school level is it done within the school (e.g., hot dog sales) or outside the school (e.g., door to door sales)?

            1. Within the school 3. Both within and outside the school

            2. Outside the school 4. Not applicable

In your view to what extent should each of these groups be responsible for school fund-raising?

Not Very Responsible             Responsible

3. Individual parents 1 2 3 4 5

4. Parent group(s)/association 1 2 3 4 5

5. Teachers 1 2 3 4 5

6. Elementary students (K-8) 1 2 3 4 5

7. Secondary students (9-12) 1 2 3 4 5

8. School administrators 1 2 3 4 5

9. Local trustees 1 2 3 4 5

10. Community organizations 1 2 3 4 5

11. Do parents associated with your school division encourage fund-raising?

        1. Yes 2. No

12. Do other agencies (charities) ask your school division to raise funds for the.?

        1. Yes 2. No, go to question 14

13. Which of these agencies have involved your school(s) in fund-raising in the last to years?

        1. UNICEF 4. Telemiracle

        2. United Way 5. Other ____________

        3. Heart and Stroke Foundation 6. Other ____________

14. In your view, are there potential hazards or problems associated with fund-raising activities?

        1. Yes 2. No

        If yes, please provide examples________________________________________________

15. Are the elementary school students in your schools explicitly instructed on how to behave in a safety conscious manner when fund-raising? (Circle your response.)

Rarely Usually

1 2 3 4 5

16. Are the high school students in your schools explicitly instructed on how to behave in a safety conscious manner when fund-raising? (Circle your response.)

Rarely Usually

1 2 3 4 5

Please indicate to what extent, in your experience, each of these groups actively participates in fund-raising activities within your school division, by circling the most appropriate number?

Not Very Active (1)      Active (5)

17. Individual parents 1 2 3 4 5

18. Parent group(s)/association 1 2 3 4 5

19. Teachers 1 2 3 4 5

20. Elementary students (K-8) 1 2 3 4 5

21. Secondary students (9-12) 1 2 3 4 5

22. School administrators 1 2 3 4 5

23. Local trustees 1 2 3 4 5

24. Community organizations 1 2 3 4 5

25. Other 1 2 3 4 5

SECTION C: EDUCATIONAL VALUES

1. To what extent do you believe there are educational values gained by students through fund-raising activities? (Circle the most appropriate response.)

Low Educational Value High EducationalValue

1 2 3 4 5

2. Which of the following educational values do you associate with fund-raising? (Circle up to 5 of the following.)

1. School spirit
2. Pride or togetherness
3. responsibility
4. Organizational skills
5. Accounting, arithmetic skills
6. Awareness of less fortunate
7. Help self and others
8. Money management
9. Help worthwhile causes
10. School-community cooperation
11. Teamwork
12. Social consciousness
13. Continuation of school program
14. Work for common good
15. Polite salesmanship
16. Develop talents
17. Language development
18. Learning to greet and meet people
19. Build self-esteem, self-image
20. Cultural exposure
21. Students feel they have made a contribution
22. Other

3. If your students undertake fund-raising activities, do they have a clear understanding of the goals of and benefits to the charities/agencies, that are involved, prior to the fundraising activities? (Circle your response.)

Rarely Usually

1 2 3 4 5

SECTION D: USE OF FUNDS

To the best of your knowledge, please indicate the extent to which each of the following programs and activities in your school division are financed through fundraising at the school level by circling the most appropriate number.
 

	Not applicable to our division	Not at all			Completely
1. Regular program	0	1	2	3	4	5
2. Industrial Arts, Home Economics,  Voc.-Tech programs	0	1	2	3	4	5
3. Field trips - out door ed., museums, etc.	0	1	2	3	4	5
4. Instructional equipment purchases	0	1	2	3	4	5
5. School dances	0	1	2	3	4	5
6. Drama and variety nights	0	1	2	3	4	5
7. School club activities - photography, etc.	0	1	2	3	4	5
8. Athletics, including uniforms,  refereeing, intramurals, etc.	0	1	2	3	4	5
9. Student Representative Council  activities	0	1	2	3	4	5
10. Substitute teachers replacing regular teachers away by virtue of a student activity program	0	1	2	3	4	5
11. Classroom supplies - pencils, duplicating, paper, etc.	0	1	2	3	4	5
12. Graduation programs and activities	0	1	2	3	4	5
13. Sports tournaments	0	1	2	3	4	5
14. School nutrition programs	0	1	2	3	4	5
15. School cultural programs - Native dancers, etc.	0	1	2	3	4	5
16. Student rings, jackets, etc.	0	1	2	3	4	5
17. Outdoor education activities	0	1	2	3	4	5
18. Library purchases	0	1	2	3	4	5
19. Transportation for school activities	0	1	2	3	4	5
20. Playground equipment	0	1	2	3	4	5
21. Yearbook	0	1	2	3	4	5
22. Other (please specify)	0	1	2	3	4	5
23. Other(please specify)	0	1	2	3	4	5
24. Other(please specify)	0	1	2	3	4	5

 

SECTION E: FUND-RAISING

To the best of your knowledge, indicate the frequency that the following types of fund-raising activities are used within your school division by circling the most appropriate number.
 

	Never			Always
1. Student fees for specified purposes consumable materials	1	2	3	4	5
2. Student fees for non-specified purposes	1	2	3	4	5
3. Fun nights - carnivals, etc	1	2	3	4	5
4. Raffles, bingos, or other gaming activities	1	2	3	4	5
5. Sales within school - hot dogs, pizza, milk, etc.	1	2	3	4	5
6. Community dances at which alcohol is sold	1	2	3	4	5
7. Sales in the community - cookies, turkeys, chocolates, spices, etc.	1	2	3	4	5
8. Spell-a-thons, math-a-thons	1	2	3	4	5
9. Rental fees - lockers, towels, etc.	1	2	3	4	5
10. Student work activities - car washes, garbage collection, etc.	1	2	3	4	5
11. Donations from school related agencies, such as Home and School	1	2	3	4	5
12. Partnerships with private corporations	1	2	3	4	5
13. Student dances	1	2	3	4	5
14. Contracts with suppliers - exclusive contract with Pepsi in return for scoreboard	1	2	3	4	5
15. Drama and variety nights, concerts, etc., at which admission is charged	1	2	3	4	5
16. Estates and bequests	1	2	3	4	5
17. Commissions - photos, book fairs	1	2	3	4	5
18. Sale of surplus or obsolete school goods	1	2	3	4	5
19. Advertising in school yearbooks, newsletters, tournaments, gymnasiums	1	2	3	4	5
20. Sale of supplementary instructional materials	1	2	3	4	5
21. Bottle drives	1	2	3	4	5
22. Use of pupils to distribute flyers on a fee basis	1	2	3	4	5
23. National or provincial programs such as poppy sales, UNICEF, Jump Rope for Heart, etc.	1	2	3	4	5
24. Other(please specify)	1	2	3	4	5
25. Other(please specify)	1	2	3	4	5

26. Have any of the above fund-raising practices been tried and found to be administratively impractical? Please give examples and explain why:

27. Have any fund-raising activities been tried and found to be ethically or socially problematic? Please give examples and explain why:

28. Are there any fund-raising activities that you refuse to consider on ethical or educational grounds? (Please identify, with example(s) and say why.)

 29. In your experience, what are the major factors that determine the success or failure of various fund-raising activities?

30. What fund-raising initiatives have you found to be particularly effective. (Please provide examples and explain reasons why.)

31. We are interested in learning more from you about special arrangements, advertising revenues, partnerships, corporate sponsorships, or unique contracts that you may have entered into for the purpose of funding or resourcing your school. Please describe these in the space below or attach self-explanatory materials (any identifying markings will be removed upon receipt of materials)

SECTION F: POLICY ISSUES AND DIRECTIONS

Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with the following

statement by circling the most appropriate number. -
 

	Strongly Disagree			Strongly Agree
1. The amount of money raised at the school level, on a per pupil basis, for student activities is increasing.	1	2	3	4	5
2. The main payoff from fund-raising activities is program enhancement.	1	2	3	4	5
3. Without local fund-raising, student activities/ programs would be cut and this would likely contribute to increased drop out rates in our division.	1	2	3	4	5
4. Fund-raising and fees can be a source of conflict between the school and parents.	1	2	3	4	5
5. Fees for such things as workbooks or shop materials are justified because those who benefit are asked to pay.	1	2	3	4	5
6. In our division schools in low socio-economic areas are disadvantages when it comes to fund-raising.	1	2	3	4	5
7. School fund-raising activity has increased over the last five years.	1	2	3	4	5
8. Fund-raising at the school level compromises the equality of educational opportunity for all pupils.	1	2	3	4	5
9. Fund-raising a the school division level compromises the educational opportunity for all pupils.	1	2	3	4	5
10. School-based administrators should be more informed about fund-raising activities.	1	2	3	4	5
11. School division boards should establish and/or review policies that govern school-level fund-raising activities.	1	2	3	4	5
12. Successful fund-raising depends largely on having an "entrepreneurial principal".	1	2	3	4	5
13. The mission of the school can be distorted if fund-raising goals displace learning goals.	1	2	3	4	5
14. The fund-raising function should be formally recognized as part of the school-based administrator's work load.	1	2	3	4	5
15. The fund-raising function should be formally recognized as part of the central office administrator's work load.	1	2	3	4	5
16. Success with school level fund-raising will provide a further incentive for the province to cut back further it its financial support for schools.	1	2	3	4	5
17. Record keeping for fund-raising activities detracts energy from instructional pursuits.	1	2	3	4	5
18. Schools are changing their fund-raising behaviours to accommodate a changing social environment.	1	2	3	4	5
19. Fund-raising competencies should be one selection criterion for school-based administrators.	1	2	3	4	5
20. Increased fund-raising at the school level causes the school to be more efficient in the use of financial resources.	1	2	3	4	5
21. Children selling form door-to-door is an unsafe practice.	1	2	3	4	5
22. School fund-raising teaches job skills to students.	1	2	3	4	5
23. Fund-raising is a way of improving the health, education and recreation opportunities for all children.	1	2	3	4	5
24. There is educational value in fund-raising activities.	1	2	3	4	5
25. Alternate and non-traditional funding is an effective way of supporting school activities.	1	2	3	4	5
26. Using children to raise funds for school projects is improper.	1	2	3	4	5

27. At what level in your school division are the majority of the alternate or nontraditional funding decisions made?

1. School level
2. Local board level
3. Division board level
4. Jointly between school and local board
5. Jointly between school and division board
6. Jointly between school, local and division board
7. Other

28. Are you aware of policies in your school division, that deal explicitly with school fund-raising?

1. Yes
2. No

29. Does your school division have a specific policy to deal with the handling of money generated by school fund-raising?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Not sure

30. What are the major factors or principles that influence the fiscal decisions you are involved in making relative to alternate or non-traditional funding?

31. What are some examples of alternate or non-traditional funding practices in your school division that have only arisen over the last number of years?

32. What trends or strategies do you foresee emerging over the next five years with respect to alternate or non-traditional funding of K-12 education in Saskatchewan?

33. What advice would you give to other school leaders involved with decision-making relative to alternate or non-traditional funding?

34. What are some policy issues (fiscal, ethical, administrative, legal) that alternate or non-traditional funding have raised for you in your role with this school division?

35. Has your school division ever turned down fund-raising activities or offers for commercial relationship(s) that have been advocated by schools, community groups, profit or non-profit organizations. (Please describe the circumstances and your reasons for refusing involvement)

Back to Table of Contents

Back to list of finance reports