San Diego Unified Parent- Life At School

It isn’t that they can’t see the solution. It’s that they can’t see the problem.” -G K Chesterton

There’s been a lot of talk around the district and parents regarding the role specific parent groups, mostly Foundations, may play in directly funding positions at district (public!) schools. As a former Foundation chair, I completely understand the district’s policy of reluctance about parent groups directly funding onsite personnel.  I also share the frustration parents have about their willingness to fund critical education shortfalls.  Parents see that their child’s education could be enhanced with additional curriculum, and that’s easy to resolve.

Solution: Let’s put on a show in the barn and with the money we raise, we’ll hire another teacher!

As a business owner, married to another business owner, I have an understanding about employment and human resource demands and the extensive legal and tax implications thereof.  I have never met a single parent group (a PTA, PTO or Foundation) that shares that understanding.  It’s not as simple as throwing down some money to a former teacher on a bi-weekly basis.

The employment laws of the State of California are a tangled web which have driven many companies out of our state.  This, coupled with the significant complication of placing an employee on the premises of another entity-a district school- and subject to the control and direction of the district, creates a legal quagmire for both parties.  And should some legal incident take place- an employee that commits a crime,(ask Helix High!) or simply trips/falls causing injury while on campus, the lawsuit papers will fly like the birds on Piazza San Marco. So Foundations will need to carry fairly expensive insurance policies to protect themselves, their board and the district.  Foundations hate paying for insurance.

The most naive will believe it’s simple- pay the  ”teacher” as an “Independent Contractor”. The IRS and labor board take a very narrow view of this status, and the description of the position itself; regular hours, specific tasks, consistency of pay and performance- are all directly opposite of the Independent Contractor definition.  As an employer of per-deim personnel, my corporation is a target for the labor board, and I have been audited specifically in search of inappropriately defined Independent Contractors.  Surviving this audit was easy for me- I had consistent and thorough employment records, kept by a professional.  Records like these have not been in my experience as a Foundation Chair nor a former PTA member.

So- parents employing staff is not as easy as it sounds in the abstract.  Sure, 30 or 40k per year for a Spanish, Art or Science “teacher” is within the fundraising abilities of some parent groups.  But the infrastructure required to properly support that position legally and consistently is another major hurdle that is rarely considered. It might be possible for a year or two, but at some point the Foundation may wish to fund something different, or may have a fundraising shortfall. What happens then?

From the district’s point of view, their first and overriding priority is the safety of our children. They do this is by carefully controlling and vetting those allowed on their campuses.  I support this goal (who wouldn’t?) and independent hiring by other entities represents a significant threat to that policy. In order to maintain security for our children, the district would need to be involved in the selection process or  require certain standards in background checks for prospective employees.  And that process would have to be monitored and controlled at the district level, so we’ve now created another level of administration at the district level for which there is no funding.

There is also the Pandora’s box of authority.  Would the Foundation’s employee be subject to the authority and direction of the school’s principal?  If so, it asks the question: Who’s the boss?  Suppose the principal prefers Castilian Spanish over the Spanish of Mexico?  Or likes contemporary art rather than classics?  Is the Foundation in charge of the curriculum for which it’s paying?  Let’s suppose, just to add a tempest to the teapot, a Foundation pays for a teacher specializing in Creationism? Who decides?

Are there ways around this?  Possibly.  One would be for the district to create a relationship with an independent employment service to establish and create hiring standards and background checks.  The Foundations would then pay that employment service to hire and administrate the position.  But most Foundations will be unwilling to face the cost of these practices- it raises the price of a position by at least 25-30 percent.

But I have another conflict with the idea,

about which I remain completely unresolved.

Government support of education is by nature, a socialist program. We are taking our tax dollars and distributing them on an education program with the specific intent to help children become functioning and contributing citizens, hopefully paying taxes and not utilizing expensive social programs.  The “rising tide raises all boats” idea.  I think that’s great. Most of the Foundations wishing to fund additional curriculum are generally at schools that are higher-performing with higher income parents.  These parents (and I include myself among them) are making decisions based on the specific needs of their own children, not the greater need of the district.  This circumvention of the process brings with it ethical and moral questions. When I volunteer in our child’s class room, I’m not there just to help him, I’m there to support the teacher and the entire classroom.  If I’m involved in campus beautification, I’m trying to create a better environment for all at the school.

So where does that end- at the gate of our own child’s class, grade level or school, or at some higher level?