It’s bad enough that there is already wide discrepancy in per-student spending across the Commonwealth (from $9K to 29K in 2009-2010*), but naming rights will just add to the existing unfairness that arises from principally funding education through property tax revenue. The only reason that Newton has any shot at naming rights for its school buildings is that it is a relatively wealthy city and attractive to businesses that might want the exposure. The potential for naming right revenue is significantly lower in less-wealthy municipalities. The rich get richer.
What if the effort expended on trying to find naming-rights revenue were expended on trying to increase revenue for education state-wide? What if, instead of hitting up corporations and other deep pockets for site-specific contributions, we worked for a more progressive tax system and took a little (or a lot) more from corporations and wealthier individuals in tax revenue?
*I know that per-student spending is only one factor and that there are lots of complicating issues, like the demand for special education from district-to-district, but we are talking about how to increase funding to schools.
Update: Let me pose a related question. Let’s assume the location, newness, and grandeur of Newton North makes it a better target for naming rights than South and The North Face corporation agrees to pay $2 million to rename it Newton The North Face (R) High School. Should the money be spent exclusively at North?
@Sean: Here are some examples from a quick search on the web.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38524016/ns/us_news/t/branded-public-schools-court-corporate-sponsors/#.T6EY1LM3uYk
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5510908
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/19/2597511/bill-would-allow-florida-to-sell.html
http://www.framingham.k12.ma.us/fhs_fa_takeyourseat.cfm
This is also interesting:
http://edufundingpartners.com/FileUpload/pics/EFP%20Sponsor%20Executive%20Summary%20September%202011.pdf
Sean — Interesting view but if you want Massachusetts to be a toxic zone for business, the sure way is to insert corporate taxation. Even if every state taxed corporations thus leveling the field, you are taxing people like ourselves and our retirement funds instead of doing it in a direct manner — i.e., making a case for support through an override and getting it.
You’ve also played on people’s concerns about our selling naming rights for schools. There is no such proposal. If there was this kind of proposal, it would not work. The proposal is simply to sell rights to anyone that wants to sponsor a hallway, workroom or similar space
Lastly, I just can’t let it escape comment that you are not recognizing the great weight put on wealth neighbors where schools are concerned. A home valued at $3MM is paying six times the amount of contribution that I pay. SIX TIMES!
Maybe I’m wrong, Hoss, but I doubt the people living in #3.3m homes are suffering financially.
I believe in public schools and the mission of public education. While I acknowledge the reality that private funding is now necessary to fund many school projects, and the excellent work the NSF has done over the years, naming rights in the buildings to me crosses a line. Naming rights sends a message to students that everything can be bought, that commerce trumps all. Students should be able to enter classrooms and buildings without having brand names or names of wealthy citizens who can afford to make large donations plastered on them. The library, of course, has used naming rights to fund many of its worthy projects; names appear in several places throughout the building. But the library is a place for all citizens, not just students. The purpose of school buildings is to be a place for educating students. I think the less advertising and “selling” to fund the schools, the better. I happen to believe that proposition 2 1/2 is to blame. Revenue should come from taxes, where citizens all contribute fairly to the good of the community. Public education is one of those goods, benefiting the entire community. To sum up, I think it’s pretty gross for some rich guy to want his name plastered on a school wall so everyone knows he gave boatloads of money. We’re all in this together. It’s called public education.
Were you folks around in 1970 when the lottery was proposed? The idea was to convert mob money into a revenue generation! Here we are 40 years later and not one of our Beacon Hill types would dare to oppose this criminal scheme. This sponsorship idea would only match by a tiny fraction the billions that the lottery shifts to schools. (And we know where that shift comes from)
Question for you Hoss: if Massachusetts extracts too much tax (and can’t tax any more), why are the house prices and median incomes so high relative to the rest of the country?
I’m not losing sleep over the idea of selling naming rights at our public schools. Not worried about selling our souls or corrupting our kids either.
But as long as we’re discussing fairness and equity distribution perhaps we ought to think about how all these new naming opportunities might have on genuine non-profits.
Let’s say, hypothetically, one of our community banks generously donates $500,000 annually to a variety of Newton groups: the Boys & Girls Club, CanDo, Green Decade Coalition, NewArt Center, New Philharmonia, Newton Open Studios and Village 14 (ok, just kidding about the last one.)
Now along comes an opportunity to have the bank’s name adorn the Newton South and Newton North Libraries for the next ten years at….$500,000 annually.
If said hypothetical bank decides to make this investment instead of many small grants. Is our community better off? Will our kids benefit more from $500,00o added to the school budget or from the good deeds of a diverse group of non-profits inside our community?
I’m not saying this is necessarily what happens. I am suggesting that there’s only a finite philanthropic pool out there and it would be naive to think one effort might not impact another.
Fabulous point, Greg.
Sponsorship money us either coming out of a philanthropic account, in which there will be secondary effects on other organizations competing for a piece of the pie. Or, it’s an advertising investment, in which case we need to be a little careful about what selling public assets means. Do we really want to enable the targeting of our children?
@Sean: Actually given how many marketing efforts are aimed at kids now, I hardly think having, oh say, a “The Village 14 Janitors Closet” name plate hanging someplace in the Bowen School will be the targeted marketing message that breaks their wee little free-thinking spirits.
But yeah, there’s only so much money out there.
Sean: I never said taxes were maxed. I’m not opposed to a well thought out override, particularly with the administration we have. I’m not opposed to that because the purpose of prop 2 1/2 was to get our approvals on spending. No way did prop 2 1/2 assume we could survive on a pool at expands at a lesser rate than historical inflation.
If you’re talking about corporate taxes, than yes, any statewide tax will effectively decrease the ability of cities and towns to apply a property tax because the economics of operating in MA versus elsewhere (including overseas).
Hoss,
The debate about the impact of corporate income taxes is more than I’m ready to tackle, but here’s a follow up question: if corporations operate at margins so thin that an increase in corporate taxation is likely to send them to other states or countries, where’s the dough to sprinkle for naming rights?
Blue on black, eh, Greg?
Corporate sponsorship is not philanthropic. It is in fact done very carefully and within a limited pool as you (Greg & Sean) suggest (at least for smart businesses). Corp. sponsorship is clearly done for business generation. A company can in fact saturate it’s brand such that business does not expand. But large business thinks BIG — many don’t throw small dollars at small non-profits. They throw big dollars at big, noticeable projects. That said — I believe that we would no doubt need more than $70,000 in fundraising staff to attract big business and big dollars. The foundation should think bigger and hire out.
Sean — check your laundry this weekend and count all the branding that in on those cloths. Also check the back of your car, your umbrella, your running shoes, etc. If we’re feeling whorish about branding then we happen to be living in the wrong economic system.
@Greg – Unless I missed a huge and important detail, this isn’t an annual revenue stream for the life of the building but a one time sale of the right to name a space for the lifespan of the building for somewhere between $10,000 and $500,000. Of course, the City could negotiate with X-Bank to receive that $500,000 purchase price incrementally. Also, since the X-bank is actually receiving something of value I’m not sure that this qualifies as a philanthropic donation (though I’m definitely out of my league in this area.)
Lisap — Naming rights can be done as an annuity stream with a renewable expiration date, can’t they?
Hoss,
First, this really is an interesting conversation and you’ve added a lot to it. (Sincerity = yes.)
Second, you’re right about the blurry line between marketing and philanthropy with corporate underwriting. But, you can bet that corporate underwriters to non-profits, notwithstanding the marketing exposure, are getting some tax benefit. At least the government thinks it’s philanthropic.
Third, the fact that my car and garments have branding is not lost on me. I’m not slavishly anti-logo, but the missus and I try to rein it in, to the extent possible. But, schools are safe zones. It’s where we hope that kids are a bit sheltered from some of the excesses of our modern world: bad language, bad food, corporate greed. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to draw a distinction between the side of a school and the back of the car.
@Sean– Here’s an idea… Let’s share the naming rights revenue with the City of Boston! They can start paying us for the 500[?] Boston residents who attend Newton public schools on our dime, and reimburse us for covering that expense over the past 35 years or so. Then we’ll call it even and split the naming rights revenue. Sound okay, Sean? I mean, if we’re going to split the revenue, shouldn’t we be splitting the expenses too?
What happens if the sponsor from the universe of finite sponsors can no longer honor its funding commitment? What happens then?
Mike,
I’ve got an even better idea: let’s not fund education at the local level, a mechanism rife with negative consequences, let’s fund at the state level and have parity across the state.
The very existence of METCO is, in part, a recognition of the disparity in opportunities that locally funded education creates.
Sean — There’s no special tax benefit to checks written to the Boys & Girls Club versus checks written to an ad agency. None.
I should have specified where business taxes are concerned
Hmmm, you may be right, but I think that there may be pass-through benefits to owners, including shareholders.
wow, sean….parity across the state?
#1 — The commonwealth attempts that — it’s called cherry sheet funds
#2 — You want to prohibit Newton from funding more than Springfield based on statewide funding??
You’re trying too hard!
Put it another way: a child raised in Springfield should have no fewer or no worse publicly supplied opportunities than a dear darling born in our leafy ‘burb.
Equal access to opportunity is not a radical notion.
Sean, I’ve never heard you say anything in your blog posts that I didn’t agree with in principle — it’s putting some of your thoughts into practice that I disagree. In any event — sorry for taking up so much space, thanks for the opportunity
@Sean – Equal access to opportunity isn’t a radical notion; in fact it’s something SPED parents fight for every day. To borrow a lesson from the language of many special education decisions, a free and appropriate public education is not the equivalent of a “Cadillac, but rather a serviceable Chevrolet that allows him to get around effectively.” I’m sure you think that all kids in Newton get the Cadillac education while kids in other communities get only the Chevy, but trust me when I tell you that there are plenty of kids in our leafy burb who are only getting a Chevy education too.
@Greg, as admin for more than one non-profit, I’m sure it’s fairly obvious why I appreciate your comments regarding distribution of philanthropic funds throughout this community. I think what makes the issue difficult for me is that the money raised will be earmarked for the purchase, training, and maintenance of new technology. From what I understand the focus group for fundraising is our local philanthropists and businesses, not the giant box businesses (I believe Matty suggested “Best Buy High” as an option).
Now I am by no means anti-technology and I am grateful for the engineers, scientists and other genius minds that have created iPhones and discovered medical breakthroughs. However, I question whether the focus of education in this community should be on technology. This community is great for many reasons, not the least of which is all the available resources to its young people. Does focusing on technology truly serve the needs of the many? If the Foundation is to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars I would be more comfortable knowing that the money was available to many programs that could benefit all students. I’m with @Lisap here, every student deserves the same educational opportunities, whether their needs vary by academic ability, academic interests or extracurricular activities.
So then what does happen when this money has been promised to technology and other programs or facilities within the schools have needs that extend beyond their budget? Will that drive another campaign or force programs to be cut? And when these programs are cut, who in the community will pick up the slack? Ideally the local non-profits can do it, but not if the donation pool has already been exhausted. And not if the focus of the education community has been placed squarely on technology.
@Sean– Newton runs at a deficit. Boston runs at a surplus. Why is Newton subsidizing Boston schools? All we’ve done is enabled Boston to keep underperforming schools, because their best and brightest are in large part being educated by other communities. I don’t want to turn this into a METCO debate though.
Lisap,
If Newton is a Cadillac, it’s an aging model that needs a little work.
@Bill: Duct tape.
Greg: Yeah, but we had depended on the Montfourt Rd. lemonade stand to fund that item, and they closed down…
Time to cut the budget.
@Bill– Fair question. Some sponsorships pay cash up front. If it’s a corporate sponsorship that happens to be structured with payments over time, and the company is unable to honor it’s contractual commitment, then you find a new sponsor. You may not like that answer. And of course we would all hope that doesn’t happen. But should it happen, it’s not the end of the world.
I completely understand the funding reality of why we are having this discussion in the near term, but it still begs the broader question:
If we all agree that public education is a public good (and is moreover the most fundamental investment we can make in our kids and our community), why should we do anything other than ensure that it can be completely and appropriately funded by the public?
Many/most of the other risks and issues above are valid, but I think they sidestep this core issue.
Chris asks:
Because there’s some pretty clear evidence that not every one agrees that top-flight public education is worth paying for. Look at California, where the anti-tax movement has gutted its public schools — primary, secondary, and higher ed. The evidence is less stark here, but at least part of the decline of the Newton schools can be attributed to Prop 2-1/2 and funding levels.
There may be some good reason for the reluctance. The economics and the regulatory environment are different than they were before women joined the workforce in great numbers. Teachers could be had for cheap. Healthcare coverage was not the all-consuming line item. The apparatus of the regulatory regime — completely necessary — hadn’t overwhelmed schools. A significant minority of students in our country were given explicitly second-class educations. The norm of high-quality universal education was easy to support … because it wasn’t really universal and it was cheap.
Now, it’s not cheap. And, the support is waning. What do we do in response? It’s not enough to say great public education is a worthy civic virtue on its own merits. (I agree, but others don’t.) It’s not enough to say that good public education adds value to your home that makes the investment of your tax dollars worth it. Apparently, it’s not the factor we think it is.
@Chris– I think Sean gave your question an excellent response. Personally, I’d be willing to pay more taxes in order to help better fund public education. I’m fortunate though, in that I could afford it. I’m sensitive to the fact that many of my Newton neighbors can not. Particularly as we’re just emerging from a protracted weak economy.
So fundamentally you are completely right, public schools should be funded by the public. But at this time, that unfortunately means they are underfunded. Our kids only get one shot at a K-12 education. That’s the reality. We can either accept the status quo and provide education based purely on affordability, or we can get creative and seek out alternative funding mechanisms to help raise educational opportunities and standards.
Bigger picture… All municipalities are struggling these days. Alternative revenue sources can provide tens of millions a year for Newton. We just need to be creative enough and bold enough to pursue them. That takes open minded leadership with vision. Something I’ve repeatedly slammed as a failing of our current mayor. With his advocacy of this naming rights initiative, I’m thrilled to see him prove me wrong.
Mike,
Re Metco costs – Please look into (and report back) how much Boston pays Newton for each Metco student it sends here. I recall reading a year or two ago that it’s at least several thousand bucks per student, and that Newton really isn’t footing a large bill.
Margie– I’m unfamiliar with the current rates. I really don’t want to turn this into a debate about METCO, because that warrants a more detailed analysis, and my objection to the program goes beyond simply the $ involved. The last time I really looked at the numbers though was 2005. At that time the State [not Boston] was covering approximately $2800 per student, and Newton was spending well in excess of $10,000 per year, per student.
@Sean and @Mike. Both great sets of points, but it really does beg the question of when we began to lose faith in education. Not sure how we can expect our kids to do well in the world if we are unwilling to invest in giving them basic skills and the knowledge of how to apply them.
It also begs the question of what we can do to fix that values problem.
Probably too big a question for here, but it does nag at me.
It bothers me too, Chris. I’m a graduate of Newton public schools during what’s been referred to as the “Golden Era” of public education in Newton. I graduated in 1976. The education I received was vastly superior to the education my 3 kids have received from the same school system.
It has nothing to do with administrators or teachers. For the most part this city attracts the best of both. I lay some of the blame on standardized testing, which has dumbed down our curriculum. Mostly though the downhill slide has been a result of insufficient funding that has caused massive cuts in educational offerings, and a disintegration of many of our school buildings.