I believe that we should defeat this motion for these reasons ...

1 - The naming of parts of schools after individuals or corporations will lead to increased corporatization of public education and will be a sell off of public assets - here an intangible asset but with real value - naming rights. Schools are special places: they shelter children and they are engaged in a critically important public task unlike other institutions or places where private money is perhaps more acceptable. We already focus on fundraising too much and we should not proceed in this direction any further.

2 - This resolution could mean we lead an unfortunate charge amongst Ontario school boards. Annie Kidder of P4E was quoted in the Citizen in June when asked about this draft policy as stating that she knew of no other Board in Canada with this sort of policy. Our Board has developed a provincial reputation as a Board willing to go after the funding and as one of high principle when it comes to public education. Let's not be the ones to promote such an idea.

3 - We'd signal to our school communities that we’d given up seeking funding, that we believed in downloading problems to school communities and to encouraging them to fundraise for basics as a solution. We’d be signalling that this Board believes the end justifies the means. We'd be signalling that we expect them to fundraise even more than they do now. If there's a real need at a school then it's our job to make sure that the resources we do have flow there while continuing to advocate for student needs.

4 - School communities could engage with this policy in unpredictable ways. Will 'have not' school communities find that they have to sell more of their souls than communities able to fundraise without doing so? Or, will donors be attracted to this or to that 'have' or 'have not' school community or this or that opportunity? We don't really know what we might be inviting into our Board here.

5 - I think that we risk creating a morale problem internally and a public relations problem externally as the public and our own people might rightly start to wonder about the Board's direction and of the true extent of its commitment to public education.

6 - The funds generated are by definition not necessary, as long as we remain committed that is to following the ethical guidelines of the Conference Board of Canada. In our PR.535.GOV we require accordingly that any 'business-education' relationship "complement and not replace public funding for education". Passing this provision might generate some unnecessary funding, but it also might not generate much unnecessary money at all, and yet all sorts of other damage will have been done.

7 - A school community which wanted to do this could, if the majority changed on the Council or other circumstances changed including funding, live to regret its decision to invite a take-over of naming rights but would be stuck with it.

8 - There's no provision against naming a part of a school after a donor now - true. It's not done now though and it’s not encouraged now either. Writing this in is not merely 'clarifying' - rather it's encouraging, it's inviting, it's a request to our schools and school communities to start actively thinking in these terms. They could even fear that if they haven't first tried to sell naming rights that we won't fund their school's need - that this is de facto a new expectation of ours that they try.

9 - With such a policy in place how can one be assured that there will never be a library named after a soft drink corporation or some questionable person. What in the policy would actually act as a guarantee preventing this if a given school community or even a given Board was tempted by big enough cash?

10 - Every private dollar successfully solicited is one less reason for the Province to fund needs. Wasn't this the concern with PSAB accounting of Council funds?

11 - If a donor really wishes to help student success then they can do this via our Education Foundation ... the EFO deserves our support and is gearing up now to recognize corporate donors in creative ways not involving permanent naming rights for the cash. Truly altruistic donors will not need part of a school named after them. Knowing that the gift will be used and is appreciated will be enough or in any event it should be enough.

12 - How will we know that it worked and did generate an extra donation - one which would not have been made regardless to the EFO or to a School or the Board? Will more and more donors hold out to get something named after them for which they would have donated anyway or at least largely? And, what will be the dampening effect on freely given unnamed donations?

To end, I think that what we actually lack is a sufficiently explicit policy on donor recognition. One of the few I could find is that which guides the Vancouver School Board. It in fact has a whole policy, on donor and sponsor recognition. It reads in part ...

[...]
It is appropriate that sponsors and donors receive recognition for their support. Recognition should be focused and directed to adults and parents. Such recognition can be in the form of a mention in the school newsletter, presentation at an assembly, a news release, or letter to the sponsor involved.
[...]
The VSB does not offer naming of its programs or facilities after corporations or individuals who have made large donations as a form of recognition.
[...]

We should defeat this motion. And, if we do then we should ask our staff to come forward with a clarifying draft policy for our school communities along VSB lines.