Haverford Township School District policy reviewers on May 15 asked for a substantial rewrite of the proposed consolidated gifts‑to‑personnel policy to make clear the district’s intentions without discouraging common parent or class practices such as low‑value valentines or class‑collected end‑of‑year gifts.

Committee members described the existing administrative language as outdated and overly prescriptive and asked staff to emphasize the policy’s core aims — preventing quid‑pro‑quo influence, the appearance of impropriety and differential treatment — while offering concrete examples of what must be reported.

One committee member said the draft’s line that “gifts of a sentimental nature of nominal value, such as valentines made by students, cookies, and other tokens… should not be encouraged” read as overly harsh; several members asked that student‑generated tokens be treated differently from substantial individual gifts. “My kid can't make her teacher a valentine?” one member asked rhetorically.

Why it matters: the policy frames staff conduct and the district’s approach to accepting or reporting gifts, and committee members said a clearer policy will reduce confusion for parents, PTOs and employees.

Discussion and requested changes
- Distinguish class/group gifts from individual gifts: Members broadly agreed a class or PTO gift (collected and presented as “from the class”) is different from a substantial gift from an individual family and that examples should be included in the AR to illustrate reportable vs. non‑reportable items.
- Purpose and tone: Committee members asked that the policy’s purpose open with why the policy exists — to prevent undue influence or the appearance of impropriety — rather than starting with language that frames common student expressions of appreciation as “undesirable.”
- Reporting threshold and examples: The committee discussed adding a reporting threshold (for example, a dollar level) or at least giving concrete examples of reportable gifts (e.g., an individual family providing high‑value cash or expensive items) and non‑reportable items (modest class gifts, homemade tokens). Members suggested the AR include sample thresholds and a short list of examples.
- Administrative practice: Members asked whether employees must inform supervisors about gifts and agreed that significant or individual gifts above a nominal threshold should be reported to a principal or supervisor; small class gifts and student cards should not require disclosure.

Direction to staff and next steps
- Staff were asked to substantially redraft the policy and AR to: (1) state the policy purpose up front (preventing quid‑pro‑quo and appearance of impropriety); (2) provide examples of reportable and non‑reportable gifts; (3) include a practical reporting mechanism (who to notify and when); and (4) align guidance with common PTO and classroom practices. The committee deferred further action until the rewritten language is available for committee review.

Ending: Committee members supported keeping safeguards against influence while preserving customary, low‑value student expressions of appreciation; staff will return with a rewritten policy and examples for the AR.