The Five$-$Year Facilities Master Plan of the Springfield Elementary School System $($SESB$)$ shows its current capital funding budget of $$50$ million a year is insufficient to address its capital needs. The plan calls for a need of twice that $-$ $$500$ million over the next five years. The recommendations call for building five new schools and closing eight existing ones. The plan states twelve schools need major renovations $($more than $$1$ million each$)$ and five schools need minor renovations $($under $$1$ million$).$Springfield is not alone in this situation. School districts all over the country are faced with aging overcrowded buildings, outdated technology, safety concerns, and a severe lack of funding. Several school systems have begun seeking and getting, corporate sponsorships via naming rights of school facilities $($buildings$).$ For example:$-$ The Milwaukee Public School District $($MPS$)$ recently undertook such an approach and fully funded a new elementary school and renovations to an existing high school. A high school in Chicago sold the name of its stadium for $$100,000$ and a permanent ad on the scoreboard for another $$80,000.-$ Westside High School in Omaha boasts its own Pizza Hut$/$convenience store, which has brought in more than $$800,000$ over seven years for the high school.$-$ Grapevine$-$Colleyville school district in Texas offers ad space on school buses, stadiums, and the middle$-$school roof.$-$ Sheboygan Area $($WI$)$ School District will receive $$105,000$ in exchange for the naming rights to the stores and women's team locker rooms at the new North and South high school field houses. To date, their Public Education Foundation has received almost $$2$ million in exchange for naming rights at their sports complexes.$-$ In Michigan, a pair of school playgrounds in Rochester was named after competing home builders. And in Walled Lake, an outdoor classroom was named for Lowe's.However, SESB Policy #$3270$ states that to be acceptable, a grant, gift, or donation must:$-$ have a purpose consistent with the beliefs$/$philosophy of the school system; $-$ be offered by a donor acceptable to the Board.$-$ not bring undesirable or hidden costs to the school system.$-$ place no undesirable restrictions on the Board.$-$ not be inappropriate or harmful to the best education of students.$-$ not imply endorsement of any business product or belief; and$-$ not conflict with any Board policy or state law.You are one of several members of the SESB who are in favor of restructuring this policy to allow for the creation of fiscal partnerships with local, regional, or national corporations, including the concept of selling naming rights as a means of obtaining sorely needed funding. You recognize that this approach is simply a way to be able to provide the best possible learning environments for Springfields students, and that is what ultimately matters. The end $($student learning$)$ justifies the means $($corporate donations$),$ in other words.However, other members of the Board are opposed to the idea of accepting corporate donations that come with strings attached, specifically in the form of corporate naming rights $($which they consider to be nothing more than a form of advertising$).$ They believe there is already too much commercialism in schools, referencing SESB Policy #$6021$ which established a dress code for elementary students, banning any clothes that had designer logos or symbols. As such. they are disinclined to alter existing Board policy. Some have even suggested that the policy should be rewritten to specifically prohibit such donations. However, they do recognize that something must be done to counter the severe lack of funding that is preventing MCS from providing its students with the best possible learning environment.You have a week to try to convince your school board counterpart to revise SESB Policy #$3270$ to allow for corporate sponsorship of current Board policy, specifically, if it should be changed, and if so$,$ how.