Scholarship screening is at the heart of what the Pennsbury Scholarship Foundation does, for this is where applicants are selected and the amounts of their scholarships are decided. There are two key aspects of the Screening process: who does the screening and how, and what are the criteria.

​

The screening and selection process evolved from the Pennsbury PTA scholarship program that began in the late 1940s with a focus on financial need. With the beginning of the PSF in 1956, which also focused on financial need, a partnership arrangement began with the PTA/PTO scholarship program. Ultimately a PTA/PTO representative became a member of the PSF Board of Directors, and the PTO screening and selection process was folded into the PSF program. The PTO continues fundraising in the schools, donating proceeds to the PSF.

​

In the 1980s the Board wrestled with the question of how much weight should be given to Need in comparison with Character, Leadership and Scholarship as specified in the Hayes Trust to “give equal consideration” to all 4 criteria. It ultimately decided to apply the “equal consideration to the 4 criteria” for all of its scholarship awards.

​

The “Pennsbury PTA Scholarship Aid Program”, which predates the Pennsbury Scholarship Foundation by almost 10 years, had put in place a screening committee and procedure for awarding scholarships. In 1949 the program gave its first two awards amounting to $400. This was at the same time that the Pennsbury Schools, organized under the jurisdiction of the Pennsbury Joint School Board, graduated its first high school class.

​

The PTA/PTOs continued with their own program into the 1960s while working together with the PSF, which started its  own program in 1956. The June 1963 issue of The Pennsbury Schools Report states that the PTA scholarship committee included “appointed representative and alternate from each PTA.” It says also, referring to the “Pennsbury PTA Scholarship Fund,” that “A committee composed of representatives from each of the schools selects the recipients of the scholarships. The committee always has great difficulty choosing from among the many worthy applicants. A new system to assist the committee is being initiated this year, utilizing the help of an impartial Financial Aid Officer from an area college who will evaluate all applications.” [No record was found of follow up to this approach.]

​

The Pennsbury Scholarship Foundation scholarship recipient selection process evolved over several years, as documented in the “Review of the [Board of Directors Meeting] Minutes of Pennsbury Scholarship Foundation”, (hereafter referred to as the “Review”). In 1957 “members of the PSF Board worked with the guidance office to review applications to decide on the greatest need of students, and to vote on who would be awarded how much. The PEA [Pennsbury Education Association] fund was also kept separate, but administered by the PSF Board to students who were planning to become teachers. The leaders of these funds wanted to have their awards identified as to the fund. Separate bank accounts were also kept at this time.” The “Review” also states that “The Medill Bair Scholarship Fund was administered by the PSF as grants.”

​

The “Review” goes on to record that “The procedure was for the students to request aid, which they usually did by way of a letter explaining why they needed a loan and how much they needed in order to go to school or to stay in school. Loans and/or grants were made semester by semester, and adjusted according as to whether aid was available to the student from the school. Minutes show that a few needy student loan requests would be brought to almost every meeting for voting on by the Board. Usually the officers would become aware of the need and check it out with the guidance counselor before presenting the issue to the Board. The college would be notified of the aid and asked to send an invoice for the need. All checks were made out to the student’s school of choice to pay outstanding bills for the student.”

​

The “Review” states that “In January 1958 it was suggested that ‘the Board should obtain scholastic standing, financial need, and the opinion of the school advisors, before granting funds for tuition. Also that when loans are made to students, a note be signed by the student for repayment of the loan merely as a moral obligation.’ A financial status form was created to be completed by parents to help establish need.”

​

From the “Review”, “In September 1960, a motion was made that ‘loans and grants be earmarked as such, and so indicated in the Report of the Treasurer’.”

​

Going on, the “Review” records that “In January 1963, the PSF Board divided into three permanent committees – Fund Raising, Activities and Academic.  The academic committee would work especially with the applications for aid. It was noted that an interview by board members with the applicant had been very beneficial in the award selection process and should be used for other applications.”  It also was noted that “three recipients had repaid their loans in full totaling $1500 and two others had made partial repayment. A letter was to be sent to all recipients whose loan was four or more years old and not repaid. In October 1963, another letter was to be created and sent to those who did not respond to the first letter.”

​

Again from the “Review,” “A more complete application form was created around 1965 by the Academic Committee which required: Parents’ confidential financial statement, Student’s financial requirements, and a letter giving supplemental information to assist the committee in making its evaluation. Transcript of grades was also required for the applicant. This application form states that ‘the scholarship loans are awarded first on the basis of need, and secondly, on scholastic achievement.”

​

The Hayes Trust was established in 1968 and it specifies that the awards of funds generated by the Hayes Trust will be determined by a committee consisting of the President of the School Board, the District Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent for curriculum and instruction. It also says that the recipients are to be selected on the basis of financial need, demonstrated excellence of character, leadership and scholastic ability, each given equal consideration.​​​​​​​​​​

​

From the “Review,” “The procedures for the screening committee were further explained around 1969 with an updated application form. This is after the PTA-PTO organization had joined forces with the PSF. At this time all scholarships were under one umbrella – PTO, PEA, PSF, Student Council, Medill Bair Scholarship Fund, and the addition of the Hayes Memorial Scholarship Fund. The unity allowed the PTO executive board to appoint a screening chairman, who also became a member of the Foundation’s Board of Directors.”

​

It should be noted that at some point the Pennsbury Schools Administration took back the management of scholarships that have limitations imposed by the donors, such as on the field of study. The PSF has no provisions for such special purpose scholarships.

​

​The Pennsbury Schools Report of October 1970, listed the names of “the citizens of the Pennsbury community responsible for administering the scholarship program: Pennsbury Scholarship Association – Screening Committee” and the “Pennsbury Scholarship Foundation.” Also noted were four members of the Foundation who also were on the Screening Committee, two (and maybe three – names not titles are listed) of which were Hayes Trust committee members.

​

The Pennsbury Schools Report of January 1972 noted that “The Screening Committee for awards is made up of the following representatives: PTA/PTO – 5 members: Pennsbury Scholarship Foundation – 3 members: Hayes Memorial fund – 1.”

​

The “Pennsbury Scholarship Foundation Screening Committee Procedures,” which appears to have been written in the 1972 timeframe, lists the committee members as 5 elementary PTA-PTO representatives, 3 Pennsbury Scholarship Foundation Board members, 1 PEA [Pennsbury Education Association] representative and 1 Hayes Memorial Foundation representative.  The screening involved “each committee member reading the accumulated information in the applicant’s folder’ and then grading the application ‘in the following categories: 2/5 financial need, 1/5 scholastic standing, 1/5 character references and 1/5 activities. Each review is totaled, and when the application has been screened by all ten reviewers, a final total of points becomes the applicant’s score. Applicants’ names with scores are written for the reviewer to observe and the process of awarding grants and loans begins. No student can receive more than 5% of the gross funds available.”

​

From the “Review”, “during the March 1982 Board meeting, the rating scale used by the committee was questioned. As a result an ad hoc committee report was presented at the May meeting with recommendations for change: Proposed (82-83): Financial Need -20, Scholarship-15, Activities and Character-15. The committee changes were to be effective for school year 1982-83.”

​

The “Review” continued: “A new application form was created in1983, and a discussion was held to try to streamline the screening process. All Board members were encouraged to help with scholarship screening instead of the committee of 10 previously used. Awards would be made on the basis of 50% loan and 50% grant. Students working on advanced degrees would not be considered for a scholarship.”

​

“In September 1983, ‘minor changes were made to try to defuse financial need as the most important factor’.”

​

“In September 1984 it was decided to use the same procedure the next year for selecting recipients as was used this year [1984]. Evaluation ratio was: need 40%, essay 30%, and academics 30%.”

​

“In March 1985 the question was raised whether the 40-30-30 way of evaluating the applications was in violation of the Hayes Trust. After Screening Sunday that year an evaluation was made whether there would have been a difference in the awards had the equal consideration been used as per the Hayes will. Results showed that the same persons would have won the awards, but there would have been small differences in the amount of the award for some.”

​

Per the “Review,” “At the September 1985 meeting discussion regarding the percentage weight to be placed on various parts of the application form continued. The Hayes will states that ‘The committee, aforesaid, shall base its award and the terms thereof upon the individual’s financial need, his character, his leadership ability, and his scholastic ability.  Each of these attributes shall be given equal consideration.’ Mr. Mills commented that he ‘remembered that Mr. Hayes was always concerned with the need, and believes that the intent was to weigh the need heavier. The hard part is developing a fair way to evaluate character and leadership.’ Motion made and passed that the 1986 scholarship program would give equal weight to the 4 criteria.”

​

“Guidelines for selection of 1988 scholarship recipients gives instructions for scoring essays for character and lists for leadership. An explanation of prescreening for academic and financial scoring was also given.”

​

“A detailed analysis of the 1989 screening was prepared. It was recommended that the process be used for the following year.”

​

The “Review” continues to document Board discussions and actions through 2007.

​

In1997, B.J. Rassler, President of the Foundation, congratulated “Diane and crew” “for another wonderful scholarship Screening Sunday.”

​

The “Guidelines for Selection of 1998 Scholarship Recipients, Pennsbury Scholarship Foundation” is focused on grading the essays each applicant was required to write, one on Character and one on Leadership. The Screeners were all volunteers from the PSF Board, the Pennsbury staff and the Pennsbury community. Each essay, coded and presented anonymously, was read by five randomly chosen screeners who rated them from 1 to 5. Points were totaled and then combined with academic and financial need scores that the Screening Committee had developed earlier. The Scholarship Screening Committee then combined scores and arrived at a distribution of scores, still anonymously, from which they decided on who would be selected and the amount to be awarded. The total amount to be awarded had been previously determined by the Board of Directors. The names of the recipients were later determined by the Office Administrator using the coding system.

​

The PSF Guidelines basically have remained the same over the years, but the administrative details have been spelled out to varying degrees. In all they include the following:

• The names and detailed duties of each person and committee involved including the Screening Chair, Office Administrator, Public Relations Committee, Screening Committee, Treasurer, Hospitality Chair, Guidance Office Secretary, Development Committee, Computer subcommittee, and President.

• The timeline by month for preparation down to the details of location, computer support and luncheon for screeners on Screening Sunday.

• Determining the amounts available for the awards.                  

• Determining the ranking score for each applicant regarding academic standing and financial need.                 

• Directions on conducting the reading of essays and scoring them.    

• The process for developing a total ranking score for each applicant and selecting the actual recipients and the amount of each award.

• Records retention policy and procedures including location of records and authorization for access on a need-to-know basis,        

• Hayes Trust procedures and communications,

• Notification of applicants and recipients,

• Public relations and press releases,

• Writing checks and distribution,

• Preparation for the Recipient Reception including scheduling, invitations, location and physical setup, program details, speakers, greeters, printed programs and other handouts, photography of recipients and donors, certificates and checks for recipients, hospitality tables with beverages and snacks and cleanup.  

​

Just a note: The screening sessions depicted in the photos all took place in the Pennsbury HS cafeteria.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Compiled from writings about the history of the PSF by Wanda Long and from her files – Hal Long