A pattern of private donations that appears to favor the wealthiest schools in the Shawnee Mission School District sparked a spirited discussion among board members Monday night as they grappled with whether those donations result in an unfair educational advantage.
The discussion came after members of a special task force— comprised of three school board members — met multiple times this summer to look into the issue.
Those task force members on Monday presented statistics showing that 80% of donations dedicated to particular schools — including funds brought in through traditional PTA fundraisers, as well as more direct gifts like checks written by parents and grandparents — have gone to schools with less than 20% of their students on free or reduced lunch.
Schools in the Shawnee Mission East feeder pattern led the donations by a wide margin.
Based on data collected by the task force, the top five schools in terms of donations and fundraising dollars received were all in the SM East area. (The statistics compiled by the task force do not reflect all of the individual PTA fundraising that happens in the district.)
Task force’s concerns focused on funds that pay for staff
The main concern of the special committee was the use of donated money to pay for staff positions.
Overall, just 6.5 full-time equivalent positions in the district currently are paid for through private school-based donations.
A total of 97% of the donations for that handful of “community-funded” positions went to schools with the smallest percentage of students on free and reduced lunch, according to district statistics.
Task force members Jessica Hembree, Jamie Borgman and David Westbrook recommended that the question be taken up by the board’s policy review committee for more study and perhaps a clearer policy on whether the donations should be used to fund teaching, library aides and other such positions.
Superintendent Michael Schumacher noted during the meeting that it is the practice of other districts in Johnson County not to accept private dollars to pay for staffing, though they may not specifically prohibit it in their policies.
“Important to put donations into perspective”
Opinions at Monday’s meeting differed.
Board President and SM East area member Mary Sinclair asked board member April Boyd-Noronha, the SM West area representative on the board, to conduct the meeting because of Sinclair’s ties to the East area.
But Sinclair still talked at length in defense of allowing the positions. She called the discussion, “a very public exercise in inherent bias.”
The district has a sound track record of staffing guidelines that ensure equitable distribution of teachers and class size, Sinclair said.
The 6.5 full-time equivalent positions that are funded by donations right now represent only 0.003% of the 3,700 district employees and an even smaller percentage of the district’s operational budget, she pointed out.
“I really do welcome this conversation, but it’s important to be able to put donations into perspective,” Sinclair said.
The SM East area, with its higher property values, is already contributing significantly to the budget to the benefit of all students, she noted. But having those resources sometimes means the schools don’t get public money for their needs.
Because of Kansas’ history of underfunding its schools, the district is still catching up, she said, adding there are still struggling students in the East area who have educational needs.
“Why would we want to deny educational supports for struggling students just because not enough of their classmates qualify for free or reduced lunch?” she said.
“The perception is not great”
Task force members Hembree and Borgman, who represent the SM South and SM Northwest areas respectively, pushed back.
Hembree mentioned the recently adopted strategic plan’s commitment to equitable access.
“The community didn’t say equitable access 99.2% of the time. They said 100% of the time,” she said.
“It cannot be that some of these programs are the privilege of a fortunate few,” she continued. “If these are important for our kids, we need to provide them to all the kids and pay with district resources.”
Borgman noted that much of the feedback has been from people with ties to the SM East area. However, she said some have confided to her that they think the gap in private funding among schools is wrong.
If public funding sources get cut back in the future, the funding gap could get worse because not all schools have the ability to raise the kind of funds needed to pay for an aide, she argued.
She related her own experience of being in a PTA thrilled to raise $2,000 at a silent auction.
Board member Mario Garcia said constituents in the SM North area, which he represents, have told him they resoundingly support an end to private money going to fund staff positions.
“The perception is not great,” he said.
What happens next?
The issue still faces more study before any policy change could be made, and none are likely this school year.
Sinclair suggested that the board make any changes effective for the 2026-27 school year because the discussion can have a chilling effect on fundraising next year.
