Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Funded Positions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews draft policy and multi-step process for community-funded staff positions
Summary
Following a year of study, the board reviewed a proposed policy (KH) and a new multi-step application and scoring process intended to govern donations that fund staff positions; the draft would bar donations for regular classroom and special-education teacher slots and require annual review and equity scoring for other position requests.
The Shawnee Mission Board of Education received a first reading of a proposed update to policy KH and an associated application-and-review procedure for community-funded positions after a year-long Donations Task Force and Policy Review Committee process.
Administrators said the draft policy would clarify that the board — not building principals — approves donated funds and would generally bar donations that hire regular classroom or special-education teachers. The draft also disallows donations that would create positions at one school level that do not exist at other schools at the same level; the stated purpose is to prevent ad hoc, non-districtwide staffing differences that can create perceptions of inequity.
The accompanying procedure would require donors or foundations to submit an application with seven prompts (purpose, alignment with district goals, measurable outcomes, budget and sustainability, and equity impact). The process administrators described has four review steps: (1) confirm the requested position exists at other schools at the same level; (2) check alignment with district staffing models and whether the role duplicates standard staffing pipelines (teachers or special-education roles are excluded); (3) a district committee scores three factors (alignment with district goals, building quantitative indicators such as enrollment, assessments, number of 504/IEP plans, chronic absenteeism, discipline referrals, and staffing ratios); and (4) a second district committee scores five qualitative factors including equity impact, sustainability and measurable goals. Scores from steps 3 and 4 combine on a 24-point scale; administrators proposed a threshold (18 or higher) for committee recommendation to the superintendent to accept the donation for a single school year.
Board members discussed several practical concerns: how principals conduct building needs assessments; how sustainability and annual reapproval would work; PTA and foundation roles in fundraising; and earlier historical context dating to the 2009–12 budget cuts when community donations addressed adequacy gaps. Administrators said they will accept suggestions and return a revised draft for a second read at the next meeting. The policy review committee recommended any policy changes take effect in the 2026–27 school year to allow planning time.
There was no vote; the presentation was a first reading and the district invited suggested edits from the board before a second read.
