[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6520970,"mediaKeyId","5115908-086fb573eefa549249f1330a7f89756d","parentId",5115908,"title","Task force examines density, high/low enrollment weighting options; staff present alternative formulas","audioSeconds",1550,"startMs",160000,"endMs",1710000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5115908-086fb573eefa549249f1330a7f89756d&start=160&end=1710","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5115908-086fb573eefa549249f1330a7f89756d/thumbnail_160000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6520970/Kansas/Task-force-examines-density-highlow-enrollment-weighting-options-staff-present-alternative-formulas","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6520970-994a7b470074c84303896af0504805a8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771215602&Signature=hzm4uhOFlg5f7aRCAnjkpODRtUphWQbt6WmnEDliYmef7p2SOPQLcEX3iXX4JDqtpg~5mAYq-TKR92O-5KyvaQizSPHaoIik8bKMDBGvImJO131F-tLFVWLoA5~OIq4yzJ57BBKAtyA7UghfptoItxfxs03k63wem0rsuqex~QqmjkH6HWPqpLgVw1NoGuzcyKM~GMskwagabSyh77sHF0HvJY22xmZDkUayAZT4JVbwwDW8wkkbLVE4BSHEsgYnM7Xm5rRyvSIwfg6oyfpla-LEB6wH-7qx5ULOqcxjWLRtJZYDVt6XlTgIuTzdql5Wyz4GGTLvjkhWw54GK-nbjA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force","date","2025-07-01T20:58:52.273Z","article","The Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force spent substantial time reviewing possible alternatives to the current low/high enrollment weightings and a set of density‑based models that would change how districts are weighted for sparsity or density.

Matthew Willis of Legislative Research reviewed follow‑up material on high/low enrollment models and then presented three density‑based approaches. Willis said he used components of existing Kansas formulas — the transportation denominator (students transported per square mile) and the capital outlay state aid weighting method — to create a density index: adjusted enrollment divided by district square miles, mapped onto a stepped factor curve similar to capital outlay state aid. Willis described two baseline approaches: a median‑based curve (median district density just over 2 students per square mile) and a mean‑based curve (average density about 19 students per square mile). He explained that median‑based curves concentrate weight toward very sparse districts while mean‑based curves spread weighting more broadly across districts.

Willis told members that moving from a student‑FTE based low/high model to a density model would redistribute funding differently: under some median models, certain medium‑sized districts with compact footprints would lose low‑enrollment aid because density placed them outside the sparsity range; mean models would expand the number of districts receiving some density weighting. Several members asked for a short narrative explanation of the methodology and a district example; Willis and KLRD staff said they would supply that.

KLRD provided two organization improvements requested by members: a one‑page overview of at‑risk/density models and a sample district worksheet showing step‑by‑step calculations. Members said they needed time to absorb the material; the task force scheduled more time in the coming meeting cycle to consider how any density weighting would interact with other potential formula changes.

Ending: Staff will send a brief narrative and district example pages. The task force reserved September meetings to review combined options and the effects of rolling multiple weightings together.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Education Funding Task Force 07/01/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Legislative Research and KLRD staff reviewed models to change low/high enrollment weightings and to use density (students per square mile) as an alternative; staff also circulated district examples and asked for more time to let members digest the complex material.","taxTitle","Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force, Task Forces, Committees, Legislative, Kansas","taxId",72660,"location","Kansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6520974,"Auditors: districts spend most at‑risk dollars on salaries; approved program list lacked peer‑reviewed evidence",1896,3709000,5605000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5115908-086fb573eefa549249f1330a7f89756d&start=3709&end=5605","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5115908-086fb573eefa549249f1330a7f89756d/thumbnail_3709000.jpg","/articles/6520974/Kansas/Auditors-districts-spend-most-atrisk-dollars-on-salaries-approved-program-list-lacked-peerreviewed-evidence","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6520974-dc65133c33a05e8bbbe57d49b3a0c3c2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771215602&Signature=C4s2hxIbKug7BeyQHQ0GlzXrsJUjqABNAAk9qVq3wlZls7YXM1kH0cZ4UCChUfTVkbOm2yx4HYcJg~wTvJIBmFdngH51ykabkBWZPpSplEtQ1cXUydWxttyZDu1gzDdcXr3PtmHi4f-8aXe9Dol7OibPlfMZXMPTImXLSv6g78zEcUFBT3Fn3-zWQTm27Iojq2HBC7gQwb5jFm3rfHh8Q1lppH9r1Tftv8BBDEFOhmwgZjjhHJPmVEBcMOS3hjLbVs0hfmWUW0oJOy8k31DxkM4QVJSubp-s-XuRwci7JXiYXIr1McU4Scxync5TuweAdAlKqxIf6NSUFd3yydhIxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Legislative Post Audit presented two recent reports to the Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force on July 1, reviewing how Kansas school districts generate, spend and account for at‑risk funds and whether the expenditures are linked to improved student outcomes.

Heidi Zimmerman, principal auditor with Legislative Post Audit, summarized the agency's 2019 and 2023 findings. LPA examined a nonrandom sample of districts and detailed that the majority of at‑risk expenditures — roughly 96–97% in the sample — were for staff salaries and benefits; about 90% of those staff paid from at‑risk funds were classroom teachers or paraprofessionals. LPA found substantial variation across districts in how much at‑risk funding covered reported at‑risk spending: in the sample, some districts spent far more than the state weighting generated and others spent less. The sample reported roughly $162 million spent on at‑risk services in the 2019 review sample compared with $125 million in at‑risk funding for those districts; auditors cautioned the sample was not projectable statewide.

Zimmerman said the audits reviewed the research base for programs on the State Board of Education's approved list. \"None of the 40 programs met all 3 criteria\" of statute as written at the time (peer‑reviewed evidence across a five‑year window and focus on at‑risk students), she told the task force. In the 2023 follow‑up, auditors found the quality of evidence cited for commonly used programs was uneven: for 22 of 40 reviewed programs auditors could not find peer‑reviewed research; 18 had some research evidence and only seven had moderate to strong evidence of effectiveness.

On student outcomes, LPA reviewed cohort and statewide assessment and graduation data and reported that students eligible for free lunch performed worse on state assessments than other students across the period analyzed and that a large share of cohorts either stagnated or declined in performance over time. Zimmerman told the group that very few students in the cohorts moved to higher performance bands over the years studied.

Auditors recommended stronger departmental oversight and clearer guidance about allowable at‑risk expenditures, and the task force noted amendments to statutes since 2019 and work the State Board has begun to strengthen standards and training for approved programs.

Ending: Members asked for follow‑up analyses that use new student‑level flags (where available) that distinguish which students actually receive services, and auditors agreed that more targeted data analysis could help show whether at‑risk spending is leading to the intended additional services for students.

","Legislative Post Audit reported in 2019 and 2023 that districts primarily pay staff with at‑risk dollars, many approved programs lacked peer‑reviewed evidence of effectiveness, and statewide student outcomes did not improve in the audited period.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6520980,"Task force reviews how Kansas defines and spends \"at-risk\" funding; reviser outlines statutory rules",730,3065000,3795000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5115908-086fb573eefa549249f1330a7f89756d&start=3065&end=3795","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5115908-086fb573eefa549249f1330a7f89756d/thumbnail_3065000.jpg","/articles/6520980/Kansas/Task-force-reviews-how-Kansas-defines-and-spends-at-risk-funding-reviser-outlines-statutory-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6520980-357e4d6066c956d7fe8ac8ead0c13d8a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771215602&Signature=ixY1VviGxvZWPKUk4zneorXgkIChZp-ZH2M9tNd964RUwKkEbqEqanOsjFIagoT39ySUa9-jGyoBbjVQZ8nkjbUb4FBuDZchpRYwezPpnn-xYQJT8P~uucq6KSUIzQ9tSYakKxYsYy1jjdD48RC8mSQXVjFagJLfpXD~XxBDmw5tHwBwCkEKhR8wS0dsb8mgM3FqoNEdi-kUeix5OqmJrqKayrnEocop1Mnvk~Lh9zwf7bzO5fKjSH9YPlJZrf0VSFF3bAVTDqj0L4QWIZ3Dremmh8Dp2fxcvI-Vzf7Y4MKSZoDtz~5CZTG6vHwP8laNPjFSinsLPSr1-svNXJHJQg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force heard a legal briefing on July 1 on how Kansas law creates and restricts \"at‑risk\" funding and the At Risk Education Fund, followed by staff modeling of several alternatives to the current free‑lunch proxy.

Tamara Lawrence of the Revisor of Statutes told the task force that the at‑risk student weighting is established in statute and “the weighting is determined by multiplying the number of students in a school district who qualify as at risk for purposes of the school finance formula by the weighting factor of 0.484.” She noted that the statute uses eligibility for free meals under the National School Lunch Act as the proxy for the students who generate the funding, and that the current numeric factor (0.484) has been in place since 2017.

The reviser memo explained how statute restricts what districts may spend from the At Risk Education Fund (KSA 70‑25153): money generated by the at‑risk and high‑density at‑risk weightings and the portion of the computed local option budget attributable to the weighting must be deposited in the At Risk Education Fund. Lawrence summarized the permissible expenditures: interventions and evidence‑based instructional services provided above and beyond regular education for students identified as academically at risk; personnel directly providing those at‑risk services; training; and contracted services. The State Board of Education must publish and approve the list of eligible programs; provisional program approvals are allowed by statute.

KLRD senior fiscal analyst Jennifer Light and Legislative Research analyst Matthew Willis presented multiple models the task force requested for replacing or augmenting the free‑lunch proxy. Models shown included (a) moving existing at‑risk dollars into an enhanced base grant, (b) allocating the same total dollars by school district using Title I percentages, (c) replacing the free‑lunch proxy with state assessment results (level 1, or levels 1 and 2), (d) using U.S. Census small‑area poverty estimates, and (e) hybrid averages of proxies (free‑lunch and assessment measures). The packet summarized dollar impacts on State Foundation Aid and the computed Local Option Budget (LOB) for each model. Staff cautioned the task force that different proxies reallocate money across districts and that moving funding from a formula weighting into base aid alters computed LOB amounts.

Members asked procedural and technical questions about the legal and operational differences between students who generate funding (free‑lunch proxy) and students who are eligible to receive at‑risk services under district identification criteria (attendance, academic performance, social‑emotional needs). The Revisor and staff emphasized that qualification for free meals is the funding proxy and does not automatically determine which students receive services.

The task force scheduled a fuller discussion and a chance for members to review the models before the next meeting.

Ending: Staff said they will provide additional explanatory one‑pagers and district example sheets for each model; the task force reserved time the next day for extended discussion and follow‑up questions.","Reviser's office explained the legal formula that creates at-risk funding, what districts must deposit into the At Risk Education Fund and which students may receive services; KLRD and staff presented modeling options to replace or modify the free‑lunch proxy now used to generate state aid.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Task force examines density, high/low enrollment weighting options; staff present alternative formulas

Auditors: districts spend most at‑risk dollars on salaries; approved program list lacked peer‑reviewed evidence

Task force reviews how Kansas defines and spends "at-risk" funding; reviser outlines statutory rules