[{"_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",6512026,"mediaKeyId","5120735-16f423b48438f75094a9dab453089389","parentId",5120735,"title","KSDE: At‑risk accountability pilot moves into implementation year as districts flag cohort, assessment problems","audioSeconds",964,"startMs",156000,"endMs",1120000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5120735-16f423b48438f75094a9dab453089389&start=156&end=1120","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5120735-16f423b48438f75094a9dab453089389/thumbnail_156000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6512026/Kansas/KSDE-Atrisk-accountability-pilot-moves-into-implementation-year-as-districts-flag-cohort-assessment-problems","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6512026-8f5146837e78f01812e46ed62e68b947/orig.mp4?Expires=1770433872&Signature=bznv60Rl8nA7e556YGGM~TCfQWIPEVL6jG8LGOPoe-OWBG81n3c07t-tXOc5qDguTGmOPw70LYXVfczoBKa1n~iEYsuUuIj9wVarDqwPyZ3c1sTZBwAiuW8VaMtCxG3jOh~rIXumKqBYo9YiujBUlasPdTllmu2Cq27Hg835CB1zNqj2h2FOtOELCX5Tqcy4H8YNkcZBIjkFazvd8LSiwLhsC0SsQNoj7kas-s6HBUBN9BKL44DzR00ENbf4LPwThbuZzHXp~25P7QXt3gbRTvT14WYRLQIO9nx0we5stlkS27ay6hoyeYtxdBtyMzMZ~VoF4dVwjIW3h1NDYY6JAA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force","date","2025-07-02T21:10:08Z","article","Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) staff told the Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force that the state’s two‑year at‑risk accountability pilot has completed a planning year and will enter implementation in 2025–26 with 12 participating districts.

The pilot stems from provisions in 2024 legislation and requires each participating district to identify two cohorts of at‑risk students, set four‑year quantitative goals for academic improvement and post an annual, public plan tying interventions to expenditures. KSDE’s public update focused on practical problems pilot districts have already identified and on changes staff will recommend to the Legislature.

KSDE program lead Dr. Harwood said the pilot’s first year (2024–25) was mainly planning and that ‘‘the idea being is we want to find out what the problems are so that we can fix them before everybody else is going on.’’ He told the task force one district has withdrawn because of leadership turnover and the remaining pilot districts will submit plans this fall.

Why it matters

The pilot is intended to make at‑risk spending more transparent and measurable by requiring districts to link specific interventions to outcomes and to report the financial portion of their plans. KSDE and pilot districts told the task force they view the exercise as both a test of procedures and an opportunity to surface practical barriers before statewide implementation.

Major implementation issues raised

- Cohort selection and minimum sizes: State guidance requires cohorts of at least 10 students; KSDE staff warned small districts may not be able to assemble reportable cohorts and will use an ‘‘attrition calculator’’ to estimate how many students a district needs initially to reasonably expect 11 remaining at the end of four years. Dr. Harwood said the smallest pilot district enrolled about 127 students and the largest about 21,000.

- Third‑grade cohort timing and assessments: The law requires one cohort to begin in third grade, but pilot districts told KSDE they lack a baseline if the cohort is defined at third grade because state assessments are first administered at the end of third grade. Dr. Harwood said pilot districts recommended moving the cohort start to fourth grade to avoid setting a four‑year goal without a baseline assessment.

- ‘‘Free lunch’’ cohort confidentiality: The statute currently requires one cohort to be based on eligibility for free lunch under the National School Lunch Act. KSDE staff and several legislators told the task force that federal privacy rules restrict schools from disclosing a student’s free‑lunch status to classroom teachers unless they have a business need to know, which ‘‘inhibits the teachers’ work with the students.’’ KSDE advised pilot schools not to use the free‑lunch cohort in the pilot and recommended legislators remove that requirement to avoid hampering instruction.

- Progress monitoring and permitted assessments: The law and guidance constrain which assessments can be used for final evaluation (state assessment or ACT for courses where those are the accountability measures). Pilot districts favor using interim tests based on the state assessment for progress monitoring, but KSDE cautioned against relying on skill‑based growth measures (for example, FastBridge) to predict state assessment outcomes. Dr. Harwood said growth on skills‑based tests does not always translate to gains on the state assessment and that the pilot will track what works for progress monitoring.

- Goal setting and the ‘‘four‑year plus’’ sanction: Districts must set a four‑year quantitative improvement goal for each cohort. The statute provides that groups failing to meet the goal are evaluated for a fifth year and, if still not meeting it, districts lose eligibility for the full at‑risk funding multiplier increase. KSDE staff said they are developing guidance to help districts pick ‘‘reasonably attainable’’ but meaningful goals and to justify the stated targets.

- Mobility and closed cohorts: The pilot uses closed cohorts. KSDE explained students who move away or who do not take required assessments are removed from a cohort because missing pre‑ or post‑assessment data make evaluation impossible. KSDE staff acknowledged districts will need to decide how long to wait before removing transient students and warned that high‑mobility sites (for example, military communities such as Fort Leavenworth) may not be able to sustain small cohorts.

KSDE reporting and financial transparency

Dr. Harwood said the pilot requires districts to post plans and annual reports publicly; the financial portion must tie expenditures to named interventions (KSDE will ask districts to link entries in Fund 13, the at‑risk fund, to interventions). Staff said this will allow KSDE to track which interventions are commonly used and which appear to produce better outcomes in different contexts.

What task force members pressed staff to provide

Members asked KSDE to provide: (1) the current cut scores and an explanation of how cut scores translate into performance categories, (2) the attrition calculator methodology, and (3) clarifications about the definition of ‘‘at‑risk’’ categories used to identify pre‑K students. KSDE said cut scores for the new 2025 assessment will be approved by the State Board of Education in August and that data will be distributed to districts afterward.

Caveats and next steps

Dr. Harwood said the pilot is intended to expose problems so they can be fixed before full implementation in 2026–27. He recommended the Legislature remove the required free‑lunch cohort and asked for patience while technical issues around cohort formation, assessment comparability and reporting are resolved. ‘‘The purpose of the pilot is less about evaluating results and more about making sure we have a workable system to get going,’’ he said.

Ending

KSDE will collect pilot plans this fall and continue convening districts through the 2025–26 year. Staff told the task force they will present suggested statutory or guidance changes to legislative committees this year to address the issues surfaced in the pilot.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Education Funding Task Force 07/02/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Kansas State Department of Education staff told the Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force that the at‑risk accountability pilot is moving from a planning year into implementation in 2025–26 with 12 pilot districts, but pilot schools, legislators and KSDE staff flagged statutory and operational problems with cohort rules, assessments and a required ‘‘free lunch’’ cohort.","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},6512018,"Task force presses KSDE on rising at‑risk carryover; approves committee request for audit of bilingual/ESOL funding",8528,5402000,13930000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5120735-16f423b48438f75094a9dab453089389&start=5402&end=13930","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5120735-16f423b48438f75094a9dab453089389/thumbnail_5402000.jpg","/articles/6512018/Kansas/Task-force-presses-KSDE-on-rising-atrisk-carryover-approves-committee-request-for-audit-of-bilingualESOL-funding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6512018-edb60cb5f816c53654759a5a6c101b4e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770433872&Signature=CaKjMUBFLdwW9-sASM9ejzp11Ru85gaL5dmX5yW2qUuo0srWksIJ0AZaZpvLfgJSETkFD5GakPK06g4raIBinWpWwCr-49I2LIRRdXTv0BoD-Hs8O3W-Fal6whc1XtXylmWQI~TMRgw5GaNk-MtNOnhr3XuqNYdrRlgRJK83DyPXgKvEwhInkG3rkhKQLpeqE8qP4W~N6YIit9SFokkoSDN6ChAfiEwUW9Es-qVuufN05bhN3BT4udjUy1nZuQnDVl7QRPMmpQRP-j9-644J0CGRSTdZy8Q4RAdbuIbrcl75yEc9s-x5tkR3dAwX24ANON49SfJPp~2WaO4FQrnQgA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Task force members used a June brief on statewide at‑risk spending to press KSDE and research staff about cash balances and whether districts are using at‑risk funds as intended. The panel also voted to recommend a Legislative Post Audit (LPA) review of ESOL/bilingual funding and district expenditures.

Cash balances and use of at‑risk dollars

Jennifer Light of KLRD presented statewide cash‑balance figures and high‑level modeling. She told the task force that, under 2025 counts, completely removing both the at‑risk and the high‑density weightings would free about $584.1 million in state foundation aid and $191.3 million in LOB transfers—a combined $775.4 million.

Representative Williams and several superintendents questioned why statewide carryovers in at‑risk and other funds have grown. Williams told the panel, \"That money that we've invested in kids is sitting in the banks, and it's doubled since 2019. Why?\" She urged more transparency and outcome‑focused accountability relating to large carryover balances.

KSDE and district speakers noted several reasons for carryovers, including payment timing (state and federal payment schedules), districts’ prudent reserve policies, the use of one‑time federal funds (ESSER) during the pandemic period to start initiatives that districts now aim to sustain, and typical timing mismatches that produce higher balances on July 1.

Bilingual/ESOL audit request

The task force considered and approved a motion to recommend that Legislative Post Audit review bilingual/ESOL funding, how districts calculate eligible populations and how funds are spent (motion by Representative Williams; second by Representative Estes). The motion passed by voice vote; task force chair reported the committee will forward the request to LPA staff. The approved request asks LPA to examine whether district expenditures comply with statute and to summarize other states’ approaches, among other objectives.

KSDE, district and research roles

KSDE staff said they can provide district‑level expenditure and outcome trend data (for example, student performance and cut scores) and that some questions—particularly the cross‑state policy comparisons—are well suited to KLRD or LPA work. LPA staff typically apply auditing standards and conduct on‑site interviews and file reviews; task force members said they wanted both quantitative trends and stakeholder interviews.

Ending

With the vote, the task force formally asked Legislative Post Audit to evaluate bilingual/ESOL funding and to return findings to the committee. Research and KSDE staff agreed to provide additional district‑level detail on at‑risk and high‑density distributions and to answer members’ questions about cash timing and permitted uses of at‑risk funds.","Members questioned why statewide at‑risk cash balances have risen and approved a committee recommendation asking Legislative Post Audit to examine bilingual/ESOL funding and district uses of at‑risk dollars. Research staff told the task force statewide cash and model numbers; Representative Williams moved the audit request, which passed by voice.",{"_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},6512023,"High‑density at‑risk weighting applies to 222 Kansas districts; task force reviews models that shift up to $775 million",494,4724000,5218000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5120735-16f423b48438f75094a9dab453089389&start=4724&end=5218","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5120735-16f423b48438f75094a9dab453089389/thumbnail_4724000.jpg","/articles/6512023/Kansas/Highdensity-atrisk-weighting-applies-to-222-Kansas-districts-task-force-reviews-models-that-shift-up-to-775-million","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6512023-75f751ad716dfffbd4b6c1582eb2d0e3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770433872&Signature=XyhBTOjIB-1gjl~3wFWdDMqmSa4~7ad1B71K~PCLpQdiO~kDQgVO1X7LlMbYdmYBxK09Q5LS-l7p60dLcS3jX~zsDUzhofAh8B-1wifp6vPSiCB9Ef253b1kImX~404FA82NhOfW~RmWyswtbkyRsA97gyziQj2iX0zqGdOe6ohK5dfSCYgsJRri4KvAOI92P7GoL7LU-aci7tEtzsIf3FKFLh01l9Vd2HM7g9HuazRVu3QsVOWOxlfTpeUH-u5oVtlNwDKOt2BTWyb3HgB3IhCTOPVJzSKua1rvKoocgyd6ukyYGkpXVKretmkEcvTeES-WttDxS4jZ2lxeyeBBRg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kansas Legislative Reviser's Office staff and research analysts reviewed the state’s high‑density at‑risk student weighting and presented alternative models that would change how the state distributes at‑risk funds.

Jason Long (reviser's office) told the Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force the high‑density weighting is codified alongside the standard at‑risk weighting and is calculated in tiers depending on the percentage of a district’s enrollment that is eligible for free lunch under the National School Lunch Act. He summarized the current statutory structure and a set of alternative models presented by research staff.

How the weighting works now

- Two‑tier percentage approach: For districts with 35%–50% of students qualifying for free lunch, the statute multiplies the difference above 35% by 0.7 to derive a weighting. For districts with 50% or more, statute provides a flat weighting factor (0.105).

- District vs. building calculation: Districts can qualify on a district‑wide basis or, for a limited period, calculate weightings for qualifying individual school buildings (the statute lets districts choose the option that produces the highest weighting). That building‑by‑building option contains a sunset aligned with the broader formula sunset on 2027‑07‑01, reviser staff said.

Scope and recent history

Long told the task force the weighting traces to legislative responses to litigation and has been revised several times (notably in 2006, 2012 and 2017). He noted the building‑level component was added in 2017 and carries a distinct sunset tied to the overall formula’s expiration.

Who qualifies and how many districts are affected

Jennifer Light (research staff) told the panel that 222 school districts had a high‑density at‑risk weighting greater than zero for fiscal 2025. She added 126 districts calculate the weighting on a building basis, 63 on a district basis, and 33 districts produce identical results whether calculated by building or district and so could use either method without changing their total aid.

Modeling results presented to the task force

Research staff presented a set of alternative models: removing the high‑density weighting entirely, rolling the removed dollars into base aid, changing the statutory percentage thresholds (for example increasing the base from 35% to 40% or 45%), and modifying tiers for highest density districts.

- Removing both the at‑risk and the high‑density weightings entirely (Research model 1) would reduce state foundation aid by about $584.1 million and local option budget (LOB) transfers by about $191.3 million (combined reduction in earmarked at‑risk transfers of about $775.4 million). Research staff then modeled re‑allocating that money into the base per‑pupil rate.

- Other models shift percentage thresholds (for example moving the qualification threshold from 35% to 40% or 45%) or add a third tier between 50% and 60%; staff showed the state and local budget impacts for each variant.

Why it matters

The high‑density weighting targets additional funds to districts with concentrations of poverty; changes to the thresholds or to the district/building calculation can change which districts receive supplemental dollars and how much they receive. Task force members asked how districts use the money and whether state reporting allows the public to trace high‑density funding to particular schools or interventions; KSDE and research staff said the state’s accounting rules do not require districts to direct money to specific buildings even if a building triggered the calculation.

Sunset and policy questions

Jason Long highlighted that the building‑level option has a statutory sunset that coincides with the broader QESA formula sunset on July 1, 2027. Several task force members said they want clearer evidence that high‑density weighting produces measurable benefits for the students it was intended to serve before making statutory changes.

Ending

Research and reviser staff provided the task force with spreadsheets and per‑model examples to help members gauge distributional effects. Several members asked staff to produce follow‑up breakdowns (for example the split of the 222 districts across the 35%–50% and 50%+ tiers), and research staff said they would provide those details.

","Reviser and research staff briefed the task force on the statute governing high‑density at‑risk weighting (K.S.A. cited in presentation) and on modeling that shows options ranging from eliminating the weighting to shifting money into base aid; staff said 222 districts currently qualify for some high‑density weighting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

KSDE: At‑risk accountability pilot moves into implementation year as districts flag cohort, assessment problems

Task force presses KSDE on rising at‑risk carryover; approves committee request for audit of bilingual/ESOL funding

High‑density at‑risk weighting applies to 222 Kansas districts; task force reviews models that shift up to $775 million