[{"_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",6477066,"mediaKeyId","5713858-5b1895d3c9c4bea40e51da3910a22810","parentId",5713858,"title","Task force reviews career and technical education funding, CTE weighting and Excel in CTE (SB 155)","audioSeconds",844,"startMs",162000,"endMs",1006000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5713858-5b1895d3c9c4bea40e51da3910a22810&start=162&end=1006","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5713858-5b1895d3c9c4bea40e51da3910a22810/thumbnail_162000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6477066/Kansas/Task-force-reviews-career-and-technical-education-funding-CTE-weighting-and-Excel-in-CTE-SB-155","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6477066-e3cc20d3d63421907d4a47b4f20be4c0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770413753&Signature=NmKR0kabKeY6aPyBl7QFTxwKbH1TetPs0lsVUskU8vl3XTlbYiUOy0CL-1LRI8kscwfi-9oVaj-q-V39bWVoy82Fs7FCNJC-eDnE3ozOmWF92NB6qhcIcYoyWagzd2eXcvqr-wArOsd5ZCKs0DWpxwqub5stcsuHi5fny0G2e6XsC4Gppg7K1uK0hcao7R1GG~1pwtBqf1MIeCElTkFnjCPpyy8usKWDG5WjatHw1wBOtTRL1bNXjY6FSMzN0Tbixm6aQR97uu282HSF05QPPKZTN~PGfM4Vs5U7d6B5sUdhsy~KC4Y8T6MlbqBtn7fXb2WDb~TmCniThQVqKwfDGw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force","date","2025-09-04T04:05:43.083Z","article","Jason Long, a Legislative Research staff member, told the task force that the K–12 career technical education weighting remains 0.5 under KSA 72‑51‑155: “It’s a 0.5 weighting for students who are enrolled in an approved career technical education program.”

The issue matters because that weighting multiplies a student’s FTE to increase state foundation aid to districts that offer approved CTE pathways, while separate Excel in CTE funding (Senate Bill 155, 2012) distributes appropriated dollars to community and technical colleges for CTE courses they deliver to secondary students.

Long and Jennifer Light, senior fiscal analyst with the Legislative Research Department (KLRD), walked the task force through how the two funding streams operate. Light described a second CTE support stream — transportation aid — and noted that it is not part of state foundation aid and is appropriated separately. She said the transportation appropriation was moved from the State Highway Fund to the State General Fund in 2019 and has generally been funded at about $1.48 million in years when it was appropriated.

KLRD and Board of Regents staff also described Excel in CTE (SB 155), which provides state distributions to community and technical colleges for approved CTE courses offered to high school students when the colleges are the providers. Elena Rutter of the Legislative Research Department reviewed the federal Perkins program history and explained the state’s Perkins V award; Representative McDonald asked how much federal Perkins funding Kansas received, and Rutter said the 2024 Perkins award was about $13 million.

Task force members pressed staff and speakers for data. KLRD provided fiscal‑year 2024 figures during the meeting: about $50.3 million in state foundation aid attributable to the CTE weighting (reported as 9,884.8 FTE for FY24), which staff said represented roughly 1.46% of total state foundation aid for that year. KLRD and other staff agreed to supply additional district‑level breakdowns, lists of pathways and credential counts, and copies of federally posted Perkins performance reports.

Superintendents and technical‑college representatives described costs at the local level. Dr. Ninswander (Jeff West USD) said district CTE programs commonly cost far more to run than the funding they receive: “Our district receives $70,000 in career and technical ed funding, but we spend $354,000,” she said, listing equipment, consumables and instructor costs as drivers. District leaders and the Board of Regents staff explained that high‑cost courses (welding, ag sciences, automotive) typically have smaller class sizes and higher equipment and consumable needs, which is why the weighting and Excel funding exist.

Several lawmakers and board members asked whether CTE funding is targeted to the highest‑demand pathways and whether there is overlap or “double funding” between K–12 CTE weighting and Excel in CTE college payments. Board of Regents materials in the packet stated that 9 of Kansas’s 13 “modernized career clusters” align with fields eligible for the Kansas Promise Scholarship; KBOR staff wrote that colleges and K–12 have collaborated to articulate high school coursework into college credit for eligible programs. Task force members requested a clearer reconciliation of K–12 pathway counts, CTE FTE by pathway, and the list of Excel in CTE fees and charges students actually pay.

What the task force directed: staff agreed to follow up with several data requests, including a district‑by‑district CTE FTE printout, counts of CTE credential completions tied to pathways, the Perkins performance reports posted by the U.S. Department of Education, and a reconciliation of Excel in CTE fee schedules versus amounts students actually pay. District and college speakers offered to provide local cost and completion data.

Ending: The task force did not take formal action on policy changes at the meeting. Members agreed to review the follow‑up data when it arrives and to schedule further discussion of program outcomes, credentials tied to the Kansas Promise Scholarship, and the interaction between the 0.5 weighting and Excel in CTE funding.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Education Funding Task Force 09/03/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Jason Long, Legislative Research staff, told the task force the K–12 career technical education weighting remains 0.5 under state law and that Excel in CTE (Senate Bill 155) is a separate funding stream the Board of Regents distributes to colleges for CTE courses offered to high‑school students.","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},6477058,"Legislative staff review school finance flows and district cash balances; task force requests month‑by‑month breakdowns",2521,21669000,24190000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5713858-5b1895d3c9c4bea40e51da3910a22810&start=21669&end=24190","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5713858-5b1895d3c9c4bea40e51da3910a22810/thumbnail_21669000.jpg","/articles/6477058/Kansas/Legislative-staff-review-school-finance-flows-and-district-cash-balances-task-force-requests-monthbymonth-breakdowns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6477058-05a59db7b3948469e34e66baee11fcc7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770413753&Signature=Xnv6Vg4isRx2ETJWwHz8TsnQkWfs0M7PfUzfl2xp7rwWUbG4Cmi075NO98VbQyud4i5er5JzWCHsRSLxHC0e9RFjrTW6nZrXP7qgl~1KCnN8csSU-nX4~KbezX9tUUw3zVT1KzruOQsXkAixPfNJyeXfNLiml9nqWl~0JmBEl-I0hgzbrLZDZ6iZ4nrqF3BIZ85ovUz~tuMLcweZ89NHWUf1AZDGHzTNS7-jxX3K5SrAOwuSsfrpnpnL~0T2jDT3wumS7S9BNYTWB4073b-SO-~ytsvkvRgzZcOdecJK1YBr1PwU2yeDMaOyU5ZaOKTgjZ-VjIML3nK2St2j3p5o9g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Legislative Research Department fiscal staff presented an overview of school district fund types and statewide aggregates of available resources and expenditures. Matthew Willis (KLRD) showed FY24 totals and trends for cash balances and revenue sources and explained that school budgets are spread among several fund types that carry different legal restrictions and uses.

Willis reported statewide aggregates (rounded): roughly $2.6 billion in combined district cash balances, about $2.47 billion in local revenue, $5.45 billion in state revenue and $993.5 million in federal revenue for FY24 (figures presented in millions during the briefing). The task force discussed that special revenue funds (which include special education, food service, capital outlay and federal funds) are large and, in aggregate, are used for legally defined purposes. Several members asked how transfers into special revenue funds operate; Willis explained that many state and local aids are initially deposited in the general or supplemental general fund and then transferred into special revenue accounts (for example, special education and bilingual aid and certain LOB transfers are moved to the special revenue fund for expenditure).

Lawmakers and board members raised questions about the size and trend of cash balances. Representative Steele noted the apparent growth in aggregated cash balances and asked what reserves represent operational savings versus capital or debt timing. Willis and other staff said a large portion of special revenue cash balances is tied to capital outlay (districts may levy up to 8 mills and often hold capital funds pending construction or equipment purchases) and that timing explains why some balances appear large on June 30; property tax receipts and bond schedules and the timing of payments create peaks and troughs. Several superintendents and directors reiterated that local boards and district finance officers plan reserves for legitimate reasons (facility projects, cash‑flow timing to make September/October bond payments, and required three‑month food‑service carryovers), and that ESSER and other temporary federal funding boosted some district balances during the pandemic years.

KLRD provided a rough statewide calculation during the meeting that FY24 aggregated cash balances were about 22% of the sum of cash balances plus the year’s revenues — a figure lawmakers said they wanted examined in more detail. Legislators requested follow‑up data: month‑by‑month ending cash balances for districts (to see timing and seasonality), operational reserve amounts excluding capital and voter‑approved bond/interest holds, and a clearer mapping of which funds and transfers feed special education expenditures.

Ending: No formal decisions were made. The task force emphasized the need for transparent, month‑by‑month public reporting of district cash balances and a staff memo distinguishing operational reserves from capital or debt‑service timing reserves. Willis and staff agreed to return with requested breakdowns.

","Legislative staff and superintendents walked the task force through the range of school funds (general, supplemental/LOB, special revenue, capital outlay, debt service, trust/agency) and presented FY24 cash balances and revenue flows. Members asked for more granular, month‑by‑month cash‑balance reporting and for operating‑reserve breakdowns.",{"_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},6477061,"Task force examines virtual school funding: formulas, eligibility and reporting gaps",1828,16680000,18508000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5713858-5b1895d3c9c4bea40e51da3910a22810&start=16680&end=18508","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5713858-5b1895d3c9c4bea40e51da3910a22810/thumbnail_16680000.jpg","/articles/6477061/Kansas/Task-force-examines-virtual-school-funding-formulas-eligibility-and-reporting-gaps","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6477061-9bd8847c06e9ec4d7669ac9c7309ff5b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770413753&Signature=lMIq~w4aXmmURo-EdoAqqItbdyD~9TrA6ZHR9PLb2sgVN2WwCXXMjw4yTEZY80wMdlm8cdLx0oQlZoPUcoZQOtdHcapO~6LW72qsqrmnxlw3suFAl2rB9uEIgv2J2GrzYLa6OslecCjHiuKb9k5gqHtJuAxnJJlpF8HA6CsoKF62WhmGylY6BolPRit9e~QHRRwPtNczeQwaGM34ikXBTKx56VUz481fw7VCxhmSxuU9ERjqrELVsR4j09IBMd9lXN9cAksLi2iY3JlLefIYz2mgrwxCj76Wx58a7A5XpXHDu9GrwJS2Wmhynie~pHD6TTnNQWZCrVcQZu1wfwD-tg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tamara Lawrence of the Revisor of Statutes summarized the Virtual School Act and the current method used to calculate virtual school state aid. Under the statute (KSA 72‑37‑15), state aid for regular K‑12 virtual students (age 19 and younger) is calculated by multiplying the total FTE enrollment of those students by $5,600. Lawrence noted the statute specifies different calculations for adult virtual learners (age 20+) and for “dropout diploma completion” virtual students (19 and younger), both of which are funded by per‑credit payments (statute currently uses $799 per credit for these categories and caps counting at six passed credits per student).

Lawrence traced the 2008‑to‑present changes: earlier virtual aid was set as a percentage of base aid; beginning in 2015 the law moved to specific dollar amounts; and the statute’s categories and dollar values have been adjusted over time. She pointed the task force to Legislative Division of Post Audit reviews of virtual education and adult virtual funding and said the State Board of Education administers oversight and reporting rules.

KLRD’s Julia Kofoid provided a state inventory of accredited virtual schools and assessment availability: the packet listed 71 accredited virtual schools in various forms (some operate as standalone virtual schools with distinct building numbers; others are virtual programs housed inside an accredited brick‑and‑mortar school). Kofoid said assessment data was available on DataCentral for only a subset of programs and explained that differences in whether a virtual operation is a separate school or a program inside a district building affect how it appears in state data.

Committee members asked for follow‑up data. Representative McDonald and Board members requested time‑series counts: where virtual students came from (public district transfers, private school, or newly home‑schooled), whether students leaving virtual programs later reenroll in brick‑and‑mortar schools, and whether virtual credit recovery is being funded through the same mechanisms. KLRD and Revisor staff said they would supply a six‑year virtual FTE trend and additional program‑level reporting to clarify how virtual students are recorded and where performance data appears.

Ending: Staff did not propose a rule or statutory change at this meeting. Members requested follow‑up reports on virtual program enrollment trends, which student populations are migrating to virtual providers, and the public availability of assessment and outcome data for virtual students.

","Task force heard briefings on the Kansas Virtual School Act, how virtual school state aid is calculated for regular, adult and dropout‑completion learners, and the patchwork of approved virtual programs. Staff pointed to gaps in public reporting and asked for follow‑up on enrollment trends and student flows.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Task force reviews career and technical education funding, CTE weighting and Excel in CTE (SB 155)

Legislative staff review school finance flows and district cash balances; task force requests month‑by‑month breakdowns

Task force examines virtual school funding: formulas, eligibility and reporting gaps