Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Kboregents Funding Formulas topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Regents explains funding history and formula differences; lawmakers press for clearer comparisons
Summary
Kansas Board of Regents President Blake Flanders and staff reviewed the history of higher‑education funding, the tuition‑ownership shift and the two‑year tiered cost model. Legislators asked for clearer, apples‑to‑apples comparisons among institutions and suggested a broader process to consider any new distribution formula.
Kansas Board of Regents President Blake Flanders and staff briefed the House Committee on Higher Education Budget on the state's higher‑education funding history, the evolution of university budgeting models and the technical and community college tiered cost model during a presentation that traced changes since Senate Bill 345 (1999).
The board's presentation summarized three major phases: an earlier general‑use model in which state funding and tuition were interchangeable, the 2002 shift to a tuition‑ownership model with separate operating grants for state universities, and a 2011‑era cost model for two‑year institutions that the legislature fully funded over a multi‑year recentering through 2022.
Why it matters: committee members raised concerns about perceived disparities in per‑FTE state support between regional universities and the larger research institutions. Lawmakers asked the Board of Regents for clearer, comparable measures that separate operating appropriations from special‑purpose line items and mission‑specific funding such as medical centers and research surveys.
Blake Flanders said Senate Bill 345 created the modern Board of Regents to provide a unified voice for higher education and to present a systemwide budget. Kelly Oliver (Board office) explained the 2002 change to tuition ownership, which allowed institutions to retain tuition revenue gains but also left them exposed to declines without state backfill. Elaine Frisbie (vice president for finance and administration) described the two‑year sector's tiered cost model implemented after Senate Bill 143 (2011), which groups more than 10,000 courses into tiers to calculate per‑credit costs for technical and nontechnical instruction.
Key points from the presentation and questions: - Washburn University: cited as an example of a municipal university with a recurring line item; fiscal year 2023–24 operating grants were noted at roughly $14.0 million and increased to $14.27 million in the most recent appropriation. - Two‑year cost model: tiered courses account for a subset of instruction costs; presenters said roughly 71% of two‑year college courses are non‑tiered general transfer courses. The model calculates instructional costs by aggregating instructor salary, instructional support and institutional support and then applies tiered adjustments for technical course consumables and equipment. - Funding recentering: the board recentered community and technical college state aid over three years beginning in 2022 so that the sector's tiered and non‑tiered funding reflects modeled costs; staff said total tiered/non‑tiered appropriations for the sector increased significantly since 2022.
Lawmakers pressed for an apples‑to‑apples comparison. Representative Sawyer asked about the operating‑expenditure‑per‑FTE chart and was told that per‑FTE comparisons are blunt instruments because institutions differ in mission and in non‑student methods of service delivery (for example, state funding of geological surveys or law enforcement training centers that do not enroll traditional students). Representative Amix asked which comparison best measures state support; staff said no single chart is ideal and suggested significant stakeholder input would be required to design a university funding formula.
On policy next steps, Flanders said the board and its staff have the capacity to develop a funding‑distribution model but emphasized that any new model must be paired with sustained funding and political willingness to implement change rather than letting a developed model sit without adoption. Several members proposed broader conversations or a task force to consider goals and distribution criteria.
The session concluded with committee members asking the Regents staff for more granular breakout tables (operating appropriation per FTE excluding special mission items; historical trend lines by revenue type) and for explanations of which line items should be counted in baseline comparisons.
No formal committee votes were taken during the presentation; members asked the Board of Regents to provide additional detailed materials for follow‑up review.
