Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Virtual Schools Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Task force examines virtual school funding: formulas, eligibility and reporting gaps
Summary
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.
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.
