Task force hears virtual schools' plea: students get IEP services but funding and contracts fall short

Leaders of Kansas’ public virtual schools told the Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force on Aug. 6 that virtual students who have individualized education programs are receiving required services, but funding and contracting structures leave virtual providers covering shortfalls.

Kansas Connections Academy school leader Laura Hockman told the panel that her virtual school serves roughly 1,200 to 1,300 students statewide and that about 15% of those students — roughly 200 — have IEPs. “So why am I here today? The short answer is that virtual schools do not receive special education funding. KSDE requires virtual schools to meet all of the same legal obligations as in‑person schools for serving students with disabilities but with no additional funding,” Hockman said.

The presentations drew on two full‑time public virtual operators in the state. Cassandra Barton, head of school for Insight School of Kansas and Kansas Virtual Academy, said virtual programs provide the same federal and state requirements — licensed teachers, special‑education teachers, social workers, and contracted therapists where needed — but deliver many services remotely and rely on an adult “learning coach” at home to support students’ daily instruction.

“How does this work? We deliver our services virtually. We also hold all required meetings virtually as well, which works great for families,” Barton said.

Why the issue matters

Task force members pressed presenters and state officials on why virtual programs report funding shortfalls. The Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) and reviser’s office told the group that special education reimbursement in Kansas is available as a district expense, but the district must be able to document the expense. Tamara Lawrence of the Revisor’s Office pointed to existing statutory language that conditions some special education reimbursement on employees being “employed by the school district.” She quoted language from statute describing “the number of full‑time equivalent special teachers… employed by the school district” and flagged that phrasing as a likely target for legislative cleanup.

Dr. David Harwood of KSDE (speaking during the meeting) explained the practical wrinkle: when districts contract with private providers or a virtual operator and the provider is the employer of record for special‑education staff, the district cannot claim those staff salaries as its expense for the state’s reimbursement process. “If the individuals providing the virtual special education services are employees of the district or of the interlocal that they are a member of, then they could… submit those as for reimbursement,” Harwood said. He and other officials said reimbursement is possible when districts employ the staff or when the district can show the expense on its books; problems arise when districts simply pass state funds through to an independent private contractor who then hires the staff.

Discussion and follow‑up

Task force members and KSDE staff described the problem as a mix of statute/regulation language, local contract design, and long‑standing quirks in Kansas’ special‑education funding system. Reviser Tamara Lawrence cited the statutory phrase in 72‑34‑22(c)(4) (as discussed in the meeting transcript) that requires counting special‑education staff “employed by the school district” when determining certain reimbursements — language some members said could be clarified by the Legislature.

Committee members did not adopt any legal changes at the meeting but agreed to investigate fixes. Several task force members asked for further analysis and practitioner input: staff said they would pursue follow‑up modeling and explore statutory language options, and the group invited the Kansas Association of Special Education Administrators and other field experts to provide practical recommendations for September.

Officials and virtual‑school presenters also described operational details the task force should consider. Presenters and KSDE staff discussed how virtual programs onboard families, train “learning coaches,” provide assistive technology, and run in‑person sessions for evaluations or state testing when required. Several participants noted virtual schools already carry accreditation and that diplomas for virtual graduates are issued by the sponsoring school district (for example, diplomas carry the USD 218 or USD 230 district name, according to testimony).

Votes at a glance

- Motion to set aside approval of the January minutes pending addition of statutory language in the minutes (motion to defer language to reviser and bring back for approval at the next meeting): motion seconded and approved by voice vote. - Motion to adopt February and March minutes as published: motion by Vice Chair Estes, second by Director Rooker; approved by voice vote. - Motion to adopt updated minutes (after reviser language was added and distributed): motion by Vice Chair Estes, second by Representative McDonald; approved by voice vote.

What the task force will do next

Members directed staff to return to the task force with more detailed options. Those next steps include: (1) targeted statutory language that could remove ambiguity about when districts can claim special education staff reimbursement, (2) technical follow‑up on how local contracts and interlocal/cooperative arrangements affect state reimbursement, and (3) deeper modeling of funding approaches so the task force can assess trade‑offs between student‑based weightings and the current reimbursement model. Members asked KSDE and KLRD to present model runs and to invite practitioner groups (including the Kansas Association of Special Education Administrators) to the September meeting to discuss operational impacts.

Members emphasized they were not choosing a policy at the Aug. 6 session; rather, the task force asked for additional information to determine whether a legislative cleanup or a funding‑model change would better ensure that virtual students who require special education services receive funded, documented, and sustainable support.

Ending

Task force members said they will revisit the issue in September with additional modeling and practitioner testimony. Until then, KSDE staff and the Revisor’s Office will draft clarifying statutory language and the task force will continue to explore whether a student‑based funding approach, a revised reimbursement process or a hybrid solution (including a separate catastrophic/high‑cost pool) would reduce the funding gaps described by virtual operators.