Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the High Density Weighting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
High‑density at‑risk weighting applies to 222 Kansas districts; task force reviews models that shift up to $775 million
Summary
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.
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.
