Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Density Weighting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Task force examines density, high/low enrollment weighting options; staff present alternative formulas
Summary
Legislative Research and KLRD staff reviewed models to change low/high enrollment weightings and to use density (students per square mile) as an alternative; staff also circulated district examples and asked for more time to let members digest the complex material.
The Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force spent substantial time reviewing possible alternatives to the current low/high enrollment weightings and a set of density‑based models that would change how districts are weighted for sparsity or density.
Matthew Willis of Legislative Research reviewed follow‑up material on high/low enrollment models and then presented three density‑based approaches. Willis said he used components of existing Kansas formulas — the transportation denominator (students transported per square mile) and the capital outlay state aid weighting method — to create a density index: adjusted enrollment divided by district square miles, mapped onto a stepped factor curve similar to capital outlay state aid. Willis described two baseline approaches: a median‑based curve (median district density just over 2 students per square mile) and a mean‑based curve (average density about 19 students per square mile). He explained that median‑based curves concentrate weight toward very sparse districts while mean‑based curves spread weighting more broadly across districts.
Willis told members that moving from a student‑FTE based low/high model to a density model would redistribute funding differently: under some median models, certain medium‑sized districts with compact footprints would lose low‑enrollment aid because density placed them outside the sparsity range; mean models would expand the number of districts receiving some density weighting. Several members asked for a short narrative explanation of the methodology and a district example; Willis and KLRD staff said they would supply that.
KLRD provided two organization improvements requested by members: a one‑page overview of at‑risk/density models and a sample district worksheet showing step‑by‑step calculations. Members said they needed time to absorb the material; the task force scheduled more time in the coming meeting cycle to consider how any density weighting would interact with other potential formula changes.
Ending: Staff will send a brief narrative and district example pages. The task force reserved September meetings to review combined options and the effects of rolling multiple weightings together.
