Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the At Risk Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Task force reviews how Kansas defines and spends "at-risk" funding; reviser outlines statutory rules
Summary
Reviser's office explained the legal formula that creates at-risk funding, what districts must deposit into the At Risk Education Fund and which students may receive services; KLRD and staff presented modeling options to replace or modify the free‑lunch proxy now used to generate state aid.
The Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force heard a legal briefing on July 1 on how Kansas law creates and restricts "at‑risk" funding and the At Risk Education Fund, followed by staff modeling of several alternatives to the current free‑lunch proxy.
Tamara Lawrence of the Revisor of Statutes told the task force that the at‑risk student weighting is established in statute and “the weighting is determined by multiplying the number of students in a school district who qualify as at risk for purposes of the school finance formula by the weighting factor of 0.484.” She noted that the statute uses eligibility for free meals under the National School Lunch Act as the proxy for the students who generate the funding, and that the current numeric factor (0.484) has been in place since 2017.
The reviser memo explained how statute restricts what districts may spend from the At Risk Education Fund (KSA 70‑25153): money generated by the at‑risk and high‑density at‑risk weightings and the portion of the computed local option budget attributable to the weighting must be deposited in the At Risk Education Fund. Lawrence summarized the permissible expenditures: interventions and evidence‑based instructional services provided above and beyond regular education for students identified as academically at risk; personnel directly providing those at‑risk services; training; and contracted services. The State Board of Education must publish and approve the list of eligible programs; provisional program approvals are allowed by statute.
KLRD senior fiscal analyst Jennifer Light and Legislative Research analyst Matthew Willis presented multiple models the task force requested for replacing or augmenting the free‑lunch proxy. Models shown included (a) moving existing at‑risk dollars into an enhanced base grant, (b) allocating the same total dollars by school district using Title I percentages, (c) replacing the free‑lunch proxy with state assessment results (level 1, or levels 1 and 2), (d) using U.S. Census small‑area poverty estimates, and (e) hybrid averages of proxies (free‑lunch and assessment measures). The packet summarized dollar impacts on State Foundation Aid and the computed Local Option Budget (LOB) for each model. Staff cautioned the task force that different proxies reallocate money across districts and that moving funding from a formula weighting into base aid alters computed LOB amounts.
Members asked procedural and technical questions about the legal and operational differences between students who generate funding (free‑lunch proxy) and students who are eligible to receive at‑risk services under district identification criteria (attendance, academic performance, social‑emotional needs). The Revisor and staff emphasized that qualification for free meals is the funding proxy and does not automatically determine which students receive services.
The task force scheduled a fuller discussion and a chance for members to review the models before the next meeting.
Ending: Staff said they will provide additional explanatory one‑pagers and district example sheets for each model; the task force reserved time the next day for extended discussion and follow‑up questions.
