Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Weighting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Transportation weighting and rules: density, 2.5-mile threshold and a statute error flagged
Summary
Revisor and KLRD staff summarized how Kansas calculates transportation weighting (per-capita schedule, an inflation adjustment and a 110% funding cap), explained that transported students are those living 2.5 miles or more via the usual route, and flagged a statutory definition error that inverts density calculation.
Revisor staff and KLRD briefed the task force on the transportation weighting's mechanics, statutory history and open questions the committee asked staff to pursue.
How funding is computed: Nick Myers walked the committee through the steps in current statute. Staff calculate a district's transported-student density, use a per-capita allowance schedule (a stepped table adopted in 2018), apply an inflationary adjustment tied to base aid, and then derive the transportation weighting by dividing the derived dollar amount by base aid so the formula delivers an FTE-equivalent weighting. A statutory funding cap limits transportation aid to 110% of the district's prior-year transportation expenditures.
Who qualifies for transportation funding and state-required service: Myers summarized statutory transportation requirements: districts must provide transportation to resident students who live 2.5 miles or more from the school via the usually traveled road (several situational tests apply for students who live inside or outside municipal limits); the rule also covers certain nonpublic school pupils who live along regular bus routes. Open-enrollment nonresident students may be transported at districts' discretion by statute.
A drafting error flagged: staff pointed out a statutory drafting problem. The statute defines density by dividing square miles by the number of transported students (square miles per student), but the intended, longstanding methodology and legislative intent use students divided by square miles (students per square mile). As Myers said, the statute currently reads the inverse; "that is not a density figure," and staff asked the committee to note the discrepancy so it can be corrected.
Comparisons and other state practices: staff gave initial examples from other states: some use a shorter distance (Alabama and Texas frequently use 2 miles), Hawaii varies by grade level (1 mile for K, 1.5 miles for older students), and some states waive distance rules when hazardous conditions exist (Florida, Illinois, Texas). Committee members asked staff to research hazardous-route definitions, crash/incident data and safe-route programs and to map districts and routes where long distances or hazardous conditions occur.
Operational notes: staff also said some districts use parent reimbursement or contracts for transportation in lieu of routine bus service when practical, and KSDE/KLRD will supply district-level route and ridership information where available to help the task force quantify costs.
Ending: The committee asked KLRD and Revisor staff to provide maps, a traffic/hazard review and additional benchmarking of other states' distance thresholds and hazardous-route practices so the task force can consider alternatives (shorter radii for younger grades, hazardous-route waivers, sparsity-based metrics or compensation models).
