Kansas task force probes bilingual weighting, KELPA rules and funding options

Kansas — The Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force spent much of its second day in Topeka focused on the state—s bilingual (English language learner) weighting — how the weighting is calculated, what state law requires for program eligibility and exit, and modeling options to change how the money is distributed.

The discussion centered on two statutory methods school districts may use to generate bilingual funding under Kansas law: a contact-hour (FTE/minute) calculation multiplied by a 0.395 factor and a head-count calculation multiplied by a 0.185 factor. Districts receive whichever of those two calculations produces the larger weighted FTE. Nick Myers of the Office of the Revisor of Statutes reviewed the statutory language, the State Board—s role in program approval and the record-keeping requirements districts must follow.

Why it matters

Task force members said the bilingual weighting affects classroom staffing, local budgets and how districts plan services for newcomers and long-term ELL students. Several members also flagged questions about whether the weighting drives outcomes for students or simply supplies a predictable revenue stream to districts.

What the law and guidance say

Myers told the task force the bilingual weighting is established in Kansas statute (cited in the meeting as KSA 72-51-50 and related provisions) and that the State Board of Education sets standards and procedures districts must meet for identification, instruction and exit. A student counts for bilingual funding only if the student is identified as needing bilingual/ELL services and the teacher providing counted minutes holds the required endorsement or licensure. Myers pointed committee members to the Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) enrollment handbook for detailed guidance on identification, minimum contact-time calculations and exit procedures.

Myers also reviewed a legislative and judicial history the group asked about: the headcount option was added in 2017 under the Kansas School Equity and Enhancement Act and a 2018 change tied a portion of a district—s local option budget (LOB) to bilingual-weighting revenue. He noted the Kansas Supreme Court—s Gannon litigation considered but rejected a claim that the LOB transfer provision violated the state constitutional equity standard.

Key numbers and examples discussed

- Contact-hour weighting: minutes-derived FTE multiplied by 0.395. - Headcount weighting: qualified student headcount multiplied by 0.185. - Example from the Revisor—s memo shown in the meeting: a hypothetical district with 24.4 contact-hour FTE and 60 headcount would receive the higher headcount result (11.1 weighted FTE) rather than the contact-hour result (9.6 weighted FTE). - Research modeling presented by KLRD staff showed that removing the bilingual weighting entirely from the current formula would free approximately $51.5 million in state foundation aid and roughly $16.9 million in computed LOB transfers statewide under the FY25 legal-max model. KLRD cautioned numbers vary by model assumptions.

Audits, monitoring and exit status

Task force members reviewed a 2020 legislative post audit and KSDE enrollment guidance. KSDE—s enrollment handbook (cited in the meeting) defines three post-exit statuses: "exited/proficient," "monitored" (student no longer receives services and is not eligible for bilingual funding), and "transitional" (district provides services for up to one additional year and receives funding for that year). Members asked KSDE staff to clarify how often districts use transitional status, and whether practice matches handbook guidance. KLRD and KSDE staff agreed to provide updated data on the numbers of monitored and transitional students statewide.

Why districts sometimes prefer headcount

Several legislators and KSDE staff discussed why some districts receive more money from the headcount option than the contact-hour calculation. KSDE representatives said headcount captures an expense associated with serving students who qualify for services but for whom a district cannot maximize licensed-minute allocation (for example, when it cannot hire enough endorsed ELL teachers). The headcount option recognizes additional educational need that may not be fully captured by contact minutes.

Modeling alternatives KLRD presented

KLRD staff walked the task force through multiple modeling scenarios, including: - Remove bilingual weighting entirely (no bilingual weighting) - Roll bilingual dollars into the base per-pupil amount (add bilingual to base) - Headcount-only model or hours-only model - A two-tier model that gives a higher multiplier to "newcomers" (students in the U.S. less than one year) and a lower multiplier to other qualifying ELL students

KLRD noted one two-tier run used suppressed counts (averages) where districts had fewer than 10 ELL FTE to avoid FERPA concerns; KLRD said it can re-run models with actual newcomer FTE if the task force wants a more accurate statewide estimate. Jennifer Light (KLRD) and other staff said re-running models with actual counts reduced the statewide increase in one two-tier option from roughly $17 million to about $7 million.

Concerns about outcomes and accountability

Multiple task force members pressed for better measures of program effectiveness. The 2020 audit found most bilingual-expense dollars are spent on classroom salaries and paras; ELL specialists and pull-out programs make up smaller shares. Members asked whether districts evaluate programs consistently and whether KSDE or the legislature should require regular effectiveness reviews. The audit—s outcome review (which examined cohorts from earlier years) showed mixed results, and task force members asked staff to provide more recent longitudinal outcome data, including KELPA change scores and state assessment progress for ELL students.

Questions and follow-up the task force requested

The task force asked staff to provide additional materials and runs: - Updated counts of students in "monitored" versus "transitional" exit statuses and the number of students who receive transitional-year funding (KSDE enrollment handbook procedures). - The 2020 bilingual audit and the WestEd materials referenced during presentations (KLRD delivered printed copies during the meeting). - Re-runs of the two-tier/newcomer-weighting model using actual (non-suppressed) newcomer FTE where FERPA permits. - Comparative research on how neighboring states define "newcomer" and how other states implement tiered bilingual weightings. - Clarification on allowable bilingual-fund expenditures and how districts account for bilingual spending (KSDE budget reporting and how districts assign staff or facility costs to bilingual programs).

What the task force did not decide

No formal policy changes or votes were taken. Members asked for more analysis and more recent outcome data before recommending any statutory changes.

Ending note

Task force leaders said they will compile the requested follow-up analyses and run additional models before the next meeting. Members signaled they wanted more data on program outcomes, clearer statewide reporting on transitional/monitored exit statuses, and a more accurate run of any tiered-weighting model using actual newcomer counts.