Task force asks staff for scenario runs on at‑risk and enrollment weightings, transportation and teacher‑pay options

The Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force on May 20 asked staff to prepare modeling and scenario runs that the group can use to compare alternatives to the current foundation and supplemental aid framework.

What the task force asked staff to model

The chair summarized the group’s discussion and asked staff to prepare comparative runs and background briefs for the next meeting. The task force specifically requested scenario work in several areas that members repeatedly raised during debate:

- At‑risk funding: model partial and full reductions in the at‑risk weighting with offsets into an increased base and show district‑level winners and losers under each scenario (examples: 25%, 50%, 75% reductions; full reallocation into base). Members asked for results showing district‑level fiscal impacts and likely effects on targeted services.

- High and low enrollment weightings: model the effect of (a) rolling the uniform high‑enrollment weighting into the base (the high‑enrollment weighting is currently applied to every district over a size threshold) and (b) alternatives to the current low‑enrollment sliding scale (including possible threshold changes from the statutory 1,622 student level). Task force members asked staff to show how changes would affect small rural districts vs. large urban districts.

- Transportation: model changes to the standard pupil‑transport distance (current statutory threshold commonly cited as 2.5 miles) and provide sample runs showing cost impacts under a 1‑mile, 2‑mile and the current practice plus exceptions for unsafe walking routes. Members asked for both statewide totals and district examples.

- Teacher pay and compensation options: provide options for how higher minimum teacher pay could be structured in statute and how that would be reflected in state aid (for example, base increases versus targeted incentives), plus a review of comparable wage indexes and prior cost studies referenced by members.

- Special education funding: staff were asked to prepare an outline of alternative approaches to special education funding (hold the current reimbursement‑heavy model in view) and to model implications if special education allocations were shifted toward a student‑based weighting instead of the current reimbursement approach. Task force members asked for a dedicated future session focused on special education funding mechanics.

Why the modeling: members said they wanted concrete, district‑level illustrations rather than conceptual discussion. "We need runs. If we can run these options and see the effects, we can have a more productive discussion," one member said.

Staff and data responsibilities

Task force staff (KLRD, KSDE and legislative staff) accepted the requests and said they would coordinate the data pulls and run models for the options above; members also encouraged ECS and external experts to supply comparative materials where helpful. Staff noted some runs will be straightforward while others (for example, converting a reimbursement model to a student weight) will require careful assumptions about service intensity and cost per placement.

Next steps and timeline

Staff will produce the requested scenario runs and comparative briefs for the next task force meeting. Members emphasized they will use the runs to prioritize changes that must be addressed in statute (KSEEA sunset) and to develop options that balance fairness, adequacy, simplicity and fiscal sustainability.