Presenters tell committee Kansas student achievement is flat while per‑pupil spending and district reserves have risen

Dave Trabert, CEO of the Kansas Policy Institute and of the Kansas School Board Resource Center, told the Committee on K‑12 Education Budget that long‑term achievement measures are flat or declining even as per‑pupil spending and district operating reserves have grown.

Trabert said graduation rates and participation patterns mask falling college‑readiness on the ACT — “graduation rates going up and college readiness plummeting from 32% to just 18%,” according to a chart he referenced comparing 2015 and 2024 — and that NAEP reading proficiency for fourth and eighth grades is lower now than when all states first administered NAEP in 2002–2003.

He told members that inflation‑adjusted spending per student has risen substantially on a long‑term track while achievement has not: “all along spending per student has been well above inflation on a long term track,” he said. He also highlighted that operating cash reserves held by Kansas school districts have grown; the packet he supplied showed operating reserves (excluding bond, capital outlay and federal funds) and a carryover ratio that he said averages about 20% of operating funds, well above the 7.5% minimum balance the state uses for comparison.

Why this matters: Trabert said the combination of stagnant academic outcomes and large unspent operating balances raises questions about how districts allocate resources. He recommended boards and the Legislature focus on repurposing existing dollars toward classroom priorities rather than assuming more revenue alone will improve outcomes.

Specific policy concerns raised to the committee included at‑risk funding and accreditation. Trabert said roughly $550,000,000 in statutorily designated at‑risk funds exist for Kansas districts but that two state audits found districts were not spending that money “as required in state law.” He said the State Board of Education recently signaled it does not treat the at‑risk statute as among the “most connected” laws for accreditation enforcement, and quoted his characterization of the board’s explanation: “they said well it says they must comply with all applicable laws and we don't believe that the at risk law is applicable to what they call the most connected laws to improving outcomes.”

Committee members asked follow‑ups. Representative Poskin asked whether there is a last graduating class that experienced “constitutionally funded general education and statutorily funded special education” from K–12; Trabert said that question would require historical legal and fiscal analysis and referenced differing legal interpretations by the Kansas Supreme Court rather than providing a specific year. Representative Brantley asked about comparative per‑pupil spending; Trabert said cost‑of‑living‑adjusted per‑pupil spending tables were provided in his handout and cited an adjusted figure of about $19,119 per pupil in recent data.

On the question of donor funding for the resource center and related organizations, Representative McDonald criticized lack of donor disclosure and asked whether the organization is funded through “dark money.” Dave Trabert responded that fundraising supports the center’s free services and invoked donors’ right to private political speech, saying he raises money to provide the services at no charge.

Discussion in the committee emphasized several recurring points: (1) long‑term data show flat or declining academic measures even as spending has increased; (2) some districts hold large operating reserves relative to what practitioners and some legislators expect; (3) state audits and the State Board’s current accreditation prioritization have generated debate about enforcement of at‑risk spending requirements; and (4) legal and technical questions remain about how to measure when K–12 funding was “fully funded” in a constitutional sense.

The presenters and members suggested possible next steps, including legislative review of accreditation requirements and stronger enforcement or statutory clarification about at‑risk funding compliance. No formal motions or votes on legislation were recorded in the transcript.

Members of the committee said they would follow up with additional data requests and conversations later in the session.

Ending: The presenters remained available to provide the underlying data cited in their handouts, and the committee scheduled additional briefings on literacy and assessment topics for future meetings.