Bill would let districts spend at‑risk funds on IMSLEC‑accredited nonprofit programs

House Bill 2033 would add programs and services provided by nonprofit organizations accredited by the International Multi‑Sensory Structured Language Education Council (IMSLEC) to the list of approved at‑risk educational programs districts may fund from their at‑risk education funds.

"House Bill 2,033 relates to approved at risk programs," Tamara Lawrence of the Revisor's Office told the committee during the bill overview. Lawrence said the change appears on page 2 of the bill starting at line 18 and that the bill would take effect July 1 upon publication in the statute book.

The change modifies the framework established in statute (identified in the overview as KSA 70 two‑fifty one‑fifty 3), under which the State Board is required to identify and provide a list of at‑risk educational programs that districts may use. The bill would add IMSLEC‑accredited nonprofit programs and services to that State Board list, making them eligible uses of each district’s at‑risk education fund.

Committee members had a limited opportunity for questions in the hearing; the chair noted that all proponents and opponents had submitted written testimony. Senator Argenbright asked whether the bill bypasses the State Board's existing evidence‑based review process; Lawrence and staff pointed committee members to the submitted written testimony for further detail and said the authors of those testimonies could be contacted for questions. Written proponents named in the hearing packet included William Wilk of the Kansas Chamber and William Pickard, a board member at Phillips Fundamental Learning Center of Wichita. Written opponents included Leah Fleiter of the Kansas Association of School Boards and Tim Graham of the NEA.

The bill passed the Kansas House on a vote of 89‑23, according to the committee overview. No committee vote was recorded in the transcript; the hearing record shows the matter was closed for committee consideration after the overview and questions.

The committee did not receive in‑person proponents or opponents during the hearing; the record relies on the Revisor's overview and the written testimony on file.

Questions that were raised but left to the written record included how the added programs would be reviewed against the State Board’s evidence‑based criteria and whether the bill changes any existing approval procedures for at‑risk program listing. The committee noted those points for follow up with the written witnesses.

House Bill 2033’s text, as described in the hearing, specifies the change to the State Board list but does not, in the committee overview, include implementation details such as an updated review process or funding changes beyond eligibility.

The committee closed the hearing on House Bill 2033 and proceeded to other agenda items.