Committee reviews at-risk weightings and SB 387 pilot for at-risk accountability

At a meeting of the Committee on K-12 Education Budget, state analysts and Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) staff reviewed how the formula for at-risk and high-density at-risk weightings is computed and described a pilot accountability plan created under House Sub for Senate Bill 387 (SB 387).

Matthew Willis, Senior Research Analyst for KLRDE, told committee members the core at-risk weighting is calculated by multiplying a district’s full-time-equivalent (FTE) count of students who qualify for free lunch by 0.484. He said that multiplier — up from about 0.456 under an earlier formula — represents one of the largest individual student weightings in the current funding model. "It is just taking the number of at-risk students, which for the purpose of this weighting is students who qualify for free lunch," Willis said.

The committee heard that the state average at-risk FTE is about 333.1 (roughly $1.8 million when converted using the base), while the state median is 96.8 FTE (just over $500,000). Willis walked members through spreadsheets that break down district-level impacts: for example, he showed that Erie-Galesburg USD 101 would see roughly 13.6% of its total state foundation aid tied to the at-risk and high-density at-risk weightings.

Willis also described the high-density at-risk weighting, which adds extra dollars for districts or schools with a large concentration of eligible students. The high-density calculation offers two options — a districtwide calculation or a building-by-building calculation — and statute allows districts to use whichever produces the greater weighting. For districts or buildings with at-risk percentages of at least 50%, the calculation multiplies the at-risk FTE by 0.105. For at-risk rates between 35% and 50%, the formula subtracts 35% from the rate, multiplies that result by 0.7, and then multiplies by the at-risk enrollment to produce a sliding-scale weighting, Willis said. He gave the example of Shawnee Mission USD 512, which would not qualify for high-density weighting at the district level but does qualify when calculated at individual buildings.

KSDE staff emphasized the legal distinction between how funding is counted and how it may be spent. "Free lunch is how we get the funding; at-risk is how we spend it," said Dr. Harwood, a KSDE official speaking to the committee. He summarized two statutory provisions discussed at the meeting: the count of free-lunch FTE used to calculate at-risk funding and a separate provision that governs which interventions districts may pay for with at-risk dollars. Dr. Harwood read a statutory list of categories that can qualify a student for at-risk services — including chronic absenteeism, retention, homelessness, identification as an English language learner, and foster care status — and said districts must use KSDE-approved interventions when spending at-risk funds.

Dr. Harwood described the SB 387 pilot and timeline. Thirteen districts began a pilot this year to develop at-risk accountability plans; the pilot focused on financial reporting for 2024–25. Pilot districts will prepare full plans in 2025–26 and all districts will be required to submit at-risk accountability plans in 2026–27. Under the pilot design, each local board must identify two cohorts (one cohort must be a single grade between kindergarten and eighth grade and the other cohort must include third grade unless the legislature or guidance specifies otherwise). Districts must set a four-year quantitative goal for each cohort, using ELA and math assessments where available, and report longitudinal outcomes. Dr. Harwood noted many small districts face practical limits: on average a district needs roughly 130 students to have about 10 students per grade level, and because cohorts are closed (new students are not added), mobility can mean a district needs about 400 students to expect 10 cohort members to remain across four years.

Dr. Harwood explained the potential financial consequence if a district’s cohort fails to meet its four-year goal: the department may adjust the district’s at-risk multiplier. "If one cohort doesn't make the goal in four years, you have the fifth year to try to make it. But after the fifth year, if they don't make it, then KSDE takes the base state aid for what was the fifth year and the base state aid for what would then be the current year. And we subtract the difference, divide by 2 to get half of that and then subtract that from the base," he said, describing the mechanism KSDE will use to freeze the at-risk multiplier until a cohort meets its goal.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about the origin of the 0.484 multiplier, the relationship of the pilot to accreditation and other state accountability measures, and whether local practice has matched statutory intent on spending. Representative McNorton asked if the 0.484 figure was arbitrary; Willis and another staff member said it stems from prior studies and an intentional increase in the current formula. Representative McDonald criticized the possible funding consequence, saying, "I will never understand how we're going to take money away from a district or teachers or students who are having trouble meeting these metrics and expect them to do better." Dr. Harwood and staff said the intent is to help districts set reasonable, attainable goals and that KSDE plans to provide review and technical assistance to districts through the pilot.

Staff also outlined reporting and implementation details: KSDE will collect fund-level accounting of at-risk expenditures (dividing line-items into salary, supplies, and other costs) from pilot districts in June; those data will inform guidance and potential reporting templates to be used statewide. The pilot’s subcommittees are working on cohorts and assessments, and on expenditures and financial reporting. Willis and Dr. Harwood repeatedly cautioned that many of the spreadsheet numbers were unaudited K.S.D.E. counts and could change when audited.

Next steps: pilot districts will submit financial reports in June 2025; full pilot plans will be created in 2025–26; and all districts are expected to have at-risk accountability plans and submit expenditure reports in 2026–27. KSDE staff said they will return guidance and, where requested, recommendations to local boards on whether goals appear attainable or require revision before plans are finalized.