Kansas committee reviews special education legal requirements, funding formulas and new distribution for supplemental aid

Members of the Committee on K‑12 Education Budget heard a legal and budget briefing on special education law and state funding on an item that combined an overview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Kansas law with a detailed explanation of how state special education aid is calculated and distributed.

Nick Myers of the Office of the Revisor of Statutes told the committee that “the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, I’m going to refer to it as the IDEA, requires that all children including children who have disabilities have a right to a free appropriate public education,” and described key federal requirements such as child find, individualized education programs (IEPs) and provision of services in the least restrictive environment. Myers also cited other federal authorities that prohibit disability discrimination, saying “section 504 … and the Americans with Disabilities Act … both also play a role.”

The memo Myers presented outlined the IDEA’s procedural safeguards, how evaluations are initiated, and the composition and annual review requirements of IEP teams. He noted differences under Kansas law, including that the Kansas Special Education for Exceptional Children Act includes gifted children in the definition of an exceptional child, requires special education due-process hearing officers to be licensed attorneys, and expressly names dyslexia as a qualifying disability.

State funding and distribution

KSDE staff described how Kansas calculates and distributes state special education aid under statute KSA 72‑34‑22. Dr. Harwood summarized the statutory approach: the State Board of Education determines statewide excess costs for special education and, subject to appropriation, state aid is set as a percentage of those excess costs. “The statute does provide that subject to appropriations of the legislature, the total amount of special education state aid … is set to be 92% of the statewide excess costs,” Harwood said, adding that if appropriated funds are insufficient the statute calls for prorating among districts.

Harwood and KSDE staff listed the distribution categories contained in the law and how the department applies them: catastrophic aid (reimbursement for very high‑cost students), a Medicaid replacement pool (not to exceed $9,000,000), special education transportation and maintenance (reimbursed at 80% of eligible costs), and the residual special‑teacher ratio reimbursement (distributed based on each district’s share of qualified full‑time equivalent special education teachers and paraprofessionals; paraprofessionals are counted as 0.4 FTE under statute).

The staff noted several fixed numbers and formulas used in the current calculation: a baseline distribution figure of $528,018,516 set in statute, the 92% funding goal, and the way excess costs are derived by subtracting regular education funding and other dedicated sources (Medicaid and federal funds) from total special education expenditures.

New supplemental distribution and one‑time federal funds

The committee discussed a recent change in how supplemental state dollars above the statutory baseline are being distributed. Harwood described the State Board of Education’s June equalization distribution schedule, which implements the supplemental distribution created by last year’s House Sub. for Senate Bill 387 (an amendment to KSA 72‑34‑22). Rather than applying district‑level excess cost calculations, KSDE said it used a “local contribution” model for the $73,000,000 supplemental pot: the department calculated each district’s locally borne special education expenditures (after removing state, federal and cooperative/interlocal expenditures) and allocated the $73 million pro rata to districts based on each district’s share of that local contribution.

“We started off with the total expenditures,” Harwood said, “then we subtract out all of the money you get — the state aid, the federal aid, the Medicaid reimbursement — and what’s left is a local source. We took each district’s share of that and multiplied it by $73,000,000.” He said KSDE excluded costs reported at cooperative or interlocal entity level from this local contribution calculation.

Harwood also clarified one‑time federal funds’ impact on year‑to‑year comparisons. He said $2.5 million in ARPA funds had been included in this year’s totals but are not available in future years. As a result, he explained, the legislature appropriated $10 million in State General Fund (SGF) for the next year; SKDE’s analysis shows that, net of the one‑time federal dollars that will not carry forward, the total available to districts would be about $7.5 million greater in the next fiscal year if no other changes occur. “That 2.5 million dollars is not carried over to 2026,” Harwood said.

Impact on per‑FTE reimbursement and categorical aid

KSDE staff warned districts may see lower per‑FTE special‑teacher reimbursement even as the supplemental pot is distributed through the new local contribution model. Harwood said last year’s reimbursement per FTE was about $31,670 and that the per‑FTE categorical reimbursement for the coming year is likely to be nearer $30,500 because transportation and catastrophic costs rose and reduce the remainder available for teacher‑ratio reimbursement.

Service delivery models and geography

Matthew Willis walked members through a statewide map KSDE provided showing how districts organize special education services. Willis described three models: (1) independent districts that directly provide services, (2) cooperatives where one host district hires and administers services on behalf of members, and (3) interlocal entities governed by a separate board formed by member districts. He said those delivery models can affect how expenditures appear in district financial reports and why KSDE excluded cooperative/interlocal reported expenses from the local contribution calculation.

Questions and next steps

Committee members asked clarifying questions about Medicaid replacement, categorical aid mechanics, inclusion of private‑school students in child find obligations, and historical litigation that shaped Kansas funding policy (the panel discussed the Montoy litigation and the later Gannon decisions as background to the statute’s 92% goal). Several members requested KSDE provide additional charts showing historical excess‑cost percentages and district‑level allocations to help local officials interpret the new supplemental distribution.

A procedural motion earlier in the meeting adopted the committee’s draft minutes. Representative Brantley moved to accept the minutes; Representative Johnson seconded the motion and the chair announced the minutes were adopted.

KSDE staff told the committee the department will continue to provide district‑level spreadsheets and further explanations of the local contribution calculation and the categorical distributions so lawmakers and districts can compare the new supplemental allocation to prior year distributions.