Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Task force reviews alternative weightings for at‑risk, bilingual and enrollment in school finance models
Summary
Research staff presented a suite of model options that would alter how Kansas distributes at‑risk, bilingual and enrollment funding: alternatives include moving away from free‑lunch proxies toward Title I, state assessment performance or Census poverty, a new "success" weighting for proficient students, and density models for enrollment. Members requested audits, district-level runs and headcount/FTE/density data.
Research staff gave detailed technical briefings on alternative formula models that would change how state aid is computed and distributed.
Jennifer Light (KLRD) summarized at‑risk options ranging from removing the at‑risk weighting entirely to rolling it into base, to replacing the free‑lunch proxy with Title I percentages, state assessment counts (level 1 or levels 1 and 2), USD poverty from Census small‑area estimates, or hybrids averaging poverty and assessment measures. She told members the current at‑risk calculation "uses free lunch ... and that is used with a weighting of 0.484." Multiple alternative multipliers were cited in staff models (examples in the packet include 0.597 and 0.299 for assessment‑based versions and 1.766 for a poverty‑based normalizer to keep total state aid roughly constant).
Matthew Willis described a family of models that add a lower "success" weighting for students scoring at levels 3 and 4 (roughly half the at‑risk factor in the example models). Those models either increase net state aid (by adding the success weighting on top of current at‑risk) or reallocate existing at‑risk dollars between "at‑risk" and "success" buckets so the total state outlay remains unchanged. "The success weighting would be discretionary and would not have the statutory transfer/expenditure requirements of at‑risk funding," Willis said.
On high‑density at‑risk, staff offered options to remove the extra weighting, roll it into base, or calculate it at the building rather than the USD level with adjusted breakpoints (examples: 35/50, 40/55, or 45/60 percent thresholds). Matthew noted the high‑density at‑risk amount for FY25 is roughly $77,400,000, attributable to that weighting.
Bilingual weighting options included keeping hours‑based FTE, switching to headcount, removing the weighting, rolling it into base, or adopting a two‑tier approach where newcomers (defined in staff assumptions as one year since entry) receive a higher factor (example: 0.395) while other bilingual students receive the standard factor (example: 0.185). Members asked staff for counts of bilingual students who also receive special‑education services and for the distribution between newcomers, maintenance/monitored students, and long‑term bilingual enrollees.
For enrollment, staff described low‑enrollment bands (current model treats schools up to 1,622 as low enrollment) and proposed alternatives lowering the cap (e.g., 500, 1,000, 1,900) or replacing banding with density (students per square mile) models similar to current transportation weightings. The task force asked staff to produce district‑level headcount and FTE for the past five years (excluding virtual enrollment), square miles per district, and a students‑per‑square‑mile metric for the smallest districts to inform discussions about sparsity versus low enrollment.
Several members repeatedly asked whether past investments have produced intended outcomes. Senator Erickson and others requested the Legislative Post Audit materials and subgroup trend analysis before making structural changes. Matthew said staff will provide links and PDFs of the LPA study and other testimony staff cited in the models packet. No formal votes were taken; staff will return with the requested district‑level runs and source documents.
The task force scheduled follow‑up work on model comparisons and data requests ahead of tomorrow's session.
