Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Kansas task force debates measures and phase‑in options as school finance law nears expiration
Summary
Members of the Education Funding Task Force reviewed statutory deadlines and spent most of a session arguing over how to measure student outcomes, whether to prioritize early literacy, and how fast districts should adapt to any new K‑12 funding formula. No votes were taken; staff were asked for follow‑up data and audits.
Madam Chair opened the meeting by reminding members that the Kansas School Equity and Enhancement Act expires on 07/01/2027 and that the task force must deliver recommendations to the legislature and governor by 01/11/2027, framing the work ahead as time‑sensitive.
Jason Long, Revisor, reviewed the statutory charge and the law's goals: to ensure a formula that is calculated to help students meet statutory academic goals, provide adequate, consistent and equitable funding, and include meaningful accountability measures. "The Kansas School Equity and Enhancement Act expires on 07/01/2027," Long told the group, adding he would provide statutory text for members.
Discussion then focused on the guiding principles the task force should use when evaluating formula changes. The chair proposed a principle to phase in any changes so districts would not be forced to "flip a switch" overnight. Several members agreed that predictability for districts is essential; Representative Brantley called for checkpoints during any phased implementation so the task force and districts can assess whether the changes produce intended outcomes.
The sharpest policy debate centered on how to measure accountability and student success. Senator Erickson urged a narrow, measurable goal: "Every Kansas student is reading on grade level and is proficient at grade 3, period," she said, arguing that a clear literacy benchmark would cut across district types. Representative Steele and others pressed for measurable outcomes and cautioned against changing cut scores so frequently that year‑to‑year comparisons become meaningless. "That's something that has been lacking in this policy ... there's never been accountability measures," Steele said.
Members also discussed the ROSE capacities referenced in statute — a broad set of skills that some lawmakers and educators consider difficult to quantify. Dr. Gibson warned that the ROSE language is intentionally broad but said the state does have related, quantifiable data (post‑secondary success metrics and individual plans of study) that could be brought into the task force's deliberations.
There was no formal vote or decision on principles. Instead, members signaled a preliminary consensus that any implementation should allow districts time to adapt and that staff should return with data to inform tradeoffs. The group asked staff to assemble historical subgroup assessment trends, the LPA audit materials cited in discussion, and comparisons of national and state metrics to support a more concrete choice of accountability measures.
Looking ahead, members said the task force will need to resolve whether to rely on poverty proxies (free or reduced lunch, Title I, Census poverty estimates) or to give greater weight to performance measures (state assessments, cohort growth) when allocating funds. The chair directed staff to gather the requested documents and data for the next meeting.
