Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Special Ed topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District leaders warn proposed state actions may increase local special‑education costs
Summary
Budget staff reported last fiscal year special‑education spending of about $8.54 million with roughly $5.47 million from state aid; staff warned House and Senate budget proposals that differ on special‑education increases, cuts to mental‑health funding and bills such as a statewide cell‑phone policy could shift costs to districts.
Get email alerts on the Budget Special Ed topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The district's month‑to‑month budget report and legislative update focused on special‑education spending and pending state action. Budget staff reported last fiscal year special‑education expenditures of $8,541,000, of which $5,471,000 came from state aid, leaving the district to cover roughly $3,070,000 from local funds.
Mr. Kravis, presenting the monthly budget snapshot, said the local share of special‑education costs is significant and equivalent to a notable tax impact. "That 3 million that we spend out of general fund and LOB could equate to about 9 mills of taxing," he said, urging board members to discuss funding concerns with legislators.
Superintendent Sheek described ongoing uncertainty in Topeka about the funding formula and noted competing House and Senate budget proposals: the House had proposed a one‑time $10 million increase for special education while the Senate proposal at one point included roughly $6 million; negotiators may settle in conference committee. Sheek also flagged other proposals that could affect district operations — for example, a bill that would require districts to adopt policies making student personal devices inaccessible during the school day and to prohibit on‑person possession — and said some measures remove discretion from local boards.
Sheek described the situation as a crossroads for public education funding and urged the board to communicate with legislators about implications for local budgets and services. Board members also discussed potential impacts of tying at‑risk dollars to stricter income verification and recent Senate proposals to reduce funding for mental‑health interventionist teams.
The legislative session remains in flux; staff recommended continued monitoring and promised to provide talking points and additional detail to board members.

