Task force reviews multiple special-education funding models and asks for student-level counts

KLRD analyst Jennifer Light walked the task force through a suite of special-education funding models staff had run for Kansas. She described a density model that apportions funding by the percentage of special-education students in a district, a single-weighting approach (150% per qualifying student), and a current/transitional weighting (141% current, 50% transitional). "For the density model... if you have a portion of a special-education population that's under 15% of your total population, the weighting would be 1.5," she said, explaining how the models translate categorical populations into formula weightings.

The packet also included three-tier models (Mississippi), a primary/secondary exceptionality approach (Oklahoma), and IEP-minutes-based models (DC), where levels correspond to IEP minutes per week (level 1: <8 hours; level 2: 8–16; level 3: 16–24; level 4: 24+). Members asked whether model runs had used Kansas student counts and how co-op/interlocal reimbursements would shift under student-based distributions; KLRD confirmed they worked with KSDE to map students where privacy permitted and said transitioning to student-based distributions would require renegotiation of interlocal agreements.

Multiple members requested additional evidence: district-level counts by exceptionality and year, the percent of students in each funding tier, and comparative figures for other states. KLRD and KSDE staff agreed to compile these breakdowns and to provide a 10-year trend graph of IDEA and gifted identification, noting that Kansas includes gifted in its IDEA counts.