[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6565482,"mediaKeyId","3219301-b19835ca5fcf928b8ca598b7efa24d50","parentId",3219301,"title","ECS briefs task force on 50‑state school‑funding models, toolkit and recent formula overhauls","audioSeconds",2960,"startMs",78000,"endMs",3038000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3219301-b19835ca5fcf928b8ca598b7efa24d50&start=78&end=3038","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3219301-b19835ca5fcf928b8ca598b7efa24d50/thumbnail_78000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6565482/Kansas/ECS-briefs-task-force-on-50state-schoolfunding-models-toolkit-and-recent-formula-overhauls","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565482-b914c520ce0ad3ee5afd4b0bcfb57135/orig.mp4?Expires=1770894435&Signature=olo-PhEeEdjL3Gco7XoXOdzWzW6kDchn668qASl5PQo1Z~dA54EiZbdn6eT8fAs87Ne~OLkYBGOGVVOyHPzghJhVyZ2RvDOewl4DTRCPo5HksfKMlBn9KAryd~Mu1O66HGXlSO59wu2c3ZkMOAl~R7hzDWzvgyYW7r4FYPNgYITkpeSBDNRFLhUrWNPsKIkasatqabxlpYB6iSZd~fTFsGTxI9hiro3ZvZ5n480Fc8sbbUTOduzi9T0pcjHRqqOTiccSNcA46VT8MXTpYD0WwGFRTNYaM~dj4FPi3DvWLYyOw4z4QPAefyjaC82ptQx9yIMmYTC3NjHYj1wvULQHjA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force","date","2025-05-07T21:41:51.237Z","article","The Education Commission of the States told Kansas' Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force on May 20 that most states now allocate K–12 aid through student‑based funding formulas and that those formulas differ sharply in how they weight students with extra learning needs.

At a task force meeting, Joel Moore, director of state relations for the Education Commission of the States, and Lauren Pesach, policy analyst at ECS, summarized ECS' updated 50‑state K–12 finance comparison and a newly released school‑funding toolkit. \"We can tell you what the 49 other states and territories are doing,\" Moore said, \"and what that looks like for them.\" Pesach said the toolkit lays out five principles — transparent, student‑centered, adequate, fair and sustainable — for states re‑designing fund distribution.

Why it matters: States structure school finance very differently. The model Kansas uses to count students and allocate per‑pupil funds determines how much state aid flows to districts and which groups receive extra support. ECS' materials aim to help policymakers translate other states' choices to Kansas' context.

Student‑based versus resource‑based models

Pesach explained that student‑based models guarantee a base dollar amount per pupil and then multiply that base by weights for student characteristics (for example, special education, English learner, low income). \"Thirty‑five states and D.C. use the student‑based approach,\" she said. Resource‑based models instead allocate funds by staffing or specified resources (for example, a teacher ratio or a reading specialist) and are used in fewer states.

States also differ on whether they use a single weight for special education or a multiple‑weight approach that assigns different percentages for different disability categories or placements. Pesach noted most states use multiple weights to reflect a range of services and costs.

Examples and recent reforms

ECS highlighted recent large reforms in Colorado and Mississippi as examples of major formula overhauls.

- Colorado: HB 1448 (enacted 2024) created a new “total program” student‑based formula scheduled to begin in FY2026 with a six‑year phase‑in and a hold‑harmless policy for districts that would otherwise lose funding. ECS said the new base per student was set at $8,500 for FY2026 and that the state increased initial statewide aid by about $92 million in the first phase‑in year. Colorado increased several weights: low‑income students receive an additional weight (ECS cited a range up to 25%), the English learner weight will rise from 8% to 25%, and a new special education weight of 25% per student with an IEP was added in addition to existing out‑of‑formula funding for high‑cost services. The law also adds a locale (rural/remoteness) weight ranging about 2.5%–25% depending on NCES classifications.

- Mississippi: ECS described Mississippi’s Student Funding Formula (effective FY2025) as replacing a 27‑year‑old model and including a three‑year hold‑harmless. ECS estimated the fiscal cost to the state to implement Mississippi’s changes at roughly $220 million in the first year. The formula sets a base (ECS reported $6,695 per student), raises the low‑income weight from one of the country’s lowest (5%) toward 30% with additional tiers where low‑income shares exceed 35%, adds an English‑learner weight (previously absent), and creates tiered special‑education weights that ECS described as roughly 60% at the low end to 130% for more intensive tiers.

Advantages and challenges

ECS presenters discussed tradeoffs of student‑based models (greater transparency and flexibility, easier to adjust by student group) versus resource‑based models (stronger state control of specific staffing or class‑size targets). Pesach noted Tennessee’s adoption of TISA included stronger reporting requirements to increase spending transparency at the school level.

Questions and follow‑up

Task force members asked about specific data points: how states define and count English learners, how gifted programs are treated, and whether states tie salary minima or comparable‑wage adjustments to funding. Moore and Pesach said ECS would follow up with written answers and the clickable 50‑state database links. \"If there's anything we can't answer now, we're happy to take that back and get a written response for you,\" Moore told the group.

ECS left the task force with its toolkit documents and the 50‑state profiles. Task force members asked staff to obtain the ECS clickable 50‑state pages and to request targeted follow‑up on the Colorado and Mississippi reforms and on how other states set minimum teacher salary policies.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Education Funding Task Force 05/07/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Education Commission of the States told Kansas' Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force on May 20 that most states now allocate K–12 aid through student‑based funding formulas and that those formulas differ sharply in how they weight students with extra learning needs.","taxTitle","Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force, Task Forces, Committees, Legislative, Kansas","taxId",72660,"location","Kansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6565468,"Task force asks staff for scenario runs on at‑risk and enrollment weightings, transportation and teacher‑pay options",1083,14560000,15643000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3219301-b19835ca5fcf928b8ca598b7efa24d50&start=14560&end=15643","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3219301-b19835ca5fcf928b8ca598b7efa24d50/thumbnail_14560000.jpg","/articles/6565468/Kansas/Task-force-asks-staff-for-scenario-runs-on-atrisk-and-enrollment-weightings-transportation-and-teacherpay-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565468-38c93b33ac1104563351be215bba05ba/orig.mp4?Expires=1770894435&Signature=ZiFAtRjcmFvBmZSPHsFCDhbvYFdoMgdfZrO-~vddMqRbsKXJzNxL-tNyGmJS0wgzIagcHim42wVbtDDpshsQjMwTBNDknRP2d72~Eq4gw1wKT6yLfpeEYZEv7oPiafN9M9RRsmZtij-sP-vzfroc4WviP5pYOyeRlHUrvQNfTQuLK~H8EwzIgWe5PAvE-qYMIzFkpmstmVULsznfWgEv68qXtPPxR0x6nxkc80nNkmYa-AA7~pajXACEZ1gESRNVuuCCE-g-ADjwo6lqdVO1e745NFw4z~eWf8uEsd3xn~zVFH5d1cRh6aUN-j0ndMeVKEqAw0WLuEn9OpGR7MDcKw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force on May 20 asked staff to prepare modeling and scenario runs that the group can use to compare alternatives to the current foundation and supplemental aid framework.

What the task force asked staff to model

The chair summarized the group’s discussion and asked staff to prepare comparative runs and background briefs for the next meeting. The task force specifically requested scenario work in several areas that members repeatedly raised during debate:

- At‑risk funding: model partial and full reductions in the at‑risk weighting with offsets into an increased base and show district‑level winners and losers under each scenario (examples: 25%, 50%, 75% reductions; full reallocation into base). Members asked for results showing district‑level fiscal impacts and likely effects on targeted services.

- High and low enrollment weightings: model the effect of (a) rolling the uniform high‑enrollment weighting into the base (the high‑enrollment weighting is currently applied to every district over a size threshold) and (b) alternatives to the current low‑enrollment sliding scale (including possible threshold changes from the statutory 1,622 student level). Task force members asked staff to show how changes would affect small rural districts vs. large urban districts.

- Transportation: model changes to the standard pupil‑transport distance (current statutory threshold commonly cited as 2.5 miles) and provide sample runs showing cost impacts under a 1‑mile, 2‑mile and the current practice plus exceptions for unsafe walking routes. Members asked for both statewide totals and district examples.

- Teacher pay and compensation options: provide options for how higher minimum teacher pay could be structured in statute and how that would be reflected in state aid (for example, base increases versus targeted incentives), plus a review of comparable wage indexes and prior cost studies referenced by members.

- Special education funding: staff were asked to prepare an outline of alternative approaches to special education funding (hold the current reimbursement‑heavy model in view) and to model implications if special education allocations were shifted toward a student‑based weighting instead of the current reimbursement approach. Task force members asked for a dedicated future session focused on special education funding mechanics.

Why the modeling: members said they wanted concrete, district‑level illustrations rather than conceptual discussion. \"We need runs. If we can run these options and see the effects, we can have a more productive discussion,\" one member said.

Staff and data responsibilities

Task force staff (KLRD, KSDE and legislative staff) accepted the requests and said they would coordinate the data pulls and run models for the options above; members also encouraged ECS and external experts to supply comparative materials where helpful. Staff noted some runs will be straightforward while others (for example, converting a reimbursement model to a student weight) will require careful assumptions about service intensity and cost per placement.

Next steps and timeline

Staff will produce the requested scenario runs and comparative briefs for the next task force meeting. Members emphasized they will use the runs to prioritize changes that must be addressed in statute (KSEEA sunset) and to develop options that balance fairness, adequacy, simplicity and fiscal sustainability.","The Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force asked staff on May 20 to prepare detailed scenario runs: partial or full reallocation of at‑risk funding, changes to high/low enrollment weightings, transportation‑distance scenarios, teacher‑pay approaches and alternative ways to fund special education.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6565471,"KLRD presents census per‑pupil data and KSDE staff flag assessment comparability and ESSER status",2510,4358000,6868000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3219301-b19835ca5fcf928b8ca598b7efa24d50&start=4358&end=6868","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3219301-b19835ca5fcf928b8ca598b7efa24d50/thumbnail_4358000.jpg","/articles/6565471/Kansas/KLRD-presents-census-perpupil-data-and-KSDE-staff-flag-assessment-comparability-and-ESSER-status","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565471-cc5114203bf9afc859932b4388323ac4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770894435&Signature=KvcIRwYT0CV-SgGQSpxfnAbWwm2u~GG8KJkHlfcadb-X3TtWAONg1GblgzmJRY-CHP1HGo11KmYzdw2QR171brB-7BNKXZ435mI7g8vmpsCa60tJN0gBxxA4csfhMupH4JRTEOZTUSoWOwr~TSQjfB2snJ9mJ-2kfnsCSWQ-GnBodGzZUEaqNXKdll9Pf8JlS35qQhwfPJDg8jjdd9EOLG7Wf5R7GpTfYqfSt7DFrtZiPoyVhvYYiqRJ6kCWA51mHzc4G0Tu~T~ZoMR9x00Nr5ZihhkOWYKYCApKwXPnumGkuNoiLn-yDePRTyKatHplkR1k627P4foC314PA7in-A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Jennifer Light of the Kansas Legislative Research Department reviewed Census Bureau tables and KLRD comparative documents and answered members’ clarification requests during the May 20 task‑force meeting.

Key numbers from the KLRD/Census summary

KLRD presented U.S. Census Bureau FY2023 per‑pupil figures for Kansas: total K–12 revenue per pupil $17,417; federal $2,345; state $10,702; local $4,371. Census spending per pupil for Kansas was shown as $14,847, of which KLRD reported $8,902 was for instruction. KLRD staff indicated the Census classifies the state’s 20‑mill local property tax distribution as state aid in Kansas’ reporting to the Census Bureau.

Questions raised by task force members

- Treatment of the 20‑mill local property tax: Multiple members noted Kansas collects a 20‑mill local property tax that is remitted to the state and then returned through the formula, and asked whether Census reporting counts that as state or local revenue. KLRD staff said Kansas reports that money as state aid for the Census tables but agreed to double‑check and provide clarifying documentation.

- Definition of “instruction”: Members asked whether the Census and Kansas State Department of Education use the same definition for the spending category labeled \"instruction.\" KLRD and KSDE staff agreed to provide both definitions so the task force can compare reporting categories.

- Assessment comparability, cut scores and trends: KSDE staff, including Dr. Harwood and KLRD research staff (Matthew), explained that Kansas switched assessment frameworks and cut‑score settings in 2015 and again updated standards, which interrupts simple year‑to‑year comparisons from earlier test versions. Dr. Harwood noted that the new 2025 statewide assessment will undergo cut‑score setting after the testing window and that KU’s Achievement and Assessment Institute leads the technical cut‑score work; staff said the state will attempt to maintain longitudinal comparability where possible and will supply comparability notes to the task force.

- ESSER and other federal relief funding: KSDE staff said roughly $22 million in federal ESSER‑period funds remained unexpended and that a federal Office of Management and Budget decision about late‑drawdown requests had created uncertainty; the agency was appealing and monitoring court actions related to late liquidation timetables.

Next steps requested by the task force

Task force members asked KLRD and KSDE to provide: (1) documentation showing how Kansas reported the 20‑mill remittance to the Census, (2) the formal definition(s) of the Census “instruction” spending category and the state’s instructional spending code definitions for a side‑by‑side comparison, (3) the CPI‑adjusted historic spending table that KLRD referenced (a year‑by‑year comparison back to 2007 that staff had prepared), and (4) clarifications on the ESSER late‑draw status and any immediate budgetary consequences.

Members also asked for a separate brief on how student counts (attendance vs. enrollment vs. FTE) affect funding allocations — a topic ECS had noted earlier.","Jennifer Light of the Kansas Legislative Research Department reviewed FY2023 U.S. Census per‑pupil revenue and spending tables and answered members’ clarification requests about how Kansas reports local levies, what counts as \"instruction\" and the status of federal ESSER funds.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6565476,"Revisor outlines Kansas statutory programs that provide education funding outside the foundation formula",545,3571000,4116000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3219301-b19835ca5fcf928b8ca598b7efa24d50&start=3571&end=4116","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3219301-b19835ca5fcf928b8ca598b7efa24d50/thumbnail_3571000.jpg","/articles/6565476/Kansas/Revisor-outlines-Kansas-statutory-programs-that-provide-education-funding-outside-the-foundation-formula","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6565476-a4e4055ef613228fc6141a3056988f84/orig.mp4?Expires=1770894435&Signature=ZYcLKMJoA9cz9rFAnIasPGafdEhEELlIXQh~ZYUd3l0C2KWL3W0HNeIGuIbYDpxA71lZ7gbwubCHvkyWFj6o~H~zk0ztjl~Zf9CrpqvRBN7LlctJIvqZcklICCeYOGV7JRWUnbrqsl4-ldaJn~3BFhw--hexdgoRo5N-Zj9NKXEaLxJbvjgj8frC478fQM0lMY58A358W18wm9ettH4jDMo~3QJbLwO3QqRQKUdhIk8rb9EpR4h8B0kq2QfqEXu7FetiQKwVq1TaiVfL1nauxWWOi69IwkqbdyzjTHwwJaxtvlHPGX~RrCHlaOnr1I3nVEhCYsrL9ljrTnSHNUE91w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tamara Lawrence of the Kansas Office of Revisor of Statutes reviewed a catalog of statutory education programs on May 20 and told the Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force those programs can matter when the group evaluates how state money reaches students.

Lawrence said the memorandum supplied to the task force lists statutes that create smaller state grant programs and payment authorities that are separate from the state foundation and supplemental aid formulas. \"I've been asked to go over some of the educational programs that have been created in statute that have some kind of funding or financial element to them, but aren't typically thought of as being part of the Kansas School Equity and Enhancement Act,\" Lawrence told the committee.

Key programs Lawrence highlighted

The revisor's memo and Lawrence's presentation listed multiple programs that carry a statutory funding element but sit outside the state’s core foundation formula, including grants to districts that provide education in adult‑training or residential placement settings (Flint Hills Job Corps, psychiatric residential treatment, juvenile detention), a school meal reimbursement of six cents per type‑A lunch served, incentive payments for National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certified teachers, state professional development aid, mentor‑teacher stipends (up to $1,000 subject to appropriation), computer‑science professional learning grants, Skills for Success (K–3 intervention) grants, career and technical education (CTE) funding and a $1,000 credential incentive for eligible CTE graduates, parent‑education grants, a program for deaf‑blind education costs, the ACT/WorkKeys administration requirement (funding outside the formula), driver‑education reimbursements from the State Safety Fund, and the Kansas Educator Registered Apprenticeship Grant Program.

Lawrence also noted the statutory list is not exhaustive and asked the task force to point out other programs it wants cataloged. She emphasized the difference between programs created in statute and those created through budget proviso or appropriations language.

Statutory context and sunset

Lawrence reminded members that the task force’s core charge focuses on the provisions that will expire in the Kansas School Equity and Enhancement Act. She read the statutory sunset citation noted in the memo: KSA 70‑2‑5176 (the reviser memo’s citation) provides that KSA 72‑51‑31 through 72‑51‑76 will expire on July 1, 2027.

Next steps

Task force members asked for additional funding‑history details and the revisor offered to supplement the memo if members identify missing programs. Lawrence and staff signalled they would continue to update the statutory inventory on request.","Tamara Lawrence of the Office of Revisor of Statutes reviewed a catalog of Kansas statutory programs that allocate state money to schools beyond the Kansas School Equity and Enhancement Act formulas, and reminded the task force that the KSEEA statutes are set to sunset on July 1, 2027.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

ECS briefs task force on 50‑state school‑funding models, toolkit and recent formula overhauls

Task force asks staff for scenario runs on at‑risk and enrollment weightings, transportation and teacher‑pay options

KLRD presents census per‑pupil data and KSDE staff flag assessment comparability and ESSER status

Revisor outlines Kansas statutory programs that provide education funding outside the foundation formula