1. Home
  2. Analysis
  3. Blog
  4. Education Funding Task Force Resumes Work...
21 May 2026 | Education & Early Learning

Education Funding Task Force Resumes Work to Inform the Next School Finance Formula

Emily Barnes | May 21, 2026

After pausing for several months, the Education Funding Task Force resumed in April 2026 to continue assessing the K-12 education finance formula. Established in 2024, the Task Force is charged with reviewing the current school finance system in Kansas in anticipation of the current finance formula expiring in June 2027. 

Essentially, the Task Force’s goal is to understand the funding that K-12 schools receive, how it is being used, and how well kids are performing academically as a result.

Throughout 2025, the Task Force met monthly from January until September and gathered foundational knowledge of how the K-12 finance formula works in Kansas, as directed by the Kansas School Equity and Enhancement Act (KSEEA) enacted in 2017. The Task Force also reviewed other states’ funding mechanisms and how Kansas compares to those formulas.

The Education Funding Task Force is responsible for submitting a report to the Legislature and Governor by January 11, 2027, which is likely to influence the updated formula via legislation when the KSEEA expires next year.

However, the Task Force’s 2025 work did not include preparing recommendations or legislation for the 2026 Legislature to consider a new finance formula. You can read our previous summaries at the following links to gain a deeper understanding of last year’s work.

Links to Publicly Available Handouts from this Meeting

Information Review and Possibilities

As legislative staff summarized the materials covered last year to kick off the April 2026 meeting, Task Force members discussed the guiding principles they will follow to provide recommendations for a formula that is transparent, student-centered, adequate, fair, and sustainable and whether phasing in formula changes may benefit schools. They also asked about the Rose Capacities (a set of standards that indicate career and/or college readiness after graduation) and the ways the state can measure how it meets those requirements. Additionally, each member was given a School Finance Formula Considerations Worksheet to complete with their thoughts and questions to use during further discussion during the meeting.

Elements of KSEEA guide determining Base Aid for Student Excellence (BASE), the guaranteed amount a district receives per student, and weightings, which are valuations based upon certain student characteristics that provide a district with funding to address the costs of providing an adequate and equitable education to every student. Discussion at past meetings often raised questions about how changes in weightings – whether by adjusting valuations or moving them into BASE – may impact the funding schools receive.

During this meeting, legislative staff provided additional context about many weightings during their review of adjusted models. Staff provided estimates about the anticipated impact that certain changes to the funding formula may have.

The group reviewed models for the At Risk, High Density At Risk, Bilingual, Low Enrollment, and High Enrollment weightings. Review of these models led to discussion about new weighting ideas. One idea is to rework the At Risk weighting to include a Success weighting that would consider state assessment results. Another idea would combine the Low and High Enrollment weightings to introduce a density model to accommodate the costs districts face based upon their size.

Transportation and Special Education weightings were not discussed nor received Kansas modeling since they are calculated differently. The Transportation weighting is an allotment for schools, while Special Education is sent as a reimbursement. Similarly, the Career and Technical Education (CTE), Ancillary, and Cost of Living weightings did not receive modeling.

Local Option Budget and Impact on Property Taxes

Although the KSEEA directs funding for BASE and weightings (which factor into a district’s Total Foundation Aid), school districts also adopt their Local Option Budget (LOB), which are funded by sources like property taxes and state aid. This year’s review dove deeper into the ways districts calculate and potentially increase their LOB. For instance, to calculate their LOB funding, a district will multiply:

Modified Total Foundation Aid x Percentage of LOB Authority = LOB Funding

To determine their modified total foundation aid, a district may use either an artificial BASE or the FY 2009 Special Education State Aid amount, depending upon what is allowable by Kansas law. Additionally, districts must adopt an LOB that is at least 15%, but never more than 33%, of their Total Foundation Aid.

Task Force members wondered how the state can address increasing property taxes and minimize the need for the state to backfill that cost through Supplemental State Aid (also referred to as “equalization aid”). Due to the wide range of property valuations between districts, Supplemental State Aid helps equalize the burden of a community’s local contribution to their district. A district with a lower assessed property valuation per pupil receives more state aid for their LOB. The remaining balance must then be funded by property taxes. This led the group to discuss the impact that mill levies hold for LOB revenues.

Special Education Funding Models for Review

The group also considered models for Special Education State Aid based on ideas from 2025. They reviewed how Kansas’ Special Education data would fit into formula examples from Maine, Louisiana, New York, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Washington D.C.

For reference, Kansas currently allots special education excess cost funding by using a multi-step formula to calculate and distribute funds. Generally, the state calculates the “excess costs” associated with providing students with special education services that go beyond the BASE. The state then subtracts other sources of special education funding, such as federal funding or Medicaid funding. The Special Education State Aid is allocated as a reimbursement for several categories of expenses.

Each state modeled for the Task Force approaches special education differently. For instance:

  • The Maine model would introduce new parameters of calculating based on the density of special education students within a district. This would offer weightings based on whether a district has more or less than 15% of its students needing special education services. If applied to Kansas, all current calculations would be replaced with this method.

  • The Louisiana model would move the Kansas K-12 finance formula to a single weighting for Special Education to 150% for each qualifying student. This weighting could include both special education and gifted students.

  • The New York model would offer a transitional model for students who are exiting their Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). This model would also replace calculations and distribution for Special Education State Aid and recalculate the formula based on two single-weighting factors for Special Education. Current special education students would receive 141% weighting while students with an exit code (meaning their IEP was discontinued within the previous year) would receive a 50% weighting, resulting in a lower amount of funding as the student transitions away from the IEP supports.

  • The Mississippi model would implement a three-tiered weighting system that categorizes exceptionalities based upon severity. Tier 1 includes diagnoses like Speech Language Impairment and Developmental Delay at a 60% weighting. Tier 2 includes Autism, Hearing Impairment, Intellectual Disability, and others at 110% weighting. Tier 3 is the highest tier at 130% weighting, providing for exceptionalities like Visual Impairment, Traumatic Brain Injury, or similar. This model could include Gifted students in Tier 1.

  • The Oklahoma model would allow for a primary and secondary exceptionality for a special education student. It would introduce a multiple weight formula where each exceptionality would be assigned a separate weighting value.

  • The Washington, D.C., model would create a four-level model based on the number of hours a student receives special education services per week. Level 1 includes students who receive fewer than eight hours of service per week, while level 4 provides 24+ hours per week. Each level’s weighting increases due to the increased number of hours provided. Another version of this model would include additional weightings to account for compliance and attorney fees.

  • In the models above, the Maine, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington, D.C., models all presume discontinuation of Special Education State Aid within the Catastrophic State Aid, Medicaid Replacement State Aid, Special Education Transportation, and Special Teacher Reimbursement categories.

Task Force Member Discussion

As the conversation progressed, the Task Force members considered State Foundation Aid and potential changes. They wondered about the impact that offering a higher BASE amount with smaller weightings provides for students. One goal they hope to achieve is to provide a student-centered formula and consider how to implement measures for growth in student outcomes. They questioned how to ensure that Kansas has the correct balance of BASE and weightings and asserted that they do not wish to reduce the amount of funding schools have access to, but rather to ensure that it is used in the most effective manner.

Using the School Finance Formula Considerations Worksheet to guide the remainder of their questions, the Task Force members discussed their thoughts on inflationary increases, how to effectively calculate Full-Time Enrollment (FTE), and their priorities for weightings. The group also discussed whether to keep the Local Option Budget. Although it originally was considered optional in the 1990s, it’s now crucial for special education funding and offsets the shortfall districts often face.

The next meetings are set for May 27 and 28, 2026, and they await approval of additional meetings for the rest of the year. Some members feel that it is important to include stakeholder feedback as they go forward. We will continue monitoring their process to better understand their priorities for upcoming agenda items and potential changes to the funding formula.

< Back to the news list