1. Home
  2. Analysis
  3. Blog
  4. Education Funding Task Force Weighs Factors...
29 June 2026 | Education & Early Learning

Education Funding Task Force Weighs Factors Impacting Student Success

Emily Barnes | June 29, 2026

In the May 2026 meetings of the Education Funding Task Force, members considered student outcomes and academic success in Kansas and across the country. In prior meetings, student outcomes have been discussed in relation to understanding how successful Kansas’ school funding formula is in supporting Kansas students in the classroom.  

Publicly Available Handouts from This Meeting  

Factors Influencing Student Outcomes

Legislative staff presented data about chronic absenteeism in Kansas. A student is considered chronically absent when they have missed 10% or more of school days for any reason, excused and unexcused, and this rate is different than daily attendance. While attendance alone doesn’t guarantee poor academic outcomes, absence from the classroom can indicate a student is at risk of not learning effectively.  

Although absenteeism in Kansas rose from 17.5% to 19.5% between 2021 and 2025, it peaked at 21.8% in 2023 and has been on a steady decline since. While these rates are concerning, Kansas is well below the national absenteeism average of 31.0% in 2022 and 27.8% in 2023. (U.S. data from 2024 and 2025 is not yet available.)  

Discussion among Task Force members clarified the difference between attendance rates and absenteeism and how districts address these when considering improvement goals and accreditation practices. Attendance rates measure how many students are present for instruction on a given school day and focus much more on school-wide presence. Although many schools in Kansas report attendance at or above 90%, chronic absentee rates highlight specific students who may risk falling behind academically when they are not in the classroom with their peers. 

Task Force members also reviewed information about student performance between 2007 and 2025. Data indicates drops in ACT and SAT scores, state assessments in reading and math, and postsecondary success even though K-12 funding and spending increased. However, some Task Force members noted that multiple factors may have impacted results, including state funding changes and freezes, the repeal of the federal No Child Left Behind Act in 2015, and COVID-19 disruptions.  

Multiple presenters offered solutions about how to leverage spending, implement innovative learning environments, and consider accountability systems. 

The Edunomics Lab from Georgetown University affirmed Kansas’ increased spending and dropping assessment scores and asserted that the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER) that provided pandemic relief funding allowed for an increase in specialized staff. This moved classroom teachers into positions as reading coaches, interventionists and coaches, and administration. The presenter indicated a possible solution would be to have some of those staff return to the classroom.  

As Kansas faces dropping enrollment, partially attributable to declining birth rates, the Edunomics Lab advised focusing on the quality of educators rather than quantity. During discussion, some members voiced concerns that the spending data presented did not accurately reflect Kansas’ past K-12 finance work and the recommendations in the presentation risk normalizing underfunded schools. 

Conversely, the Task Force heard from Wichita Public Schools about its learning lab, Creative Minds Vertical School, which offers students personalized, interactive, and exploratory learning. Designed as a “modern-day one-room schoolhouse,” the school educates students in mixed age groups from kindergarten through sixth grade. The program follows standards set by the Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE), and reports demonstrate increases in their assessment scores.  

The school sites are intentionally small, capping enrollment at 40 students. Each site is grouped in general ages of kindergarten through second or third grade (based upon the students’ needs and abilities) and fourth through sixth grade. Although it is teacher guided, students participate in learning projects intended to drive student creation. The school says that students needing IEP services receive them, although they may have to partner with other elementary schools to fulfill the required hours. 

KSDE also presented about student outcomes and state assessments and shared their2024-2025 Annual Report. Outlining assessment results and various initiatives, the report explains the steps the department takes toward student achievement. KSDE assured the Task Force members that the department is not content with the current status and has taken steps toward improvement, including the creation of a new Deputy Commissioner position for the Division of Accountability & Technology.  

Discussion revolved around the implementation of the Science of Reading Program, which now enters some Phase 2 efforts as teachers complete their Seals of Literacy. Although questions remain about which metric to use, the group focused on how to measure the success of the program, especially in relation to assessment results, with general sentiment settling on the need for both summative and formative assessments. Some members are concerned that students scoring in Level 1 continue to graduate with seemingly low postsecondary success results. However, others reminded the group of the need to also consider how different risk factors and challenges schools face, like students moving in and out of districts and teacher turnover, may also impact a student’s learning. 

Teacher Performance and College Readiness

On the second day that the Task Force met, legislative staff presented information about accountability systems and performance-based funding implemented in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, and Mississippi. In accordance with federal law, all states are required to prepare an annual report card, which some states use as accountability for student outcomes. A handful of states require that teacher salaries consider performance, while most states base compensation on education and experience. The states presented have specific funds for their performance-based pay systems.

Kansas does not require performance-based pay for teachers, and some members worried about whether the system could inadvertently incentivize talented staff to primarily work with higher performing students. 

The presentations about each state described their reported indicators. These included reading and math proficiency rates and any progress made, graduation rates, and whether students are prepared for college or careers after they graduate. Members appreciated learning about growth models and wondered how that could help Kansas but noted a desire to focus on states performing well on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Members wondered what Kansas could learn from the states who are consistently ranked in the top five for NAEP performance. 

It was noted that, specifically in higher grades, many teachers are not directly responsible for English and math instruction as measured by the NAEP and spoke to current struggles to ensure that districts meet federal assessment reporting requirements. Some pondered whether effective growth model reporting and incentivizing higher performing teachers to be placed in underperforming schools would help mitigate some pitfalls of performance-based pay systems. 

The Task Force also considered Career Technical Education and post-secondary outcomes as legislative staff reviewed data about enrollment at in-state institutions across Kansas after students graduate high school. This includes state and municipal universities and community and technical colleges. The enrollment rate between 2015 and 2024 dropped; however, this data does not consider students who enrolled in out of state universities, enlisted in the military, or have found gainful employment since graduation, and therefore may not definitively display a lack of student preparedness. Data also shows that in-state technical college enrollment has increased steadily since 2015.  

The Kansas Board of Regents updated its policy in 2023 to move toward a corequisite course model, rather than focus on remedial education before taking college-level credited courses. This method was referred to as “developmental education” and can risk slowing a student’s progress toward degree completion. The change is hoped to better support students of all academic abilities as they transition to college-level courses that receive credit. Data shows that students progress more successfully when they have prerequisite material paired with their general education course to aid their future learning.  

Emerging Dialogue

While the topic at hand brought out complicated discussion and competing viewpoints, the Task Force engaged in meaningful dialogue about how to provide better ways to support students’ academic success through the next K-12 funding formula. The group’s next course of action will be to determine how to find solutions to the hurdles schools face while prioritizing students’ well-being in the classroom. To do this, members will need to understand each other’s unique viewpoints to inform the Task Force’s final recommendations later this year. 

At the time of publication of this writing, only two more meetings have been approved, which is far fewer than requested. No future meeting dates have yet been set. The Task Force is responsible for presenting recommendations to the Legislature in January for the finance formula before it sunsets in July 2027. During the next meeting, it is likely the group will begin crafting recommendations.

Hopefully, the last 18 months of presentations, questions, and discussion will ensure they center students’ well-being in their recommendations for the next K-12 school finance formula. 

< Back to the news list