|
A big week for education committees
Education policy moved on multiple fronts this week, with key discussions happening in various committees. Below are the major things we’re taking away from the second week of session.
Joint education committee hears Blueprint for Literacy progress update
Lawmakers received a one-year progress update on Kansas’ Blueprint for Literacy from Dr. Cynthia Lane, Director of the Blueprint for Literacy, alongside higher education leaders and classroom educators involved in implementation.
The briefing emphasized that literacy challenges remain widespread across the state — cutting across geography, district size, and student demographics — and that the Blueprint is designed to strengthen educator preparation and expand access to evidence-based professional learning aligned to the science of reading.
The update focused on a few concrete year-one steps: public universities updated their literacy coursework for future teachers, the new “Foundations” courses are expanding training for current educators, and coaching supports are being used to help teachers apply structured literacy in the classroom. Lawmakers also heard about related efforts for paraprofessionals and small district coaching pilots funded through literacy enhancement grants.
Overall, the message was that the Blueprint is building a statewide system.
Much of the committee discussion, however, focused less on implementation and more on how literacy progress is being measured and communicated.
Several lawmakers raised concerns about the state’s newly adopted reading assessment cut scores and asked how Kansas can maintain fidelity in tracking early literacy outcomes over time when proficiency benchmarks change. Requests were made for clearer comparisons between old and new cut scores to avoid misinterpreting trend data.
Relatedly, there was visible disagreement over how Kansas contextualizes its performance using NAEP results. While testimony cited Kansas as a relatively strong national performer, legislators questioned that framing. According to the most recent NAEP data (2024), Kansas is not a top 10 state in either fourth- or eight-grade reading under any common measure, placing closer to the national middle.
That tension underscored a broader concern voiced throughout the meeting: progress depends not only on strong policy and implementation, but also on transparent, consistent, and credible measures of student outcomes.
Audit prompts legislative review of free-lunch used in school funding
At a recent House Welfare Reform Committee meeting, legislators dug into a Legislative Post Audit report that questions whether Kansas’ free-lunch counts are still a reliable proxy for “at-risk” student funding.
Auditors estimated that 54% to 72% of students approved for free meals through household applications were likely ineligible in 2023-24 (based on income verification using state wage/tax data).
If those estimates hold, the audit suggests Kansas districts may have received $10 million to $14 million more than warranted in federal meal reimbursements, and $38 million to $53 million more in state at-risk aid tied to free-lunch enrollment.
Legislators framed it as an oversight and program-integrity problem, while auditors repeatedly emphasized a key distinction: ineligibility is not the same as fraud, and the report does not claim fraud occurred.
A major thread in the discussion: even if districts followed federal rules, the state may be anchoring at-risk dollars to a measure that’s drifting from actual student need. Auditors’ lone recommendation to lawmakers: consider an alternate method for calculating at-risk funding going forward.
This idea is something the Education Funding Taskforce will consider as it ponders a new formula. According to ECS, at least six states define students from low-income backgrounds as those who are directly certified for other federal assistance programs like SNAP and TANF.
Lawmakers focus on funding pressures, special education, comparability
In the House Committee on K-12 Education Budget, the Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) briefed members on enrollment-driven funding dynamics, special education cost pressures, and the rollout of updated state assessments — alongside a clear, recurring theme from legislators: they want cleaner, comparable data over time.
Rep. Jason Goetz explicitly called for state longitudinal data, a point that aligns with what we’ve continued to advocate for: better cross-year visibility into student progress and outcomes.
KSDE told lawmakers that statewide enrollment is down about 9,000 students from last year. Some of that drop is expected (a smaller kindergarten class replacing a larger senior class), but about 4,000 students are harder to explain.
Since Kansas school funding is based on weighted FTE × the base aid amount, KSDE stressed a simple point: the state can still “fully fund the formula” and spend less overall if there are fewer students in the formula.
KSDE also warned that in recent years, big inflation-driven increases to the base aid amount helped offset enrollment declines for many districts. With the base projected to grow by only about 3% this year, districts losing students may feel the funding loss more directly going forward.
On special education, KSDE noted the special education population hasn’t declined like overall enrollment, so it’s becoming a larger share of district budgets. Members questioned whether costs are out of control; KSDE pushed back that IEP requirements drive spending, and districts are already covering major shortfalls with local dollars.
The sharpest exchange centered on new cut scores and assessment comparability.
KSDE framed changes as aligning to updated ELA standards and national benchmarks; members raised concerns about “moving the goalposts,” parent confusion with levels (1–4), delayed score reporting, and reduced ability to track trends. KSDE pointed to concordance tables for year-to-year comparison, and noted districts also use required screeners multiple times per year to measure growth.
There is a present throughline in multiple committees: Policymakers are uneasy about maintaining fidelity over time — especially as NAEP and ACT trends remain a reference point — and there’s disagreement over how Kansas publicly characterizes its performance.
Multiple education bills are moving through the Kansas Legislature. Our Kansas Priority Bills Update includes quick summaries and direct links to each bill.
In other news
| 
