The Kansas Senate on Wednesday narrowly approved a bill that would require school districts to verify the household gross incomes for students who are classified as at-risk under the state’s school finance formula.
The Senate voted 22-18 to approve legislation requiring documentation of a student household’s gross income if they’re determined to be at risk under the school finance formula and also qualify for free meals under the National School Lunch Program.
A student generally qualifies as “at-risk” if they’re eligible to receive a free meal under the National School Lunch Program and are enrolled full time in grades 1 through 12, and are under age 19.
If written evidence of the household gross earned income is not provided, the student will not be deemed as at-risk for the purposes of calculating school funding.
The top sponsor of the bill said the legislation is intended to bring better stewardship and accountability to how at-risk money is spent and free up money for other needs.
Opponents said it would cost school districts money and questioned whether it would do anything to make life more affordable for Kansans.
The bill also requires the state Department of Education – subject to appropriation – to provide funding for each school district to cover copayments so that students who qualify for reduced price meals would get free meals.
The bill that passed the Senate was a little different from the one that was heard in a committee on Jan. 29.
As it was first heard in the Senate Committee on Government Efficiency, the bill required school districts to verify the household gross earned income for students who qualify for free meals under the federal National School Lunch Program.
It also didn’t include a free-lunch provision that was added before the committee sent the legislation to the floor Feb. 5.
The bill’s sponsor, Republican state Sen. Doug Shane of Louisburg, brought the bill forward following a state audit estimating that 54% to 72% of all Kansas students who qualified for free lunches were likely ineligible during the 2023-24 school year.
Auditors said that translated to between 18,400 and 24,600 students, meaning the state may have overpaid between $38 million and $54 million in at-risk funding during the 2023-24 school year. Auditors suggested that the estimate was on the low side.
The estimate was based on just 16% of the free-lunch population because auditors could not project eligibility for the other 84% of students who were directly certified for a free lunch or submitted a Household Economic Survey to apply for the benefit.
The audit, however, suggested that using the number of students who receive free lunches may no longer be the best way to allocate funding for public school students who are at risk of failing academically.
Free lunches have been used as a proxy for determining at-risk funding for schools because the number of students in poverty and the number of students at risk of academic failure tended to be similar, the auditors said in their report to lawmakers.
“Using eligibility for the National School Lunch Act as a surrogate or a proxy measure for academic risk proves an inefficient and ineffective method to approximate student and district needs,” Shane said.
While the bill may not address the flaws with the definition of “at-risk,” he said, “it will help Kansas gain a more specific understanding of need when interpreted alongside compliant at-risk spending.
“Being better stewards of funds will allow likely savings in at-risk appropriations which could then be used for special education,” he said.
“Importantly, this bill does not ask that proof of or evidence of income be used as the actual provisioning of the National School Lunch,” he said.
“But only for that proof of income to be utilized for determination of a student being at risk, thereby not putting the school at risk of noncompliance with federal requirements,” he said.
Democratic state Sen. Marci Francisco of Lawrence said she had been told by her local school district that the bill could cost it more than $1 million in at-risk funds.
“Not all students and student families provide the information that’s needed to verify income and so even though they may qualify, if a family doesn’t return that information, the school district will stand to lose at risk funding,” Francisco said.
“So, I am very concerned about how this will affect our school districts.”
Democratic state Sen. Cindy Holscher of Overland Park also questioned how much the bill could cost local school districts. She pressed Shane for a fiscal note.
“I know there are estimates there that are very, extremely concerning in terms of what it would cost our school districts to do what is described in this bill,” she said.
“But it should concern everybody here that we are being asked to adopt a process without an accurate fiscal note,” she said.
She then asked how the bill would address affordability for Kansans.
“There is a pretty strong association between state spending and taxation, as well as school district spending and local taxation,” Shane said.
“So, anything that we can do to try to more strategically deploy taxpayer funds at the end helps us deliver tax relief and directly impacts affordability,” he said.
Holscher shot back.
“It would be great to assume that, but there are costs associated with this bill,” she said.
“Kansans all across the state are dealing with an affordability crisis working,” she said.
“Kansans are struggling with the lack of affordable housing, health care and child care, as well as confronting high prices for groceries and necessary goods.
“The fact of the matter is, this bill does nothing to help our families, but instead increases administrative burdens, and sadly, it makes it harder for our hungry kids to access much needed meals,” she said.
Republican state Sen. Renee Erickson, chair of the Senate education and government efficiency committees, stood up for the bill and what it is trying to do.
“I think we’re losing sight of what this bill really does. It does not take food out of the mouths of children,” she said.
“We’re looking at the proxy for our at-risk funding. And all we’re saying is we want it to be accurate. I’ve never seen so much opposition to wanting to have accurate data.
“We’ve heard a lot about data today, and all we’re saying is, if this is going to be our proxy, let’s make sure it’s accurate.
“For all the outrage over an unfunded mandate, I would to share with this body that in school years ’23 and ’24 and ’24 and ’25, we increased funding for school districts by $358.3 million just for the (inflation escalator) and they had 7,400 fewer students in their buildings,” Erickson said.
“If we’re concerned about the affordability for Kansas families, how about we look at that?” Erickson said.
In addressing whether the bill costs school districts money, Shane said state audits have indicated that the at-risk money is being spent in ways that don’t comply with state law.
“Several of you have likely heard from a superintendent within your senate district saying that this bill will cost them money when we know, according to legislative post audit, 30% of those funds are not actually utilized for at-risk instruction.
“I think that those statements should make us less concerned about whether or not the district may lose money, and should provide more questions on the adequacy, on the deployment of the funds which we provide.
The bill, he said, “ensures fiscal responsibility moving into the future.”
“I have four young children, and I want to ensure that they’re left with a future where their government isn’t just exploding needlessly from a budget and revenue perspective, and that it’s measured and intentional in asking good questions of itself.”
