For over fifteen years, a persistent and widening gap between legal promises and financial reality has placed Kansas public schools in an untenable position, forcing them to make difficult choices that affect every student in the state. At the heart of this protracted crisis lies the state’s chronic failure to meet its statutory obligation to fund special education, a shortfall that has shifted a significant financial burden onto local districts. Johnson County, one of the state’s most populous regions, bears a disproportionate share of this burden, compelling its school systems to divert millions of dollars from general education funds to cover legally mandated services for students with disabilities. This reallocation of resources, described by educators as a “hidden tax,” creates a ripple effect of consequences, compromising educational quality and straining resources for the entire student population.
The Human and Educational Cost
A “Hidden Tax” on All Students
The most immediate and pervasive consequence of the state’s funding failure is the immense pressure it places on general education budgets, a phenomenon widely described as a “hidden tax.” When the state fails to provide its legally mandated share for special education, districts are still required by federal and state law to deliver all necessary services to students with disabilities. To bridge the resulting multimillion-dollar gap, Johnson County districts must reallocate money originally intended for the entire student body. This diversion amounts to approximately $1,400 per student from the state’s base aid, directly impacting programs that benefit all children. As a result, critical areas like arts, music, and extracurricular activities face potential cuts, while class sizes increase and essential resources for general education teachers become scarcer, creating an environment where the quality of education is compromised for every child, not just those with special needs.
This systematic diversion of funds creates a significant long-term strain on the educational ecosystem, stretching far beyond immediate program cuts. The constant financial pressure limits a district’s capacity to invest in innovative teaching methods, update technology, maintain facilities, or offer competitive salaries to attract and retain high-quality educators. While students with disabilities continue to receive their federally mandated services, the quality of the environment in which those services are delivered, along with the general education experience for their peers, is steadily eroded. This creates a de facto two-tiered system where legally required programs are funded at the expense of the broader educational mission, ultimately penalizing every student and family within the district. The chronic underfunding forces administrators into a perpetual state of crisis management, making it nearly impossible to engage in the kind of long-range planning that is essential for academic excellence and student success.
The Classroom Impact
Beyond the abstract numbers on a balance sheet, the funding crisis has tangible, real-world consequences that are felt deeply by families and educators. For parents like Ali Jones, whose kindergartener Maddy has speech, behavioral, and cognitive delays, school-based therapies are an indispensable lifeline. These services provide critical support that is often financially and logistically out of reach for working families who cannot afford the high cost of private therapy or accommodate its demanding schedules. The school becomes the primary, and sometimes only, source for essential interventions that help children like Maddy develop the skills they need to succeed. When state funding falls short, it threatens the very foundation of this support system, leaving the state’s most vulnerable students at risk and placing an immense emotional and financial burden on their families, who must navigate a complex and often inadequate system of care.
Inside the classroom, the impact of insufficient funding is equally stark, creating challenging learning environments for both students and teachers. Stacey Sales, a third-grade teacher, has seen her class size swell to 27 students due to a lack of funding for paraprofessionals, the support staff who provide one-on-one and small-group assistance to students with special needs. Without adequate support, teachers are stretched thin, struggling to meet the diverse needs of a large group of students. This often leads to disruptions as students who require specialized attention must be shuffled between different rooms to receive support from the limited staff available. Such constant movement not only interrupts the learning process for those individual students but also creates a chaotic atmosphere that affects the entire class, undermining the stability and focus necessary for effective instruction and a positive educational experience for all.
An Ignored Solution
Frustrated by years of legislative inaction and the growing financial strain on their districts, the superintendents of Johnson County’s six public school systems have collectively proposed a clear and practical solution. In a joint letter addressed to state lawmakers, they identified a significant pool of available funds—approximately $269 million in general education money that went unused statewide in the previous year due to declining enrollment. This surplus, which would typically revert to the state’s general fund, presents a unique opportunity. The superintendents argued that reappropriating these existing, unspent dollars would be an “affordable and practical” way to fully cover the special education deficit without raising taxes or cutting other essential state services. They presented this as a non-partisan, common-sense fix to a long-standing problem.
Despite its simplicity and fiscal prudence, this proposal has so far failed to gain traction in the statehouse. The superintendents expressed profound frustration that legislative committees have not given the idea serious consideration, opting instead for minimal increases or no action at all. The failure to even debate this viable solution highlights a significant disconnect between the urgent needs of local school districts and the political priorities at the state level. By ignoring a readily available and fiscally responsible path forward, lawmakers have allowed the funding crisis to persist, forcing districts to continue making painful budgetary decisions that negatively impact students and educators across the region. The superintendents’ call for action underscores the belief that the means to solve the problem exist; what remains absent is the political will to implement them.
The Numbers and The Politics
A Widening Financial Chasm
A detailed analysis of the financial data reveals the staggering depth of the funding crisis, particularly in Johnson County. Across Kansas, the state is currently reimbursing school districts for an average of 64% of their excess special education costs—a figure that falls far short of the 92% mandated by state law. The situation is demonstrably worse in Johnson County, where the six public school districts receive a reimbursement rate of only 51%. This disparity forces these districts to cover a colossal $133 million shortfall using local, general education funds. Annually, the county’s schools spend $272 million to provide essential services for students with special needs, yet the state contributes only $139 million, leaving local taxpayers and the general student population to absorb the remaining financial burden, which is nearly half of the total cost.
This immense financial pressure is not static; it is intensifying at an alarming rate. Between 2025 and 2026 alone, the cost of providing special education services in Johnson County surged by 11%, an increase of over $27 million. According to school administrators like USD 232 Superintendent Cory Gibson, this rapid growth is driven by a confluence of factors, including an “increased identification of students with disabilities” and escalating “mental health and behavioral needs” among the student population. These trends indicate that the funding gap is on a trajectory to widen even further in the coming years. Without decisive legislative intervention to align state reimbursements with both legal requirements and the growing costs of providing services, the financial chasm will continue to expand, placing ever-greater strain on local resources and threatening the stability of the entire public education system.
A Political Stalemate
In the face of this well-documented and escalating crisis, the political response has been fragmented and, according to critics, woefully insufficient. Democratic Governor Laura Kelly proposed a budget that included a $50.6 million increase for special education, which would have raised the statewide reimbursement rate to approximately 70%. The Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE), recognizing the severity of the shortfall, recommended an even more substantial increase of $150 million, aiming to reach an 80% reimbursement rate. These proposals, while still short of the 92% legal mandate, represented significant steps toward alleviating the financial pressure on local districts. Both recommendations were grounded in the reality of rising costs and the clear language of the state statute, offering lawmakers a path toward fulfilling their obligations.
However, these efforts were largely dismissed in legislative committees, where the debate stalled. In the House K-12 Education Budget Committee, a motion by Representative Susan Estes proposed a minimal increase of just $10 million, an amount that would not even take effect until 2027 and would only nudge the reimbursement rate to 65.7%. Her rationale centered on the need for “budget stabilization” and fiscal restraint, a position sharply criticized by Democratic colleagues who deemed the amount “insulting.” A similar effort in the Senate, where Minority Leader Dinah Sykes moved to add $92 million for special education, also failed, with the subcommittee on education opting to make no additions to the budget at all. This legislative impasse has left the funding issue unresolved, pushing the budget forward with only minimal changes.
A Question of Moral Responsibility
As the legislative process unfolded, advocates for full funding successfully reframed the debate not merely as a budgetary dispute but as a profound moral issue. During a local board meeting, Olathe board member Claire Reagan articulated this sentiment with clarity, stating that providing for the state’s 80,000 students who rely on special education services is simply “the right thing to do.” This perspective shifted the conversation from one of fiscal constraints to one of ethical duty, arguing that the legislature has a fundamental responsibility to uphold its promises to its most vulnerable citizens. The consistent and urgent calls to action from educators, parents, and superintendents underscored a widespread belief that the state’s current approach represented a dereliction of both its legal and moral obligations, a failure that would have lasting consequences for an entire generation of students.
