The district's FAQ names budget challenges, declining enrollment and special-education underfunding, but gives no program-specific savings figure. 1 The short version is on The Facts. This page has the numbers behind it.
Our numbers vs. theirs
Theirs: a projected "approximately a $4 million deficit" after about $6 million of reductions, and, as reported, about nine teacher positions saved if students leave the immersion schools, none if they stay. 3 2 Ours: a side-by-side estimate of what each alternative would add on top of cancelling, built from public records and labeled where it guesses.
Parents' estimates (model v1.0.0, 2026), not district figures: cost added on top of cancellation for the students enrolled K–8 in 2026–27, 2027–28 through 2034–35, in 2026–27 dollars. The deficit comparator is the district's projected $4 million. 3
Our readingConditional
Our arithmetic from a news report, not a district figure: nine teacher positions at the state's 2025–26 average Blue Valley teacher cost of $86,960 (salary, supplemental pay and board-paid insurance) is about $0.78 million a year, gross. That is the most the reported staffing change could save before counting teachers reassigned to vacancies the district would fill anyway, and only if families leave their current schools. 4 2
The biggest swing is how many families stay. With everything else at our base settings, the full-sunset estimate is about $1.5 million if every family stays at its current school and about $3.2 million if none do, because children who stay still need classroom teachers. That is why transfer families who intend to stay should say so; see Take Action, step 2. 2 5
How the estimate is built, and what would change it
- Basis. Students enrolled K–8 in 2026–27, school years 2027–28 through 2034–35, constant 2026–27 dollars. Each option's cost is what it adds on top of cancellation for the same children, so the baseline is "the same students in regular classes," not zero.
- Scenarios. LOW: every family stays, no 2023-era support costs remain. HIGH: every family leaves, all support costs continue. BASE sits between. None is a probability.
- Cost drivers. Teacher pairs (at least one per grade per school while a cohort runs), middle-school Chinese Language Arts sections, paraeducators, the dean, coaching, visas and materials. Cohort sizes are illustrative, from the 2022–23 headcounts and the 54-seat cap. 6 7
- Teacher cost. The model uses the district's 2026–27 contracted average of $85,732 plus 7.65% payroll tax. The state's 2025–26 salary report puts Blue Valley's average at $86,960 including supplemental pay and board-paid insurance. The two are close; we note both rather than change the model. 8 4
- Inputs we could only read from Board packets. Fourteen "ADDL TEACHING CI-YEAR" supplemental contracts at the two immersion elementary schools in 2025–26, with no amounts printed; vendor payments of $32,620 to Mandarin Matrix and $17,255 to Level Chinese in the June 30, 2026 claims report, with no fund or purpose printed. 9 10
- Not modeled. Families leaving the district, and high-school Chinese.
- What would change the answer. The placement-form counts, 2026–27 enrollment by grade, section schedules, the position list, and above all the district's own savings model. The pending records requests ask for most of these.
The one-page version for the Board is the Board brief.
The 2023 cost table
Documented
The district's April 25, 2023 task-force data report lists $510,000 per year budgeted for regular and Chinese-speaking paraeducators, within a $752,790 "current additional program cost" estimate that mixes actual and budgeted 2022–23 figures (456 students). 6
Program In-Excess Costs — Actual & Budgeted Expenditures 2022-23 6
| 2022–23 incremental item | Per year | Printed as |
|---|---|---|
| Program-teacher stipends | $39,340 | actual |
| Regular and Chinese-speaking paraeducators | $510,000 | budgeted |
| Chinese-speaking consultant | $46,800 | actual |
| Additional 0.5 FTE instructional-design coaching at each site | $72,000 | budgeted |
| Work authorization (visas) | $45,000 | budgeted |
| Mandarin resources (printed cost column) | $25,100 | budgeted |
| Conference substitutes | $6,600 | budgeted |
| Program onboarding / summer workshop | $4,950 | budgeted |
| Program maintenance / personnel investment | $3,000 | budgeted |
| Declared total | $752,790 | mixed |
The nine printed rows add exactly to the declared $752,790. That is about $1,651 per student at 456 students. The report separately projects "nearly $1.1 million per year for a maximum of 648 students" at full build-out. That is a forecast, not an appropriation. 6
Context for the $510,000 line: the report says two paraeducators per grade level supported larger classes and kept Mandarin going when a Chinese-side teacher was absent. 6 The adopted 2023 plan called for changing staffing: paraeducators would be hired when classes exceed Board-established pupil-to-teacher ratios, and a new bilingual Instructional Design Team position would be established for the program. 7
Discrepancies in the source, kept as printed
- The Mandarin-resources row lists components totaling $58,450 ($27,500 + $25,600 + $350 + $5,000), but its cost column says $25,100. Only $25,100 makes the rows add to the declared total. The report does not explain the difference.
- The report gives 456 students at "76.8% capacity," but 456 ÷ 648 (the stated full-build target) is 70.4%. A 594-seat count (eleven current site-grade cohorts × 54) gives 76.8%. That is a plausible explanation, but the district has not confirmed it.
- The 648-seat target is labeled "Full K-6," but K–6 at 54 per grade at two sites would be 756 seats.
How net savings should be measured
The right question
Net cancellation savings = G − C − R − T − L + V
- GGross expenditure currently attributed to the Chinese program
- CPart of G that continues or is reassigned and stays a district cost
- RAdded replacement or general-instruction cost under cancellation
- TOne-time transition cost
- LLost program-related revenue or induced costs
- VA verified outside hire avoided by reassigning staff (counted once)
In plain terms: start with what the program costs, subtract what the district keeps paying anyway, and subtract new costs the change creates. Every input is still missing from the public record, so the true figure is unknown, not zero.
A 50/50 immersion class still teaches the ordinary curriculum. Cancellation does not remove students' need for classroom teachers. If a Chinese-side teacher moves into a needed regular classroom, the program allocation disappears but the payroll continues. On the other hand, that move can avoid a separate hire for a real vacancy. Neither "every salary is saved" nor "reassignment saves nothing" is reliable without position-level records.
Illustration only: why the assumptions matter
Avoid / caution
Illustration, not a forecast. These are arbitrary illustrations, not district figures. The $500,000 pool is not the historical $510,000 and not a current budget. Every case assumes replacement cost R = $0, avoided hire V = $0 and lost revenue L = $0.
| Share of a $500,000 pool avoided | One-time transition | Year-one net | Later years, net |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25% | $50,000 | $75,000 | $125,000 |
| 50% | $50,000 | $200,000 | $250,000 |
| 75% | $50,000 | $325,000 | $375,000 |
| 100% | $50,000 | $450,000 | $500,000 |
| 25% | $150,000 | −$25,000 | $125,000 |
District-wide budget context
The pressure is real. The district's own October 9 video and its budget publication put it in numbers: about $6 million of reductions, about $12 million of reserves used to close the 2026 fiscal year, a projected $4 million deficit, and operating reserves down to 9.69% on July 1, 2026 (The Facts has the finding). 3 11 None of these figures is Chinese-specific, and none is a savings estimate.
Documented
The money that could absorb a continuation cost is the contingency reserve, $14,889,000 on July 1, 2026, not the general fund or local option budget, whose year-end balances are near zero by design ($252,048 and $668,888 at June 30, 2025); the district's audit says those balances "should not be considered as additional resources." Current Kansas law sets no percentage cap on the contingency reserve and leaves "financial contingencies" to the Board. A reserve is one-time money and a program is a recurring cost, so this shows capacity to bridge, not to fund a program indefinitely. 11 12 13
What the Board record shows about the reductions
- In March 2026 the superintendent told the Board the district had "already made the reductions that we can" and that there is "not one program or one thing that we do that I can say yeah we don't really need that." Seven months later one program is being cut without a published comparison, which is the gap this site asks the Board to close. 14
- A "three-phase approach to addressing the current budget deficit" was described to an advisory committee in February 2026. No itemized list of the phases or of the roughly $6 million in reductions appears in any Board packet we reviewed. 15 3
- The legally required budget hearing on September 14, 2026 drew no public comment and included no program-level reduction list. 16
- Scale: the 2023 program-cost estimate equals about 0.27% of that year's operating spending; see the administrator-compensation section below. 6 17
Budget at a Glance figures
These figures confirm enrollment pressure in general terms ( is a funding count). All-funds totals include restricted, capital and debt funds, so a large district-wide total does not mean the district can legally or sustainably spend the same dollars on this program. 8 18
District-wide figures from the 2026–27 Budget at a Glance. None of these is Chinese-specific or a savings estimate.
| District-wide (not Chinese-specific) | 2024–25 actual | 2025–26 actual | 2026–27 budget |
|---|---|---|---|
| All-funds total expenditures 8 | $402,931,947 | $427,821,611 | $461,684,860 |
| Current expenditures (excludes capital outlay and bond debt) 8 | $308,838,294 | $330,863,882 | $359,806,934 |
| General + supplemental general expenditures 8 | $170,885,173 | $178,675,522 | $180,670,569 |
Budget-aid FTE enrollment, excluding virtual 8. That is 279.6 FTE (about 1.28%) lower from 2023–24 actual to the 2026–27 budget. Aid FTE is a funding count, not a headcount of Chinese-program students.
| 2022–23 | 2023–24 | 2024–25 | 2025–26 | 2026–27 budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21,810.2 | 21,853.8 | 21,749.9 | 21,575.7 | 21,574.2 |
State special-education funding
The district's FAQ names special-education underfunding as one reason for the change. Here is what the official state and district sources say. 1
Documented
Kansas law computes special-education state aid as 92% of statewide excess costs, but the amount is "subject to appropriation acts of the legislature." 19
Documented
Kansas law computes special-education state aid at 92% of statewide excess costs, "subject to appropriation acts of the legislature." For 2026–27, the Division of the Budget reports that the $617.0 million appropriated "will provide just 65.3 percent of school districts' special education excess costs." KSDE reports 71.6% for 2023–24 (actual). 19 20 21
Our reading
There is a competing calculation. The Kansas Policy Institute argues that the state's figure leaves out local option budget (LOB) money that special-education aid generates, and that counting it put funding above 92% in 2023–2025. That money is mostly local property tax, plus some state equalization aid. The statute's 92% refers to state aid, and the 2024 Legislature considered a version of the bill that would have counted LOB toward the 92% but did not enact it. Expect this argument; answer it by explaining what is being counted, not by disputing the arithmetic. 22 19 23 24
Documented
Blue Valley says that in 2025 "more than $16 million" was transferred from its general fund to cover the special-education funding shortfall, projected to rise to $18 million for 2026. 25
Blue Valley's $16 million and $18 million are the district's own figures for money moved from its general fund. They are not the same thing as a statewide "shortfall" computed under the statute, so do not treat the two as interchangeable. 25 19
Documented
The state's Budget Stabilization Fund (its rainy-day fund) is projected at nearly $2.0 billion by the end of FY 2027. This is separate from the State General Fund ending balance, projected at about $2.10 billion for FY 2026 and $1.55 billion for FY 2027 (the report prints the FY 2027 figure as both $1,554.4 million and $1,557.4 million). These are approved-budget projections, not year-end actuals. 20
Our reading
State special-education funding is a real pressure on the district's budget and a fair issue to raise with legislators. It does not, by itself, show how much ending Chinese saves or whether a current-cohort pathway is affordable. Those questions still need the district's own numbers. 25 1
Records that would answer the question
The Kansas Open Records Act gives access to existing records. It does not require the district to create a new analysis. Asking the administration to prepare a comparison is an advocacy request to the Board, not a records request. 26 Parents have already requested most of the records below; see records already requested.
The missing records, by category
- FIN01Current program accounts, actual spending and FTE by school, year, job category and funding source
- FIN02The 2027–28 cancellation baseline and annual net-savings model, with formulas
- FIN03Deidentified position-level elimination, attrition, reassignment and replacement mapping
- FIN04Aggregate applications, offers, enrollment, waitlist and withdrawals by grade and site
- FIN05Section schedules, bilingual and paraeducator allocations, vacancies and feasible staffing
- FIN06Transition dates, materials, contracts, transportation and course-placement costs
- FIN07The native 2023 cost model, final 2022–23 actuals and explanation of the discrepancies above
- FIN08Program revenues and restrictions, and any actual outside-support commitments
- FIN09Any existing grandfathering, clustering or bridge analyses, and rejected-option assumptions
- FIN10High-school section minimums, placement and credit rules after lower grades end
Administrator compensation and administrative spending
Administrator compensation and administrative spending. An independent review re-checked the public administrator-compensation figures against official state and district records. Only aggregate, position-level findings are published here. No individual's pay is listed, and no administrator salary is presented as an avoidable saving. The named-payroll material in the underlying research is not published.
Our readingConditional
Scale check, same year, arithmetic only: the district's 2023 estimate of the Chinese program's added cost, $752,790 for 2022–23, equals about 0.27% of that year's $280,877,433 operating spending and about 4% of general plus school administration. The two figures use different accounting, the $752,790 mixes actual and budgeted amounts, and neither is a current savings figure. 6 17
Avoid / caution
Do not say administrators got a raise while Chinese was cut, and do not treat administrator salaries as money available for Chinese. The only administrator increase found (4% for 2025–26) matched every employee group, no 2026–27 increase has been found, and the 2026–27 administrator total is lower. Many administrator salaries are set by fixed-term contracts (the prior superintendent's barred reductions during its term), duties still have to be covered, and nothing here shows waste or overpayment. Criticize budget choices, not people. 27 28 29 8
The figures, aggregate only
Documented
Blue Valley's broad "administrators" pay category (principals, assistant principals, directors and central-office leaders; salary plus supplemental pay and board-paid insurance) rose from $15,339,409 in 2022–23 to $19,020,986 in 2025–26, a 24.0% increase while administrator FTE rose 2.2%. The 2026–27 contracted figure is $18,700,000 for 107.0 FTE, which is $320,986 (1.7%) lower than 2025–26. 30 8
Documented
On the state's comparable operating basis, general plus school administration was 6.29% of Blue Valley's operating spending in 2024–25 ($21,062,711 of $334,805,071), down from 6.62% in 2022–23: dollars rose, the share fell. The 2026–27 all-funds budget plans instruction at $233,076,934, up 9%, and "Administration & Support" at $38,991,000, down 4%. 31 17 8
Documented
On August 11, 2025, the Board approved an overall increase of 4% for administrators for 2025–26, the same percentage it approved for classified staff and for each cell of the teacher salary schedule. We have found no Board approval of administrator compensation for 2026–27; the October 12, 2026 agenda lists teacher and classified compensation only. 27 28
The administrator pay category and the state's administration functions overlap (principals' pay sits in both), so the two sets of figures must not be added together. 8 31