Balance carried forward
$24.1Mpeak, end of FY23
$5.2M in FY18 (6.0% of that year’s tuition), $9.2M in FY25 (9.8%); 24.6% at the peak
Wichita State tuition carry-forward
The General Fees Fund, where Wichita State deposits tuition, as WSU reports it to the Kansas Board of Regents in its yearly tuition proposal (Appendix F-2), FY18–FY27, against the other state universities.
This page in plain English
What it shows
- Tuition carry-forward peaked, then fell (FY23 $24.1M → FY25 $9.2M, −62%, FY18–FY25).
- Tuition spending outpaced revenue (FY22 $83.9M → FY25 $104.7M, +24.7%, FY22–FY25).
- Carry-forward vs. state universities (9.8% of tuition revenue, FY25).
How to use this page
- The carry-forward is the tuition fund balance at year end, as Wichita State files it with the Board of Regents.
- The six-university chart shows each balance as a share of that university’s tuition revenue.
- Type a question in Ask the data for an answer in words, with the source.
Key figures
Built up, then spent down
+$18.8MFY19–FY23
then −$14.8M after FY23; −$11.0M in FY25 alone
Spending outran tuition revenue
+24.7%spending, FY22–FY25
revenue +5.5% ($88.7M → $93.6M); spending $83.9M → $104.7M
Budgeted vs. collected tuition
−$9.0MFY23, budget minus collected
FY21 −$4.3M; FY22 −$2.6M; FY24 +$4.6M; FY25 +$5.7M
Spring estimates vs. year-end results
−$9.2MFY25: result minus the spring estimate
FY21, FY22, FY23, FY24: results +$3.8M to +$5.3M above the estimate
Projections a year ahead vs. results
+$10.5MFY23: result minus the projection
FY21 +$7.7M; FY22 +$9.7M; FY24 +$0.2M; FY25 −$2.6M
Committed and uncommitted balance
$4.4Mcommitted for FY27
of $9.2M projected ($4.8M uncommitted); at the FY23 peak, $2.8M committed of $24.1M
Six state universities
9.8%Wichita State, FY25, share of revenue
second lowest of six; Pittsburg State 81.5%, Emporia State 57.3%, Fort Hays State 37.7%, Kansas State 33.0%, Kansas (Lawrence) 8.3%
The balance, year by year
Bars: balance at year end, with the balance as a share of that year’s tuition revenue. * estimated (FY26) or projected (FY27).
Tuition collected, spent and budgeted
Tuition collectedTuition spentBudget-book tuition line
When spending is above collections the balance falls; the gap between the dashed line and the blue line is what the budget books assumed against what came in. * estimated or projected.
| Year | Opening balance | Tuition collected | Tuition spent | Added (+) or drawn (−) | Closing balance | Share of revenue | Commitments stated |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY18 | $5.5M | $86.9M | $87.1M | −$0.3M | $5.2M | 6.0% | — |
| FY19 | $5.2M | $87.2M | $87.0M | +$0.2M | $5.5M | 6.3% | — |
| FY20 | $5.5M | $88.1M | $85.9M | +$2.2M | $7.6M | 8.7% | $1.1M |
| FY21 | $7.6M | $89.5M | $84.6M | +$4.9M | $12.5M | 14.0% | $1.6M |
| FY22 | $12.5M | $88.7M | $83.9M | +$4.8M | $17.3M | 19.5% | $2.6M |
| FY23 | $17.3M | $97.9M | $91.2M | +$6.7M | $24.1M | 24.6% | $2.8M |
| FY24 | $24.1M | $94.9M | $98.7M | −$3.8M | $20.2M | 21.3% | $3.0M |
| FY25 | $20.2M | $93.6M | $104.7M | −$11.0M | $9.2M | 9.8% | $3.9M |
| FY26 (est.) | $9.2M | $96.0M | $96.4M | −$0.4M | $8.8M | 9.2% | $4.2M |
| FY27 (proj.) | $8.8M | $98.0M | $97.6M | +$0.4M | $9.2M | 9.4% | $4.4M |
Each year’s actual figures come from the latest filing that shows it as actual. Commitments are the named reserves in the filing for that year (27th pay period, tuition shortfall, vehicle replacement, encumbrances).
The budget books’ tuition line against tuition collected
| Year | Budget-book tuition line | Tuition collected | Budget minus collected |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY18 | $88.7M | $86.9M | +$1.8M |
| FY19 | $89.5M | $87.2M | +$2.2M |
| FY20 | $89.2M | $88.1M | +$1.1M |
| FY21 | $85.2M | $89.5M | −$4.3M |
| FY22 | $86.1M | $88.7M | −$2.6M |
| FY23 | $88.9M | $97.9M | −$9.0M |
| FY24 | $99.5M | $94.9M | +$4.6M |
| FY25 | $99.3M | $93.6M | +$5.7M |
| FY26 (est.) | $97.4M | $96.0M | +$1.4M |
| FY27 (proj.) | $99.4M | $98.0M | +$1.4M |
The budget books’ line “General Fees Fund – Tuition” (Annual Operating Budget, FY2018–FY2027) against the revenue in the tuition fund summary. The books do not say whether the line includes carried-forward cash.
Forecasts against results
| Year | Projected a year ahead | Estimated that spring | Actual closing balance | Result minus projection | Result minus estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY19 | — | $5.3M (FY20 filing) | $5.5M | — | +$0.2M |
| FY20 | $5.3M (FY20 filing) | $6.0M (FY21 filing) | $7.6M | +$2.4M | +$1.7M |
| FY21 | $4.8M (FY21 filing) | $8.3M (FY22 filing) | $12.5M | +$7.7M | +$4.2M |
| FY22 | $7.7M (FY22 filing) | $13.6M (FY23 filing) | $17.3M | +$9.7M | +$3.8M |
| FY23 | $13.6M (FY23 filing) | $20.1M (FY24 filing) | $24.1M | +$10.5M | +$4.0M |
| FY24 | $20.1M (FY24 filing) | $14.9M (FY25 filing) | $20.2M | +$0.2M | +$5.3M |
| FY25 | $11.8M (FY25 filing) | $18.5M (FY26 filing) | $9.2M | −$2.6M | −$9.2M |
Each proposal estimates the current year’s closing balance and projects the next year’s. Positive = the year ended with more money than forecast.
The six state universities
Balance carried forward as a share of each university’s tuition revenue, FY25. The Regents’ packets hold the same table for every university; KU and K-State are their main campuses (KU Medical Center and K-State’s Veterinary Medical Center file separately).
| University | FY18 | FY19 | FY20 | FY21 | FY22 | FY23 | FY24 | FY25 | FY26* | FY27* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wichita State | 6.0% $5.2M | 6.3% $5.5M | 8.7% $7.6M | 14.0% $12.5M | 19.5% $17.3M | 24.6% $24.1M | 21.3% $20.2M | 9.8% $9.2M | 9.2% $8.8M est. | 9.4% $9.2M proj. |
| Kansas (Lawrence) | 8.9% $27.4M | 8.8% $28.0M | — | — | 18.0% $51.6M | 11.2% $33.1M | 8.9% $29.1M | 8.3% $29.9M | 2.7% $10.2M est. | 2.5% $9.9M proj. |
| Kansas State | 7.9% $17.3M | 11.7% $25.0M | — | — | 30.1% $60.4M | 36.5% $71.3M | 35.5% $72.3M | 33.0% $70.4M | 28.3% $63.8M est. | 24.2% $57.1M proj. |
| Emporia State | 16.7% $4.7M | 20.3% $5.7M | — | — | 53.1% $13.2M | 47.7% $11.4M | 58.9% $12.8M | 57.3% $12.4M | 59.1% $12.4M est. | 54.0% $12.4M proj. |
| Pittsburg State | 25.5% $9.3M | 34.8% $12.3M | — | — | 70.2% $21.6M | 75.4% $22.3M | 80.7% $24.7M | 81.5% $25.4M | 77.5% $24.4M est. | 75.5% $24.4M proj. |
| Fort Hays State | 21.7% $9.6M | 11.4% $5.3M | — | — | 16.0% $6.2M | 19.4% $7.4M | 20.8% $8.5M | 37.7% $16.4M | 37.0% $17.2M est. | 39.3% $19.0M proj. |
Share of revenue, with the closing balance below it. * estimated or projected. FY20 and FY21 are shown as actual only for Wichita State: for the others they are in packets not on file. On a phone: FY22–FY25.
The filings record
| Filing | What it shows | Compared with |
|---|---|---|
| FY25 filing | FY23 shown as actual: revenue $93.3M, spending $90.5M, closing $20.1M | The same figures, to the dollar, as the FY24 filing’s estimate; the FY27 filing shows FY23 at revenue $97.9M, spending $91.2M, closing $24.1M |
| FY25 filing, Wichita State | FY24 opening balance $20.7M | The table’s FY23 closing balance is $20.1M (difference +$0.6M) |
| FY25 filing, Wichita State | FY25 opening balance $19.4M | The table’s FY24 closing balance is $14.9M (difference +$4.5M) |
Differences of $100,000 or more between a year’s opening balance and the year before’s closing balance in the same table, and actual columns that repeat an earlier estimate. The tables do not explain them.
Context: tuition rates and budget cuts
| Year | Resident undergraduate tuition, per credit hour | Change | General Use budget |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY18 | $218.16 | — | |
| FY19 | $223.62 | +2.5% | |
| FY20 | $223.62 | no change | |
| FY21 | $228.09 | +2.0% | |
| FY22 | $228.09 | no change | General Use budgets cut 3% ($3.8M) |
| FY23 | $228.09 | no change | |
| FY24 | $241.55 | +5.9% | |
| FY25 | $250.97 | +3.9% | |
| FY26 | $259.75 | +3.5% | General Use budget reduction of 4.8% |
| FY27 | $272.48 | +4.9% |
Approved rates from the Board of Regents’ fee schedules; the budget cuts as WSU describes them in its tuition proposals.