Title: Dollars and Data: A Look at K-12 Education Funding in Colorado | Common Sense Institute
Headings: Dollars and Data: A Look at K-12 Education Funding in Colorado
Dollars and Data: A Look at K-12 Education Funding in Colorado
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Here are some of the key findings from this study.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
METHODOLOGY
STATE CONTEXT
SCHOOL FINANCE ACT
SCHOOL FINANCE FUNDING SUMMARY
STUDENT POPULATION TRENDS
TRENDS IN EDUCATION REVENUE
LOCAL FUNDING
TAX TERMS
TRENDS IN EDUCATION SPENDING
INSTRUCTION AND SUPPORT EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURE EXAMPLES
TRENDS IN TEACHER SALARIES AND TURNOVER
TEACHER SALARIES
ADMINISTRATOR SALARIES
TEACHER TURNOVER
TEACHER SALARY AND TURNOVER SUMMARY
CONCLUSION
APPENDIX A: LIST OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY REGION
APPENDIX B: PER PUPIL REVENUES BY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 2017
APPENDIX C: MILL LEVY OVERRIDES BY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 2017
APPENDIX D: PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES BY SCHOOL DISTRICT, 2017

Content: Then it calculates how much each district will contribute through local revenues, and finally, backfills with state funding to get districts to their prescribed funding levels. The amount that local districts contribute to total program funding—which determines the amount of state subsidy to each district—is not based on an intentional policy design and varies dramatically throughout the state. A taxpayer with a median value home in Pueblo, for example, pays $673.55 in property taxes for total program education funding, while a taxpayer in Kit Carson also living in a median value home pays $194.83. Given these flaws in how local dollars are contributed by districts to K-12 funding, the system does not raise revenue in the most effective, or even logical, manner. In addition, structural flaws in the funding system lead to an inequitable distribution of revenues. When considering how revenues are allocated to school districts under Colorado’s funding formula, there are several elements that can be improved upon. The current formula, for example, distributes additional funding to districts with high costs of living. In some instances, this means wealthy localities such as Aspen School District are receiving more state dollars than poorer school districts, such as its neighbor, Lake County, even after Lake County receives extra funding for at-risk students. Put simply, wealthy districts are sometimes overcompensated by the state in an attempt to adjust for their higher cost of living. In addition, voters in some school districts have approved mill levy overrides to generate funding for their schools above and beyond what they get through the state’s education finance formula.