Colorado adequacy studies find large funding gaps, urge statewide plan

Tracy Rainey, a presenter from the Colorado School Finance Project, told the Mesa County Valley School District No. 51 board that two independent adequacy studies ordered by the state reached similar conclusions: Colorado is billions of dollars short of the funding level needed for districts to meet state standards.

The studies used different methods — one an input-based professional judgment and evidence-based approach, the other an output-based cost-function analysis — but both recommended significant increases in base funding, changes to how teacher wages are adjusted and a rethinking of district-size and remoteness adjustments, Rainey said.

Why it matters: The studies were funded by the state and are intended to guide any revision of the public school finance formula, often referred to in the presentation as the “14 48” formula. Rainey said the two approaches differ in structure (a higher base with lower weights in the input model versus a lower base with higher weights in the output model) but agreed on major findings: teacher compensation is inadequate statewide, higher‑need districts have fewer resources and worse outcomes, and Colorado sits roughly $2,500–$3,000 per pupil below the national average.

Study details: The input study used educator panels and six representative districts to identify staff and program requirements, and recommended a wage index and district-size adjustment. The output study used regression-style cost analysis and recommended higher weights for certain categories. Both studies recommended removing or reworking the current locale factor and replacing it with a wage index and smoother size/remoteness adjustments, Rainey said.

Special education and English-language learners: The input model recommended differentiated weights for mild and moderate special-education students and state reimbursement for very high-cost students. For English-language learners, the input study used WIDA proficiency bands to adjust weights, while the output model applied a single ELL weight.

State next steps: Rainey said the legislation that required the studies also asked for reviews every five years but did not include an implementation timeline. She described a push within the education community for the legislature to convene an interim committee to choose a philosophy and set an implementation timeline.

Local context and reaction: Board members and district leaders who spoke after the presentation expressed concern about how long implementation might take and said they were prepared to continue local efforts to support schools while the state deliberates. Board members noted a roughly $3.5 billion shortfall cited in the presentation and a headline estimate that full implementation could require roughly a 39% increase under either model’s lower bound.

Rainey encouraged trustees and community members to review the full reports and the Colorado School Finance Project’s district fact sheets available online and said the project staff is available for follow-up briefings and local presentations.

Ending: The board did not take action; the presentation was delivered as an informational work‑session briefing and trustees were invited to request further information and outreach materials for the local community.