Colorado school districts that boosted per-student spending by $8,000 or more saw their test scores decline just as much as districts that increased funding by only $1,000, according to a new analysis published by the Independence Institute. The study, released as voters prepare to decide on ballot measures that could redirect more than $3 billion annually toward K-12 education, finds no statistical relationship between spending increases and academic outcomes across Colorado districts from 2015 to 2024. Author Logan McCahill concludes that the state's learning gaps stem from developmental challenges, not inadequate funding.
Statewide per-student spending in Colorado climbed from an average of $17,400 in 2019 to $19,757 in 2024, adjusted for inflation and enrollment weighting, the report shows. Despite this growth, 59% of districts saw math scores fall and 71% experienced declines in English language arts proficiency following the pandemic. High-revenue districts fared no better than low-revenue ones: math scores dropped in 53.8% of the highest-revenue districts compared to 50% in the lowest-revenue districts. During the pre-COVID period from 2015 to 2019, when 85% of districts improved in math and 87% in English, the biggest gains weren't associated with the largest spending increases. A fixed-effects regression model covering the full decade found that a $1,000 increase in per-pupil revenue correlated with a statistically insignificant change in proficiency rates—between negative 0.021 and positive 0.012 percentage points, depending on the subject and sample.
The analysis arrives as Colorado voters face two November ballot measures: Proposition NN, which would permanently raise the state's revenue cap under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights by an amount equal to annual K-12 spending (currently about $4.6 billion), and Initiative 195, which would replace the state's 4.4% flat income tax with graduated rates as high as 8.4% on income over $1 million. According to the measures' own fiscal notes, the report states, Proposition NN would reduce TABOR refunds by $329.9 million in fiscal year 2026-27 and $521 million in 2027-28, or roughly $111 and $175 per tax filer. Initiative 195 would boost state income tax revenue by an estimated $2.7 billion annually. Neither measure includes accountability mechanisms to track how funds reach classrooms, the study notes—Proposition NN's fiscal note "assumes that school districts are not required to report specifically how the funds are used."
The disconnect between dollars and outcomes reflects broader structural problems in how Colorado allocates education money, McCahill argues. From 2002 to 2023, the report cites, the state's spending on employee benefits in education jumped 155.8%—the sixth-largest increase nationwide—while non-teaching staff grew by 48.2%, the seventh-largest gain. These shifts outpaced spending that directly reaches students, and separate national research finds no link between increases in non-instructional roles and student achievement gains. Colorado received $1.6 billion in federal COVID relief funding distributed to districts at their discretion, yet the infusion didn't prevent widespread score declines. The pattern held across every income level and enrollment size: academic achievement moved independently of spending whether scores were rising or falling, suggesting that factors beyond revenue—such as instructional methods, curriculum choices, or pandemic-related developmental disruption—drive results.
If voters approve the ballot measures, they'll surrender tax refunds and accept higher rates in exchange for a funding increase that Colorado's own data can't guarantee will improve outcomes. The study warns that without fiscal accountability, new revenue risks flowing toward administrative costs and benefits rather than classroom instruction, repeating a decades-long trend. McCahill's bottom line: COVID caused real harm to learning, but flooding districts with money hasn't proven to fix the gaps. "These gaps are not a funding problem, but a developmental one stemming from a loss of foundational learning," he writes. Voters should question whether $3 billion in new education spending will reliably help students when the evidence shows it hasn't yet.