Colorado taxpayers could soon be paying significantly more for K-12 education, despite little evidence it improves educational outcomes, or any guarantee the money will reach students. Voters will likely face two ballot measures this November election: Proposition NN (created by Senate Bill 135), which is confirmed to be on the ballot, and Initiative #195, which is still gathering signatures.
Both measures aim to allocate more money towards K-12 education through different avenues: Proposition NN asks voters to give up refunds of overcollected tax revenue under the state’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), while Initiative 195 restructures how they’re taxed entirely by swapping Colorado’s flat income tax for a “progressive” or graduated tax. While the measures sound appealing to some on paper, voters should ask whether increased education spending actually improves outcomes for Colorado students. The data say no.
The post-COVID era
Data from the Colorado Department of Education highlights the trajectory of Colorado test scores. Consistent with national trends, Colorado test scores dropped after the COVID-19 pandemic, as measured by CMAS—Colorado’s standardized educational assessment. To address the trends, Colorado increased education funding, from an average of $17,400 per student in 2019 to $19,757 in 2024, after adjusting for inflation and weighting for enrollment.
Despite spending increases, 59% of school districts saw math scores decline and 70% saw english language arts (ELA) scores decline between 2019 and 2024. Scores in high-revenue districts declined as much as low-revenue ones.
Districts that increased funding by $6,000 or more per student managed no better than those that increased by $800. Pueblo City Schools, for example, increased spending by over $6,500 per student and saw ELA scores fall by 6.2%. In comparison, Widefield School District increased spending by $800 per student and saw ELA scores fall by 6.3%. If underfunding were the issue, we would expect higher-revenue districts to recover faster than lower-revenue ones, but that’s not the case. COVID-19 was a severe interruption for educational and social development—a problem that throwing more money at didn’t fix.
Pre-COVID era
Unfortunately, this disconnect between spending and outcomes didn’t begin with the pandemic. In the years leading up to COVID, school districts were generally increasing their spending and improving outcomes, as 85% of districts improved in Math and 87% in ELA. However, achievement varied regardless of revenue or enrollment. Districts with modest spending increases improved just as much, or more, than districts with large spending increases.
Consider the contrast between two similarly sized districts from 2015-2019. Fountain 8 school district raised its spending by $5,291 per student, and math scores increased by 0.8% and ELA by 2.2%. Pueblo County Rural spent only $312 more per student but improved math scores by 6.8% and ELA by 4.6%. Even when scores were progressing, spending wasn’t reliably driving the improvement.
Spending accountability
Not only would Proposition NN and Initiative 195 be unlikely to improve outcomes with increased spending, but they both lack fiscal accountability.
SB26-135’s own fiscal note “assumes that school districts are not required to report specifically how the funds are used to CDE.” Essentially, it tells districts to use money towards classrooms and teachers but does not check their spending.
Initiative 195 checks spending closely on the back end, but there’s no guarantee of how much will reach K-12 classrooms. The bill states the revenue must be spent on: (a) Colorado Public School Education…(b) Health Care…(c) Early Child Care and Education. There’s no formula deciding how much goes toward each bucket.
This structural gap has real consequences. Colorado has a track record of education spending flowing away from instruction.
One study from the Reason Foundation shows that from 2002 to 2023, Colorado spending on employee benefits in education increased by 155.8%—the 6th largest increase in the nation—while non-teaching staff grew by 48.2%, the 7th largest increase nationally. These increases have some justification, but their rate of increase outpaces spending that reaches students directly. A separate Reason Foundation analysis of national K-12 staffing trends found that these increases in non-instructional roles are not associated with gains in student achievement. Colorado’s pattern of increased education spending without verification of how it’s spent could explain why more revenue hasn’t resulted in improved outcomes. Proposition NN and Initiative 195 are no different.
Some things money can’t buy
COVID caused real damage to education, but allocating more revenue into school districts hasn’t proven to resolve the shortfalls in test scores. These gaps aren’t a funding problem, but a developmental one from a loss of foundational learning. Proponents of increased spending are misjudging the idea that they can buy back the years lost to disrupted learning.
If voters are expected to give up refunds and raise taxes to increase school funding, they deserve a guarantee that it will reliably improve outcomes for students. The evidence doesn’t confirm that it does.
