General Fund Expenditure Comparison — FY2025
Twelve Colorado school districts · year ended June 30, 2025 · actual amounts · sorted by Instr + SS + IS % (high to low). Instr is the Instructional expenditures. SS is the Student services expenditures. IS is the Instructional Staff expenditures. These are standard accounting categories for school districts, as mandated by Colorado law. Some variations in how district audits report expenditures are noted in the footnotes below.
The districts selected below were selected because they are high-performing mid-sized and large districts or are larger Pikes Peak region district. The links in the Audit File column will take you to the 24-25 audit files, the latest year available. Page Num refers to the document’s printed page numbers, not sequential PDF pages.
| Audit File | Page Num | Instruction ($) | Student Services ($) | Instructional Staff ($) | Total GF Exp ($) | Instr % | Instr + SS % | Instr + SS + IS % | 2025 DPF Ratingf |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RE-2 Boulder Valley | 92 | 313,082,910‡ | 27,334,695 | 18,205,062 | 443,372,187 | 70.6% | 76.8% | 80.9% | Distinction 75.1% |
| D6 Littleton | 70 | 126,255,384 | 12,816,880 | 10,838,804 | 187,588,941 | 67.3% | 74.1% | 79.9% | Accredited 73.3% |
| D5 Cherry Creek | 110 | 565,600,523 | 57,012,023 | 26,853,739 | 822,892,984 | 68.7% | 75.7% | 78.9% | Accredited 67.8% |
| D20 Academy | 58–59 | 207,847,170 | 19,122,999 | 12,946,838 | 311,940,015 | 66.6% | 72.8% | 76.9% | Distinction 77.4% |
| RE-1 Douglas County | 89, 107 | 608,755,377† | 57,475,654 | 29,318,915 | 909,779,284 | 66.9% | 73.2% | 76.4% | Accredited 72.1% |
| R-1 Poudre | 88–90 | 287,198,197‖ | 33,645,952 | 22,274,298 | 449,520,117 | 63.9% | 71.4% | 76.3% | Accredited 67.4% |
| D12 Cheyenne Mountain | 50 | 31,633,321 | 4,365,031 | 3,738,991 | 52,352,261 | 60.4% | 68.8% | 75.9% | Distinction 84.3% |
| RE-4 Weld County (Windsor) | 48 | 71,727,390§ | combined | 13,701,276§§ | 115,541,313 | 62.1% | n/a | 73.9% | Accredited 66.4% |
| R2-J Thompson SD | 74 | 134,567,338¶ | 13,097,679 | 17,810,336 | 223,934,701 | 60.1% | 65.9% | 73.9% | Accredited 60.5% |
| D38 Lewis-Palmer | 51 | 36,186,350 | 4,529,697 | 3,554,397 | 63,755,766 | 56.8% | 63.9% | 69.4% | Accredited 72.7% |
| D3 Widefield | 53 | 67,349,664 | 11,510,324 | 6,146,097 | 123,661,359 | 54.5% | 63.8% | 68.7% | Accredited 58.0% |
| D8 Fountain | 59–62 | 64,777,816 | 11,275,714a | 3,600,358b | 117,926,738 | 54.9% | 64.5% | 67.6% | Accredited 57.1% |
| D49 El Paso County | 68 | 108,760,266 | 10,503,159 | 7,092,686 | 189,113,817 | 57.5% | 63.1% | 66.8% | Accredited 47.6% |
| D11 Colorado Springs | 74 | 200,013,233 | n/ac | 24,521,453d | 358,290,675 | 55.8% | n/a | n/a | Improvement Plan 48.9% |
Notes
a D8 Fountain · Student Services: figure shown is the “Counselors & SPED support” line — D8’s program-named equivalent of function-2100 (counseling, social work, special-education support staff).
b D8 Fountain · Instructional Staff: figure shown is the “Curriculum, Media & Staff Development” line — D8’s equivalent of function-2200. D8’s program-named lines may not capture every function-2200 sub-category that standard chart-of-accounts districts include.
c D11 Colorado Springs · Student Services: D11’s schedule does not break out a separate function-2100 line. The schedule’s “Pupil activities” line ($22.0M in FY25) is athletics & co-curriculars (function 0700), not Student Services. SS-dependent columns are therefore n/a; a function-2100 figure would have to come from D11’s detailed combining schedule (doc p. 97).
d D11 Colorado Springs · Instructional Staff: figure shown is the “Instructional support” line on the schedule, which corresponds to function 2200.
¶ R2-J Thompson SD: Instruction includes district direct instruction plus Charter School Allocation (reported as a separate line on R2-J’s schedule), for comparability with D20. FY2025: $108,878,744 + $25,688,594 = $134,567,338.
† RE-1 Douglas County: Instruction includes district direct instruction plus Charter School Allocations. FY2025: $398,202,910 + $210,552,467 = $608,755,377. RSI page citations refer to the Combined GF Budgetary Comparison Schedule (p. 89) and Schedule of Expenditures by Program (p. 107).
‡ RE-2 Boulder Valley: Instruction = Regular Programs + Special Programs. FY2025: $236,124,000 + $76,958,910 = $313,082,910.
§ RE-4 Weld County (Windsor): Instruction includes district direct instruction plus Charter School Funding. FY2025: $48,360,648 + $23,366,742 = $71,727,390.
§§ RE-4 Weld County · combined SS + IS: RE-4’s schedule reports a single combined “Pupil and instructional” line lumping Student Services (function 2100) and Instructional Staff Support (function 2200). They cannot be separated, so Instr + SS % is n/a; the combined value is shown in the Instructional Staff column and Instr + SS + IS % is computed correctly from the combined sum.
Source: each district’s General Fund Budgetary Comparison Schedule (Required Supplementary Information) from its FY2025 audited financial statements / ACFR. RSI Pg refers to the document’s printed page numbers, not sequential PDF pages. D11 Colorado Springs is shown last because its Instr + SS + IS % cannot be computed from the publicly reported schedule.
Research on Instructional Spending
School-Spending Patterns Can Influence Student Achievement
Education Week, 1993
An analysis of spending in 84 New York City high schools found that schools channeling more money directly to classroom instruction achieved higher standardized test scores. Schools that spent comparatively more on administration and non-instructional overhead showed no corresponding achievement premium. This study is among the first to document that the share of total spending allocated to instruction, not just total spending, is independently predictive of student achievement.
Instructional Expenditures and Student Achievement: A Multiyear Statewide Analysis
Journal of Education Finance / SpringerLink, 2014
A multi-year statewide analysis tested per-pupil instructional expenditures against state standardized test performance. Per-pupil instructional expenditures as a percentage of operational expenditures showed a statistically significant positive relationship with student performance. Regardless of the total size of a school district’s budget, student achievement increased as the percentage of instructional expenditure increased.
The Relationship Between School District Instructional Expenditures and Student Academic Performance
ERIC / Journal of Education Finance, 2017
A multi-year analysis of Texas school district accountability data found a relationship between instructional expenditure ratios and student performance. Districts spending less than 60 percent on instruction had significantly lower passing rates across all five tested subject areas than districts spending 60 to 65 percent. The relationship was statistically significant across all five years studied. The only category of district spending showing a meaningful independent relationship with STAAR performance was the proportion of the total operating budget dedicated to instructional expenses.
School Funding Effectiveness in California (LCFF)
Learning Policy Institute, 2023
A statewide longitudinal analysis of California school funding under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) found that increased funding significantly improved student outcomes, including test scores, graduation rates, and college readiness. Among all spending categories, instructional expenditures were the most strongly associated with achievement gains, accounting for the large majority of variation in spending effectiveness. The study shows that investments in classroom-focused inputs—such as teacher salaries, reduced class sizes, and staff stability—are the primary mechanisms through which funding translates into improved student performance, highlighting the central role of instruction-oriented spending rather than non-instructional categories.
California’s Local Control Funding Formula and Student Outcomes
Rucker Johnson, 2018
An evaluation of California’s Local Control Funding Formula found that increased school funding led to measurable gains in student achievement and graduation rates, particularly in high-need districts. The study identifies instruction-related expenditures—especially teacher compensation and staffing levels—as the key pathway linking funding increases to improved outcomes. By showing that gains were driven by investments directly tied to classroom instruction, the analysis reinforces that how money is spent matters, with instructional resources playing a central role in translating funding into student success.