Cherry Creek Schools

A Comparison of Expenditures from Several Colorado School Districts

Posted by:

|

On:

|

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 links in the District call will take you to the 24-25 audit files, the latest year available. RSI Pg refers to the document’s printed page numbers, not sequential PDF pages.

District RSI Pg Instruction ($) Student Services ($) Instructional Staff ($) Total GF Exp ($) Instr % Instr + SS % Instr + SS + IS %
RE-2 Boulder Valley 92 313,082,910 27,334,695 18,205,062 443,372,187 70.6% 76.8% 80.9%
D5 Cherry Creek 110 565,600,523 57,012,023 26,853,739 822,892,984 68.7% 75.7% 78.9%
D20 Academy 58–59 207,847,170 19,122,999 12,946,838 311,940,015 66.6% 72.8% 76.9%
RE-1 Douglas County 89, 107 608,755,377 57,475,654 29,318,915 909,779,284 66.9% 73.2% 76.4%
D12 Cheyenne Mountain 50 31,633,321 4,365,031 3,738,991 52,352,261 60.4% 68.8% 75.9%
RE-4 Weld County (Windsor) 48 71,727,390§ combined 13,701,276§§ 115,541,313 62.1% n/a 73.9%
R2-J Thompson SD 74 134,567,338 13,097,679 17,810,336 223,934,701 60.1% 65.9% 73.9%
D38 Lewis-Palmer 51 36,186,350 4,529,697 3,554,397 63,755,766 56.8% 63.9% 69.4%
D3 Widefield 53 67,349,664 11,510,324 6,146,097 123,661,359 54.5% 63.8% 68.7%
D8 Fountain 59–62 64,777,816 11,275,714a 3,600,358b 117,926,738 54.9% 64.5% 67.6%
D49 El Paso County 68 108,760,266 10,503,159 7,092,686 189,113,817 57.5% 63.1% 66.8%
D11 Colorado Springs 74 200,013,233 n/ac 24,521,453d 358,290,675 55.8% n/a n/a

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

Read the article

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

Read the study

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

Read the study

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.