Some decisions are never too late, and others are damage done that should be undone. Rep. Ruby Dickson of Arapahoe County, mostly Centennial, is now a one-session legislator. She is vexed by the vicious vituperation at the state House. She had a promising career now short-circuited.

Dickson sponsored and passed eight bills, including equal TABOR funding legislation in the recent Special Session and lead-based paint abatement in child-occupied facilities in the general session. That’s a very good record for a freshperson legislator.

Only time will tell whether her resignation has any impact on behavior in an election year when, according to Minority House Leader Mike Lynch from Wellington, legislators have “no room to breathe” when every word they say is under a social media microscope. Dickson, in a not-too-late decision, has saved herself from the political vitriol. Good for her and too bad for citizens.

A decision that’s coming way too late, after irreparable harm has been done for more than a decade, is budgetary. House Speaker Julie McCluskie and Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen assert the 2024 state budget will clear up the K-12 “negative factor,” also known as the “budget stabilization factor,” that has underfunded public schools since the 2008 recession.

Stay up to speed: Sign-up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

According to reports, the underfunding was $1.15 billion in 2020. The debt showed a steady annual rise for 12 years from roughly 2008 to 2020, and then gradually decreased until, perhaps, 2024. If all goes well, in 2024 the annual debt will hit zero. Unfortunately, the 2024 budget will not close the accumulated $8 billion to $10 billion (does anyone know exactly?) that occurred between the Great Recession and now. The impact of that underfunding shows up everywhere a person has eyes to see.

Here’s a quick, simple review of what that underfunding means.

Every year the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) publishes performance reviews of school districts and individual schools. Though there are 178 school districts, some districts are too small for meaningful report data. The numbers here represent 111 districts that reported complete standardized test results in 2022 and 2023, demographic details, and financial information displayed in CDE’s “School View” where its accountability reports reside.

Starting with average household income as an indicator of a community’s relative financial status, the average across the state is about $69,000 to $70,000. Sixty school districts are in communities making less than $70,000 on average. Fifty-one make more than $70,000.

Below-average household income greatly affects district performance. Of the 60 districts with average household income less than $70,000-per-year, 38, a majority, are in the “Improvement” performance category; 20 are rated “Accredited”; only two are rated “Distinction.” The two Distinction districts are small, rural and serve fewer than 1,000 students, combined, in communities with below the state average of minority, Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) and English Language Learners (ELL).

Looking at income from another direction, the average household income of districts rated Distinction is $83,686 for the 11 districts with that designation in 2022. Accredited districts show average household income of $75,611, about $5,000 more than the statewide average. Average household income for Improvement districts is $63,142, or about $7,000 less than the statewide average and about $20,000 less than Distinction districts. A pattern is emerging.

For districts rated Distinction in 2022, none educated more than 50% of children on FRL.

Of 49 districts with an Accredited rating, 38, a majority, educated under 50% of students in FRL status, with two districts at 50% to 75%. Of 51 Improvement districts, all educated at least 25% of students on FRL status; 32 educated 50% to 75% of students in FRL status; seven districts, the lowest ranking, educated 75% to 100% of students in FRL status.

This story repeats with two other factors: ELL students and minority population. The average population of ELL students in 11 Distinction districts is 3%. The average population of ELL students for 51 Improvement districts is 21%. The average minority population of Distinction districts is 25%. The average minority population for Improvement districts is 54%.

Whether the data show 20-point differences in average household income between Distinction and Improvement districts or 20-point differences in ELL and minority populations, the impact is the same. Low-income and high FRL, ELL, and minority populations create an opportunity chasm among Colorado’s students that repeats every year.

The average performance rating for Distinction districts is 78.3 in 2022. The average performance rating for Improvement districts is 48. The 20-point average difference in average household income grows to a 30-point average difference in district performance rankings.

Poverty has run a war and poverty has won.

Past decisions to underfund schools, districts, teachers and students cannot be undone. That decision hasn’t really harmed Distinction districts with mostly affluent, low minority populations. It has greatly harmed rural, suburban and urban districts with high FRL, ELL and minority populations and low household incomes in communities.

Charter schools have not turned the tide on this battlefield. Charters replicate the same dismal story, with affluent, mostly white population charters reaching acceptable achievement and high FRL, ELL and minority student population charters showing low achievement numbers.

Frankly, the state owes students caught in this multi-year funding collapse something – money, free higher education, higher ed loan forgiveness, free apprenticeships, a down payment on a residence, rent support, a higher ed fund for their kids? Something?

Paula Noonan owns Colorado Capitol Watch, the state’s premier legislature tracking platform.