Denver voters overwhelmingly approved the largest bond measure in Denver Public Schools history on the promise that every school — including charter campuses — would receive something.

And they did.

But the nearly $1 billion bond was not distributed evenly. Schools that remained open were allocated about 57% more bond funding on average than campuses later identified for closure or restructuring, a Denver Gazette analysis of district planning records shows.

Campuses marked for closure received about $2.6 million on average, compared with roughly $4.1 million for schools that remained open.

That disparity has led some to surmise that how the bond was sold to the public was misleading — by telling voters each school would get money without disclosing that several would receive way less. That knowledge, those critics said, could have swayed the election in a different direction.

“It is true that we indicated and plan for all buildings to receive something from the bond package, but we never said that the amounts would be equal,” district spokesperson Scott Pribble said.

Pribble said need is what dictated the choices.

Some buildings, he said, required more critical maintenance, while maintenance at smaller buildings also does not cost the same as larger facilities.

District officials said critical maintenance projects will still be carried out at closed and restructured schools. A Denver Gazette analysis found that about $8.1 million of the funding for those 10 campuses is tied to maintenance-related projects. The remaining funds — roughly $18 million — were allocated to other projects, raising questions about how those dollars would be used.

‘A hard pill to swallow’

An analysis of district planning records found significant disparities across campuses.

Among the findings:

• The allocations for closed or restructured campuses totaled $26.2 million
• Across the district, campus spending ranged from as little as $15,120 at Rocky Mountain Prep Sunnyside to $24 million at the Paul Sandoval campus, which is shared by Northfield High School and DSST-Conservatory Green High School.
• Roughly three out of four campuses received an allocation of $1 million or more 
• About a dozen schools received less than $100,000 in bond funding
• Twenty properties got more than $10 million

Capital improvements are planned and funded at the campus level. But because multiple schools or programs may operate at a single site, the Denver Gazette analyzed allocations by physical campus.

Board President Xóchitl Gaytán declined to comment about the disparities. Instead, she directed The Denver Gazette to comments she made 17 months ago on the day of the school closure vote.

District officials have justified the closures, warning more are likely to come because of the declining enrollment spurred by lower birth rates, rising housing costs and gentrification.

After peaking in the 2019-2020 school year with 92,112 students, district enrollment has dipped roughly 3% to 89,210, state data shows.

“I do believe the numbers that DPS has represented,” Gaytán said before the vote. “They’re a hard pill to swallow.”

Gaytán represents southwest Denver, which bore the brunt of school closures in 2024 and is expected to continue experiencing a decline in school-age students.

Since 2019, Southwest Denver has lost roughly 20% of its students, the most profound decline in the district. The northwest region is down 9%, while in the central region, it’s down 7%.

The board unanimously voted to shutter Columbian Elementary, Castro Elementary, Schmitt Elementary, International Academy of Denver at Harrington, Palmer Elementary, West Middle School and Denver School of Innovation and Sustainable Design.

They also approved restructuring Kunsmiller Creative Arts Academy, Dora Moore and the Denver Center for International Studies at Baker.

Collectively, these schools were allocated $26.2 million from the 2024 bond, planning documents obtained under the Colorado Open Records Act show.

‘The process has been a sham’

Voters overwhelmingly approved the $975 million bond package in November 2024. Two days later, Superintendent Alex Marrero released a closure list — without a boundary or impact study — that included schools already slated to receive millions.

The closure list was expected in October.

But Marrero requested a one-time extension, citing the need for the October Count enrollment data for his team to complete the analysis. As previously reported by The Denver Gazette, Marrero’s team actually used September enrollment data, district documents show.

The timing carried added weight because district leaders were simultaneously asking voters to approve the largest bond package in its history — with assurances it would not increase taxes.

Those concerns were voiced in real time.

“We find that the process has been a sham,” State Rep. Tim Hernandez, D-Denver, said at the time.

A former DPS teacher, Hernandez urged board members not to support closures.

District officials and the board have defended Marrero, saying his actions were not nefarious.

While both conditions were met at the time, district officials have since signaled a mill levy override could be needed to address ongoing financial pressures.

The October Count — which the district cited as the reason for the delay — is a key benchmark used to determine state school funding.

Every year on Oct. 1, school districts across the state conduct what’s called the “October Count,” which is used to determine school funding.

The financial pressure driving those decisions is rooted in how schools are funded.

In Colorado, enrollment is tied to state funding, which in Denver accounts for about 17 cents on the dollar.

The state share in Denver has been shrinking over the past two decades from 35% to 17%, while the portion coming from property taxes increased from about 58% to roughly three-quarters today, district audits show.

That shift has left district like Denver more dependent on local funding, which is not tied to enrollment.

Because fewer students mean less money for the district, DPS officials have looked to school closures to trim costs.

Since 2023, the district has closed 10 schools and reconfigured three others. Seven of these closures were first targeted in 2022, when Marrero’s list faced intense community pushback prompting the district to abandon the plan.

‘Misleading’

Kate Grimm voted for the 2024 bond.

And then when the board closed Palmer Elementary, where her son attended kindergarten, Grimm said she visited half a dozen schools before landing on Carson Elementary.

Grimm wasn’t surprised allocations differed across the district. But what shocked her was the gap between similar schools.

“I would have expected spending to be similar for comparable buildings,” Grimm said.

Having a fuller picture now, Grimm said the bond measure was “misleading.”

“Who knows if the outcome would have been exactly the same, but it certainly would have been a different conversation,” she said.

Marrero was prohibited from recommending school closures solely on enrollment, as was done in shuttering Denver Discovery, Mathematics and Science Leadership Academy and Fairview Elementary three years ago. So, his team used “building utilization rates.”

Education finance experts say disparities like those Grimm observed are not uncommon in systems driven by enrollment and competition.

“What you have is a circular relationship,” said Mark Weber, an education policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective. “You then have a school in a death spiral.”

Schools with fewer resources may struggle to attract students, which can further reduce enrollment — and funding.

“At the end of the day, what winds up happening is you get winners and by default you also get losers,” Weber said.

But others say the district’s allocations reflect the realities of those dynamics.

“If they already knew which schools were going to close — behind closed doors — then wouldn’t it make sense that they would spend less at those schools,” said David Knight, an education finance expert and fellow at the National Education Policy Center in Boulder.

In that kind of system, experts say, declining enrollment isn’t just a cause of closures — it can also be the result of earlier decisions.

“It’s not surprising that people don’t want to send their kids to the worst funded schools,” Weber said.