Printed scenario snapshot · · · Base PPR inflation: %
Prepared by VAO CollaborativeCommissioned by Colorado Schools Fund
Prepared forKoson Network STEM School Highlands Ranch
School Funding Projection · District-Authorized Network
Koson Network Two-Campus Expansion Model
Last updated July 27, 2026 — FY28 launch build. COL factors confirmed against the CDE COL Comparison (5/7/26); FY26 actual and FY27 combined baseline added from the CDE Charter Pass-Through Model (7/24/26).
Projected funding for the Koson Network expansion from FY 2027-28 (launch year) through FY 2031-32, under HB25-1320 and SB26-023. STEM School Highlands Ranch continues as a K-8 in Douglas County RE-1 while a new 9-12 high school opens within Littleton Public Schools — two campuses, two accounting districts, each funded on its own demographics and its district's factors. This model provides a defensible third-party calculation the network can bring to both authorizing districts.
FY28 Projected (Network)—Launch year · 45% phase-in
FY32 Projected (Network)—Full new formula
FY28 → FY32 Change——
FY32 Network FPC—K-8 1,024 + HS 555 (defaults)
Two district-authorized campuses · model defaults · no published district estimates
01 · INPUTS & PROJECTION
STEM K-8 projection
An editable FY28–FY32 inputs matrix, the gross–net–PPR projection with year-over-year change, and a breakdown of where the funding comes from in any selected year. Defaults follow the agreed projection set — edit any cell directly or apply growth rates.
STEM K-8
STEM School Highlands Ranch — K-8
Authorizer: Douglas County RE-1 · Accounting district: Douglas County RE 1 (0900) · CDE school code: 5259
Highlands Ranch · district-authorized · 5% admin retention (modeled) · grades 9-12 move to Littleton in FY28.
Annual growth rates · FY29 → FY32 (compounded from FY28)
%
%
%
%
—
Projection · gross, admin, net, per-pupil, YoY
Where the funding comes from
FY27 is not modeled on this tab: in FY27 STEM School Highlands Ranch is still a combined K-12 school (~1,455 students). The combined-school FY26 actual ($16,207,435, CDE Charter Data) and FY27 baseline ($16,581,419 per the CDE pass-through tool method) appear on the Network tab. This tab models the K-8 configuration from FY28 forward, after the 9-12 grades move to the Littleton campus.
Shrinking-school note: the FY28–FY31 hold-harmless floor is the same-year old-formula calculation × 1.01, recomputed each year on the K-8's own pupil counts (SB26-023 §22-30.5-112(2)(c.7)). It scales down with the school automatically — no floor anchored to the 1,456-student era carries forward past FY27.
Demographic basis: CDE does not publish FRL or MLL by grade, so the K-8 campus inherits STEM HR's school-wide rates (at-risk 12.2%, MLL 2.7%) — labeled as an assumption. SPED uses the school's own grade-level IEP file: 88 IEPs across K-8. Enrollment holds the FY25-26 CDE grade distribution (1,024) flat; adjust the matrix or growth rates to test backfill scenarios.
01 · INPUTS & PROJECTION
Littleton HS projection
An editable FY28–FY32 inputs matrix, the gross–net–PPR projection with year-over-year change, and a breakdown of where the funding comes from in any selected year. Defaults follow the agreed projection set — edit any cell directly or apply growth rates.
LITTLETON HS
Koson Network High School (proposed) — Grades 9-12
Authorizer: Littleton Public Schools · Accounting district: Littleton 6 (0140) · CDE school code: pending
Annual growth rates · FY29 → FY32 (compounded from FY28)
%
%
%
%
—
Projection · gross, admin, net, per-pupil, YoY
Where the funding comes from
COL factor confirmed (7/14/26): Littleton 6's cost-of-living factor is 0.230 in both the January 2026 run (old study, applies FY27) and the May 2026 rebased study (applies FY28+) — verified against the CDE School Finance Run & COL Comparison file (5/7/26), where Littleton's May-to-January COL delta is zero. Unlike districts whose rebased factor stepped down (Harrison 0.197→0.165) or up (Douglas 0.223→0.230), Littleton sits at the 23% statutory cap under both studies.
New school — no receipts-based floor: with no FY25-26 funding received, there is no FY27-style hold-harmless anchor. The FY28–FY31 floor is the same-year old-formula leg × 1.01. That old leg is state-minimum-bound for this school: base + at-risk + ELL at Littleton's old-formula PPR comes in below the $11,302.82 × FPC statutory minimum (inflated), so the minimum drives the old leg — which is consistent with the $11,302.08 PPR the LPS budget application used.
Outside this model: LPS's recommended $1,200/FPC mill levy override (~$600K in Year 1) and LPS required purchased services ($83.81/pupil central admin + $145.28/pupil SPED) are not part of the total-program formula modeled here. The 5% admin retention shown is the portfolio-standard district-authorizer convention; LPS's application instead itemizes purchased services (~$229/pupil, roughly 2%).
Enrollment follows the LPS charter application ramp: 500 → 530 → 545 → 550 → 555 (all four grades from Year 1). Year 1 at 500 assumes roughly 70 net-new high schoolers beyond STEM HR's current 432 in grades 9-12 — the application's own assumption; use the matrix to test slower fill. Demographics mirror STEM HR (moving student body): at-risk 12.2% and MLL 2.7% school-wide as proxy, SPED 9.5% from the school's own 9-12 IEP counts. The model computes PPR from the statutory formula (district factors + the school's own demographic weights + phase-in), not the application's flat 3% escalator.
01 · NETWORK OVERVIEW
Koson network · two campuses
One network, two accounting districts. From FY 2027-28, STEM School Highlands Ranch operates as a K-8 (~1,024 pupils) in Douglas County RE-1 while a new high school (500 pupils in grades 9-12, ramping to 555) opens within Littleton 6 under the LPS charter application. HB25-1320 and SB26-023 phase the new charter-funding formula in — 45% in FY28, then 60/75/90/100% through FY32 — with a hold-harmless floor (same-year old-formula × 1.01 in FY28–FY31) that expires in FY32. The network total below is a sum of two independent calculations; each campus is funded on its own demographics and its accounting district's factors, so per-campus PPR is shown separately, not averaged.
BEFORE THE SPLIT · COMBINED K-12
FY26 actual & FY27 baseline — STEM School Highlands Ranch (combined K-12)
In FY26-27 STEM HR is still one K-12 school in Douglas County RE-1; the two-campus structure below begins in FY 2027-28. These baseline figures are computed under the CDE FY26-27 SB26-023 Charter Pass-Through Model (published 7/24/26), whose replicated calculation was validated to the cent against the tool's own cached outputs.
FY25-26 Actual Funding
$16,207,435
CDE Charter Data tab · combined K-12
FY26-27 Projected (Combined)
$16,581,419
Phase-in governs · PPR $11,400 on 1,454.5 FPC
FY27 Hold-Harmless Floor
$16,369,510
FY26 × 1.01 · not binding
FY27 detail (CDE tool method, DougCo factors, CDE counts: FPC 1,454.5 · at-risk 182.5 greater-of · ELL 37 · SPED 123): new-formula leg $16,593,225 · old-formula leg $16,576,360 (clears the $11,302.82 state minimum — unlike the post-split high school, whose old leg is minimum-bound) · 30% phase-in $16,581,419 > floor. The step from FY27 $16.58M combined to the FY28 network total below is mostly the high school growing from 432 to 500 pupils plus the 30%→45% phase-in, not a formula windfall.
SUM OF TWO INDEPENDENT CALCULATIONS
Network Funding · FY28 → FY32
FY28 Launch Year (Network)
—
Sum of two campus projections
FY32 Net to Network
—
After 5% district admin retention
Net Change FY28 → FY32
—
—
Five-year trajectory · FY28 launch → FY32 full formula
Gross total program — applicable amount each year per campus and for the network. The dotted line shows the full new-formula reference for the network.
STEM K-8 (DougCo)High School (Littleton)Network totalFull new-formula reference
Each campus side by side for the selected year, using the inputs currently in the matrices. Demographic percentages are count over headcount; per-pupil revenue is gross applicable total ÷ FPC, so it folds in each campus's demographics, its district's factors, and the phase-in. The highest value in each row is marked green, the lowest rust.
02 · PLANNING IMPLICATIONS
Reading the projection
Plain-language interpretation for school leaders, boards, and both district finance offices. Figures are presented as modeled scenario numbers, not recommendations.
Net effect on funding
The new formula adds explicit per-pupil weights for at-risk, ELL, and SPED populations (25% of base per identified student, rising with base PPR inflation). Both campuses carry comparatively low identified shares — at-risk ~12.2%, MLL ~2.7%, SPED ~8.6–9.5% — so the demographic uplift is modest and the campuses lean on the hold-harmless floor through FY31. The phase-in reaches 45% in FY28, then 60%, 75%, 90%, and 100% by FY32; the FY32 step, when the floor falls away, is where each campus's underlying position shows.
FY28 → FY32 network trajectory under current inputs: —Bill benefit at full implementation (FY32, per pupil): —
Two accounting districts
The K-8 is funded on Douglas County RE-1 factors (COL 0.223 FY27 study → 0.230 FY28+, district at-risk 15.2%); the high school on Littleton 6 factors (COL 0.230 under both the FY27 study and the May 2026 rebased study — at the 23% statutory cap — district at-risk 21.9%). Neither district triggers size or locale factors, and at ~12% school at-risk neither campus reaches the concentration threshold. The high school's old-formula leg is state-minimum-bound ($11,302.82 × FPC, inflated) — the same rate the LPS budget application used as its PPR.
What this model excludes
Total program formula funding only. LPS's recommended $1,200/FPC mill levy override (~$600K at 500 FPC) and both districts' MLO share arrangements sit outside the state formula, as do LPS's itemized purchased services ($83.81/pupil central admin + $145.28/pupil SPED). The 5% admin retention is the portfolio-standard district convention; actual authorizer charges at both districts should be substituted when agreements are final.
Risks to watch
COL factors are confirmed through FY28. Littleton is 0.230 under both the old study (FY27) and the May 2026 rebased study (FY28+), per the CDE COL Comparison file (5/7/26); Douglas steps 0.223→0.230. The next biennial COL study (commissioned 2027, applied FY29+) could move either district.
Year-1 enrollment ramp. 500 pupils in Year 1 assumes ~70 net-new high schoolers beyond STEM HR's current 432 in grades 9-12. A slower fill lowers both legs roughly proportionally — test with the matrix.
FY32 cliff. The hold-harmless floor expires in FY32; where the floor was binding in FY31, the step to 100% new formula can be a step-down. Both campuses show floor-binding years under default inputs.
Formula-interpretation gap between CDE and CSI tools. CDE's pass-through tool gates the at-risk concentration provisions on the charter's own count and at-risk share; CSI gates on the district. At ~12% at-risk, neither campus triggers any concentration branch under either reading, so the dispute is moot for this network — but it would matter if demographics shifted materially.
