for
Network Funding Projection
Wildflower Public Schools
of Colorado
Projected funding from FY 2025-26 baseline through FY 2031-32, under HB25-1320 and SB26-023 — Aurora combined campus and the Grand Valley campus, with per-input growth assumptions and year-over-year tracking.
01 · INPUTS & PER-CAMPUS PROJECTION
What each campus is funded
Each campus shows its FY26 baseline, an editable FY27-FY32 inputs matrix, the gross-net-PPR projection with year-over-year change, and a breakdown of where the funding is coming from in any selected year. FY27 defaults to figures Wildflower submitted to CSI. FY28-FY32 default to FY27 values — set separate growth rates for enrollment, at-risk, ELL, and SPED below, or edit any cell directly.
Wildflower Aurora
Authorizer: CSI · Accounting district: Adams-Arapahoe 28J (0180) · CDE codes: 9596;9606
CSI administers the two Aurora campuses as a single combined campus.
FY26 actual baseline
FY27-FY32 inputs (editable)
Projection · gross, admin, net, per-pupil, YoY on PPR
Where the funding comes from
Wildflower Grand Valley
Authorizer: CSI · Accounting district: Mesa County Valley 51 (2000) · CDE code: 9598
Grand Junction; single campus.
FY26 actual baseline
FY27-FY32 inputs (editable)
Projection · gross, admin, net, per-pupil, YoY on PPR
Where the funding comes from
02 · NETWORK ROLLUP
Network total — Aurora plus Grand Valley
The network total is a sum of two independent calculations. Each campus is funded on its own demographics, district factors, and floor mechanics — the rollup just adds the results.
Network Funding · FY26 → FY32
Seven-year trajectory · FY26 actual → FY32 projection
Gross total program — applicable amount each year, with FY26 as the prior-methodology starting point. The dotted line shows what each campus would receive at full new-formula implementation each year; the gap closes through phase-in.
03 · WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOUR SCHOOL
How to read this — and what to watch
School-leader guidance written in plain language. The funding formula is changing in ways that broadly favor schools serving the populations Wildflower serves, but small enrollment makes the trajectory more sensitive than it would be at a larger campus. The sections below explain why, what moves the needle, what to watch over time, and how to use this tool to test scenarios.
Is the new formula good for your school?
Yes, materially. The new formula recognizes at-risk, ELL, and SPED populations with explicit per-pupil weights (about $2,225 per identified student in FY27, rising with base PPR inflation thereafter). Both Wildflower campuses serve student populations where these weights apply, and the FY26-to-FY32 trajectory on this page shows funding rising under the phase-in even at flat demographics — and rising faster if the campus continues to grow.
The phase-in runs in 15-percentage-point increments: 30% new formula in FY27, then 45%, 60%, 75%, 90%, and 100% by FY32. So the largest year-over-year increases are still ahead.
FY26 → FY32 trajectory under current inputs: —Why small enrollment makes this sensitive
The new-formula per-pupil weights are flat dollars — $2,225 for each at-risk, ELL, or SPED student in FY27 — but those dollars hit a much larger share of total program at a small school than at a large one.
At Wildflower Aurora's 89-pupil FY27 plan, each ELL student is roughly 0.2% of total program. At Grand Valley's 54-pupil plan, each SPED student is roughly 0.36% of total. By contrast, a 500-pupil school sees those same single-student swings at about 0.04% of total — almost an order of magnitude smaller.
The practical implication: count accuracy, FRL form completion, IEP identification practices, and accurate enrollment projection submissions matter more at a small school than at a large one. Three missed FRL forms can equal $7,000 in lost annual funding.
What changes really move the needle
Three levers move funding meaningfully for these campuses, in roughly this order:
- Enrollment (FPC). The largest lever. Each pupil pulls roughly $8,900 base + COL/locale/size adjustments + 25% weights for any pupil also identified as at-risk/ELL/SPED. A 10-pupil swing at Aurora is roughly $100K-$150K depending on the demographic mix.
- At-risk identification. Every additional FRL-eligible student adds $2,225/year in FY27, rising with base PPR. FRL form completion campaigns are typically the highest-yield administrative investment at a small school.
- SPED and ELL identification. Both behave identically to at-risk at 25%. The new-formula weight stacks on top of federal IDEA funding and state ELL grants — it does not displace them.
Try the per-input growth-rate buttons above each campus to see how each lever propagates from FY27 through FY32 separately. A scenario with enrollment flat but at-risk growing 10%/year looks very different from one with enrollment growing and at-risk flat.
Concerns to watch over the next few years
- January 2027 true-up. FY27 figures get reset against the certified October 2026 count. Movement of ±5% is normal. Build budget contingency.
- Enrollment underperformance. The single biggest dollar-risk for a small campus is missing the enrollment plan. Falling short by 10 students at Aurora (~11%) reduces total program by roughly $90K-$130K in FY27 at typical demographics. The new formula's per-pupil weights compound this — fewer enrolled students also means fewer triggering weights.
- Hold-harmless floor termination. The floor protects schools through FY31 (you receive the greater of the phase-in amount or the same-year old-formula × 1.01). FY32 has no floor. For Wildflower, the floor does not bind at default inputs in any year, so this is not a current concern — but a sharp enrollment or demographic decline before FY32 could change that.
- Smoothing factor (L027). Begins FY28. CSI has not yet published the smoothing factor methodology for future years. This tool will need updating once those rates are released.
How to use this tool
Start at defaults. The FY27 cells default to what Wildflower submitted to CSI; the FY28-FY32 cells default to those same FY27 values held flat. The hero numbers at the top reflect this baseline scenario.
Use the growth-rate buttons to model different trajectories cleanly. Set enrollment, at-risk, ELL, and SPED rates separately, click "Apply to FY28-FY32," and the matrix fills in. Edit any individual cell to override.
Use the "Compare FY27 ↔ FY32" toggle in the funding-source breakdown to see which components grow under the phase-in. The compare view shows the gap that the phase-in is closing.
Print or save as PDF using the button at the top to share a scenario with a board or finance committee. The printout includes the input cells, so the scenario is documented.
What this tool does not model
Hold-harmless floor for declining enrollment. CSI computes separate funded-pupil counts under different statutory averaging rules for the new and old formula legs. For stable-enrollment schools (Wildflower's case) the two counts converge and this tool matches CSI exactly. A school in genuine enrollment decline would see the old-formula leg projected too low here, which understates the FY28-FY31 floor calculation — not a current Wildflower concern but worth flagging.
Smoothing factor for FY28+. The L027 smoothing factor begins at 45% new-formula implementation (FY28). Rates have not yet been published by CSI; this tool models without smoothing.
Federal and state non-formula revenue. Title I, IDEA, ELL grants, and other categorical funding sit outside this calculation. New-formula weights stack on top of those revenue streams.
04 · METHODOLOGY & CAVEATS
How these figures are built
The calculation engine implements CSI's finalized FY27 charter funding methodology and the FY28-32 phase-in schedule set by HB25-1320, with CDE's authoritative FY28+ cost-of-living factors from the April 2026 study. All calculations reconcile to CSI's published FY27 estimates ($1,095,546 Aurora; $614,988 Grand Valley) at default FY27 inputs.
Key takeaways — the short version
FY26 baseline
FY26 actuals are taken from the CSI records reflected in the canonical engine ($697,492 Aurora; $463,515 Grand Valley). FY26 was computed under the prior methodology, not the HB25-1320 / SB26-023 framework — it's shown here as a "where we're coming from" reference, not a comparable formula output. Year-over-year changes for FY27 are calculated against FY26 actual; the FY27 jump reflects both the new bill and enrollment growth.
New formula components (the funding sources)
Base PPR × FPC, plus at-risk / ELL / SPED at 25% of base PPR per pupil in each category, plus cost-of-living, locale, and size factors applied to the base. Concentration factor (7% of base × FRL) requires school AR > 70% in a district under 7,000 funded count with district AR > 70%. Neither Wildflower campus qualifies; locale and size are zero for both Wildflower districts.
Phase-in to full new formula
FY27-FY31 funding is a blend of the prior (1994) formula and the new formula, weighted 30% / 45% / 60% / 75% / 90% to the new formula. FY32 is 100% new formula.
Hold-harmless floor
FY27 floor = FY26 actual × 1.01. FY28-FY31 floor = same-year prior-formula leg × 1.01 (current-year basis, does not compound). FY32 has no statutory floor. School receives the greater of phase-in or floor. At default Wildflower inputs the floor does not bind in any year.
Per-input growth assumptions
Set separate annual growth rates for enrollment (FPC and headcount move together), at-risk count, ELL count, and SPED count. Rates compound from FY27 through FY32. Individual cell edits in the input matrix override the growth-rate result for that cell. Both Wildflower campuses grew 30-50% between FY26 and FY27, so flat assumptions out from FY27 likely understate funding for a growing school.
Year-over-year change · attached to PPR
YoY $ and % change are calculated on Per-Pupil Revenue, not on total program funding. This isolates the formula and demographic-composition effect from raw enrollment growth — useful for strategy decisions about enrollment expansion versus serving higher-needs populations. A growing school can see total funding rise while PPR is flat (pure enrollment effect); a school with stable enrollment can see PPR rise if it serves more at-risk, ELL, or SPED students (composition effect). FY27 PPR YoY compares against FY26 actual PPR (FY26 gross ÷ FY26 FPC).
What changes mid-year
FY27 figures true up against the certified October 2026 count in January 2027. Movement at that point is normal and expected — assume ±5% on FY27 figures until certified. SB26-023 is also subject to Governor signature; all FY27+ figures are estimates until enrolled.
Open items affecting these figures
The at-risk-% denominator (CSI uses headcount; the SB26-023 definition references funded-count) is an unresolved advocacy question — material only for schools near the 70% concentration threshold (not Wildflower). The L027 smoothing factor begins FY28 and is not yet incorporated in projections.