Adams 12 Five Star Schools 2025 Ballot Measure Survey

Magellan Strategies is pleased to present the topline results of a survey of 941 voters within the Adams 12 Five Star Schools District boundaries. The interviews were conducted from July 28th – August 12th, 2025.

Residents generally held favorable views of Adams 12 Five Star Schools, with clear majorities approving of the district’s overall performance and believing it was headed in the right direction. Just over half agreed the district was fiscally responsible, though a substantial minority disagreed or were uncertain. Views about whether the district already had sufficient financial resources were divided, with slightly more residents saying it did not than saying it did, indicating an underlying tension between confidence in the district’s work and concern about funding adequacy.

Those who believed the district already had enough resources most often argued that existing revenue sources—such as property taxes, prior mill levy overrides, and state and federal funding—should be sufficient if managed properly. Many expressed frustration with how money was allocated, saying funds were not focused enough on core academic needs like teacher pay and classroom instruction. Others said current facilities, programs, and educational quality appeared adequate, reinforcing the belief that better prioritization, not new revenue, was the solution.

Residents who believed the district lacked sufficient resources pointed to a different set of concerns. Many cited Colorado’s low per-pupil funding levels, limits imposed by TABOR, and recent budget cuts as evidence of chronic underfunding. Respondents frequently mentioned staff layoffs, uncompetitive teacher salaries, and difficulties retaining educators, along with larger class sizes and reduced student supports. Aging facilities, outdated curriculum, and reduced extracurricular offerings were also cited as signs that current funding levels were not meeting student needs.

When presented with a proposed mill levy override to fund programs and staffing, initial support was majority-positive. More than half said they would vote to approve the measure, while a little more than one-third said they would vote no. The proposal would increase property taxes by 8.716 mills, costing an estimated $34 per month for the average homeowner and raising up to $39.42 million annually. The measure prioritized four main areas: increasing trained safety and security staff, attracting and retaining quality teachers through competitive salaries, expanding career and technical education opportunities, and providing additional mental health support for students.

Support increased as residents reviewed additional context about the district’s situation. Information that Adams 12 ranked near the bottom among nearby districts in mill levy override funding, that previously approved career and technical education spaces lacked staffing and programming funds, and that recent budget cuts had eliminated 150 jobs and reduced class offerings all made clear majorities more likely to support the measure. Messages emphasizing teacher salary competitiveness, the high success rate of career and technical education graduates, student safety needs, and mental health support consistently strengthened support.

After reviewing all information, support for the mill levy override increased slightly. In the informed ballot test, a clear majority said they would vote to approve the measure, with opposition remaining sizable but smaller. By contrast, an alternative version of the measure with a smaller tax impact of $25 per month and raising $29.42 million annually performed poorly among voters who were previously undecided or opposed, suggesting that simply reducing the size of the tax did not meaningfully expand support.

Open-ended feedback highlighted the core tradeoffs shaping opinion. Supporters emphasized investing in teachers, students, and long-term community outcomes, arguing that well-funded schools benefited everyone including those without school-aged children. Opponents focused on affordability concerns particularly among seniors and fixed-income households, distrust of district financial management, and skepticism that additional funding would improve outcomes without structural changes. Across responses, residents repeatedly stressed the importance of transparency, clear spending priorities, demonstrating direct classroom benefits, and providing specific details about how funds would be used as essential to building and sustaining support for any future funding measure.