Effects of the Revenue
Caps on Wisconsin's
School Districts,
1997-98 School Year

1998 Results

In each of the five studies, superintendents were presented with a list of cost-cutting actions and asked to indicate which ones had been implemented in their district during the previous school year. Table 1 shows the number of cost-cutting actions taken by school districts for each of the last five school years.(9)

Percent of Districts Reporting Cost-Saving Measures

During Each of Five Years from 1993-94 to 1997-98

  93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98
1. Delaying building maintenance or improvement projects NA 51.3 49.3 50.2 48.9
2. Spending less for maintenance of buildings and grounds 44.3 44.0 41.2 52.4 45.3
3. Spending less for improvements of buildings and grounds 44.2 50.0 47.1 53.4 47.9
4. Delaying/reducing purchase of textbooks, curricular materials 30.6 25.3 30.0 32.9 28.6
5. Limiting purchase of consumable supplies, such as paper 28.8 23.2 25.2 26.4 22.2
6. Delaying/reducing purchase of computers, other technology 43.9 43.7 57.7 60.9 44.1
7. Offering fewer staff development opportunities for teachers 30.9 22.9 22.5 27.7 24.8
8. Teacher layoffs
22.8 9.1 8.9 9.4 8.4
9. Layoffs of teacher aides or other support staff 24.6 10.7 12.1 12.7 12.2
10. Administrator/supervisor layoffs
10.1 4.0 5.3 5.9 5.5
11. Reducing counseling or similar services 5.0 3.4 6.0 6.2 5.1
12. Delaying/reducing hiring of new staff 34.4 28.7 35.2 41.4 35.4
13. Reducing extracurricular programs 9.2 5.8 5.0 8.5 4.5
14. Limiting programs for students who are at risk 13.4 11.9 18.5 19.9 15.1
15. Limiting programs for gifted and talented students 19.0 15.6 22.3 26.4 19.3
16. Offering fewer courses 15.4 9.4 13.0 13.0 10.9
17. Reducing transportation services for students 11.6 5.8 8.8 10.1 8.4
18. Limiting summer school programs 21.7 15.9 20.2 25.1 14.5

19. Offering fewer field trips for students

27.6 12.8 17.4 20.8 15.1
20. Increased class sizes 32.0 26.6 29.8 27.4 26.0
21. Increased teacher workload 21.7 18.3 23.1 26.7 22.5

22. Increased administrator workload

NA 33.9 39.6 49.8 42.8
23. Increased student fees 35.6 23.9 25.3 28.7 24.1
24. Using fund balance to support budget 20.8 21.7 26.6 32.2 35.0
25. Other 3.9 .3 .7 4.6 1.0

Overall, districts report an average of 5.7 cuts in 1997-98 (the median number of cuts is 5). Furthermore, 84% of districts report at least one cut in 1997-98.

As these figures are considered, two points are important:

  1. This table does not speak to the magnitude or impact of cuts. For example, if a district raises student fees by a few dollars each year, this is treated the same as for a district which doubles or triples student fees. In addition, it needs to be recognized that cuts in programs or services are not likely to have the same consequences in resource-poor and resource-rich districts.
  2. These cuts are occurring during a period in which the number of students enrolled in Wisconsin’s public schools continues to increase. Thus, among the 314 districts participating in this study, 88% report that enrollment has increased over the past three years. According to data reported by the U.S. Department of Education, public school enrollment in Wisconsin is projected to peak in 1999 and then begin to drop. For example, between 1995 and 2007, Wisconsin’s public school enrollment is expected to decline by 5.2%.(10) If the existing revenue caps legislation still is in place, this study suggests that the number of cuts made by districts will increase significantly.

What is interesting about Table 1 is that the number of cuts reported by superintendents in 1997-98 is fewer in 24 of 25 categories than in 1996-97. The only category showing an increase in the two year period is use of the fund balance to support the budget. Although there is this slight decline over the last two years, keep in mind that the effects of cuts are cumulative over time. This suggests that for the majority of districts conditions did not improve between 1997 and 1998.

Among the factors which may account for this decline in the number of cuts are the following:

  1. Many districts have made extensive and significant cuts in earlier years. As several superintendents stated in their written comments, they have managed to comply with the cuts in earlier years by tightening their budgets to the greatest extent possible. In short, for many districts, there may not be many more programs or services which can be cut without damaging opportunities for students.
  2. Many districts have passed a referendum over the past few years which made it possible for them to better withstand the impact of revenue caps.(11)
  3. Each year since 1994, a greater number of districts report making use of their fund balance to deal with the revenue caps.
  4. The 1997-99 biennial budget provided temporary “hold harmless” provisions (in the form of state dollars) for districts with declining enrollments in excess of 2%.(12)
  5. Most districts have stable or increasing student populations, meaning they are in a better position to deal with the revenue caps.

Back to Table of Contents