Effects of Revenue Caps
on Programs and Services Offered by Wisconsin’s Public Schools —
1998-1999 School Year

Questionnaire Modified in 1998-99

From 1993-94 through 1997-98, superintendents were given a list of 24 cost-savings actions and asked to indicate which actions had been taken in their district during the previous school year. This approach allowed us to obtain information about the number of cuts, but it did not allow for differentiation among cuts as to their effects. Thus, a cut of a few hundred dollars could not be distinguished from a cut of thousands of dollars. For this reason, the questionnaire used in 1998-99 was revised.

Superintendents who indicated that there had been a cut in a program or service area were asked to rate the "effects" of each cut on the district's programs and services, using a five-point scale ranging from "Very Negative" to "Very Positive." They also were given the choice, "Don't Know."

In previous studies, year-to-year comparisons in cuts have been included. However because the question that was used asking about cuts in 1998-99 is not identical to the question used previously, the results for this year are not directly comparable. For this reason, time-based comparative data are not provided. (Results for 1993-94 to 1997-98 are in the Appendix).

Table 1 reports the percent of districts making a cut in each area (column one). This is followed by the percent of superintendents saying the cuts were "Negative," "Neutral," or "Positive." The final column shows the percent of superintendents who indicated they did not know the effects of the cost-cutting actions.

The figures in Table 1 show that not all cuts are judged the same. For example, 34% of superintendents report reducing extracurricular programs (item 13). Of those who cut extracurriculars, nearly three in four superintendents thought the effects were neutral. Only one-fourth defined the action as "negative." This suggests that the cuts in extracurricular programs were relatively modest (a most likely explanation) or that superintendents do not consider cuts in this area to be as damaging as cuts elsewhere.

In contrast, 51.0% of districts used their fund balance to support the budget (item 24); this was an action that was viewed as "negative" by nearly two-thirds (61%) of the superintendents. Likewise, nearly 40% of superintendents report teacher layoffs (item 8) or layoffs of aides or other support staff (item 9). These actions were judged as negative by between 41% and 47% of superintendents.

On average, districts made 11.2 cuts in 1998-99; however, in only about one-half of the cases were the cuts perceived as "Negative" or "Very Negative." The percent of superintendents saying that cuts were negative ranged from 80.9% (delaying building maintenance or improvement projects) to 20.6% (administrator/supervisor layoffs).

For the entire set of 24 actions, an average of 52% of superintendents said the cuts were negative. In about 45% of cases the cuts were judged to be "neutral." In very few cases were the cuts judged to be positive. Those areas in which one-half or more superintendents said the effects of the cuts were "Very Negative" or "Negative" are shown in Table 2.

Table 1
Perceptions of the Effects of Cost-Saving Measures on District Programs and Services, 1998-99
  % Taking Action Negative Neutral Positive D/K
1. Delaying building maintenance or improvement projects 60.4 80.9 16.0 3.1 0.0
2. Spending less for maintenance of buildings and grounds 62.6 80.1 18.4 1.5 0.0
3. Spending less for improvements of buildings and grounds 64.1 79.6 19.4 1.0 0.0
4. Delaying/reducing purchase of textbooks, curricular materials 56.1 66.7 31.1 2.3 0.0
5. Limiting purchase of consumable supplies, such as paper 53.6 45.9 52.9 1.2 0.0
6. Delaying/reducing purchase of computers, other technology 59.1 71.1 27.4 1.6 0.0
7. Offering fewer staff development opportunities for teachers 52.3 61.9 35.7 2.4 0.0
8. Teacher layoffs 36.1 41.4 57.8 0.9 0.0
9. Layoffs of teacher aides or other support staff 39.6 46.5 50.4 2.4 0.8
10. Administrator/supervisor layoffs 30.2 20.6 77.3 2.0 0.0
11. Reducing counseling or similar services 34.5 28.8 68.5 0.9 1.8
12. Delaying/reducing hiring of new staff 52.3 67.3 29.2 3.6 0.0
13. Reducing extracurricular programs 33.6 24.1 73.1 1.8 0.9
14. Limiting programs for students who are at risk 42.0 50.4 44.4 4.5 0.7
15. Limiting programs for gifted and talented students 47.0 56.3 41.1 2.0 0.7
16 Offering fewer courses 38.6 37.9 60.5 1.6 0.0
17. Reducing transportation services for students 38.6 29.8 66.9 3.2 0.0
18. Limiting summer school programs 40.5 40.8 56.2 3.1 0.0
19. Offering fewer field trips for students 41.4 52.6 45.1 1.5 0.8
20. Increased class sizes 48.0 50.0 44.8 3.2 1.9
21. Increased teacher workload 45.5 47.9 50.0 1.4 0.7
22. Increased administrator workload 55.8 65.4 33.0 1.1 0.6
23. Increased student fees 45.2 43.4 55.2 1.4 0.0
24. Using fund balance to support budget 51.0 61.0 33.5 4.9 0.6

Table 2
Cost-Saving Measures Judged as Negative by Fifty Percent or More of Superintendents
Cost-Saving Measure Percent Who Said
Cut was Negative
Delaying building maintenance or improvement projects 80.9%
Spending less for maintenance of buildings and grounds 80.1%
Spending less for improvements of buildings and grounds 79.6%
Delaying/reducing purchase of computers, other technology 71.1%
Delaying/reducing hiring of new staff 67.3%
Delaying/reducing purchase of textbooks, curricular materials 66.7%
Increased administrator workload 65.4%
Offering fewer staff development opportunities for teachers 61.9%
Using fund balance to support budget 61.0%
Limiting programs for gifted and talented students 56.3%
Offering fewer field trips for students 52.6%
Limiting programs for students who are at risk 50.4%
Increased class sizes 50.0%

Back to Table of Contents