Superintendents were asked to indicate a number between one (lowest value) and ten (highest value) that would represent the quality of education in their district in 2005. They were asked to assume that their current level of quality on a 10-point scale is an "8" (The number, 11, represents a "Don't Know" response). Superintendents also were asked to explain their answer. The explanations are listed below; the number following each statement is projected measure of quality in 2005.

• As small districts have fewer students, the ability to offer a wide variety of HS courses diminishes. Also youth options are having a negative impact. 6
• Our enrollments have stabilized and revenue caps will begin to significantly restrict our budget by 2005 requiring cuts in programs and services. 6
• Despite financial constraints, we have a talented and committed staff. We have and will continue to improve by doing more for students, learning and achievement with less resources. Our quality will be there but it will be challenging and stressful for teachers, administrators and Boards to do more with less. 8
• We will get increased SAGE funding; teachers retiring will be replaced with energetic, highly motivated people; curriculum alignment with standards will be complete; area early childhood programs will help. 10
• The district had a slight deficit in 1999-2000 and will have a greater revenue shortfall in 2000-2001. If the district is unable to pass a revenue cap exemption, we will need to cut either staff or programs. We have already pared maintenance to bare bones and have eliminated all general fund technology dollars. Nearly all staff development is being done using grant dollars. 4
• We have been able to "get by" as we used our resources very frugally. We have "tightened our belt" as much as possible. Any additional cuts will have negative impact. 5
• With the increase of special needs students (one visually impaired-open enrollment) and increase of students, we will need to consolidate with another school or go out for a building referendum. We will be competing with several schools for this money. 5
• In 2005 I am not sure our district will be able to maintain the staff of our programs. 7
• We are experiencing growth which will generate some additional revenue and allow us to offer some advanced programs that we don't have the numbers for now. 8
• Our student body will continue to increase. As long as the funding formula remains the same we will be OK. 8
• Planned cuts for 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. 4
• Reduced program offerings and increased class size. 6
• Much depends on enrollment. 11
• Adding full day kindergarten and better student counts in special areas have added new revenue. Our budget has been reduced in discretionary and "carry-over" fund balance over the last year. All discretionary funds are gone. Cuts will result over next few years. The budget loopholes for adding revenue are closed. The belt gets tighter. 4
• Will need to exceed the revenue caps in the next 3-4 years. 11
• Reduced programs and higher class size. 6
• Declining enrollment will catch up to us. Probably will see more negative effects. 7
• We know the trends for the next five years but I can not predict the effects. There isn't a strong correlation between money and achievement.
• All cuts to date have been made outside of the teacher-student realm, however, these cuts are inevitable and it is hard to anticipate the exact time it will happen. 5
• Opportunities will be limited and decreased and as result of revenue caps. 6
• We will need to make tough choices on classes with small enrollments and move to a basic core curriculum. Extra curricular activities will be reduced. 6
• We will not be able to offer in 2005 what we offer today if the community does not grant us an exemption for the revenue cap. 7
• Caps have not impacted our district due to sustained growth of student population. 10
• With quality staff development, high expectations and accountability efforts, we plan to maintain quality education despite increased challenges. 8
• It will depend on enrollment, but if enrollment declines we will feel a greater pinch. 4
• We are making important decisions which have strengthened our curriculum and this improved learning. 8
• Resources are diminishing. We will struggle to maintain where we are at. 7
• Last year we lost 68 students. If we keep declining, which I don't think will happen, rev caps will start affecting us tremendously. 5
• With declining enrollments and revenue caps, less funding is available for program and facility maintenance. 5
• We are losing students, equalized value is way up, less revenue, more needs not possible. 2
• Staffing cost increase 4% per year. Revenue caps provide an additional 3.2 % per student per year. 5
• Between home based education (mostly for religious reasons and often good students) and open enrollment (motivated, aggressive parents) and falling revenues (more % of which will be spent on special needs) quality of the overall product is bound to decrease. 6
• We are in a three year cycle (will be longer) of the same revenue to operate. Costs rise at 4% or more. You can't fund salary and benefits from fund balanced operations. Budget will be cut each year until it is gone. Then we will cut programs, etc. 6
• We will be eliminating programs. 3
• If nothing changes and we cannot pass an operating referendum (possible next spring) we will have to cut personnel and programs. 5
• 2001-2002. We will have about $300,000 deficit and will need to lay off staff. We currently have a $7,000,000 budget. 2
• Increased enrollment and successful building referendums are resulting in small class sizes and greater opportunities. 10
• We approved $198,200 operations annual increase in an April 4, 2000 referendum. 8
• The Board has cut over $500,000 of instructional/operational services from the budget for 2000-2001. Even thought the district passed a $450,000 referendum in April, 2000, the district will need to use $153,000 of fund balance to somewhat retain the quality of education. In essence, the 2.7% increase in state aid does not offset the 3.8% increase in expenditures (personnel being the greatest portion). 4
• Our current standard is so high that revenue trends with declining enrollment will force combining classes thus lowering us to a 7. We will still be above average but not as much above as we are now. 7
• Dwindling revenues will continue to have our Long Range Staffing/Reengineering Committee and School Board made difficult decisions on program cuts. Expecting administrators to do more will also make it increasingly difficult to conduct effective program evaluation. 5
• We will not be able to maintain quality programs. 7
• Increase in class size, collective bargaining tension, angry teachers, less technology, cutbacks in curricular activities, delayed maintenance. 6
• We will have to drop programs. Electives will be limited. Extras (field trips, speakers, etc) will be limited. 7
• Regardless of circumstances, we had better approve. If revenue caps go away tomorrow, do we really think that any revenue increases will to go improve programs or facility? Or will the money go to salaries? 10
• We will have more to do with less resources. 6
• I think we will be OK. 7.5
• With salaries and benefits guaranteed to increase by 3.8 % and the revenue caps limiting growth to about 3.1%, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that cuts are on the horizon. 6
• In two years it will hit us. 4
• Quality may go down slightly. However, the quantity may be considerably less. We are just beginning to feel the pinch caused by enrollment declines. 7
• We will face increasingly tough decisions after initial stages of maintenance-free new buildings end and student numbers continue to decline. This will necessitate deferral of maintenance and/or staff reductions. SAGE and Classroom Size Reduction Act are propping up our basic educational quality. 6
• Addition of D of C&I-updated and reviewed entire program. The PdC was seriously behind on overall operation. This could be a book or a dissertation. Please call if you have a need! 8
• Too many variables to know. 5
• Over a period of time, the lack of funds will create larger class sizes and less services. 4
• As a district which is experiencing increasing enrollments revenue limits have had a negligible effect. 8
• As a district, we may not like revenue caps but as professionals, we still need to find ways to improve our system-more money doesn't always mean more quality. 9.5 · Special Ed. Costs continue to increase; children are generally more "needy"; cost of materials, supplies continues to rise; unrest/dissatisfaction among staff about salary limits. 7
• Revenue caps have not impacted us as a growing enrollment district. Biggest issue is passing referendum for space. 8
• Revenue limits will cause us to layoff staff, increase class sizes and reduce programs. 5
• We will be forced to not replace staff as they leave if we are unable to pass a referendum in April, 2001. This will lead to increased class size and increased workload district wide. 4
• On October 14, 2000, we will attempt to hold a levy override election. $195,000 each year for 3 years. If it fails, we have a problem. 5
• We will be forced to lay off staff and increase class size. We may also have to reduce our administrative team (lay off Director of Instruction and Assistant Principal). Guidance departments may be reduced. 4
• Attrition will lead to staff reductions which affect educational quality. Class sizes were above 30 in 2 English classes where staff was reduced. SAGE offsets what would have been a disaster at the elementary school. 5
• We are using a greater percentage of our dollars for special needs taking from regular programs. This is a great concern and one that must be seriously addressed by this country and state. We are doing our leaders of tomorrow a great disservice. 5
• Declining enrollment and the revenue cap are going to squeeze programs to the point that students are going be hurt educationally. 6
• Without a Fund Balance and static enrollment, we need relief from caps to address building and grounds repair costs. 4
• Staff reductions are imminent causing increase class sizes. Educational materials and supplies are aging and will need replacement. 5
• We will have to reduce programs and continue to cut supplies/materials even with a stable enrollment! Chart this out-budget grows by 2.6%, wages and benefits grow by 3.8% (80% of our budget). There is our ???or 100% salary. Special Ed must be removed from the cap!! After the Supreme Court decision on-did distribution, the time is right! 7
• No money, no programs. 1
• Revenue caps, mandated testing that interrupts instruction and other legislative infringements on education will continue to negatively affect local efforts to educate children. 6
• We will not have enough money to operate at current levels is 2005, if at all. 3
• Population is increasing rapidly; however, funding for education is not. 4
• Our community over rode the revenue caps to maintain programs. 8
• We anticipate large reductions in student numbers. We will need to make cuts. 4
• If trends in enrollment and funding continue, we will be forced to reduce programs, increase fees and raise class sizes. 6
• We have been using imagination, reform, renewal and more efficient strategies for 3 years but we have hit a point of diminishing returns. No way to go but back to strategies like excluding, cutting programs, increasing size of classes. 6
• Our projected enrollment decrease will devastate the district. 2
• We have reduced our staff (teachers) in this district by six teaching positions over the last two years. If caps stay, we will be loosing another 8-10 positions by 2005. 3
• We will expound every effort to not offer any excuses, but… 11
• Revenues are projected to decrease. 6
• We must keep EEN services up. We have more EEN kids thus we have to spend more money. As money is finite, we have less for regular ed. 5
• We just increased revenue caps by 1.9 million and are in a 31 million building programs. 11
• We will continue to downsize number of rooms, as needs change. 8
• Programs will need to be modified or eliminated. 6
• Our staff in committed to providing a quality education even with even with less revenue to work with. But they cannot continue to do this forever. 7
• We will use limited resources to improve specific needs in the program. 10
• We will have to be cutting programs and laying off staff because income is not keeping up with expenses. 6
• Less money to continue small classes. 5
• We are beginning declining enrollment where it will start affecting our revenue cap. I could foresee cutting back on things beginning next year. 7
• We have had to go to referendum to meet our needs and exceed the revenue limit as a result of reductions and cuts so we will be about the same (an 8) as a result of taxpayers allowing us to exceed the limit. 8
• We will work very hard to maintain and improve the education we provide to students. 9
• Quality going from above average to average. 5
• Lower salaries attract fewer candidates or less experienced staff. 7
• We just don't have money to do things for kids-increased guidance time, increase offerings, properly maintain our faculty. 4
• The public is
• "slow" to understand the mechanics of revenue limits. Basically, the public does not wish to vote for taxes-the school will suffer. 3
• Revenue caps…QEO…low salaries…teacher shortage…lower quality staff. 6
• Salaries will increase; costs of utilities will also increase; texts, curriculum work, staff development, technology will have to cut or reduces; reduced revenue just cannot offset needs. 3
• Districts with low caps (cost/student) all go to referendum and continue to make reductions. 6
• Our enrollment numbers from year to year are so erratic that it is impossible to do any long-term financial and district planning. The revenue caps have basically created a static situation. We have been unable to intake any meaningful school improvement programs. 11
• We are being asked to do more with less. Smaller districts are being squeezed because new monies such as SAGE are meant for the larger inner city districts. We cannot spend money to get money. 6
• We are becoming an average district by eliminating the "extras". 5
• Revenue Limit Exemption will help us to catch up and move ahead. 9
• Muskego is a growing community with projected enrollment growth. 8
• Revenue limits and stipulated pay raises will result in staff reductions and increasing class size. 6
• Fewer resources to provide an expanding set of services with higher standards of quality. 6
• We have been operating below limit, but have moved up to it. Open enrollment has given us a 5% increase in students and $100,000 in additional revenue. 10
• Fixed costs consume dollars needed to advance existing programs and to develop new ones. State dollars allotted do not allow for growth. 6
• Continued work on improvements. 9
• Not enough info to make a statement. 11
• CPI changes do not equal shortfall in revenue. 6
• Not replacing staff will limit educational opportunities. We will look at reducing areas such as Gifted and Talented, Special Ed., Counseling, electives. 6
• We have people who make a difference. 8
• Continual erosion of bare budget to do constraints with salaries/benefits exceeding costs for other services. 5
• I believe the revenue caps combined with slow declining enrollment will combine to effectively reduce our educational programming. 7
• We cannot compete with the salaries offered to teachers in our neighboring Michigan districts. It will be difficult to retain quality staff if we cannot offer competitive salaries and benefits. 2
• We will be unable to hire additional staff to reduce class sizes at lower levels. May have to cut back offerings through program evaluation and elimination of programs. Maintenance of technology is a concern. 6
• We may not be able to afford current technology training opportunities for our staff. 6
• Teacher morale is low. There already is a shortage of teachers. Teachers are going to larger districts to get more in salary. I believe fewer people are entering the field due to limitations on salaries. 5
• As a "growing enrollment" district, we will continue to focus our dollars on educational quality in this competitive environment. We will have problems with our aging building and technology needs. 10
• Our quality will erode if we cannot invest in staff and related items to expand programs and replace quality teachers who retire. We will also start to see a reduction in support staff. 4
• We are a resilient lot. We will do what it takes to provide the best quality possible for our kids. 8
• We cannot hire extra staff to keep pace-especially in the areas of curriculum and standards. 6
• I will be unable to expand some programs due to lack of money to do so. 6
• As we squeeze staffing, services are reduced for students. People are doing more work with less money and tension is building. 6
• Everything costs more. Special needs costs are going nowhere but up. 3
• Our enrollment growth seems to have leveled off. If that is the case, then the CPI percentage increase allowed by the revenue cap may greatly affect our ability to continue to pay salaries, keep programs, keep class sizes low and maintain our facilities. 7
• Lack funding to increase staff in regular education to reduce class sizes. 6
• Unstable enrollment could impact revenue cap in five years and therefore cause lay-offs.. Larger class size. Lots of retirements in 5 years which could save dollars. 7
• We expect the shortfall (revenue increase vs. expenditure increase) to begin to affect us despite our growth. With the end of the 220 program, increase expectations for special needs students, increased cost of labor settlements, and the expansion of revenue staying constant, we would anticipate a shortfall which will affect programming. 6
• Revenue caps will greatly impact total school operations if we continue with the current financial policies. The revenue cap system is beyond its time. We need a new system. For example, in terms of recruiting future teachers of Wisconsin will not each here knowing that their salary is capped as soon as they enter the field. 4
• Support staff increases are at 6.25%. 6
• Class sizes will rise. Maintenance will become a very serious problem and most importantly, I see tremendous stress on school personnel as a result of all this-educators turning on each other out of frustration. 6
• We can no longer be aggressive in our drive for better staff development and improved course offerings or reduced class size. 6
• If rev caps stay the same, it makes improving quality difficult. Additional sources are needed. 8
• Reduced budget every year! 1
• Inability to attract best teachers (salary schedule). No money to maintain facility, equipment, curriculum. 5
• A greater amount of the limited funds will be spent on special education and salaries resulting in teacher layoffs and more difficulty in providing services. 7
• Impact will depend on how much more we will have to cut. 11
• Due to gradual increasing enrollment, we are able to maintain the status quo. Improvements are difficult to fund. 8
• Given the current revenue caps, I suspect larger class sizes and non-replacement of retiring teachers. 7
• Revenue caps will have a more negative impact each year as a result of declining enrollment. 6
• If our enrollments decline, money will tighten and programs will be reduced probably starting with class size. 4
• Programs will not expand/continue at present levels. 7
• Our budget for 2000-2001 is the tightest ever. In the 2001-2002 school year, cuts will need to be made that will start hurting (staff, supplies, etc.). 5
• It depends on how many at-risk students we have and the impact it will have if we have to increase class size, especially at the lower levels. 11
• Our district continues to try to improve every year. 9
• This predication is based on the professional attitude of the staff to maintain a quality educational environment. 8
• Can't determine that there will be any change. Many factors impact educational quality. Finances are only one. 8
• The combination of teacher salary and fringe benefits increasing at 3.8 % compared to the rate of revenue cap increase will continue to erode our ability to fund educational programs. 7
• We anticipate a substantial decrease in enrollment over the next 5 years. To offset this loss, we will be having to cut staff and reduce programs, thereby decreasing the quality of programs and diversity of programs currently available. 6
• Declining enrollment, higher salary/fringe benefits, more youth option participants will all continue to erode funds available to maintain infrastructure. By 2004, we will have "tightened" the budget and streamlined programs and will have nothing else to cut but the core instructional programs. 4
• We are struggling to maintain current programs while improving necessary maintenance needs. Special Ed costs are killing us. We have long had small class sizes. Now when the rest of the world recognizes the benefits of small class sizes we have to increase due to revenue limits. Doesn't seem right. 6
• With fewer students and less money we will not be able to provide high quality programs. 6
• The combined effects of the revenue cap, QEO and no enrollment growth will cause a revenue shortfall. We are running out of options to manage the inevitable. 4
• Revenue caps per se are not bad. Everyone must live within a budget. The problem is the QEO allows salaries/benefits to increase at twice the rate of the revenue cap. 8
• We are facing an enrollment decline. As a low spending/property wealthy district, passing a referendum will be hard. We face a $450,000 shortfall next year. 1
• Depends on if we can pass a levy to exceed the revenue cap. 7.5
• As fiscal resources shrink. Programs will have to reduced to just the very essentials, thus lowering the equality of the whole program. 4
• We should see improvement after our curriculum work and staff development and SAGE and Alternative Ed. Program. 9
• We will try to keep programs but it will be hard to add new programs to meet the needs of all students. 7
• We are projected to have spent all operating reserves by 2002-03. If reserves are not spent, we will have to reduce expenditure by another $1,000,000. We have already reduced them by $1.5 million. This means the elimination of all extra-curriculars, elementary art, music, p.e. guidance and middle school ban, orchestra, chorus and foreign language. 1
• Increased student enrollment may help with some on-going problems. 7
• We have already begun cutting programs. If current conditions continue, it's inevitable that we will continue to reduce programs. 6
• This is difficult to predict. A number of early initiatives have been started that should impact the overall quality of the district and student learning. 8
• With a declining enrollment and all other statutes staying the same, the recision in revenue may restrict us from offering exactly the same program as we have today. Also, the lack of capital improvements and maintenance may start showing negative effects by 2005. 7
• Budget will not support purchases of needed textbook upgrades, staffing for at-risk programs and additional teachers for needed new programs (Technology Coordinators, Curriculum Coordinators). 6
• There are many more factors to consider. The factors listed are out of our control. I am more concerned about choices we might make. 11
• Very worried about enrollment, increasing costs, maintenance, staff development and limited revenue. 6
• Declining enrollment can hurt course offerings in the high school in the near future. 7
• Up until this point, we have been able to make fairly painless adjustments to help with the revenue limit situation. However, we foresee that the upcoming years will be more difficult. 6
• 2005 is 4 years away. Growth in our district? Hard to be sure. Will caps be in place still? Too many unknowns. 11
• Given a decline in enrollment by 12% in 5 years, revenues will be severely reduced unless there is significant "hold harmless" provisions contained. 6
• We try hard and steal from Peter to pay Paul. 7
• We will begin to "cut" budget in 2002-3. We will do this with "across the board" cuts rather than cuts to individual programs. Instructional material, staffing and class size will all be affected negatively at this time. 4
• We have started to reduce programs and athletics. 2
• Unless we see trend change in student enrollment and ability to generate $'s to meet needs, we will struggle with meeting needs to: advance salaries to retain staff (we are well behind our regional district counterparts), reestablish and maintain a strong curriculum development updating plan, reestablish a replacement funding plan for computers, technology, building and grounds needs, etc, any kind of new initiatives funding base. 6
• Budget cuts will be made in areas that least effect educational quality. 8
• A number of programs have been supported by booster groups and fund using. Boys and girls WIAA swimming, WIAA hockey and operation of pool-these should be supported from the district budget.
• This answer is difficult to determine due to the growth in the community. 11
• Continued caps will require cutting the "meat" since the "fat" is gone. 7
• We will continue to reap benefits from open enrollment…we will allow sufficient numbers of OE students to provide money needed. 10
• Fewer students interpret into less revenue; however, expenditures will continue to increase between 4 & 5%. 5
• We will have to reduce staff and curriculum. 5
• Students and families in Menomonee Falls are very supportive of fuller education. This factor will mean education will be high quality, but the lack of revenue will limit quality. Athletic facilities and the extra-curriculars will decay and diminish. Technology may stagnate. 6
• With same resources and growing needs, something has to give and it most likely will be quality. 4
• With limited resources and the same number of buildings, increased special ed. costs and increased mandates, our quality for the majority of students will decline. 5
• Difficult to answer because our goal is continuous improvement although revenue caps do influence this opportunity. 11
• Programs (particularly electives) will be eliminated. Student- teacher ratios will increase. Infused or integrated subjects (environmental ed.) will be neglected. 6
• We are a growing school district-enrollment and equalized value. Only the governments financing package changes should affect us. 8
• Issues tend to resolve themselves before crisis occurs. 8
• With increasing student needs and a constant revenue stream, the quality of education will be negatively impacted. 7.5
• We are one of the lowest spending districts in the states. We are losing ground to other districts since we cannot raise revenue to compete with other district's services. 6
• Opportunities for children will be reduced. 6
• We have completed 14-9 referendum and population growth looks positive. 11
• We will have to reduce staff and curricular offerings. We are losing Industrial Technology, Agriculture, advanced placement courses and specials for our K-8 grades. 5
• I believe there are two many changes taking place. Therefore, making estimates very difficult. 11
• Strictly a guess. 4
• Class sizes will increase. Salaries increase, hire less teachers, as more goes to Special Education. 6
• Plan to have referendum to avoid "cuts" and to lower class size and related programs. 11
• Reduce staff, increase class size, limit technology expansion, and delay BHG projects. 6
• As enrollment decreases, we will have larger class sizes, higher student fees and may need to cut programs. 6
• We have done about all of the restructuring that we can. There are no other steps to take. We are approaching very serious times. 4
• The quality of education continues to improve despite obstacles and barriers. 8
• We have done well so far in dealing with revenue cap situation. I am confident that comparatively, we will continue to do well. However, it will be difficult to realize our full potential. 5
• Limits FTE expansion to match growth. Forces programming to the mainstream, limiting differentiation. 5
• My district is small. We can only do the students what our area resources allow. 3
• I believe declining enrollment and resulting revenue cap adjustments will cause us to continue our downward movement in terms of quality of programs offered to students. 6
• Possibly less kids. We are a smaller district and offer less salary. 7
• Because of more emphasis on curriculum and assessment, we hope to better address student needs and engineer program delivery. 8
• Concern regarding class size and ability to offer comprehensive education programs in small suburban school district. 7
• Money does not imply quality. People make the difference. 8
• I see a gradual inability to address personnel needs. We are a people-oriented business and we need to attract quality people. The growing teacher shortage is of great concern. We are interviewing people today who won't increase student performance. Very scary. 6
• The trend is negative. However, I'm an eternal optimist. 11
• I would hope the quality doesn't change in a negative way. 8
• It should maintain its quality. However, we'll see what impact the graduation exam has on our performance evaluation. 7
• Declining enrollments; QEO vs. annual student increase; increase in "special needs" categories. 3
• Can't get class sizes down in grades 3-5. Can't attract top quality new teachers. 6
• This year is crunch time for declining enrollments. 5
• The status quo will be the goal rather than improvements. 5
• We have reached a point where support services for our lowest quartile are no longer adequate and there is nowhere else at the this point to take money from. 6
• Our enrollment has increased 5%-10% each of the past 3 years. Projections suggest a 5%-10% increase each of the next 5 years. This has allowed us to keep reasonable pupil/teacher ratios. 8
• Revenue caps will prevent staff from being "pioneers" in finding those instructional programs the help our district needs to renew ourselves. Status quo is not an acceptable way educate children! 3
• I believe through planning, organization and commitment our district can maintain our quality education programs. 8
• Our enrollment will continue to climb. Our facilities are already maximized. If a referendum to increase facilities does not pass, class sizes will increase and learning will decline.
• In order to provide QEO style compensation (4.2% estimate), all revenue cap money will go for compensation. We will reduce staff and programs and increase class sizes to deal with it. 5
• Although enrollment has decreased, it is a slower decrease than in some districts. We have been able to maintain to a satisfactory point. As the years go by and things (requirements) remain the same it will catch up to us. 5
• Higher pupil/teacher ratio elevating to less learning, fewer electives for high school students, poor equipment. 4
• I'm in my second year here, therefore it is hard for me to speculate. 11
• Less one-on-one help. 4
• Revenue caps will effect building programs. We will be OK as long as enrollment trends increase at present rate. 6
• We are still adding programs, but seem to be at the same level. 8
• With no growth, staffing reductions on program cuts will soon be necessary. 4
• Program reductions on the inability to provide new or improved programs, technology alone would become "dated". 7
• We have been able to survive financially due to retirement and reducing expenditures, but we have haven't reached the maximum benefit of those avenues. 4
• Do not have a crystal ball! 11
• I hope quality is higher. We are an increasing enrollment district. Parent expectations continue to increase as community demographics changes. Will we be able to meet expectations under revenue caps? 11
• Have revenue controls had either a positive or a negative effect on your district's quality of education that was not captured in this survey? If so, please comment below.
• The district has not experienced the full effect of the combination of declining enrollment and revenue caps. It is a problem that will continue to compound.
• The positive effect of revenue caps is that we have had to analyze carefully what we do and how we do it. In many ways, we have become more efficient, effective and productive. The negative effect is that you cannot indefinitely do more with less. For example, with declining enrollment our revenue cap increase for new money is less than the increase of wages and benefits. In addition, costs for transportation, heat, electricity and special education continue to increase. A second negative impact is the general low morale of teachers throughout the state because of the link of the revenue limit and the QEO. I understand the link; however, it is self-defeating to legislate more demands on teachers, school, and districts without addressing this problem. Throughout the state we are already seeing shortage in teachers and administrators for vacant positions. What will it be in five years? A third negative impact is the inequity of funding on a per pupil basis statewide. Graduates from our high school work throughout the state. Yet, because we are large geographically, 8-9% of our revenue limit goes for student transportation. There is little compensation for this. Additionally, low income, high-equalized value and declining enrollment mean local taxes are high. Alternatives to increase local spending without consideration to income probably will not helpful to our district.
• As mentioned earlier, we have gotten by due to eliminating "bells and whistles". Any further cuts will have a negative impact on our quality of education.
• We are not able to expand our curricular offerings at this time. This includes the area of technology where we need ongoing support to allow access and integration of curriculum.
• We are using up our fund balance. Soon it will be detrimental.
• Many cuts are planned for the next 3 school years as a result of revenue caps and QEO increases. The quality of education will definitely be affected.
• A few years ago we created a sinking fund for building needs. The past two years we have not been able to add to that fund.
• We need more time (in-service) and money to train teachers in areas of licensure, standards, and assessment. More state mandates (standards, testing, licensure) with tighter budgets is a tough balancing act. The good news is that revenue caps have helped to "hold the line" on teacher salary yet now, support staff salary and benefits (that aren't under the cap) are having a large impact on our budget. Special Ed funding, teachers, support staff are also hurting our budget. The good news is that revenue caps have forced new decisions from bus lease contracts to copier machine lease buyouts; less carry-over grant money annually; less fund balance add all-day kindergarten; add FTE student counts for various programs, etc.
• Zero-based budgeting has kept us in control of our budget. After eight years our budget is lower but, because of the caps, our revenue is decreasing $125,000 (minimum) per year. Our present equity (cash on hand on June 30) will be gone in 5 years. We reorganize each year but quality programs cost money!
• Less time in negotiations making for better professional relationships between Board, administrators and teachers at the local level.
• I totally support revenue caps with the idea of increasing revenue to equalize spending on salaries, etc. If revenue caps were removed, teacher demands will far exceed what small poor districts can pay, thus increasing the gap between rich and poor districts. Revenue caps will work with some minor changes!
• The reality is that we have been making needed cuts in these areas which eventually will be problematic-capital improvements. Unfortunately, this backlog of projects will have to be attended to and at a higher cost. Recent efforts by the Board to reduce staff were not well received by the public and ultimately all cuts were reinstated.
• We are now implementing across-the-board reductions. Next year we will decrease our G/T and AODA programs and some extracurricular offerings-perhaps middle school sports.
• We cut the budget for the 2000-2002 school year by $294,000 in order to achieve a balanced budget which was in line with our revenue.
• Staff reduction has allowed us to continue under revenue caps.
• We are seeing fewer and fewer applicants for math/science/technology positions. The private sector is not under revenue caps and their salaries increase faster than ours. We see more emergency licenses than ever before.
• As of yet, no positive or negative effect.
• Revenue caps are gradually squeezing our district into non-existence.
• Our bad times are coming.
• The district was prepared to deal with them by building a strong base for operations and a fund balance. We have survived so far by good, sound fiscal management. Each year we struggle to make ends meet and it will get harder each year to balance the budget.
• We believe it has not affected our overall quality yet, however, our crisis (crunch time) is coming in the 2001-2002 school year unless there are some modifications to the revenue cap law. We have been very fortunate to have many school choice students and families moving into our district.
• Since this survey reflects 1999-2000, it does not indicate the struggle the district went through to cut back staff, administrators and facilities/maintenance for 2000-2001. The "no action" items on page 1 are almost all affected to the negative. The district eliminated teacher, teacher-aide, administrator, counselor, at- risk, gifted and talented, custodial and bus driver positions for 2000-20001. The district used $600,000 of fund balance to survive 1999-2000 and plans to use $153,000 plus $450,000 referendum to exceed revenue to survive 2000-2001.
• 2000-01 will be the first year for major cuts in our budget. My comments on these questions will look much different next year.
• The few positives are far outweighed by equally ridiculous requirements (High Stakes Testing). The schools need as many resources as possible to battle the challenges in from of us. I do appreciate the accountability emphasis of the revenue cap. It did have a tendency to get rid of careless use of funds, but I feel we should do that ourselves. We need to be good stewards of our resources.
• Revenue caps aside, the implementation of the standards will actually help student achievement. With the caps I think you would be hard pressed to say that quality has gone down. A good survey would examine dollars spent pre-cap and post-cap. I doubt the figures (%) would be too different.
• No effect-financially today we are OK.
• Yes. It sends the message that educators aren't as important as city street sweepers, county workers, and state or government workers. If our governor and legislature want to control taxes they need to walk the talk. In other words, Tommy and his staff along with our other elected officials need to limit their spending in a similar fashion. Finally, what message are we sending about the importance of children when spending for them is minuscule compared to our prison population?
• Conflicts between special needs and regular instruction are becoming more and more of an issue. Monies received for "TEACH" are a nice supplement to the technology budget but not the "savior" as touted by Legislature and Governor. Technology and facility infrastructures continue to be woefully under-funded.
• As a growing district, there has been minimal to no impact on operations. We do have concerns about the impact on salaries for staff as there is beginning to be a problem in a tight marketplace.
• To reiterate, we are just beginning to see the effects of the revenue limits. Our budget deficit has grown dramatically over the past 2 years and is predicted to continue to grow. 98-99=68,000, 99-00=170,000, 00-01=300,000. Here is where we will see negative effects of the revenue limits.
• When staff retires, we actively recruit, interview and employ beginning people. Our district will reduce from 3 administrators to 2 administrators in 2001-02. When you decline in enrollment you can't reduce or make cuts fast enough to keep up.
• Staff reductions are inevitable. If we cannot maintain 5-6 early retirements each year, we will start "pink slipping" after 2000-01. Fund balance will be depleted by $250,000 this year. We have made $500,000 in cuts for our 2000-01 budget, which is $10,000,000. The outlook is bleak.
• We recently found ourselves to be "up against" the caps. Very little room for new programs. Very little funding for technology, etc. Very tough to add aides (even though we may need them.)
• We are now totally reliant on open enrollment and Chapter 220 revenue to meet our monetary and budget revenue stream needs. Without 1.8 million from these two sources, the quality of our school programs would be ???
• Costs for EEN and ESL programs are stripping other program's budgets. We must have EEN off of the Revenue Cap. Someone must start legislation and the time is right after the comments of the Supreme Court in the ??? formula decision in July!
• Negative-morale and the perceived value of education by the public.
• The addition of declining enrollment exemption has helped us. Rapidly increasing lake and recreation property values has hurt the local working poor and poverty level families. The increasing valuations have put us in a roller coaster of up and down taxes. The local taxpayer base of those who are able to vote is poor. They will not vote in referendums for increased taxes. The Board does not have that option. We were fortunate to have a newer school when the caps were implemented. Were unfortunate to have lower salaries. We are not competitive in salaries at this time. Increased medical insurance costs are eating up the 3.8% QEO. Salaries are not increasing.
• Thus far, we've been holding our own. However, a 1998 referendum and, until this year, steady or increasing enrollments have been the reasons. We are now in a declining enrollment mode. We're very anxious about the impact of the decline, beginning next year.
• We have had to build a "house of cards"-resorted to use of effort, time, resources to locate and secure soft money (grants, etc.) just to make ends meet and not backslide too far on quality. As these evaporate or are lost, it stops reform and renewal dead in its tracks.
• We have reduced our budget by $1.5 million this year and are scheduled to reduce the budget another $4.5 million during the next 3 years. These prospective deficits will have a negative systemic effect on our mission.
• Transportation of students is becoming very costly. Approximately $1.47 per mile. These costs go up. Buses are wearing out and we can't afford to replace them, as we need to. The day will come when we will be unable to operate our buses for 186 face to face days as we currently do. We have no resolve to this problem except to not do maintenance projects/reduce staff, etc. to keep buses on the road. Natural gas is increasing dramatically as are electrical costs. Mild winters have saved us for the past two years. We are presenting a deficit budget for 2000-2001 even with cutting 3 teaching positions, staff development costs, etc.
• Revenue controls allowed us to build a new high school without increasing taxes (positive). It is becoming difficult to purchase supplies as our student enrollment declines.
• Our community approved a $200,000 and $500,00 revenue limit override. Consequently, the impacts of revenue limits have been delayed. If the referendum had failed, the response could have been dramatically different.
• Negative consequences-maintenance and building update.
• We reduced $500,000 out of a $10,000,000 budget in 2000.
• We need additional funds to buy textbooks, lab supplies, maintenance items, etc. We have enough money for Title I and teacher in-services. Can we get money that is NOT earmarked or with certain strings attached?
• Revenue caps prevent the school district from improving educational opportunities for children. Despite efforts of reallocating district funds and other resources, dollars needed to improve do not exist. Revenue caps are stifling educational improvement! The caps were put in place to maintain "status quo," were they not?
• Without citizen approval to exceed revenue caps, we could go bankrupt and therefore close our doors to public education.
• Revenue caps have badly impacted on the ability of the district to meet the educational needs of our students. All we have been able to do is keep our financial heads above water and maintain programs. Facility maintenance, technology and school improvement initiatives have been crippled.
• We were holding our own until declining enrollments caught up with us. It forced us to place a referendum before the public to support educational programs and replenish our fund balance. Although the referendum was successful, you can only go to the well so many times. It is a struggle to maintain quality education under the present system.
• Quality has been compromised! Limiting revenue when we have little control on expenditures is a plan for failure of a quality educational system.
• Revenue controls have had a negative effect on overall quality. The district prioritized in order to assure nothing fell apart. There were some curricula items that should have been addressed or updated and improved upon. Due to lack of dollars, these areas were left alone. This is my 2nd year as the school administrator.
• Negative. We have lost 14% of our student enrollment in the past 5 years. This trend is continuing. Negative, not replacing EEN and regular teacher aides, not replacing staff, AODA, EEN, but assigning more duties to others. No increase, only cuts in supplies past 6 years. May delay purchasing school buses, maintenance. Not looking to move ahead with programs but looking at what we can keep: examples, AODA, EEN, Gifted Talented, FAST, Seniors Program, larger class sizes.
• Continue caps with no additional support for Special Education coupled with a district with a basic flat enrollment increase and/or projected future enrollment increases are putting greater constraints on our budget annually. We cannot continue to operate a quality educational program for our students under current formula.
• Our enrollment has increased somewhat and remained stable. I foresee a decline in enrollment and future problems to deal with. We have had to hire non-certified staff in Special Ed. The number of qualified applicants has diminished greatly.
• We have one Special Ed. case that will require expenditures of $35,000 or so. With a $4,500,000 budget that required a cut somewhere, we really need to add some basics, such as a curriculum coordinator.
• Districts that were low spending districts when the "caps" were put into effect have been penalized. That was wrong.
• We have not been impacted drastically by revenue controls. Our state aid has grown-levy went down-people of the school district happy that their taxes went down.
• I believe the potential to eliminate of modify revenue controls in today's political climate is a long shot at best. We would be served better using our resources to find ways to improve efficiency through cooperative measures. I personally believe the real purpose behind revenue caps in Wisconsin is to cripple or bankrupt public education, which leads to a state takeover and the proliferation of private school choice.
• Negative. We have cut building and facility maintenance and other areas in an attempt to save the educational programs but we are to a point where that is no longer enough.
• Wausaukee moved into a new PK-12 facility in September, 1993. Given a new facility, maintenance, operating expenses and short-term repairs, costs have not been an issue. We also will struggle with replacement costs for school buses. These factors were not covered by the survey.
• Baraboo has been in an increasing enrollment status. We have realized more latitude than the large percentage of decreasing enrollment districts. We have been forced to a great deal of fund raising to support various programs.
• I doubt if anyone would say revenue controls have been "positive" in quality of education terms. The only positive is that the "tax protest" times are behind us. If we change the current law, those times will quickly return.
• District will reach limit of "dodging" the revenue cap law shortly due to large decrease (42 out of 1,222 students) in enrollments. One year and in subsequent years, reduced technology budget from $150,000 to $30,000. Last 2 years, have made personnel adjustments of $108,000 to $75,000 savings each year, but reduced quality of education in district.
• The Rice Lake School District is $900 below the state average in per pupil spending. We are lacking in elementary PE staff, Art and Music. Administrative staff is 22% above state average for pupil/administration ratio. We have eliminated staff development budget and have no additional funds to implement technology. We anticipate increasing class sizes over the next five years.
• Neutral effect overall. Constraints, boundaries, whatever are acceptable if planned and provided for without surprises after they are placed into effect.
• Examples of programs/services/ facilities/personnel that other comparable districts have that we cannot afford: Reading Recovery, higher salaries for teachers, Business Manager, substitute pay low, Curriculum Coordinator, alternative middle school and high school, French program, high cost maintenance projects (i.e. blacktopping parking lots).
• Revenue caps force us to review all employment positions in the district and to recommend eliminating or retaining based on need. That's good. The bad part is the fact that additional staff needs are not able to be fulfilled.
• They have an extremely negative effect on our district. The revenue cap leaves us with only about $21,000 in new operating costs in the last three years. This is absorbed by rising insurance costs and salaries. We have no new monies and with declining enrollment are facing a $59,000 deficit next year and nothing additional for our students.
• Attitude. The inability to pay college graduates a competitive salary leaves teachers asking why am I doing this. I love kids, but ?? Ability to pay our support staff, bus drivers, teachers and administrators a fair wage comparable with the public sector has been destroyed. Our people feel they are being dumped.
• This is the first year that we have been close to revenue caps.
• Positive effect on negotiations. Not as much fighting over money at the bargaining table. Less input from the public. No complaints about money. Budget discussions have been simplified. Can't keep increasing 84% of your budget (salary/fringes) 4% a year when the overall budget can only go up 2-2.5%.
• Have passed referendum for construction. Will need another referendum in the future to maintain quality and class size.
• Schools with limited funds cannot compete with schools that have the ability to pay for a declining pool of quality teachers. Shortages in some fields are already severe! The problem will steadily increase with retirements of an aging workforce! I see no plans to address the problem, and new certification standards will only increase the problem.
• Reduced innovation. Limited replacement of computers.
• On a positive side, it reduces the focus on salary during negotiations and lets us focus on other professional issues related to work environment and student learning. An intangible negative is that it limits innovation and risk-taking in programs.
• Open school enrollment students are what keeps our doors open and our school improving.
• Revenue caps in a growing district have a different impact than in one that has stable or declining enrollment. Something has to be done to help districts when they face either of those situations.
• The Greendale School District will be seeking to pass an operational referendum. The time, effort and political capital necessary for this type of effort detract from the time and focus on student achievement.
• We have spent an inordinate amount of time and energy reshaping our district (i.e. closing an elementary school and reopening it as an Early Learning Center) so that our organizational structure and staffing are more efficient. To date, we have managed to improve most services while downsizing. I'm not sure that we can continue to be successful at reorganization. We've reached our limit.
• The quality of education is determined by the quality of your staff. It is essential to hire the right people, certified and non-certified alike. The increasing costs of purchased services, special education and other social service-type needs preclude anything but the status quo at best for most school districts. All utilities, equipment and supplies, fuel for heat and transportation, insurance, legal retainer fees, etc. will eventually exhaust funds normally budgeted for educational programs, if they haven't already done so.
• At the moment, we seem to be in fairly good shape. I am concerned for the next four years. Things, the way the funding mechanism is set up, can only get worse.
• Projected negative. We have not had an impact due to declining enrollment until now.
• Increasing enrollment has helped under the revenue cap. However, this also leads to a need to increase facilities which adds to the local tax burden.
• Our district has used other measures to assure program is maintained.
• Revenue caps have reduced the negative public opinion about teacher and administration salaries and fringe benefits. Revenue caps prevent us from increasing staff development in-service training opportunities.
• Buildings/grounds/facilities/new programs/technology/attracting quality personnel have all been negatively impacted. We have improved greatly in some areas due to increasing population but could do much more with more resources.
• We have not been able to add new programs such as elementary foreign language that have mace some of our neighboring districts more attractive. We are not getting new facilities because of this situation.
• Where is the merger issue here? Effect of revenue caps long term in small districts with declining enrollment who were low-spending before the caps, will mean merger to keep comprehensive programs going for staff and students.
• Revenue controls have not had a great effect on our district. As long as our enrollment increases in ratio to our property values, we will be OK. Two thirds funding has the greatest effect on our budget. The current formula greatly helps us.
• No effect. We feel that revenue caps have allowed for increased state aid which has had a positive effect on the budget and what we can offer our children. Other actions
• Rather than replace a retired, we will assign existing teachers with an additional assignment for additional compensation per local contract. This is a cost savings measure, as the district doesn't have to pay benefits.
• Principals were instructed to designate which personnel or programs were to be dropped or reduced if they wanted to add or expand other areas.
• SAGE and Federal Class Reduction funds helped save 3 positions that would have been laid off.
• We have delayed the purchase of school buses. Very negative!!
• Seeking out more grants.
• Increase early retirement benefit-short term savings but in 5/6 years maybe a problem because new staff move through schedule to MA leaves quickly!!
• Reduced staffing by 3 teachers. Enrollment staying the same. We are moving backwards.
• $3.97 million referendum approved maintenance improvements completed.
• We have set up our budgets to over expand since the revenue caps, however, so far we have avoided clipping into fund balance since we have finished the fiscal years in the black,
• We passed a Revenue Exemption of $195,000 for textbook, busses and maintenance so it is helping us this summer.
• Reduced budgets of schools by 7%, reduced budgets in environmental education programs, planetarium services.
• I have warned the Board for two years that #24 (fund balance) will be tapped next year (01-02) if nothing changes.
• We are on the cusp. So far we have had increasing enrollments. This year may signal the beginning of the decline when cuts will have to be considered.
• Reduced Police Liaison Officers' time (5 days to 2 days) eliminated breakfast program; eliminated retired volunteer (STEP) program. In order to maintain quality instruction, had to reduce other areas of budget by over $400,000.
• We have frozen all budget allocations for the past 6 years. Obviously, with inflation, we have lost purchasing power.
• We had passed a referendum for facility remodeling.
• Using $500,000 of fixed balance to make needed repairs and upgrades as well as purchase equipment.
• We have frozen spending levels on supplies and equipment for the most part. In past years when teachers have retired (such as school nurse and driver's ed), we have contracted these services to help reduce costs.
• Both. We have really prioritized our spending. Fund 27 is out of control. It continues to rise in cost at 10% a year siphoning off Fund 10 dollars. We need revenue caps on Fund 27.
• Let's see…Eight years of 2.5% revenue limits and 3.8% QEO's!
• It appears to many people that the result of the revenue caps is to hurt public education and help private and/or parochial education. The critics of public education would like the revenue caps because of the fear that they will hinder the ability of public schools to deliver services.
• Confidence facto-parents are concerned whether or not we will be able to maintain quality. As a consequence, many are considering or have opted for private/parochial alternatives-further exacerbating the impact of declining enrollment.
• Consistent leadership and instruction are necessary to make improved gains in student achievement. Revenue limits will not permit our pay schedules to approach larger school districts that can pay higher salaries.
• Generally slightly negative although the labor harmony with the teachers that has come with the QEO has helped with the atmosphere for learning within the school buildings.
• The district has held 2 referendums with a 3rd scheduled November 7, 2000 in order to maintain/enhance facilities and education quality.
• This is the first year the revenue caps have had an impact on our district. We lost a lot of students who moved who we could not plan for. As a result, we had to layoff staff and reduce expenditures.
• Revenue caps have had minimal impact on the quality of education in our district. Low teacher salaries and the limited number of teacher applicants have become a factor. Double-digit increases in equalized valuation have made our district a negative tertiary aid district, forcing local property taxes to absorb the loss in state aid. These factors could have a negative impact in the future.
• Revenue caps would probably be acceptable for us but personnel settlements exceed the per member increases (%) and we are still not competitive. We added over 300,000 square feet of buildings with operational cost adjustments and our student enrollment is starting to decline. We could handle 1 impact, maybe even 2 impacts, but never all 3 impacts.
• Educational quality is highly subjective, as is the impact that revenue limits have on it. Revenue limits can be used as the catalyst to encourage creativity and development of new and alternative delivery models that could prove to be more effective than the current model.
• Our community has high expectations for excellence and has enjoyed this excellence for many years. Because of our decreasing enrollment situation, we are scrambling to maintain our core area curriculum and are now seeing reductions in other programs. We reduced our number of staff by 8 people last year in an effort to match our budget expenditures with our anticipated revenue. Staff layoffs appear inevitable unless adjustments are make to the current revenue formula.
• Lack of understanding of revenue caps by public has disastrous impact on public relations. Perceived budget problems are mismanagement and excessive spending.
• Rising costs for special ed. students are a serious concern. I have students where tuition and transportation costs are around $40,000 per year. Open enrollment. I lose 26 K-12 students but can't cut a teacher so I cut programs for those who remain.
• The survey was difficult to complete because it did not recognize the total problem. In Beloit, the QEO increases costs by $1.5 million each year while the revenue cap only grows $750,000 to $1 million each year. The caps have helped reduce the tax burden in Beloit.
• Negative. We have cut programs and can't lower class sizes. As a low spending but property healthy district, we do not quality for SAGE money and can not afford to lower class size without cutting instruction in other areas.
• We had to drop distance learning from our district. Had a very negative impact on our secondary Gifted and Talented program.
• They have had a neutral effect in the past in our district because of three items: (1) increasing enrollment, (2) teacher retirements, and (3) successful referendum for building remodeling. However, our enrollments are starting to decline, we do not have teachers retiring and our referendum dollars have been exhausted. We are now starting to feel the pinch.
• It is extremely tough to add new programs or get new equipment. An example is new band uniforms. We have obtained a cost of $25,000 to refit our high school band; however, it will not be possible for a few years.
• Our district reorganized our schools so that all students in the same grade attended the same school. This allowed us to decrease staff while maintaining class size. Having all students together has brought our parent classes together and has eliminated negative competition between the schools.
• Our school district was fortunate to pass a $1.1 million building referendum for maintenance and repairs in April 2000. At the same time, we also passed a $100,000 of our revenue cap. Both these measures will allow our district to improve programs and services for students.
• Positive. It forced districts to closer evaluate programs and delete when no performing. Negative, in that not enough funding to deal with support and faculty needs and no flexibility for new instructional needs.
• Revenue limits are negative and have caused us to reduce capital projects and maintenance in order to meet our higher prioritized goals.
• Our Board of Education has chosen not to levy to the max so revenue caps have been a non-factor in our decision-making process. The budget guidance from the Board is less than the cap without referring to the caps.
• Bargaining with the teacher's union has been very difficult since the Administration/Board has chosen to offer only QEO settlement packages. However, our understanding is that bargaining was difficult even before the revenue limit began.
• As a superintendent with only 1 year experience, I see the caps as being more detrimental than positive. I would like to see Boards have more flexibility or increased spending under the caps (raise them higher).
• The district has delayed purchasing replacement school buses for 2 years.
• Used $250,000 for projects.
• Teachers going to other districts.
• Sought additional grant funds even though this process was additional burden.
• Did not replace curriculum director when she resigned.
• Passed $4,000,000 referendum to avoid. Also passed $14,000,000 Bond.
• Our student enrollment has increased 90-100 each of the last 2 years.
• At this time, the cap allows us to operate in a normal fashion.
• We have passed building referendums and one to increase levy limit. We have not been short on funds for education.