As in previous studies, superintendents were presented with a list of 24 program or service areas, the majority of which relate directly to meeting the needs of students. Superintendents were asked if they had made cuts in any of them during the 1999-2000 school year. If a cut was made, they were asked to rate the effect, using a five-point scale ranging from "Very Negative" to "Very Positive."

Table 1 reports the percent of districts making a cut in each area during the 1999-2000 school year (column one). This is followed by the percent of superintendents saying the cuts were "Negative," "Neutral," "Positive," or "DK" (Don't Know).

For example, 53% of superintendents who responded report that they used their fund 10 balance (item 24) to support the budget. Of this group, nearly two-thirds (64%) said the consequences were negative, compared with 34% neutral and 1.4% positive.

Table 1
Effects of cost-saving measures on district programs and services, 1999-2000

Action	% taking action	effects perceived as negative	effects perceived as neutral	effects perceived as positive	don't know
Delaying building maintenance or improvement projects	68.5	80.3	15.2	2.8	1.7
Spending less for maintenance of buildings and grounds	68.5	79.5	18.5	2.2	0.0
Spending less for improvement of buildings and grounds	69.7	82.9	14.4	2.7	0.0
Delaying/reducing purchase of textbooks, curricular materials	61.5	65.1	31.3	2.4	1.2
Limiting purchase of consumable supplies, such as paper	61.7	41.6	55.5	2.4	0.6
Delaying/reducing purchase of computers, other technology	67.3	69.1	24.9	3.9	2.2
Offering fewer staff development opportunities for teachers	60.2	54.7	36.5	1.3	3.1
Teacher layoffs	41.8	36.9	61.3	1.8	0.0
Layoffs of teacher aides or other support staff	44.6	50.0	47.5	.8	1.7
Administrator/supervisor layoffs	37.1	31.6	66.3	1.0	1.0
Reducing counseling or similar services	37.8	25.7	69.3	1.0	1.0
Delaying/reducing hiring of new staff	57.6	67.1	30.3	2.5	0.0
Reducing extracurricular programs	39.1	26.7	69.5	2.9	1.0
Limiting programs for students who are at risk	44.9	49.6	45.5	3.4	1.7
Limiting programs for gifted and talented students	52.5	56.6	39.9	3.5	0.0
Offering fewer courses	45.1	47.9	48.8	2.5	0.8
Reducing transportation services for students	40.8	31.8	64.5	3.6	0.0
Limiting summer school programs	39.9	36.4	57.9	3.7	1.9
Offering fewer field trips for students	48.3	56.9	40.8	2.3	0.0
Increased class sizes	49.8	50.0	44.8	3.7	1.5
Increased teacher workload	49.2	58.0	39.7	2.3	0.0
Increased administrator workload	62.8	77.5	20.7	1.8	0.0
Increased student fees	55.7	52.3	43.7	4.0	0.0
Using fund balance to support budget	53.1	64.4	34.1	1.4	0.0

In eight areas, more than 60% of districts took action: delaying building maintenance or improvement projects (65.9%); spending less for maintenance of buildings and grounds (68.5%); spending less for improvements of buildings and grounds (69.7%); delaying/ reducing purchase of textbooks, curricular materials (61.5%); limiting purchase of consumable supplies, such as paper (61.7%); delaying/reducing purchase of computers and other technology (67.3%); offering fewer staff development opportunities for teachers (60.2%); and increasing administrator workload (62.8%). For these eight, an average of 65% of superintendents report that the effects of these cuts were "negative."

Overall, in 15 of the 24 program and service areas listed, 50% or more of superintendents reported that the cost-saving measures taken in their district were "Very Negative" or "Negative. These 15 areas are listed in Table 2.

Table 2
Cost-saving measures judged as negative by 50% or more of superintendents