| SEARCH OnWEAC |
|---|
 |
| 163KB PDF |
A Study by the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators and the Wisconsin Education Association Council
Data Analysis and Written Analysis by Russ Allen and Jeff Leverich, Wisconsin Education Association Council
(Special thanks to Denise Maney (WEAC), who worked extensively on this project and also to Miles Turner, Executive Director of WASDA, and to the 344 district superintendents who participated in this study.)
Overview
A Decade of Revenue Controls |
In 1993, Wisconsin passed a law to control school costs and reduce property taxes. To accomplish these purposes, the amount of revenue that districts can raise from one year to the next is capped. Districts are allowed to increase per pupil expenditures from year-to-year by a specified amount-- the current per capita increases are approximately $236 in 2003-04 and $241 in 2004-05.
In the original legislation, revenue controls were to last for a five-year period; however, significant changes were made in the 1995-97 state budget. The controls were made permanent; at the same time, the State of Wisconsin committed to fund two-thirds of the total costs of public education statewide. The two-thirds obligation was rescinded in the current state budget.
Over the past ten years, districts with stable or declining student populations have had the most difficulty complying with the revenue controls. In recent years, increases in costs (e.g. utilities, health insurance, books and supplies) have consumed a greater proportion of each district's budget, making it more and more difficult for all districts to maintain existing services and programs.
This is the tenth consecutive year that the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators (WASDA) and the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) have reported on the impact of the revenue controls on districts. Since 1994, Wisconsin's school superintendents have been mailed questionnaires asking them about the impact of the caps on programs and services. Over the ten years, approximately 70% of districts have participated in each study. This year, questionnaires were received from 344 of the state's 426 superintendents, representing an 81% response rate, the highest ever.
When first asked about the long-term effects of revenue controls on educational quality, 90% of superintendents predicted they would be harmful. A decade later, 88% of superintendents in this study said that the long-term effects have, in fact, been "Very Negative" or "Negative."
This negative perception toward revenue controls might be expected because the law never was intended to improve education. It was enacted, along with the commitment to fund two-thirds of the cost of public education, as a way to reduce and control property taxes. While we have the rhetoric of improving public education with initiatives such as higher standards, increased testing, and more accountability, Wisconsin schools find it increasingly difficult to maintain existing programs, let alone improve them, under a school funding formula that is not aligned with these goals.
Supporters of revenue controls continue to make the case that limits on educational funding serve to make districts more efficient. Occasionally, they will point to research showing that low-spending districts can have above-average test scores (while neglecting to mention that standardized achievement tests measure only a small part of what schools are asked to accomplish). Although these kinds of examples can be found, the experiences of Wisconsin's educators suggest that the revenue controls have done serious damage to the overall quality of education in Wisconsin.
Initially, maintenance, improvements of buildings and grounds, and purchases of computer technology were most likely to be the targets of spending cuts. While nearly all districts still limit spending in these areas, increasingly they have had to cut or eliminate academic and support programs and services that directly affect children. For example, this past year more than one-half of districts (52%) reduced the number of academic courses offered; 60% reduced programs for gifted and talented students; 51% reduced at risk programs; 69% increased class sizes; and 75% increased student fees.
Likewise, superintendents say that working conditions in our schools are deteriorating: 74% offered fewer staff development opportunities; 71% laid off aides or other support staff; 79% did not replace departing staff; 70% increased teacher workload; and 78% increased administrator workload. This only makes it more difficult to attract and retain quality educators.
In each of the previous studies there have been unique findings. Throughout, the central message--that the caps are harming education--has been consistent. What is different is that conditions continue to worsen, not just for students, but also for those who work with them.
For the results of previous years' studies, go to the OnWEAC Resource Page on School Funding and scroll down to Research and Perspective