A Decade of Revenue Controls

EDUCATION RESOURCES
Educators' Bulletin Board • New Teachers Page • Quality Educator Interactive (QEI) • 'IDEAS' for Your Classroom • Online Courses • NEA Grants • Our Favorite Links • More
EDUCATION NEWS
Headlines • At the Capitol • Collective Bargaining • Great Schools feature articles • Press Room • OnWEAC In Print • Columns • More
ISSUES
School Funding • 'No Child Left Behind' • Vouchers • QEO law • Teacher Licensing • Health Care • National Board Certification • Tax Gimmicks (TABOR) • More
ONLINE SERVICES
OnWEAC Direct • OnWEAC Store • Share Your Photos • Parents Place • Personal financial services • OnWEAC Savers' Club • More
ASSOCIATION LINKS
UniServs & Locals • ESP • WTCS • Student WEA • WEAC-Retired • Professional Development Academy • WEA Credit Union • Member Benefits • WEA Trust • NEA • WEAC Jobs • Contact Us • More
MEMBERS ONLY SITE
OnWEAC Savers' Club • Cyberlobby • Change My Demographic Information • Leadership • Organizational Documents • More
QUICK CLICKS
What is WEAC? • Great Schools • Calendar of Events • Site Map • Contact Us

A Decade of Revenue Controls: The Effects of Revenue Controls on the Programs and Services Offered by Wisconsin's Public Schools, 2002-03 School

163KB PDF

Districts Continue to Cut Programs and Services

Since 1994, superintendents have been given a list of programs and services and asked to identify where their district made cuts. During the last school year (2002-2003), the average district made cuts in 18 of the 27 listed program and service areas. At the extremes, 1.5% of districts avoided making any cuts, while 34% made cuts in all 27 programs and services. See the figure below for the range of actions.

Cuts in Specific Programs and Services

Table 2 shows the percent of districts taking action during the past four years in each of 27 program and service areas. On nearly every item the percent of districts reporting cuts is higher in 2002-03 than in any prior year. For example, last year 78% of districts delayed building maintenance or improvement projects. The figures for the three previous years were as follows: 66% in 1999-2000, 69% in 2000-2001, and 73% in 2001-2002.

Superintendents also were asked to describe the effects of each cut by selecting one of five choices: “Very negative,” “Negative,” “No Difference,” Positive,” or “Very Positive.” The column on the far right shows the percent of superintendents reporting that the effects of the cut were “Negative” or “Very negative.” Across the 27 areas, an average of 63% said the effects were “Negative” or “Very negative.” An average of 2% said the effects were “Positive” or “Very Positive.”

Table 2: Percent of Districts Taking Action in Twenty-Seven Programs and Services, 1999-2000 to 2002-2003

Program or service area	1999-00	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03	% saying cuts had negative/ very negative effects in '02-03
1. Delayed building maintenance or improvement projects	66%	69%	73%	78%	87%
2. Spent less for maintenance of buildings and grounds	69	75	79	83	87
3. Spent less for improvements of buildings and grounds	70	73	79	84	86
4. Delayed/reduced purchase of curricular materials	62	66	73	77	69
5. Reduced purchase of consumable supplies, such as paper	62	66	71	75	58
6. Delayed/reduced purchase of computers, other technology	67	73	75	80	80
7. Offered fewer staff development opportunities for teachers	60	72	71	74	69
8. Laid off teachers	42	50	67	69	73
9. Laid off teacher aides or other support staff	45	54	66	71	79
10. Laid off administrators/ supervisors	37	42	47	56	55
11. Reduced counseling or similar services	38	45	49	53	44
12. Delayed hiring of new staff	57	64	62	65	70
13. Reduced extracurricular programs	39	46	48	55	47
14. Reduced programs for students who are at risk	45	48	51	51	43
15. Reduced programs for gifted and talented students	53	53	55	60	61
16. Offered fewer courses	45	49	55	57	55
17. Reduced transportation services for students	41	48	50	56	36
18. Reduced summer school programs	40	43	44	49	31
19. Offered fewer field trips for students	48	60	59	61	58
20. Increased class sizes	50	56	64	68	75
21. Increased teacher workload	49	56	61	70	71
22. Increased administrator workload	63	66	74	78	81
23. Increased student fees	56	59	65	75	64
24. Used fund balance to support budget	53	57	64	69	71
25. Reduced number of academic courses offered to students	NA*	41	50	52	46
26. Reduced courses in art, music, theater, vocational, etc.	NA*	38	48	54	48
27. Did not replace departing staff	NA*	61	61	79	70

*Questions 25-27 were added 2000-2001.

The Most Serious Cuts

There were seven areas in which at least 75% of superintendents said the effects of cuts were “Negative” or “Very negative.” The top three relate directly to the schools’ physical infrastructure:

Delays in building maintenance or improvement (87% Negative or Very negative)
Less spending for maintenance of buildings and grounds (87% Negative or Very negative)
Less spending for improvements of buildings and grounds (86% Negative or Very negative),
Increased administrator workload (82% Negative or Very negative)
Delayed/reduced purchase of computers and other technology (80% Negative or Very negative)
Layoffs of teacher aides or other support staff (79% Negative or Very negative)
Increased class sizes (75% Negative or Very negative).

Cuts in Educational Resources and Services

Educational resources and services have not been immune from the effects of the revenue caps. This past school year the majority of districts made cuts in these areas:

Spending for computers (80% of districts)
Curricular materials (77% of districts)
Consumable supplies, such as paper (75% of districts)
Staff development opportunities for teachers (74% of districts)
Field trips (61% of districts)
Transportation (56% of districts)

More than two-thirds (68%) of districts also report increasing class sizes. This compares with 50% in 1999-2000, 56% in 2000-2001, and 64% in 2001-2002.

Cuts in Academic Programs

Districts continue to make cuts in academic programs. More than one-half reduced the total number of courses offered and also reduced programs for gifted and talented and at-risk students. In addition, 57% reduced the number of courses offered; 54% reduced courses in art, music, theater, and vocational education; and 49% reduced summer school programs. The percent of districts making cuts in seven program and course areas is shown below.

Reduced programs for gifted and talented students (60%)
Fewer courses offered (57%)
Reduced programs for at-risk youth (51%)
Reduced number of academic courses (52%)
Reduced extracurricular programs (55%)
Reduced courses in art, music, theater, and vocational, etc. (54%)
Reduced summer school programs (49%)