The Effects of Revenue Controls
on the Programs and Services Offered by Wisconsin's Public Schools, 2003-04
School Year
A study by the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators
and the Wisconsin Education Association Council
Data Analysis and Written Analysis by Russ
Allen, Ph.D., and Jeff Leverich,
Ph.D. (WEAC)
Special thanks to Denise Maney (WEAC), who worked extensively on
this project and also to Miles Turner, Executive Director of WASDA,
and to the 299 district superintendents who participated in this study.
Overview
In 1993, Wisconsin passed legislation 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 limited. Districts
are allowed to increase per pupil expenditures from year-to-year by
a specified amount. This amount was $241 in 2003-04.
The revenue controls were to last for a five-year period; however,
in 1995 the controls were made permanent, and the State of Wisconsin
committed to fund two-thirds of the total costs of public education
statewide in order to provide property tax relief. The two-thirds obligation
was rescinded in early 2004.
Since 1994, 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. In each
of the past eleven years, Wisconsin's school superintendents were mailed
questionnaires asking them about the impact of the caps on programs
and services. Since 1993, an average of 70% of superintendents have
returned completed questionnaires. This year, 299 of 426 superintendents
(also 70%) participated in the study. The confidence interval for responses
to questions in this study is approximately +/- 3%.
Each study includes a core set of questions (the first twenty-seven
in this study), as well as some unique questions. In the current study,
special attention is given to cuts in curricular programs.
Significant Findings from Previous Studies
- On several occasions during the past eleven years, superintendents
have been asked about the long-term effects of the revenue controls
on educational quality. Nearly all have said the effect has been "Very
Negative" or "Negative." This negative perception is
not unexpected because this legislation was enacted in order to reduce
and control property taxes. It was not promoted as a way to improve
schools. When asked about the effects of the revenue controls on the
quality of education, the percent saying "Negative" or "Very
Negative" grew from 63% in 2000, to 72% in 2001, to 81% in 2002.
Superintendents were not asked about the long-term effects of the
revenue controls in this study.
- The vast majority (91%) of superintendents want significant changes
in the current revenue controls law. In a previous study, 83% of superintendents
favored changing the revenue caps law to allow school boards greater
flexibility to exceed the caps. Likewise, 90% favored allowing districts
to increase spending by 1-2% without having to pass a referendum.
- Superintendents report that the revenue controls have caused cuts
in programs and services, resulting in conflicts or disagreements
between regular and special education teachers over the use of resources.
In their written comments, many superintendents criticized the state
and national governments for failing to adequately fund special needs
programs. This is an especially important issue because the percent
of students with special needs has increased significantly in recent
years (from approximately 8.5% in 1990 to 12.4% in 2003).
- The revenue controls law allows school districts to exceed the revenue
limits by passing a referendum. Most superintendents in 2001 said
that the referendum option is too time-consuming and burdensome and
should not be required in order to meet what they say are reasonable
and necessary operating expenses.
- Previous studies have shown no significant differences among rural/small
town, suburban, and urban school districts as to the number of cost-cutting
actions taken. Further, the number of cuts is unrelated to per pupil
spending amounts. This does not mean, however, that cuts have the
same impact in poor and rich districts, or that all cuts impact students
in the same way.
- Districts with declining enrollments reported more cost-cutting
actions than districts with increasing or stable student populations.
Superintendents from declining enrollment districts also have been
more critical of the revenue caps than superintendents from districts
in which the student population was stable or increasing.
For the results of previous years' studies, go to the OnWEAC
Resource Page on School Funding and scroll down to Research and
Perspective.
Posted December 17, 2004
