The Effects of Revenue Controls: 2003-04

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

The Effects of Revenue Controls on the Programs and Services Offered by Wisconsin's Public Schools, 2003-04 School Year

97.1KB 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 took actions. During 2003-04, the average district acted in 17 of the 27 listed program and service areas. At the extremes, 3% of districts avoided taking any actions, while 33% acted in all 27 areas (see Figure 1).

Cuts in Specific Programs and Services
Table 1 shows the percent of districts taking action during the past five years in each of 27 program and service areas. For example, in 2003-04, 73% of districts delayed building maintenance or improvement projects. The figures for the four previous years were as follows: 66% in 1999-00, 69% in 2000-01, 73% in 2001-02, and 78% in 2002-03. Without exception, the percent of districts making cuts in all of the 27 areas is greater in 2003-04 than was true five years earlier. It also is important to recognize that most districts have made cuts in the same areas for several consecutive years; the cuts reported in 2003-04 are not a first-time occurrence.

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 in Table 1 shows the percent of superintendents reporting that the effects of the cut were "Negative" or "Very Negative." Across the 27 areas, an average of 60% report that the cuts had an adverse effect. Fewer than 1% of superintendents said the effects were "Positive" or "Very Positive."

Table 1
Percent of Districts Taking Action in 27 Programs and Services,
1999-2000 to 2003-04

Program or service area	1999-00	2000-01	2001-02	2002-03	2003-04	% saying cuts had negative/ very negative effects in '03-04
1. Delayed building maintenance or improvement projects	66%	69%	73%	78%	73%	80%
2. Spent less for maintenance of buildings and grounds	69	75	79	83	77	81
3. Spent less for improvements of buildings and grounds	70	73	79	84	79	81
4. Delayed/ reduced purchase of currciular materials	62	66	73	77	74	66
5. Reduced purchase of consumable supplies, such as paper	62	66	71	75	73	54
6. Delayed/ reduced purchase of computers, other technology	67	73	75	80	78	79
7. Offered fewer staff development opportunities for teachers	60	72	71	74	73	64
8. Laid off teachers	42	50	67	69	69	71
9. Laid off teacher aides or other support staff	45	54	66	71	69	71
10. Laid off administrators/ supervisors	37	42	47	56	43	51
11. Reduced counseling or similar services	38	45	49	53	53	45
12. Delayed hiring new staff	57	64	62	65	64	60
13. Reduced extracurricular programs	39	46	48	55	51	45
14. Reduced programs for students who are at risk	45	48	51	51	49	38
15. Reduced programs for gifted and talented students	53	53	55	60	55	54
16. Offered fewer courses	45	49	55	57	60	57
17. Reduced transportation services for students	41	48	50	56	52	35
18. Reduced summer school programs	40	43	44	49	54	27
19. Offered fewer field trips for students	48	60	59	61	64	61
20. Increased class sizes	50	56	64	68	68	70
21. Increased teacher workload	49	56	61	70	68	65
22. Increased administrator workload	63	66	74	78	79	81
23. Increased student fees	56	59	65	75	73	70
24. Used fund balance to support budget	53	57	64	69	64	64
25. Reduced number of academic courses offered to students	NA*	41	50	52	52	45
26. Reduced courses in art, music, theatre, vocational, etc.	NA*	38	48	54	53	41
27. Did not replace departing staff	NA*	61	61	79	72	68

* Questions 25-27 were added in 2000-01.

Posted December 17, 2004