The Effects of Revenue Controls: 2005-06

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, 2005-06 School Year

Actions Taken in 27 Program and Service Areas

Since 1994, each questionnaire has included the same set of core questions (the first twenty-seven in the current study). For each of these 27 program and service areas, superintendents were asked if they took action during the previous school year (2005-06).

Table 2 Percent of Districts Taking Action in 27 Areas: 1998-1999 to 2005-06
Program or Service Area	98- 99	99- 00	00- 01	01- 02	02- 03	03- 04	04- 05	05- 06	Change
Delayed building maintenance or improvement projects	60	69	69	73	78	73	76	76	+16%
Spent less for maintenance of buildings and grounds	62	69	75	79	83	77	80	81	+19%
Spent less for improvements of buildings and grounds	64	70	73	79	84	81	82	79	+15%
Delayed/reduced purchase of curricular materials	56	62	66	73	77	74	74	75	+19%
Reduced purchase of consumable supplies, such as paper	54	62	66	71	75	73	75	73	+19%
Delayed/reduced purchase of computers, other technology	59	67	73	75	80	78	77	76	+17%
Offered fewer staff development opportunities for teachers	52	60	72	71	74	73	72	74	+22%
Laid off teachers	36	42	50	67	69	69	70	62	+26%
Laid off teacher aides or other support staff	40	45	54	66	71	69	66	63	+23%
Laid off administrators/supervisors	30	37	42	47	56	49	55	51	+21%
Reduced counseling or similar services	35	38	45	49	53	53	56	54	+19%
Delayed hiring of new staff	52	57	64	62	65	64	63	64	+12%
Reduced extracurricular programs	34	39	46	48	55	51	53	54	+20%
Reduced programs for students who are at risk	42	45	48	51	51	49	53	59	+17%
Reduced programs for gifted and talented students	47	53	53	55	60	55	61	60	+13%
Offered fewer courses	39	45	49	55	57	60	62	60	+21%
Reduced transportation services for students	39	41	48	50	56	52	55	52	+13%
Reduced summer school programs	41	40	43	44	49	54	52	49	+8%
Offered fewer field trips for students	41	48	60	59	61	64	66	66	+25%
Increased class sizes	48	50	56	64	68	68	70	74	+26%
Increased teacher workload	46	49	56	61	70	68	70	73	+17%
Increased administrator workload	56	63	66	74	78	79	81	78	+22%
Increased student fees	45	56	59	65	75	73	65	67	+22%
Used fund balance to support budget	51	53	57	64	69	64	65	65	+14%
Reduced number of academic courses offered to students	NA*	NA*	41	50	52	52	57	54	+13%
Reduced courses in art, music, theater, vocational, etc.	NA*	NA*	38	48	54	53	56	55	+17%
Did not replace departing staff	NA*	NA*	61	61	79	72	74	71	+10%

In each of the twenty seven areas, the percent of districts taking action has increased over the past seven years. The final column to the right in Table 2 shows the increase from 1998-99 to 2004-05². Across all 27 areas, an average of 65% of districts made cuts in 2005-06. In contrast, the average was 47% in 1998-99. For example, in 1998-99, 48% of districts increased class sizes. By 2005-06, 74% did so—an increase of 26%.

The typical took action in 16 of the 27 areas listed (median number = 17). Overall, 16% of districts reported not taking action in any of the twenty-seven areas listed in Table 2. In contrast, 33% acted in all 27 program and service areas (Figure 1).

Listed below are ten areas in which there was a gain of 20 percentage points or more from 1998-99 to 2005-06. Initially, districts tended to delay or eliminate facilities improvements or maintenance in order to limit spending. In recent years, however, cuts have occurred in all twenty-seven areas, many of which relate directly to what happens in the classroom. For example, at or near the top of the list below are increased class sizes, teacher layoffs, and layoffs of aides/support staff.

Table 3
	98-99	99-00	00-01	01-02	02-03	03-04	04-05	05-06	Change
Increased class sizes	48	50	56	64	68	68	70	74	+26%
Laid off teachers	36	42	50	67	69	69	70	62	+26%
Offered fewer field trips for students	41	48	60	59	61	64	66	66	+25%
Laid off teacher aides or other support staff	40	45	54	66	71	69	66	63	+23%
Offered fewer staff development opportunities for teachers	52	60	72	71	74	73	72	74	+22%
Increased administrator workload	56	63	66	74	78	79	81	78	+22%
Increased student fees	45	56	59	65	75	73	65	67	+22%
Laid off administrators/ supervisors	30	37	42	47	56	49	55	51	+21%
Offered fewer courses	39	45	49	55	57	60	62	60	+21%
Reduced extracurricular programs	34	39	46	48	55	51	53	54	+20%

2. Superintendents have been surveyed since 1993; however the wording of questions was changed in 2000-01. As a result, comparisons of earlier results with those since 1998-99 is not possible.

Posted February 18, 2007