| SEARCH OnWEAC |
|---|
Effects of the Cuts
If a superintendent indicated that the district had acted, he or she then was asked to indicate the “effects” of the decision, using a scale that ranged from “Very Negative” to “Very Positive.” Overwhelmingly, superintendents described the effects as negative. For some actions, a significant proportion said the effects did not make much difference. Almost no one said the effects were positive.
For example, item eight asked superintendents if their district had laid off teachers. Sixty-two percent of superintendents said their district had done this (see Table 4). When asked about the effects of the decision, 66% said the effects were “Negative” or “Very Negative.” Only 1% said “Positive.” Thirty-three percent answered “No Difference.” The selection of the “No Difference” option suggests that the lays offs probably were quite small in about 30% of districts.
Table 4 reports what superintendents said about the effects of actions taken in each of the 27 areas. The 27 areas are ranked from high to low by the reported negative effect.
| Table 4 Effects of Actions in 27 Areas* |
||||
| Program or Service Area | Negative/ very Neg. (%) |
No Diff. (%) |
Positive/ very Pos. (%) |
DK (%) |
| 22. Increased administrator workload | 85 |
13 |
2 |
1 |
| 2. Spent less for maintenance of buildings and grounds | 84 |
15 |
1 |
0 |
| 1. Delayed building maintenance or improvement projects | 83 |
16 |
1 |
0 |
| 3. Spent less for improvement of buildings and grounds | 83 |
15 |
1 |
0 |
| 6. Delayed/ reduced purchase of computers, other technology | 76 |
22 |
2 |
0 |
| 20. Increased class sizes | 74 |
25 |
0 |
1 |
| 27. Did not replace departing staff | 72 |
27 |
1 |
0 |
| 21. Increased teacher workload | 72 |
26 |
1 |
1 |
| 9. Laid off teacher aides or other support staff | 71 |
28 |
1 |
0 |
| 4. Delayed / reduced purchase of curricular materials | 69 |
29 |
1 |
1 |
| 12. Delayed hiring of new staff | 69 |
31 |
0 |
0 |
| 24. Used fund balance to support budget | 69 |
30 |
1 |
0 |
| 7. Offered fewer staff development opportunities for teachers | 68 |
30 |
1 |
1 |
| 19. Offered fewer field trips for students | 66 |
32 |
1 |
1 |
| 8. Laid off teachers | 66 |
33 |
0 |
1 |
| 5. Reduced purchase of consumable supplies, such as paper | 59 |
41 |
0 |
1 |
| 23. Increased student fees | 59 |
37 |
3 |
0 |
| 16. Offered fewer courses | 55 |
44 |
1 |
0 |
| 15. Reduced programs for gifted and talented students | 54 |
46 |
1 |
0 |
| 11. Reduced counseling or similar services | 49 |
51 |
0 |
0 |
| 25. Reduced number of academic courses offered to students | 48 |
52 |
1 |
0 |
| 10. Laid off administrators/ supervisors | 48 |
52 |
0 |
0 |
| 14. Reduced programs for students who are at risk | 43 |
56 |
1 |
0 |
| 26. Reduced courses in art, music, theater, vocational, etc. | 42 |
57 |
0 |
1 |
| 13. Reduced extracurricular programs | 42 |
57 |
1 |
0 |
| 17. Reduced transportation services for students | 35 |
63 |
2 |
1 |
| 18. Reduced summer school programs | 26 |
72 |
2 |
0 |
*Due to rounding, the figures do not always total 100%
Posted February 18, 2007