Upload
jayce-warth
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IMPACT OF STATE BUDGET CUTS ON PUBLIC EDUCATIONAnne Hierholzer, Director of the Center for Social Measurement and Evaluation
Sarah Goff, Research Coordinator
About CHILDREN AT RISK
Formed in 1989 in Houston to improve the quality of life for children Conduct extensive research and data
collection Build cross sector collaboration Drive needed media and community
attention to pressing issues Advocate for children at a local and
state level Publish annual public school rankings in
partnership with the Texas Tribune and Houston Chronicle
Texas 82nd Legislature Cut $5.4 Billion From Public Education
$1.4 billion in discretionary grants Technology allotment Pre-Kindergarten School bus seatbelts And more….
$4 billion in formula funding 8% cut in 2011-2012 10% cut in 2012-2013
Texas Public Education Cuts: Impact Assessment
Quantitative Data Collection: School District Survey Phase I Survey
Stratified Random Sample of 120 school districts and a nonrandom sample of 15+ major urban school districts
Phase II Survey Balance of school districts (900)
Qualitative interviews at the district and
campus level
Non-Profit Survey
Superintendent Advisory Committee
Heath Burns
Abilene ISD
Wanda Bamberg
Aldine ISD
Robert McLain
Channing ISD
Mark Henry
Cypress-Fairbanks ISD
Nola Wellman
Eanes ISD
Curtis Culwell
Garland ISD
Terry Grier
Houston ISD
Guy Sconzo
Humble ISD
Thomas Randle
Lamar CISD
Bret Champion
Leander ISD
Karen Garza
Lubbock ISD
Kirk Lewis
Pasadena ISD
Daniel King
Pharr-San Juan-Alamos ISD
Duncan Klussmann (Chair)
Spring Branch ISD
Over 400 School Districts Participated
65% of the Student Population in Texas
Findings from Impact Assessment
There was great diversity as to how school districts were affected by and responded to the cuts.
Finding 1
Basic Trends Emerged
Reduced expenditures Staffing & Line item Cost containment strategies
Diversified Revenue Streams Grants User fees Tax Ratification Election & Fund Balance
Districts Are Pursuing Alternate Revenue Streams
Grants Public, private and corporate
Creative Solutions Advertising, trademarking mascot, logo
Increased or instituted user fees
In absolute terms urban/suburban schools lost more state aid but in per pupil terms rural/town districts lost more per student.
Finding 2
Survey: On Average Urban Districts Lost More Money Than Rural Districts
City Suburb Town Rural$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$9,828,471
$8,081,230
$1,351,589
$777,759
$8,402,877
$5,477,825
$1,065,350$618,844
2011-20122012-2013
Survey: On Average Rural Districts Lost More Money Per Pupil
City Suburb Town Rural$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$345
$408
$628 $609
$226
$360 $352$395
2011-20122012-2013
Districts wanted to avoid teacher layoffs at all costs. However, payroll expenses make up the bulk of school district spending. Consequently, many districts were unable to avoid a reduction in teaching staff which was achieved through attrition.
Finding 3
Statewide: Staff Positions Reduced in 2011-2012
Prof
essio
nal T
each
ing
Prof
essio
nal S
uppo
rt
Prof
essio
nal A
dminist
rativ
e
Para
prof
essio
nal
Auxilia
ry0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
1200010,717 (-3%)
2,188 (-4%) 545 (-2%)
4,863 (-7%)
6,973 (-4%)
Statewide: Teachers Cut Across Grade Levels
All G
rade
s
Pre-
Kind
erga
rten
Kind
erga
rten
Elem
enta
ry
Mid
dle
Scho
ol
Seco
ndar
y0
5001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,000
3,443
1,132
358
2,885
180
2,619
Survey: Most Staffing Cuts Achieved Through Attrition
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-20130
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2,519
7,641
1,688
All PositionsPositions Eliminated by AttritionPositions Eliminated by Reduction in Force
Instituting or increasing cost containment measures was popular among school districts as a means to reduce overhead.
Finding 4
Survey: Top Cost Containment Strategies in 2011-2012
Did N
ot R
ehire
Sta
ff
Defer
red
Maint
enan
ce
Froz
e Ad
minist
rativ
e Sa
larie
s
Defer
red
Tech
nology
Upg
rade
s
Froz
e Te
ache
r Salar
ies
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100% 88%
64% 60% 58%45%
Survey: Top Cost Containment Strategies in 2012-2013
0%
20%
40%
60%
Reducing expenditures was a necessity for districts however district size and geographic location impacted how they trimmed their budgets.
Finding 5
Survey: Top Budgetary Reductions in 2011-2012
0%
20%
40%
60%
Survey: Top Budgetary Reductions in 2012-2013
0%
20%
40%
60%
Different Districts Made Different Cuts
In 2011 urban and suburban school districts were more likely to cut: Guidance counseling services Social work services Health services Libraries
In 2012 lower poverty districts were more likely to cut student support and interventions
Average class sizes have increased at the elementary and secondary level.
Finding 6
Small Class Size as an Education Policy Priority
Research and evidence based practice show small class size yields positive academic gains for minority and high poverty students
State education policy has historically prioritized small class size initiatives
Statewide: K-4 Class Size Waivers Increased
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-20120
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1,375932 1,061
3,032
Despite extensive research demonstrating the importance of early education, districts have reported changes to their pre-k programs.
Finding 7
High Quality Early Childhood Education Programs Work
Minority and high poverty children who engage in high quality early education programs are more likely to: Have higher cognitive tests scores
Achieve more years of education and are more likely to attend college
Maintain academic gains in math & reading into early adulthood
Survey: 12% of districts reported a change in pre-k offerings
Of those districts that reported a change in pre-k programing: 9% saw a decrease in pre-k offerings
Over 79,500 students were affected by decreases in pre-k
13 high-poverty districts reduced pre-k programs
The budget cuts prompted many districts to examine their operations to find efficiencies.
Finding 8
Opportunity for Efficiencies
Operations
Energy audits Increased
monitoring of water usage
Rebid contracts Waste
management audits
Transportation
Cluster stops Rerouting buses Reducing
catchment area by miles and student grade level
Best Practices
Increased collaboration
Low central administrative overhead
Achieving economies of scale
High-quality differentiated instruction has been compromised.
Finding 9
Larger Classrooms Mean…
Less time for one on one instruction
Small group activities have become larger
Less time for detailed, individualized feedback and support
Fewer Teachers and Teachers Aides Mean…
Teachers have less support
Teachers have larger course loads and have lost critical planning periods
Decrease in student remediation
Districts Struggle to Attract and Retain Top Talent
Contributing factors include: Decreased morale Reduced professional development Wage reductions Stagnant salaries Increased workloads
Some school districts are losing their competitive edge
THANK YOU TO OUR FUNDERSGenevieve and Ward Orsinger Foundation
Kathryn & Beau Ross Foundation
KDK-Harman FoundationPowell Foundation
Meadows FoundationM.R. and Evelyn Hudson Foundation
RGK Foundation
San Antonio Area Foundation
The Simmons Foundation
The Trull Foundation
Wright Family Foundation
For more information or to read CHILDREN AT RISK’S full report
Doing More With Less? Public Education in a New Fiscal Reality
please visit www.childrenatrisk.org