1 / 40

Impact of state budget cuts on public education

Impact of state budget cuts on public education. Anne 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

scarlet-chaney
Download Presentation

Impact of state budget cuts on public education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impact of state budget cuts on public education Anne Hierholzer, Director of the Center for Social Measurement and Evaluation Sarah Goff, Research Coordinator

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. Over 400 School Districts Participated

  7. 65% of the Student Population in Texas

  8. Findings from Impact Assessment

  9. Finding 1 There was great diversity as to how school districts were affected by and responded to the cuts.

  10. Basic Trends Emerged • Reduced expenditures • Staffing & Line item • Cost containment strategies • Diversified Revenue Streams • Grants • User fees • Tax Ratification Election & Fund Balance

  11. Districts Are Pursuing Alternate Revenue Streams • Grants • Public, private and corporate • Creative Solutions • Advertising, trademarking mascot, logo • Increased or instituted user fees

  12. Finding 2 In absolute terms urban/suburban schools lost more state aid but in per pupil terms rural/town districts lost more per student.

  13. Survey: On Average Urban Districts Lost More Money Than Rural Districts

  14. Survey: On Average Rural Districts Lost More Money Per Pupil

  15. Finding 3 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.

  16. Statewide: Staff Positions Reduced in 2011-2012

  17. Statewide: Teachers Cut Across Grade Levels

  18. Survey: Most Staffing Cuts Achieved Through Attrition

  19. Finding 4 Instituting or increasing cost containment measures was popular among school districts as a means to reduce overhead.

  20. Survey: Top Cost Containment Strategies in 2011-2012

  21. Survey: Top Cost Containment Strategies in 2012-2013

  22. Finding 5 Reducing expenditures was a necessity for districts however district size and geographic location impacted how they trimmed their budgets.

  23. Survey: Top Budgetary Reductions in 2011-2012

  24. Survey: Top Budgetary Reductions in 2012-2013

  25. 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

  26. Finding 6 Average class sizes have increased at the elementary and secondary level.

  27. 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

  28. Statewide: K-4 Class Size Waivers Increased

  29. Finding 7 Despite extensive research demonstrating the importance of early education, districts have reported changes to their pre-k programs.

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. Finding 8 The budget cuts prompted many districts to examine their operations to find efficiencies.

  33. 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

  34. Best Practices • Increased collaboration • Low central administrative overhead • Achieving economies of scale

  35. Finding 9 High-quality differentiated instruction has been compromised.

  36. Larger Classrooms Mean… • Less time for one on one instruction • Small group activities have become larger • Less time for detailed, individualized feedback and support

  37. 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

  38. 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

  39. Thank you to our funders Genevieve and Ward OrsingerFoundation Kathryn & Beau Ross Foundation KDK-Harman Foundation Powell Foundation Meadows Foundation M.R. and Evelyn Hudson Foundation RGK Foundation San Antonio Area Foundation The Simmons Foundation The Trull Foundation Wright Family Foundation

  40. For more information or to read CHILDREN AT RISK’S full reportDoing More With Less? Public Education in a New Fiscal Reality please visit www.childrenatrisk.org

More Related