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