Cuts Threaten Education Programs

By Lauren O’Connell

Like other Reading Recovery teachers before her, Mary Ellen LaChance appeared in front of the Madison Board of Education in March of 2003 to represent the program she has seen help so many children. The Reading Recovery program provides intensive tutoring for first-graders deemed “at-risk” readers, serving the lowest 10 to 20 percent of students. Because of severe budget cuts throughout the state, many districts have faced threats of specialized program elimination, turning Wisconsin’s teachers into advocates.

The school board has seen advocacy like this for Reading Recovery in previous years. In 1994, Dale Wortley and her colleagues took on a fight to save the program in Madison after the state introduced revenue caps into the repertoire of school funding. Their venture marked a great success for Reading Recovery, which Wortley, Barbara Keresty and Susan O’Leary celebrated in their 1998 book, You Can Make a Difference: A Teacher’s Guide to Political Activism.

The teachers of 2003, however, face even greater budget woes. Along with revenue caps, Wisconsin districts are experiencing large budget cuts and the elimination of the state’s two-thirds funding commitment, which made the state government responsible for providing two-thirds of school districts’ budgets. Problems like these can often only be overcome by community-passed referendums, as revenue caps limit district spending without them. In addition, a threat now arises as state legislators seek to cap property taxes, possibly removing the necessary resources afforded by such referendums.

The possible property tax caps worry educators and administrators who are already discontent with current budget laws. The Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) holds a firm position against revenue caps, which is reflected in its survey of superintendents. According to the most recent survey from 2001-2002, 91 percent of superintendents filling out the questionnaire wanted significant changes to the law.

The Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB) joins WEAC in recognizing the stress on specialized education programs. The elimination of two-thirds funding combined with Gov. Jim Doyle’s plea for local officials to try not to raise property taxes puts an even greater strain on school funding.

According to a 2002-2003 poll of superintendents taken by WEAC and the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators, 51 percent of the 327 participating districts reduced programs for at-risk students because of decreased spending attributed to revenue caps. Of those districts, 43 described the effects of the reductions as negative or very negative. Jeff Leverich, a WEAC research coordinator who helped analyze the data, explains that the category of “at-risk programs” includes those programs for at-risk readers.

Pam Rewey, director of legislative services for WASB, is concerned about funding for programs that serve smaller numbers of students. “I have a feeling that specific programs have already taken the hit,” she says.

An alternative to slashing programs like Reading Recovery, however, does exist. Districts can opt to propose referendums that allow them to exceed spending limits. The Madison Metropolitan School District, for example, passed a referendum allowing an additional $12.3 million in spending after it met with harsh criticism from administrators, teachers and parents when it offered 250 programs in jeopardy of being cut. Reading Recovery appeared on the list of potential items for elimination.

LaChance, a Reading Recovery teacher leader, puts the threat to the Madison program in perspective. “Reading Recovery isn’t required by the state like special ed programs,” she says. “So it becomes one that is considered (for elimination) when they have budget problems. But the program is very highly valued, so it’s normally one of the first to be taken off the list.”

In many other districts, however, voters cannot pass referendums because they simply do not possess the resources to shoulder the tax increase. This discrepancy poses an unfair advantage to districts with higher-income constituents.

“It depends where you live,” Rewey says. “I mean, some districts are very supportive, and that’s really not fair. It would be great if everybody who needed it could pass a referendum and exceed the revenue cap, but not every district can do that.”

Courtesy of Mary Ellen LaChance

Click on the photo to see the Reading Recovery graph.

The issue of low-income families presents itself in another way when it comes to programs like Reading Recovery. According to LaChance, 65 percent of the students in the Madison program receive free or reduced lunches last year, an indication that they come from lower-income families.

In light of this statistic, it would seem logical that low-income students benefit from programs like Reading Recovery that support at-risk children. Therefore, if the state government cuts such programs, the education of low-income students will presumably suffer more than that of other students.

But the question of who should spend the money to remedy the state budget crisis remains unanswered. Committee meeting minutes from various school boards, as well as pleading letters to state legislators from teachers, parents and students alike, advocate the retention of Reading Recovery.

LaChance reiterates this need for retention by uncovering one of the hidden benefits of the program. “There’s also the emotional issue,” she says. “If you can get a child feeling confident and competent, I don’t know how you can put a cost on that.”

The task of retention may become more difficult in later years, however, as the deficit increases and revenue caps remain. Taxpayers already express concerns with higher property taxes, as the governor attempts to deter districts from imposing them. The state’s elimination of two-thirds funding only furthers the problem of where money will come from in the future. To make matters worse, the state budget projections for next year predict extensive layoffs of teachers and support staff. And programs cannot exist without teachers to oversee them.

“Right now there aren’t enough Reading Recovery teachers for all the kids that qualify,” LaChance says. “But it’s unlikely that the program will expand with all these fiscal difficulties.”

Although Reading Recovery dodged the bullet of funding cuts this year, trouble may still be ahead, Rewey says. “They did not solve the budget deficit, they delayed it.”

For more information about this article visit the following sites:

Reading Recovery Council of North America: This site contains information about the Reading Recovery program including teacher lists and job opportunities.

Madison Metropolitan School District: This site has further information about the Madison Metropolitan school board including the budget for 2003-04 and priorities until 2005.