The Tightening Purse Strings: What Teachers Wish Could Go Before Students Feel the Squeeze
It’s no secret that many school districts across the USA are tightening their belts. Budget shortfalls, rising costs, and shifting priorities often leave administrators facing tough choices. Headlines scream about potential layoffs, larger class sizes, and the heartbreaking elimination of beloved programs like art, music, or athletics. While teachers understand the fiscal realities, they often have a unique, ground-level perspective on where the least painful cuts could be made – places where trimming might not directly harm student learning or well-being.
So, when faced with the dreaded “What should we cut?” question, what do many educators point to? It’s rarely about cutting the heart out of education. Instead, they highlight inefficiencies, redundancies, and areas that drain resources without demonstrably boosting student outcomes.
1. Excessive Standardized Testing & Associated Costs:
This is perhaps the loudest chorus from teachers. While assessment has its place, the sheer volume, cost, and time commitment of state-mandated standardized tests are frequently cited as a prime target.
The Cost: Developing, printing, administering, and scoring these tests costs districts millions annually.
The Time Drain: Weeks of instructional time are lost to test prep, administration, and make-up sessions. Teachers see this as a massive opportunity cost where genuine teaching and learning could occur.
The Redundancy: Many teachers feel classroom-based assessments, portfolios, and their own professional observations provide richer, more immediate data about student progress than a single high-stakes test. Cutting back on the frequency or scope of these tests, or eliminating redundant ones, is high on their wish list.
2. Bloated Administrative Layers & Non-Essential Central Office Positions:
Teachers often question the proliferation of administrative roles at the district level, especially when classroom resources are dwindling.
The Perception: They see positions created for niche initiatives that may have limited direct impact on daily classroom life. Consultants, coordinators for specific (often short-lived) programs, and excessive layers of management can seem like luxuries when a school can’t afford enough textbooks or paraeducators.
The Ask: Consolidation of roles, streamlining district office functions, and ensuring administrative growth doesn’t outpace growth in direct student support services. The priority, teachers argue, should be funding the people and resources in the building with students.
3. Outdated or Low-Impact Professional Development:
Professional development (PD) is crucial, but teachers often lament the quality and relevance of mandatory sessions.
The Waste: Expensive, one-size-fits-all workshops delivered by external consultants that don’t address specific school or teacher needs. “Sit-and-get” sessions that offer little practical application.
The Alternative: Teachers frequently advocate for more meaningful, cost-effective PD:
Peer-Led Learning: Utilizing expert teachers within the district to lead collaborative PD.
Job-Embedded Coaching: Investing in instructional coaches who work directly with teachers in their classrooms.
Teacher Choice: Allowing educators to select PD aligned with their individual goals and student needs, potentially using online platforms or conferences.
Cutting costly, ineffective external PD contracts in favor of smarter, internal models is a common suggestion.
4. Inefficient or Duplicative Purchasing and Software Subscriptions:
Teachers on the front lines often see the waste firsthand – unused equipment, duplicate software licenses, subscriptions to online platforms that gather digital dust.
The Problem: Lack of coordination between departments or schools leading to redundant purchases. Failure to audit and cancel unused subscriptions. Purchasing the latest tech fad without adequate training or a clear plan for integration.
The Solution: Implementing strict inventory management, centralizing purchasing with clear oversight, conducting regular audits of software usage, and involving teachers in technology procurement decisions to ensure tools are truly needed and will be used effectively.
5. Low-Engagement Electives or Programs with Minimal Enrollment:
This is a sensitive area, as cutting programs always impacts someone. However, teachers sometimes point to electives or special programs that consistently have very low enrollment.
The Rationale: Maintaining a specialized course for only 5-10 students is incredibly resource-intensive per pupil (teacher salary, materials, classroom space).
The Nuance: Teachers emphasize this should never be the first resort, and core offerings like arts, vocational training, or advanced academics must be protected. But when budgets are dire, consolidating very low-enrollment courses (perhaps offering them online in collaboration with other districts) or sunsetting programs that demonstrably haven’t gained traction might free up resources for higher-impact areas serving more students.
6. Excessive Paper Consumption and Printing Costs:
While seemingly small, the cost of paper, ink, and printer maintenance is staggering in large districts.
The Reality: Many schools still rely heavily on paper newsletters, mass-printed notices, worksheets that could be digital, and excessive copying.
The Shift: Teachers increasingly advocate for embracing digital communication (email, apps, websites) and utilizing learning management systems (LMS) for assignments and resources. Reducing unnecessary printing represents both a cost savings and an environmental win.
What Teachers FIGHT to Protect:
Understanding what teachers want to cut is only half the picture. It’s equally defined by what they passionately advocate to keep:
Classroom Teachers & Support Staff: Smaller class sizes and adequate support (paraprofessionals, counselors, nurses, librarians) are non-negotiable for effective teaching and student well-being. Cutting counselors, for example, when student mental health needs are soaring, is seen as catastrophic.
Core Classroom Resources: Basic supplies, up-to-date textbooks (or digital equivalents), and functional technology are essential.
Vital Student Services: Special education support, English Language Learner programs, free/reduced lunch, and school psychologists are lifelines for vulnerable students.
Programs that Engage and Enrich: Arts, music, physical education, athletics, clubs, and career/technical education (CTE) programs are often the very things that keep students engaged and coming to school. Cutting these is seen as sacrificing student motivation and holistic development.
The Teacher’s Plea: Involve Us!
Perhaps the most consistent message from teachers isn’t just about what to cut, but how decisions are made. They feel their frontline experience provides invaluable insight into what truly impacts learning and what constitutes wasteful spending.
“Too often, cuts happen to us, not with us,” one veteran high school teacher shared. “We see the waste every day – the unused software, the poorly planned PD, the reams of paper for notices parents ignore. Ask us. We know where the fat is, and more importantly, we know what muscle you absolutely cannot cut without hurting kids.”
Budget cuts are painful realities. But by listening to educators about potential inefficiencies and focusing cuts on areas least likely to diminish the quality of instruction or student support, districts can navigate these challenges more wisely. Protecting the core mission – educating and nurturing students – requires shielding the classroom from the deepest blows of the budget axe. Teachers know better than anyone where that protection is needed most.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » The Tightening Purse Strings: What Teachers Wish Could Go Before Students Feel the Squeeze