EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

INVESTING IN OUR FUTURE: RETURNING 

TEACHERS TO THE CLASSROOM

AUGUST 2012
This report was prepared jointly by the Council of Economic Advisors, the Domestic 

Policy Council, and the National Economic Council.
1

“So it should concern everyone that right now – all across America – tens of thousands 

of teachers are getting laid off....Think about what that means for our country. When 

there are fewer teachers in our schools, class sizes start climbing up. Our students start 

falling behind. And our economy takes a hit.”

-President Barack Obama, June 9, 2012

When the President took office, the economy was in free fall, shrinking by nearly nine 

percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, and losing 800,000 jobs per month. The President 

took immediate and bold action and passed the Recovery Act to return the economy to 

growth in six months. Over the past 29 months our economy has added 4.5 million 

private-sector jobs. Yet since the official end of the recession in June 2009, we have lost 

more than 300,000 local education jobs – raising class sizes and threatening the education 

of our nation’s children. In just the last month alone, 7,000 local education jobs –

teachers, school aides, and support staff serving our children – were lost. In addition to 

reducing the number of teachers on their payrolls, school districts have cut prekindergarten and kindergarten programs, shortened the school day or school year, and 

have cut back on other critical education programs. This is not the way to make sure that 

our students are prepared to take high-paying and high-demand jobs of the future or 

strengthen our nation’s competitiveness.

 More than 300,000 education jobs have been lost since the end of the recession. 

Since the end of the recession in June 2009, the economy lost over 300,000 local 

education jobs. The loss of education jobs stands in stark contrast to every other 

recovery in recent years, under Republican and Democratic Administrations.

 The loss of teacher jobs can mean larger class sizes and difficult choices for 

schools. The national student-teacher ratio increased by 4.6 percent from 2008 to 

2010, rolling back all the gains made since 2000. Further layoffs in 2011 and 2012 

mean that the student-teacher ratio will continue to increase as we enter the 2012-13 

school year. From Florida to Ohio to California, districts have faced teacher 

shortages, have cut preschool and kindergarten programs, and have shortened the 

school week and school year. 

 The President’s plan would prevent teacher layoffs and invest in comprehensive 

reform and strengthening of public education. The President’s plan would provide 

$25 billion to prevent layoffs and support hundreds of thousands of teacher and other 

education jobs. 

 The House Republican Budget would slash education funding. The budget passed 

by Republicans in Congress would cut non-defense discretionary spending by almost 

20 percent. If cuts were distributed evenly, this budget would imply $2.7 billion in 

cuts to basic Title I education grants, meaning that nearly 38,000 teachers and aides 

could lose their jobs as a result of cuts to Title I spending alone. Cuts would also be 

made to early childhood education and special education, significantly impairing 

schools’ ability to best serve their students. 
2

A look at the available data shows that the nationwide student-teacher ratio increased by 

4.6 percent from the fall of 2008 to the fall of 2010, from 15.3 to 16.0. As documented in 

Figure 1, this increase in the student-teacher ratio erased a decade of gains. Moreover, 

since the fall of 2010, the last date for which we have the student-teacher ratio data, local 

governments have cut about 150,000 additional education jobs – meaning that the 

student-teacher ratio has almost certainly increased further. 

Figure 1. Public Elementary and Secondary Student-Teacher Ratios, 2000 to 2010

Source: Student-teacher ratios through 2009 come from NCES 2011, Table 69. The student-teacher ratio 

for 2010 comes from NCES 2012, Table 4.

Typical class sizes are larger than the student-teacher ratio because the student-teacher 

ratio includes teachers for students with disabilities and other special teachers that are 

excluded from class size counts. In the fall of 2007, the average class size was 20 

students for elementary classes and 23.4 among secondary classes (NCES 2011, Table 

72). The student-teacher ratio increased by 3.2 percent from 2007 to 2010; if this same 

increase applies to class sizes, the average class size would have increased to 20.6 for 

elementary students and 24.1 for high school students by the fall of 2010. Indeed, a 

survey by the American Association of School Administrators, a majority of school 

administrators reported that they had increased class sizes in the 2011-2012 school year, 

and a majority anticipate eliminating jobs in the upcoming school year as well. 

Moreover, averages can mask large class size increases in some districts, particularly 

because some districts have faced much steeper cuts to their education budget than 

others. We know from reports and surveys that many of our school districts are 

increasing class sizes by substantial amounts and some are doing so in already 

16.0

15.9 15.9

15.9

15.8

15.6

15.6

15.5

15.3

15.4

16.0

14.8

15.0

15.2

15.4

15.6

15.8

16.0

16.2

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Student-Teacher Ratio
3

overcrowded districts. Parents know from common sense that laying off teachers, 

increasing class sizes, and cutting back on crucial programs hurts students. And a 

detailed look at the evidence – based on well-designed randomized experiments –

confirms that larger class sizes have lasting negative effects: lowering high-school 

graduation rates, reducing the chance that students take college entrance exams like the 

ACT or SAT, and lowering the chance of college enrollment and completion. 

If we want our country to be a magnet for middle-class jobs in the 21st century, we have 

to invest more in education, not less. Yet we are entering the school year with tens of 

thousands of fewer educators than we did last year. Had the Congress passed the 

American Jobs Act last year as the President urged them to do, these harsh effects could 

have been mitigated. The President’s plan, reflected in his FY2013 budget, would invest 

$25 billion to prevent teacher layoffs and provide states with the funds they need as they 

continue to face difficult budgetary environments. The funding proposed by President 

Obama would support hundreds of thousands of teacher jobs – allowing districts to rehire 

previously laid off teachers, retain those teachers who are making a positive difference in 

the classroom, and hire new teachers in needed areas like math, science, and special 

education.

The President’s plan stands in stark contrast to the plans outlined by Congressional 

Republicans. Most notably, the House budget passed by Republicans in Congress this 

spring would cut the portion of the budget that includes basic funding for education –

such as Title I education grants for schools serving low-income students and Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding serving special needs children – by 

almost 20 percent in 2014. Distributed evenly across budget areas, the House Republican

budget cuts to Title I would eliminate funding for 38,000 teachers and aides, and cuts to 

IDEA grants could eliminate support for a further 27,000 special education teachers, 

aides, and other staff serving children with disabilities. Funding for the preschool 

programs Early Head Start and Head Start would also be cut. The Congressional 

Republican plan could result in 200,000 low-income children losing access to these early 

education programs. 

The difference between the President’s education budget proposals and those of 

Congressional Republicans highlights a choice between two fundamentally different 

visions for our country. Nowhere is this contrast more clear than with regard to the choice 

about investments in teachers and educators as we enter the upcoming school year.
4

I. THE LOSS OF TEACHER AND EDUCATION JOBS IN THE CURRENT 

RECOVERY IS UNPRECEDENTED

The recent recession has left the nation with a significant shortfall in teacher staffing 

compared to pre-recession staffing levels. This decline stands in sharp contrast to what 

has happened during every other post-war recession and recovery, under Democratic and 

Republican Presidents alike. While private payrolls added 172,000 jobs in July 2012, 

public sector employment, and in particular, local education jobs, have continued to 

decline. The economy lost 7,000 local education jobs in the last month, 77,100 in the past 

year, and 312,700 since the recession ended in June 2009. By comparison, private-sector 

businesses added 1.9 million jobs in the past year and 3.4 million jobs since June 2009. 

Figure 2: Percentage Change in Government Local Education Jobs 37 Months After 

the End of a Recession

This decline in local government education employment is historically unprecedented. In 

every other recovery for which we have employment data—in 2001 under President 

George W. Bush, in the early 1990s under President Clinton, in the early 1980s under 

President Reagan, and going back to every recovery in the past half-century since the 

term of President Eisenhower—local public education was a source of job creation. As 

shown in Figure 2 above, the decline in local education employment since the most 

14.4

17.6

13.1

5.3 5.1

5.7

3.2

-3.9

9.2

-5

0

5

10

15

20

1958 1961 1970 1975 1982 1991 2001 2009 Average of

7 Prior

Recessions

Percent
5

recent recession ended in 2009 is unique among recoveries. In every other case, local 

education employment had registered substantial percentage increases by the comparable 

point in the recovery period, as contrasted with the substantial decrease in local 

government education employment registered in the current recovery period. 

The implications of this unprecedented decline in local education jobs in the current 

recovery are stark: instead of moving into the upcoming school year with more educators 

to serve the growing number of students in our schools, we are digging ourselves a 

deeper and deeper hole. As teacher jobs are declining, student enrollment is projected to 

continue growing. In every other recent recession, even when the number of education

jobs fell as the economy weakened, their number rebounded as the economy recovered 

rather than continuing to fall as has been the case over the past three years. 

II. STATES CONTINUE TO FACE A DIFFICULT BUDGET ENVIRONMENT 

THAT COULD FORCE MORE LAYOFFS

The severe recession caused serious budget problems for many state and local 

governments. As shown in Figure 3, the revenue received by state and local governments 

from sources other than the Federal government rose consistently until 2008 and then fell 

a precipitous 9.6 percent between the middle of 2008 and the middle of 2009. State and 

local revenue did not return to its mid-2008 level (in nominal terms) until the second 

quarter of this year, and remains well below the projected level implied by its prerecession trend. The large drop in revenue from non-federal sources forced states and 

localities to reduce expenditures, to seek increases in revenue from other sources, or both. 

Indeed, as shown in Figure 4, despite twelve straight quarters of nationwide economic 

growth, these state fiscal problems persist. State budget shortfalls totaled over $100 

billion in every fiscal year from 2009 through 2012, and budget shortfalls are projected to 

continue into the future, as the legacy of the Great Recession weighs on sources of state 

income. 
6

Figure 3: State and Local Government Revenue Less Federal Grants

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Note: The shaded area represents the recession. The dotted line represents pre-recession trend since 2003:Q1. 

Figure 4: State Budget Shortfalls

Source: Oliff, Mai, and Palacios, 2012

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

03:Q1 04:Q1 05:Q1 06:Q1 07:Q1 08:Q1 09:Q1 10:Q1 11:Q1 12:Q1

Billions of $, Seasonally Adjusted

-$110

-$191

-$130

-$107

-$55

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Dollars, 

Billions
7

Traditionally, the lion’s share of the costs of public elementary and secondary education 

in the United States have been borne by state and local governments, with the federal 

government accounting for a much smaller fraction of these costs. The exceptionally 

difficult fiscal situation faced by state and local governments in recent years has had a 

strongly adverse impact on spending for elementary and secondary education. As shown 

in Figure 5, nominal state and local elementary and secondary education spending fell in 

both 2009 and 2010. This is unprecedented – prior to 2009, nominal spending by state 

and local governments on elementary and secondary education had increased in every 

year since these data first began to be recorded in 1959, as public school enrollment has 

continued to grow every year since the mid-1980s.

Figure 5: State and Local Spending on Elementary and Secondary Education

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Note: Shaded area represents recession. The dotted line represents the trend from 2003 to 2008. 

As highlighted in the next section, state and local governments forced to cut education

spending have faced difficult choices among increasing class sizes, shortening the length 

of the school week or school year, and cutting key programs. 

0

450

500

550

600

650

700

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Billions of $
8

III. TEACHER LAYOFFS FORCE DISTRICTS INTO DIFFICULT CHOICES,

INCLUDING INCREASING CLASS SIZES AND CUTTING KEY PROGRAMS

Cuts to education budgets translate into reductions of our education workforce, which has

the potential to be very costly in the long term. In districts across the country, 

underinvestment in education has led to overcrowded classrooms, shorter school days and

years, and cuts to critical support to education programs for vulnerable students. 

Figure 1 above shows that, as a result of the Great Recession and subsequent reductions 

in educator employment, we have lost nearly a decade of improvements in the nationwide 

student-teacher ratio. After falling almost every year since 1992, the ratio increased from 

15.3 in 2008 to 16.0 in 2010, an increase of 4.6 percent. Moreover, since the fall of 2010 

(the most recent period for which student-teacher ratios are available), local governments 

have cut about 150,000 additional education jobs, meaning that the student-teacher ratio

and class sizes have almost certainly increased further. Class sizes are larger than the 

student-teacher ratio because the student-teacher ratio includes teachers for students with 

disabilities and other special teachers that are excluded from class sizes. In the fall of 

2007, the average class size was 20 students for elementary classes and 23.4 among 

secondary classes (NCES 2011, Table 72). Between the fall of 2007 and the fall of 2010 

the student-teacher ratio increased by 3.2 percent. If class sizes increased by the same rate 

over that period, average class sizes in fall 2010 would be 20.6 for elementary students 

and 24.1 for high school students.

In addition to increasing class sizes, districts that are reducing the size of their teaching 

staff may deal with those losses by increasing the number of classes each teacher is 

assigned to teach, or decreasing summer or after-school learning opportunities for 

students. For example, districts that reduce teaching positions may reduce the number of 

early education slots or cut back on other programs in order to accommodate a smaller 

number of teachers. 

A 2012 report by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) highlights 

the tough choices facing many school districts (Ellerson 2012). The AASA surveyed its 

members and found that 68 percent of the responding school administrators eliminated 

jobs during the 2011-2012 school year. About 41 percent eliminated core subject 

classroom teachers and 44 percent eliminated teacher aides or assistants. 
9

As a result of these cuts, many administrators have reported they had to compromise 

education quality:

 54 percent increased class sizes

 22 percent eliminated summer school programs

 35 percent reduced non-academic programs such as after-school and weekend 

programs

Looking forward to the coming school year, 66 percent of administrators who responded 

to the survey anticipate eliminating jobs during the school year – forcing additional tough 

choices for districts around the country in balancing education jobs with myriad needs for 

their schools.

IV. IN THE COMING 2012-2013 SCHOOL YEAR, SCHOOLS CONTINUE TO 

FACE DIFFICULT CHOICES

A look at reports and news from school districts across the country shows just some of 

the difficult decisions states and school districts have been forced to make going into the 

upcoming school year: 

 Class sizes increase in North Carolina. An August 12th report in the Asheville 

Citizen-Times, reports that funding for K-12 education over the past four years 

declined from $8.19 billion to $7.51 billion. “At the same time, the number of 

students statewide has grown by about 16,000. Projected enrollment at North 

Carolina schools this year is 1.5 million. Schools have felt the cuts in different 

ways....Class sizes have climbed. At Enka Middle in Buncombe County, for 

example, some class sizes will reach 31 students — even in core subjects such as 

math and English.”

 Pittsburgh public schools lay off 280 teachers and education professionals. A 

story in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on July 26th explained that going into the 

upcoming 2012-2013 school year, “In an effort to save money... the city school 

board approved a furlough list that includes 176 K-12 teachers and other 

professionals, 14 pre-K teachers, 59 paraprofessionals, 12 adjuncts, 10 other preK professionals and nine technical-clerical workers.”

 Las Vegas Schools cuts positions and increase class sizes. On August 10th, the 

Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Clark County is increasing class sizes by 

three in the upcoming year – in classes that are already the most overcrowded in 

America. Although the district rehired 419 teachers who had been laid off, “Their 

former jobs - and 600 other teaching positions - no longer exist, which means 
10

class-size increases and program cuts remain in effect. Instead, those laid off last 

school year will be filling jobs vacated by teachers who have retired or resigned... 

Clark County averaged 32 students per class last year, the highest student/teacher 

ratio in the country... This school year, the average class size will increase to 35 

students at high schools, middle schools and grades four and five.”

 California plans to cut funding for preschool. On July 24th the Lake County 

News reported that the latest budget signed by the Governor included $130 

million in cuts to early childhood education, which will take effect on September 

1. Throughout the state, preschool slots are being cut and full-day slots are 

becoming half-day slots. 

 Los Angeles shortens its school year by a full week. On June 28th, the LA 

Times reported that going into the upcoming school year, “The Los Angeles 

Board of Education approved its final $6-billion budget Thursday, bridging a 

multimillion-dollar shortfall in the state’s largest school district by shortening the 

school year and laying off about 3,000 employees.”

 NYC elementary school students in classes of 30 or more tripled. On March 

26th, the New York Times reported on the results of an analysis of data from the 

NYC Department of Education, explaining that “the number of elementary school 

students in classes of 30 or more has tripled in the last three years because of 

teacher attrition and budget cuts to public schools....Using data from the city’s 

Department of Education, the report found that 31,079 students in first through 

fifth grade were now in large classes, compared with 9,756 in the 2008-9 school 

year.”

 Sacramento schools lay off teachers and increase class sizes. An August 11th

story in the Sacramento Bee reported that in the upcoming year “Students 

returning to school in the Sacramento area should expect another year of large 

class sizes, fewer teachers and reduced resources...four consecutive years of state 

budget cuts have taken their toll and this year features more of the same...Nearly 

650 teachers in Sacramento County received final termination notices in May, 

meaning most won't be returning to classrooms....The district's students can 

expect larger class sizes in kindergarten through third grade, fewer arts and music 

programs, and fewer assistant principals and librarians.”

 Colorado school district increases class sizes. A story in the August 12th

Broomfield Enterprise reported that the Adams 12 district has to make $12 

million in budget cuts and plans to make half of those cuts through layoffs and 

compensation cuts in the upcoming year. Some high schools will have classes that 

average 32 to 34 students, up from an already-sizeable average of 30 students. 
11

 Cincinnati public schools lay off teachers and cut other programs. As 

described in an April report by Education News, “the Cincinnati Public Schools 

board of education has voted unanimously to cut 10 percent of its teaching staff to 

cover a $43 million budget deficit. They are blaming the loss of the 237 teaching 

jobs on a reduction in state and federal funding.”

 Indianapolis public schools make district-wide job cuts. In May, the 

Indianapolis Star reported that going into the next school year, “the Indianapolis 

Public School Board on Tuesday approved the layoffs of 163 employees, 

including 94 teachers. The move was part of a plan announced last week to cut an 

additional $27 million from next school year's budget.”

 Georgia increases class sizes. On August 5th, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

reported on class size increases and teacher layoffs in the Atlanta metropolitan 

area going into the upcoming school year. “Metro Atlanta school boards spent this 

summer cutting a couple thousand teachers, expanding class sizes and eliminating 

bus routes.”

 Cleveland lays off teachers and cuts music, art, and gym classes: In April, the 

Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that going into the upcoming school year, “the 

Cleveland school board voted ... to trim about a sixth of its teaching staff in the 

upcoming school year because of budget troubles and a falling number of 

students....The district will lay off more than 500 at the end of this school 

year...The district will also shorten its school day through eighth grade by 50 

minutes next school year and cut the number of music, art, library and gym 

classes for those students as part of the shuffling of staff to handle the layoffs.”

V. TEACHER LAYOFFS AND EDUCATION BUDGET CUTS THREATEN 

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

We know from common sense that laying off teachers, increasing class sizes, eliminating 

critical programs, shortening the school week or shortening the school year all mean that 

our students receive less attention and fewer chances to achieve in their education. The 

best analyses from independent academic experts confirm the harmful effects of 

underinvesting in education.

Small class sizes can boost achievement, but budget cuts have reversed a decade of 

gains

Reducing class sizes is not a panacea for education reform and can be less important than 

improving teacher effectiveness (e.g Chetty et al 2011), but substantial evidence exists 

that smaller class sizes – especially in the early years – produce better outcomes for 
12

students. Yet job losses for teachers from 2008 to 2010 erased a decade’s worth of 

improvements in the student-teacher ratio.

Perhaps the most convincing scholarly research on class sizes comes from the Tennessee 

Student Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) project, which used random assignment to 

remove potentially confounding factors that complicate the interpretation of naturallyoccurring variations in class size, most importantly the fact that differences in class size 

across schools tends to be correlated with family characteristics that themselves could be 

affecting student outcomes. The analysis compared “small” classes consisting of thirteen 

to seventeen students to “regular” classes of twenty-two to twenty-five students. 

The research findings from Project STAR make clear that smaller class sizes in the early 

primary years not only produce short term gains in student achievement but also longer 

term gains. High school graduation rates increased for all students and those gains were 

particularly large among families qualifying for free lunch (Finn et al 2005). Students 

assigned to smaller classes were also more likely to take either the ACT or the SAT, and 

this effect was larger among black students (Krueger and Whitmore 2001). Smaller class 

sizes in the early years also raised the likelihood that students will attend and graduate 

from college. Students assigned to small classes were also more likely to study STEM 

subjects (Dynarski et al, 2011). 

Studies of the effects of class size on student outcomes in non-experimental settings are 

less clear cut because it is impossible to control for all of the extraneous variables that are 

associated with class-size and student outcomes. Still, these studies also tend to find that 

student outcomes are improved when students are assigned to smaller classes. 

Research by Dee and West (2008) focuses on the non-cognitive impacts of smaller class 

sizes in eighth grade. These impacts are important as recent research has linked 

interventions that do not necessarily raise long-term academic achievement to higher 

earnings. Dee and West find that smaller class sizes in eighth grade lead to a higher level 

of engagement and that this is especially true in urban schools. Similarly, using data from 

the UK, Dustmann and coauthors (2003) find that student-teacher ratios in the school 

attended at age 16 are related to the decision to stay in high school. 

Some literature reviews have failed to find positive effects of smaller class sizes (e.g. 

Hanushek 1997, but other studies that have examined the same literature have concluded 

that smaller class sizes have beneficial effects that are “large enough to be of practical 

importance” (Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald 1994).
13

Early education yields large returns, but states are cutting back

As the stories from districts make clear, some states are making cuts to preschool and 

kindergarten programs that undermine the quality, intensity, and effectiveness of these 

programs. According to a 2011 report by the National Institute for Early Education 

Research, overall state pre-k spending declined in the 2010-2011 school year, the second 

year for which spending has declined. This has resulted in a reduced number of 

preschool slots available to children in twelve states, including one state that eliminated 

its preschool education program altogether. Spending per child for preschool education 

also declined during this period. Of 39 states that offer preschool programs, 26 of them 

cut back on spending per child in the 2010-2011 school year. In some states, the declines 

in 2010-2011 have been compounded by cuts in 2011-2012, and further cuts loom for 

2012-2013 (NIEER 2011). Decreased spending per child undermines program quality 

and program effectiveness; for example, making it harder for states to monitor program 

quality, offer programs with small class sizes, and retain qualified teachers.

These cuts come despite evidence that early education delivers long-term benefits for 

children. According to a review of the literature on childhood interventions, the lifetime 

impact on earnings from an intensive preschool program amount to over $60,000 per 

child, at a cost of only $15,700 per child (Duncan, Ludwig, and Magnuson 2010). 

Another recent paper focused specifically on Head Start found that the effects of Head 

Start on test scores were about 80 percent as large as the gains from the most intensive 

programs even though Head Start spends less per child. The test score increases achieved 

by Head Start closed one-third of the gap between children with median family incomes 

and children in the bottom quartile of family income and although there was some 

fadeout of these gains, Head Start participation had positive long-term effects, including 

on the likelihood that students graduate high school (Deming 2009). 

Some state and school districts have shifted from full-day to half-day preschool and 

kindergarten programs as a cost saving measure. Only ten states and the District of 

Columbia require school districts to provide full day kindergarten (CDF 2012). Research 

has documented better outcomes for children that participate in full day pre-kindergarten 

and kindergarten programs, particularly for children from low-income families. For 

example, the results from a randomized trial comparing the effects of full-day public 

preschool to half-day preschool on children's literacy and mathematics learning found 

that children who attended an extended-day, extended-year preschool program achieved 

higher test scores compared to peers who attended half-day programs (Robin, Frede, and 

Barnett 2006).
14

Research shows summer learning loss is a major drain for low-income students, but 

districts are shortening the school year

In an effort to reduce funding shortfalls, some school districts have resorted to shortening 

the school year, with students disengaging from learning opportunities during a longer 

summer.

Research finds that during the school year, lower income children’s skills improve at 

close to the same rate as those of their more advantaged peers, but over the summer 

months middle- and upper-income children’s skills continue to improve, while lower 

income children’s skills fall behind (Alexander, Entwisle and Olson 2007; see Cooper et 

al 1996 for a survey of the literature).

The research by Alexander, Entwisle, and Olson (2007) finds that a full two thirds of the 

test score gap between kids from families with high socioeconomic status and those with 

low socioeconomic status (SES) in Baltimore public schools was accounted for by 

differences in summer learning. The other third was due to differences that already 

existed at the start of first grade. None of it was due to differences in gains during the 

school year. In fact, low-SES students gained more during the school year than high-SES 

students but summer learning losses more than offset those gains. Given that 9th grade 

test scores are linked to the rigor of high school curriculum, the chance of graduating 

from high school, and the ability to get into and persist in college, these summer learning 

losses in elementary school have a lasting impact on students outcomes. Accordingly, 

reducing the length of the school year and cutting summer enrichment programs will 

increase disparities further. 

In addition to shortening the school year, more and more school districts are shortening 

the school week. In October 2011, the Washington Post reported the results of a 

nationwide survey of school districts, and found that “at least 292 school districts 

nationwide have a four-day week... more than double the 120 estimated two years ago... 

Growing economic pressures have forced districts small and large across the country to 

consider the practice.” This report bears out the aforementioned survey data from the 

American Association of School Administrators, which found that an increasing 

percentage of administrators are considering four day school weeks next year. While the 

evidence of the impact of four day weeks on student achievement is unclear, working 

families will face the burden of finding care for children on days when they are not in 

school. 
15

VI. THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN WOULD PREVENT TEACHER LAYOFFS 

WHILE THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN BUDGET MEANS MORE CUTS

In September, the President put forward a bold plan to create jobs – the American Jobs 

Act. The purpose of the American Jobs Act is simple: put more people back to work and 

put more money in the pockets of working Americans. Independent forecasters estimated 

that the plan, if passed in full, would add 1.3 to 1.9 million jobs to the economy this year, 

and boost growth by up to two percent. And the President put forward the plan as part of 

an overall strategy to boost growth while identifying $4 trillion in balanced deficit 

reduction to bring our debt down as a share of our economy. While Congress acted on 

some pieces of the President’s plan—including the payroll tax cut providing $1,000 to 

working families this year—it left far too many jobs on the table. One of the central 

components of the American Jobs Act, which the President re-proposed in his 2013 

budget, is funding to prevent and reverse teacher layoffs, and to provide support for the 

re-hiring and hiring of educators. This proposal remains stalled in Congress.

Specifically, the President’s plan will invest $25 billion to support state and local efforts 

to retain, rehire, and hire early childhood, elementary, and secondary educators. If 

enacted, these teacher stabilization funds would help prevent layoffs and support the 

hiring or re-hiring of hundreds of thousands of educators, including teachers, guidance 

counselors, classroom assistants, afterschool personnel, tutors, and literacy and math 

coaches. These funds will ensure that schools are able to keep teachers in the classroom, 

preserve or extend the regular school day and school year, and maintain important 

afterschool activities as states and local governments continue to face difficult budget 

environments.

The President’s plan stands in stark contrast to the plans of Congressional Republicans—

most notably the Budget passed by House Republicans this year. The plan they put 

forward would cut non-defense discretionary spending, the portion of the budget that 

includes basic funding for education—such as Title I education grants and IDEA 

funding—by almost 20 percent in 2014.

Title 1 provides federal funding to schools with high percentages of low-incomes 

students, and IDEA funding helps schools teach children with learning disorders, speech 

impairments, and other disabilities. Distributed evenly across budget areas, the House 

Republican budget cuts to Title I would eliminate funding for 38,000 teachers and aides 

and cuts to IDEA grants could eliminate support for a further 27,000 special education 

teachers, aides, and other staff serving children with disabilities.
16

Cuts in this budget proposal would also affect Early Head Start and Head Start, which 

together serve over a million children. The Congressional Republican plan could result in 

200,000 low-income children losing access to early education. 

In addition, other elements of the Republican budget plans would further threaten state 

and local education spending. Specifically, the House Budget Resolution cut Medicaid, 

growing to a one-third cut in the final year of the budget window. This, in conjunction 

with cuts to other grant programs for state and local governments, would put more 

pressure on their budgets and potentially further crowd out education funding.

VII.CONCLUSION

The unprecedented decline in education jobs and teachers that we have seen over the 

course of the recession and that continue today will have long-term consequences for not 

only those that have lost their jobs but for kids in classrooms across the country. Districts 

have cut funding for education in a number of ways that evidence suggests will have 

long-term costs. They have laid off teachers or failed to replace retiring teachers, leading 

to class size increases. They have reduced funding for preschool programs, cutting back 

on teachers there and on the number of slots available for children, or converting full-day 

programs to half-day programs. School districts have also made education cuts by 

reducing the length of the school year or the school week. There is evidence that all of 

these actions can reduce student achievement and lower long-term outcomes such as 

graduation rates and college attendance.

These cuts are contrary to President Obama’s vision for the Nation’s education system. 

The President has called for increased investments in education, including funding that 

helps get more high-quality teachers into the classroom and greater investments in federal 

preschool programs. The President’s proposal to prevent teacher layoffs remains stalled 

in Congress and Congressional Republicans have put forward more cuts to education in 

their recent budget proposal. 

The visions of the President and Congressional Republicans on education present a 

choice with important consequences for families, children, and communities. Continuing 

along the path of reduced investments in education can also have negative consequences

for the economy. One of the essential elements of an economy built to last is an education 

system that equips children with the skills they need to take high-paying jobs of the 

future. Meeting those demands of the future requires prioritizing investments today.
17

References

Alexander, Karl L, Doris R. Entwisle and Linda Steffel Olson. 2007. “Lasting 

consequences of the summer learning gap.” American Sociological Review 72 (April): 

167-180 

Chetty, Raj, John N. Friedman, Nathaniel Hilger, Emmanuel Saez, Diane Whitmore 

Schanzenbach, and Danny Yagan. 2011. “How Does Your Kindergarten Classroom 

Affect Your Earnings? Evidence from Project Star.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics

126 (4): 1593-1660.

CDF 2012. “The Facts about Full-Day Kindergarten.” Children’s Defense Fund. January 

2012.

Cooper, Harris, Barbara Nye, Kelly Charlton, James Lindsay, and Scott Greathouse. 

1996. “The Effects of Summer Vacation on Achievement Test Scores: A Narrative and 

Meta-Analytic Review.” Review of Educational Research 66(3): 227–268. 

Dee, Thomas and Martin West. 2008. “The Non-Cognitive Returns to Class Size,” NBER 

Working Paper 139994. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13994.pdf?new_window=1

Deming, David. 2009. “Early Childhood Intervention and Life-Cycle Skill

Development: Evidence from Head Start” American Economic Journal: Applied 

Economics 2009, 1(3): 111–134

http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/app.1.3.111

Duncan, Greg J., Jens Ludwig, Katherine A. Magnuson. “Targeting Investments in 

Children: Fighting Poverty When Resources are Limited.” In Child Development, ed.

Phillip B. Levine and David J. Zimmerman, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11722.pdf?new_window=1

Dustman, Christian, Najma Rajah, and Arthur van Soest. 2003. “Class Size, Education, 

and Wages.” The Economic Journal 113 (485): F49-F120.

Dynarski, Susan, Joshua M. Hyman, and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach. 2011. 

“Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Childhood Investments on Postsecondary 

Attainment and Degree Completion.” NBER Working Paper No. 17533

Ellerson, Noelle M. 2012. “Weathering the Storm: How the Economic Recession 

Continues to Impact School Districts.” American Association of School Administrators.

Finn, Jeremy D, Jayne Boyde-Zaharias, and Susan B. Gerber. 2005. "Small Classes in the 

Early Grades, Academic Achievement, and Graduating from High School." Journal of 

Educational Psychology 97 (2): 214-223. http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/edu972214.pdf
18

Hanushek, Eric A. 1997. “Assessing the Effects of School Resources on Student 

Performance: An Update.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19 (2): 141-64.

Hedges, Larry V., Richard D. Laine, and Rob Greenwald. 1994. “Does Money matter? A 

Meta-Analysis of the Studies of the Effects of Differential School Inputs on Student 

Outcomes.” Education Rsearcher 23 (April): 5-14

Krueger, Alan B and Diane M. Whitmore. “The Effect of Attending a Small Class in the 

Early Grades on College-Test Taking and MiddleSchool Test Results: Evidence from 

Project STAR.” The Economic Journal 111 (468): 1-28 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2667840.pdf?acceptTC=true

NCES 2011. Digest of Education Statistics. National Center for Education Statistics. 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/

NCES 2012. “Public Elementary and Secondary School Student Enrollment and Staff 

Counts From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2010–11.” National Center for 

Education Statistics. 2012-327. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/snf201011/index.asp

NIEER 2012. “The State of Preschool 2011.” National Institute for Early Education 

Research. http://nieer.org/sites/nieer/files/2011yearbook.pdf

Oliff, Phil, Chris Mai, and Vincent Palacios. 2012. “Recession and Recovery: States 

Continue to Feel Recession’s Impact. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Updated 

June 27, 2012 http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711

Robin, Kenneth B., Ellen C. Frede, & W. Steven Barnett. 2006 “Is More Better? The 

Effects of Full-Day vs Half-Day Preschool on Early School Achievement.” NIEER 

Working Paper. http://nieer.org/resources/research/IsMoreBetter.pdf