study says...

Democratic governors boost funding for schools with more black, Hispanic students. (Test scores, not so much.)

PHOTO: Andy Cross, The Denver Post

Elections have consequences, goes the common saying — and that turns out to be true in schools.

A new study finds that electing a Democrat for governor leads to more money being spent in districts with more students of color, though there’s no evidence that meant higher test scores or smaller achievement gaps.

“School districts with a high share of minority students receive significantly greater transfers from the state government than other districts when a Democrat is elected,” write researchers Andrew Hill and Daniel Jones in the peer-reviewed Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization.

It’s one of only a few studies to directly examine how politicians’ partisan affiliation affects education policy. Another recent analysis found that Democratic school board members in North Carolina led to more racially integrated schools.

Of course, state governors don’t unilaterally make education policy, but they are likely to have significant sway, as this study suggests.

In order to isolate the effect of electing a Democrat versus a Republican, the latest study looks at governors’ races between 1990 and 2013; the paper focuses on 67 closely decided races of the nearly 300 elections. The idea of this common research approach is that the results of a narrowly decided election are essentially random.

First the researchers look at whether a governor’s party led to a greater overall increase in education spending. The effects here were modest: Democratic governors increased K-12 spending by about $100 per person more than Republicans, though there was no difference in higher education expenditures.

But when looking at how resources were distributed — rather than how much money was spent overall — the results were more stark.

Electing a Democratic governor led to an increase of about $500 per student for districts with a majority of black and Hispanic students, relative to whiter districts, simply because under them the money was distributed evenly between high-minority and whiter districts. In contrast, under Republicans total spending was higher in whiter districts.

Similarly, the study finds that Democratic governors targeted additional money to colleges and universities that serve more students of color.

So did this this distribution of spending lead to higher achievement or smaller test score gaps? Apparently not, according to the researchers’ analysis of the federal NAEP test.

“We find no evidence that a Democratic governor leads to higher NAEP scores during her term,” Hill and Jones write. “Moreover, despite the large shift in funds to school districts with a large share of minority students, we do not observe a shrinkage of the black-white score gap.”

It’s not clear why that’s the case — and perhaps surprising in light of recent research showing that students benefit when more money is spent on schools.

It could be that other policy changes by governors swamp school spending effects, that gains from school spending take several years to manifest on NAEP, or that spending went to areas that might be beneficial but don’t show up in test scores. It’s also possible that the increase in spending was simply not an effective way to improve schools.

The paper also examines why governors from different parties distribute money differently — is it based on politics or policy? It looks to be more the latter. Democrats were not any more likely to send money to districts with higher share of Democratic voters or electorally competitive districts.

But in other respects governors do seem to be affected by politics. “Lame duck” Democrats — those in their final years in office who could not run for re-election — seemed to lead to a greater increase in overall spending.

K-12 education spending “increases when a Democratic governor is elected, and this increase is substantially larger during ‘lame duck’ terms,” the study says. “It seems as if governors are constrained by political considerations when increasing spending on elementary and secondary education; although it increases, their preferences might be for even larger increases.”

School Finance

Teacher raises would survive $211 million cut from Indianapolis Public Schools funding request

PHOTO: Scott Elliott

Indianapolis’ largest school district cut about $211 million Tuesday from its request for extra funding, in a bid to win public support for the proposal.

That lower price tag comes with tradeoffs, district officials said. Even if voters approve the new plan, the district would dip into its cash reserves, put off building maintenance, and ditch expanded transportation plans, such as additional busing for students who move partway through the school year.

The new request also reduces how much the district would raise to pay for services for students with disabilities, though it was initially unclear by how much and how that could affect students.

But district officials said they still expected to be able to give raises to teachers if the referendums pass.

The scaled-back request would raise about $725 million over eight years, significantly less than the initial proposal of nearly $1 billion.

The board voted 6-0 in favor of reducing the amount of money the district is seeking, backing off the number members approved two months ago.

Board member Kelly Bentley said many school districts around the state have asked taxpayers for more money.

“We all own property in IPS. None of us want to see our taxes go up,” she said. But, she added, “I am confident that it’s money that’s going to be well spent, and it’s money that is necessary.”

Instead of pulling back spending on teachers and school staff, the district is making the new plan work by adjusting revenue expectations, said Chief Financial Manager Weston Young. The proposal is built on the assumption that state revenue will increase 1 percent each year, and the district will no longer hold as much money in reserves, he said.

“We are still committed to our students through our compensation for teachers and the wraparound services that serve those kids,” Young said.

Reducing the request could help build enthusiasm for the tax increase, which has not gotten much vocal community support. Instead, the referendums have been met with some concern over the size of the ask. But even though they have pared down their plan, district leaders will still need to persuade voters in May to raise their own taxes.

Superintendent Lewis Ferebee said the new plan is a balancing act between what taxpayers can bear and the cost of providing the level of service that families need. Ultimately, he said, the tax increase would pay dividends by helping the district prepare students for college and careers.

“This is one of those situations where you pay now or you pay later,” he said.

The move cut the potential tax increase for homeowners in IPS to $0.58 per $100 of assessed value, down from the initial proposal of $0.73. For taxpayers with houses at the district’s median value — $123,500 — the new plan would increase property taxes by $17.70 per month for operating expenses and $5.54 per month for building improvements, according to the district.

The referendum the board reduced would pay for operating expenses, such as teacher salaries, and under the new request, it would raise about $66 million per year for eight years. That’s down from the initial request of about $92 million per year.

Under the new plan, about $49 million of the money raised each year would go to staff pay, while the remaining $17 million would help pay for services and supplies, regular maintenance, and transportation.

A second measure, which was not changed, would pay for about $200 million in improvements to buildings, primarily safety updates such as new lighting and door security. Both measures are expected to go before voters in May.

School Finance

Indianapolis Public Schools leaders could scale back their appeal for tax increases

PHOTO: Meghan Mangrum

With little public support and mounting criticism, Indianapolis’ largest school district may scale back its nearly $1 billion request for increased funding from taxpayers.

Indianapolis Public Schools Board President Michael O’Connor told Chalkbeat on Wednesday that the board would likely consider a proposal next week that would reduce the potential tax increase.

All the board members present voted in favor of asking voters for up to $936 million over eight years at a meeting this past December. But there is a consensus among board members that the original proposal would raise taxes too much, O’Connor said.

“The school system needs more revenue,” O’Connor said. But “we think that’s high.”

Superintendent Lewis Ferebee’s administration is working on coming up with a revised proposal, district chief of staff Ahmed Young confirmed. But officials have not yet finalized how much the amount might be trimmed or what services would be reduced to bring down the price tag.

The revelation comes on the heels of stinging public criticism leveled against the district for asking for such a large tax increase. On Wednesday, Indiana State Board of Education member and Indianapolis resident Gordon Hendry slammed IPS’ plan to raise taxes during a state board meeting.

“This may be the most nonchalant billion-dollar tax increase ever approved by anyone,” said Hendry, a Democrat.

The original plan, which was approved by the state for inclusion on the May ballot less than a week ago, includes a measure that would raise up to $92 million per year for operating expenses such as teacher salaries and one that would pay for up to $200 million in improvements to school buildings.

If voters signed off on the operating referendum, their property taxes would rise by as much as $0.59 on each $100 of assessed value, while the capital referendum would raise $0.1384 per $100 of assessed valuation.

The board will not alter the referendum that provides money for building improvements, O’Connor said. But it will consider changing how much it seeks for operating expenses, the part responsible for the bulk of the tax increase.

In the months since the original proposal was unveiled in November, few advocates or community organizations have spoken out in support of the referendums. Instead, groups such as the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce stayed quiet as they discussed the plan internally.

It’s important to the city that the school district is successful, said Mark Fisher, chief policy officer for the Chamber. There also is general agreement that the district needs more funding, he said. But the group is waiting to hear more from the administration about how the money will be spent.

“It’s a large amount,” Fisher said. “Is this the right amount?”

Tony Mason from the Indianapolis Urban League raised similar questions.

“IPS definitely requires more support to serve the vast needs of its diverse student population,” Mason wrote in a statement. But the district must make the case in detail for the substantial amount it is requesting.

“IPS needs to be mindful of the already existing and unique tax burdens of those living in the IPS district,” he added.

The district has said the referendums are essential because of declining federal, state, and local revenue. According to the district, the operating referendum would pay for special education services, transportation, and regular maintenance. But the bulk of the money, 72 percent, would help pay regular raises to teachers. The referendum to pay for improvements to school buildings would fund updates such as new lighting and door security.

If it passed, the original operating referendum would increase the district’s annual revenue by nearly $3,000 per student. By comparison, a referendum passed in Washington Township in 2016 raised annual revenue by less than $600 per student.

When the initial plan was announced in December, Ferebee told Chalkbeat that political considerations were not used to determine the amount of the referendums.

“We didn’t arrive at this number based on what we thought would be politically appropriate and soothing, but what we actually need to continue to thrive as an organization,” Ferebee said at the time.

But it appears the political challenge of asking voters to dramatically raise their own taxes is more salient for the board.

Board members have privately heard concerns from constituents about the size of the referendums, O’Connor said. He said the district also needs to present more detail to taxpayers about exactly how the money would be spent.

Because $92 million per year is the estimated maximum amount the district could raise if the measure passes, it was always a ceiling, said Young. After the board voted to pursue the initial proposal, the district has continued to do “due diligence.”

“It’s an evolutionary process,” he added.

On Tuesday, school board member Kelly Bentley told Chalkbeat that reducing the amount the district is seeking could help increase the chance that voters approve the referendums and reduce the burden on taxpayers.

“I believe strongly that we are asking no more than what we need,” Bentley said. “But I would rather be successful than not successful in the referenda.”

Correction: February 15, 2018: This story has been corrected to attribute the statement from the Indianapolis Urban League to Tony Mason.