School District Referenda in IndianaIndiana Public Schools/University Partnership

Mini-Symposium

1

Terry SpradlinAssociate Director for Education Policy

September 9, 2010

School Referenda

• In lieu or in addition to budget cuts, some school corporations are pursuing General Fund or construction referenda.

• 50% of referenda in the Indianapolis metropolitan area have passed while only 38% outside the metro area have passed.

2

Results of ALL Indiana School Referenda from 2008 to Present

Total Referenda Number Passed % Passed Number Failed % Failed

All to date 42 18 42.9% 24 57.1%

2010 16 8 50.0% 8 50.0%

2009 21 6 28.6% 15 71.4%

2008 5 4 80.0% 1 20.0%

General Fund Referenda

3

Results of GENERAL FUND Referenda

Total Referenda Number Passed % Passed Number Failed % Failed

All to date 15 9 60.0% 6 40.0%

2010 9 5 55.6% 4 44.4%

2009 6 4 66.7% 2 33.3%

2008 0 0 - 0 -

• 2/3 of General Fund referenda occurred in the Indianapolis metro area.

• 60% of General Fund referenda have passed regardless of being in or out of the metro area.

Construction Referenda

4

Results of CONSTRUCTION Referenda

Total Referenda Number Passed % Passed Number Failed % Failed

All to date 27 9 33.3% 18 66.7%

2010 7 3 42.9% 4 57.1%

2009 15 2 13.3% 13 86.7%

2008 5 4 80.0% 1 20.0%

• 2/3 of construction referenda occurred outside the Indianapolis metro area.

• 38% and 32% of construction referenda passed inside and outside of the metro area, respectively.

Analysis of All Referenda

• As schools deal with budgetary issues, General Fund referenda have increased in occurrence to prevent laying off teachers and maintain programs.

• Passage rates and input from superintendents who oversaw referenda on May 4, 2010 indicate that voters were less likely to approve referenda seen as “wants” instead “needs.”

• Construction projects are commonly seen as “wants” by voters, explaining their lower passage rates.

5

Analysis of May 4, 2010 Referenda

• On average, construction referenda requested a higher tax rate increase per $100 assessed valuation than General Fund referenda ($0.31 vs. $0.26).

• The total amount requested was $179.7 million for construction referenda and $33.6 million annually ($235.2 for seven years) for General Fund referenda.

• Of all May 4, 2010 referenda, approved referenda had an average tax rate increase of $0.27 compared to $0.30 for defeated referenda.

• Despite these trends, other factors likely supersede the cost and requested tax increase.

6

Factors in May 4, 2010 Referenda

• Construction referenda seen as “wants” saw less approval than General Fund referenda seen as “needs.”

• Opposition from farmers who have a greater property tax burden than homeowners (2% vs. 1%) observed as 7 of 8 referenda in rural areas were defeated.

• Cost and rate increase appear to be less of a factor considering that the difference in tax rate increases requested between urban/suburban and rural school corporations was minor ($0.27 vs. $0.29).

7

Factors in May 4, 2010 Referenda

• The most common factor cited by superintendents was community support and clear communication with the community.

• One superintendent cited attending numerous large-group and small-group community forums and meetings to communicate the need for a referendum.

• Another superintendent cited hiring a political strategist to help with a campaign.

8

Superintendent Input on May 4, 2010 Referenda

• The following table summarizes input on approved referenda, noting common responses on the purpose of referenda funds and to what their success was attributed (Of 7 superintendents overseeing 8 approved referenda, only 6 provided input):

9

Purpose of Funds Factor Contributing to Success

Maintaining current educational programs (5 superintendents)

Pro-education community (1 superintendent)

Preventing cutting teaching position and other staff (5 superintendents)

Community-wide effort to communicate need for referendum (4 superintendents)

Adding new teaching positions (1 superintendent)

Tax-neutral referenda (2 superintendents)

New school construction (2 superintendents)

Consulted political strategist/marketing firm (2 superintendents)

Superintendent Input on May 4, 2010 Referenda

• The following table summarizes input on defeated referenda, noting common responses on the purpose of referenda funds and to what their success was attributed (From 7 superintendents overseeing 8 defeated referenda):

10

Purpose of Funds Factor Contributing to Defeat

New school construction/renovation (4 superintendents)

Opposition to tax increases/organized opposition (6 superintendents)

Prevent cutting teachers (3 superintendents) “Wants vs. needs” (1 superintendent)

Maintain current programs (2 superintendents)

Demographics (older voters and farmers) (2 superintendents)

Replace revenue lost from changes to funding formula (1 superintendent) Other (2 superintendents)

Superintendent Input on May 4, 2010 Referenda

• The following table summarizes input on defeated referenda, noting common responses on what superintendents would change if they pursued another referendum (Of 7 superintendents overseeing 8 defeated referenda, 5 responded):

11

What would be done differently…

(For construction referendum) Parts of the project may need to be cut to be more appealing to voters

(For General Fund referendum) Public may just need to see extent of cuts without referendum

Start campaign sooner and get more facts out

Work to counteract the distribution of misinformation

Examine possibility of hiring a PR firm or consultant

Superintendent Input on Campaigning

• In July/August 2010, the superintendents of the May 4, 2010 referenda we again contacted regarding aspects of campaigning for a referendum.

• Of the 14 superintendents, 7 have responded (5 of approved referenda, 2 of defeated referenda).

• Of the approved referenda, 4 of 5 had assistance from a PR specialist or consultant and all 5 had a campaign plan.

• Of defeated referenda, neither had the involvement of a PR firm or specialist and only 1 had a formal campaign plan.

12

Superintendent Input on Campaigning

13

Campaign Strategies Employed by School Corporations (regardless of whether a formal campaign plan existed)

Campaign Strategy Number of Respondents (of 7)

Yard signs 6

Media advertising 3

Other public advertising (fliers, door hangers, buttons, etc.) 6 (door hangers, brochures, T-shirts, buttons)

Large- or small-group community meetings 6

Public rallies or forums 3

Mailings or e-mail lists 4

Press releases or other media reports 6

Political endorsements (e.g. local mayor) 3

Resolution of support from a governing body (e.g. from city council) 1

Other (please list) 4 (website, Facebook, phone calls, etc.)

Superintendent Input on Campaigning

• 6 of 7 superintendents said that the formal campaign plan was a significant factor in their referendum’s outcome.– These superintendents cited personal communication

campaign strategies (community meetings, phone calls, door-to-door meetings, social networking, etc.) as the most important.

• In the one corporation without a formal plan, the superintendent cited the need for more meetings and communication to get the facts out.

14

Superintendent Input on Fundraising for Campaign Activities

• Only 3 corporations conducted formal fundraising to fund campaign activities. Fundraising activities consisted of soliciting donations from the community, teachers, and staff.

• In the remaining corporations, funds for campaign activities came from anonymous donations and fundraising from parents’ groups.

15

Superintendent Comments on Campaigning

• "Be constantly visible, transparent, and go into the community, do not expect the community to come to you.”

• "The referendum campaign became the most important purpose (job) of the superintendent. This was a new, and somewhat uncomfortable, role.”

• "Using data to get supporters to the polls is the most important aspect of our referendum campaign.”

• "Communication and open discussion was most effective."

16

2010 Superintendent Survey

• In the summer of 2010, CEEP, in conjunction with IAPSS and ISBA conducted a survey of superintendents on school corporation financial management issues.

• Questions 4 and 5 of the survey asked about the intentions of school corporations in pursuing a referendum in the general election.

• Of respondents, 9 replied they were pursuing a General Fund referendum (Q4, n=204)

• Only 2 respondents said they were pursuing a construction referendum (Q5, n=204)

17

General Fund Referenda, Fall 2010

• School corporations pursuing a General Fund referendum in the fall 2010 General Election include:– North Adams Community Schools– East Allen County Schools– Brown County School Corporation– Westfield-Washington Schools– Mt. Vernon Community School Corporation– Whitko Community School Corporation– Monroe County Community School Corporation– Cannelton City Schools– Duneland School Corporation

18

General Fund Referenda, Fall 2010

• The requested property tax increase per $100 assessed valuation ranged from $0.01 to $0.41.

19

0-9 Cents 10-19 Cents 20-29 Cents 30-39 Cents 40-49 CentsCent Brackets

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Num

ber

of S

choo

l Cor

pora

tions

14%

43%

29%

14%0-9 Cents

10-19 Cents

20-29 Cents

30-39 Cents

40-49 Cents

Proposed Increase in Property Tax Rate/$100 of Corporations Pursuing November 2010 General Referendum

General Fund Referenda, Fall 2010

• The expected amount of funds generated (per year) ranged from $114,000 to $7.5 million.

20

1,000-1 mil-lion

1-2 million 2-3 million 3-4 million 4-5 million 5-6 million 6-7 million 7-8 million0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5Expected Fund Generation of General Referendums

Expected Funds Generation

Funds in Dollars

Num

ber o

f Sch

ool C

orpo

ratio

ns

Construction Referenda, Fall 2010

• The two school corporations pursuing a construction referendum this fall include:– Randolph Central School Corporation– Tell City-Troy Township School Corporation

21

School CorporationProposed Property Tax

Increase per $100 Assessed Valuation

Expected Amount of Funds Generated

Randolph Central $0.26 $20 mil.

Tell City-Troy $0.16 $6 mil.

Other Fall 2010 Referenda

• In addition to those referenda mentioned, 4 more school corporations will be pursuing a referendum in the 2010 General Election.

• For General Fund referenda:– Center Grove Community School Corporation– Community School Corporation of Southern Hancock

County• For construction referenda:

– Lebanon Schools– Hamilton Southeastern

22

Legal Citations

Indiana Code pertaining to school construction referenda:IND CODE § 6-1.1-20(particularly § 6-1.1-20-3.5 and § 6-1.1-20-3.6)

Indiana Code pertaining to General Fund referenda:IND CODE § 20-46-1

23

CEEP Contact Information

Terry E. Spradlin, MPAAssociate Director for Education Policy

1900 East Tenth StreetBloomington, Indiana 47406-7512

812-855-4438Fax: 812-856-5890http://ceep.indiana.edu

24