Ballot Language and School Bond Support

Last registered on February 19, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Ballot Language and School Bond Support
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0015329
Initial registration date
February 13, 2025

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
February 19, 2025, 9:22 AM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of Houston

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
University at Albany - State University of New York

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2025-02-24
End date
2025-03-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
This study aims to understand how ballot language influences public support for school bonds. We are specifically interested in understanding if adding language that increases the salience of property tax obligations to hypothetical school bond proposals influences stated support for school bonds and general investment in public schools in a national sample of survey respondents.
Topics and questions to be explored include:

RQ1: Does an explicit reference to property tax obligations in school bond referenda impact individuals' willingness to support increased in public investment in public schools?

H1: Individuals who are presented with school bond proposals that include explicit references to property tax obligations are less likely to support school bond proposals compared to those who are presented with the same bond proposals with no reference to property taxes.

H2: Individuals who are presented with school bond proposals that include explicit references to property tax obligations are less likely to support increasing general investments in public schools compared to those who are presented with the same bond proposals with no reference to property taxes.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Heller, Blake and Melissa Lyon. 2025. "Ballot Language and School Bond Support." AEA RCT Registry. February 19. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.15329-1.0
Sponsors & Partners

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
All respondents will be presented with a hypothetical school bond proposal. The treatment group's proposal will conclude with the text "This is a property tax increase.", mimicking the language required by HB-3, a law passed by the Texas legislature in 2019. The control group's proposal will be identical, except that it will omit this final sentence. The size of the proposed bond will be based upon the respondent's reported county size, where residents of larger counties evaluate larger hypothetical bonds and residents of smaller counties evaluate smaller hypothetical bonds.
Intervention Start Date
2025-02-24
Intervention End Date
2025-03-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
The primary outcome of interest is a binary measure of support for the bond. Respondents will be asked "How would you vote on [the hypothetical school bond] if it were on your local ballot in the next general election?" where FOR is coded as 1 and AGAINST is coded as 0. Our primary analysis will test whether there are differences in the average rate of bond support between the treatment and control groups using ordinary least squares regression, controlling for county size, state, political orientation, and a set of demographic covariates to increase precision.

Our primary analysis will examine whether our treatment impacts overall rates of support for school bonds. Exploratory analyses will assess heterogeneity in effects by subgroup, including by political affiliation, gender, race/ethnicity, population, and region.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
The first secondary outcome of interest is a measure of general support for school spending. Respondents will be asked: "State legislatures must make choices when making spending decisions on important state programs. Would you like your legislature to increase or decrease spending on education?" Where the choices are "Greatly Increase", "Slightly Increase", "Maintain", "Slightly Decrease", and "Greatly Decrease." We will estimate the impact of the treatment on support for increasing school spending by combining the first two categories ("Greatly increase" and "Slightly Increase") into a single binary measure of support for increasing school spending vs. decreasing or maintaining. We will also examine whether the treatment influences support for decreasing school spending by combining the last two categories ("Greatly Decrease" and "Slightly Decrease") into a single binary measure of support for decreasing school spending vs. increasing or maintaining. Our analysis of their secondary outcome will test whether there are differences in the average rate of support for school spending between the treatment and control groups using ordinary least squares regression, controlling for county size, state, political orientation, and a set of demographic covariates to increase precision.

A second set of secondary outcomes are measures of which factors respondents considered as they decided whether to support the school bond. These outcome variables will be constructed from responses to the question, "Which of the following was on your mind as you decided whether to support or oppose the school bond proposition?" Respondents can select all that apply from the following choices: Teacher salaries, school building condition, academic achievement, technology in schools, property taxes, sales taxes, current school spending, overall government spending or the deficit, inflation, my local school board or district leadership, my state's department of education, and something else (write-in response).

Our exploratory analysis will assess whether and how our treatment changes the factors that respondents report considering as they decided whether to support the school bond measure (using ordinary least squares regression as described above). Additionally, we will use assignment to treatment as an instrument for considering a particular factor to estimate the direct effect of increasing consideration of/the salience of a given factor (e.g., property taxes, teacher salaries, district leadership, etc.) on support for the bond (and overall spending) via two-stage-least-squares instrumental variables regression.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
This is a simple two-armed randomized experiment where all respondents will be presented with a hypothetical school bond proposal, and the treatment group's proposal will conclude with the text "This is a property tax increase." The control group's proposal will be identical, except that it will omit this final sentence. The size of the proposed bond will be based upon the respondent's reported county size, where residents of larger counties evaluate larger hypothetical bonds and residents of smaller counties evaluate smaller hypothetical bonds.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization embedded in Qualtrics; approximately 50% Treatment and 50% Control.
Randomization Unit
Individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
A national sample of approximately 1000 respondents will be recruited via Harvard DLABSS.
Sample size: planned number of observations
Our target sample is 1000 individuals.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Our target sample of 1000 individuals will be evenly divided between the treatment and control groups:
500 Treatment
500 Control
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
MDES = .0887 (8.8pp) at 80% power, assuming 50% baseline support for school bonds. STATA code: power twomeans 0, sd(0.5) a(.05) power(0.8) n(1000)
Supporting Documents and Materials

Documents

Document Name
Survey Instrument
Document Type
survey_instrument
Document Description
File
Survey Instrument

MD5: 3f81262b510c37ec53892ea96fbfe2fd

SHA1: f3b0f092c752e9911f0317cca5a92780a2f5dd13

Uploaded At: February 11, 2025

IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
University of Houston IRB
IRB Approval Date
2025-01-17
IRB Approval Number
STUDY00005204