A property tax cap in New York would almost certainly squeeze public school budgets, but researchers are saying it is uncertain how a cap would affect student performance.

The conclusions could be fuel for a debate on whether to move forward with Governor Paterson’s proposal to cap property tax growth tied to school spending at 4% a year or 120% of inflation, whichever is lower.

Plenty of academic opinions are available, thanks to the many natural experiments on the effects of property tax caps, which have been enacted in various forms in dozens of states across the country.

“If I were to give you a total list, you would probably see 25 of 50 states,” a Stanford economist who studies school financing, Caroline Hoxby, said.

A recent list compiled by the Washington, D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which opposes tax caps, included 14 states, from Massachusetts to New Mexico to South Dakota.

All researchers appear to agree that the caps have reduced spending on public schools — or at least growth in school budgets, which across the country rise steadily every year, but rise at slower rates when tax caps are enacted.

Although Massachusetts offset its property tax cap with a record influx of state aid to schools, some districts in the Bay State still scaled back on spending, cutting busing services and some teaching positions, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

A 1995 study by a University of Oregon economist, David Figlio, found that, in the wake of tax caps enacted as part of the 1970s-era tax revolt, limitations on school spending led to rising student-teacher ratios and dropping teacher salaries, though administrative costs were unchanged.

An economics professor at Dartmouth College, William Fischel, said the purse-tightening undoubtedly hurts students.

“There is economic evidence on the effect of property tax limitations on educational quality, and it is all bad,” Mr. Fischel wrote in an e-mail message this week. “Property tax caps and similar limitations, if actually binding (that is, no easy overrides by voters) have been found to limit school spending and make measurable outcomes worse.”

Mr. Figlio’s paper concluded that tax limitations were associated with lower student performance in four subject areas: math, science, social studies, and reading.

Ms. Hoxby, however, said studies of effects on performance have not been conclusive to her satisfaction.

Ms. Hoxby said other research on school spending has been more conclusive, showing that student performance is determined not by how much money is spent but by how it is spent. She listed programs such as new governance systems, incentives, and intelligent hiring of teachers as leading to improved student outcomes.

Keeping that in mind, she said property tax caps could actually spur positive consequences for schools.

“They get people to focus on, okay this is how much money we’re going to have to spend, and now we need to think about how to spend it more wisely,” Ms. Hoxby said.

A professor of government at Harvard, Paul Peterson, said there is one certain effect he would expect from a property tax cap: a reciprocal hike in taxes on income and sales to cover the lost revenue.

“The cost of education is going to continue to rise, we know that,” Mr. Peterson said. “Somebody is going to pick up the additional costs, and it’s going to have to be the state taxpayer.”

This week, Mr. Paterson vowed not to let education funding drop too far.

“I’m not going to allow children who are looking for an education to not receive it because of a lack of funding,” he said. “If that actually became the case, as I said, we would address it.”