The credit rating agency Moody’s informed cities in Massachusetts that the recent vote not to add more charter schools was good for their credit ratings and will help key their borrowing costs lower. Voters defeated Question 2 by 62-38%. It won approval only in a few urban districts. The vote against the proposal was highest in districts with charters, where funding for public schools had decreased.

“The decision of Massachusetts voters to reject a ballot question expanding charter schools is “credit positive” for urban cities like Springfield and Boston, the rating agency Moody’s said Tuesday.

“The result is credit positive for urban local governments because it will allow those cities and towns to maintain current financial operations without having to adjust to increased financial pressure from charter school funding,” Moody’s wrote in a report.

“The ballot question would have allowed state officials to approve up to 12 new charter schools a year outside of an existing cap. The current cap ensures that school districts spend no more than 9 percent of their budgets, or 18 percent in low-performing districts, paying for student tuition to charter schools. That limits the number of charter schools that can grow or expand in urban areas like Boston and Springfield, resulting in waiting lists.

“A central part of the debate over charter school expansion was funding. When a child attends a charter school, the state money to educate that child goes to the charter school, although the district gets reimbursed for the first years to smooth over the transition costs. Opponents of charter school expansion say the funding formula took money from the traditional public schools, hurting struggling districts, even though the loss of students did not affect the schools’ fixed costs.

“Moody’s wrote in its report that since 2010, cities like Boston, Fall River, Lawrence and Springfield have seen charter school spending grow by 83 percent even as overall spending on public education in the state grew by only 15 percent.”