# Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of Issues for the ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR40672 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** September 10, 2009 - **Citation:** R40672 ## Text Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of Issues for the ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas (name redacted) Specialist in Education Policy September 10, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R40672 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Summary Title I, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes federal aid to local educational agencies (LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children. Title I-A grants provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other pupils attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with relatively high concentrations of pupils from low-income families. In recent years, they have also become a “vehicle” to which a number of requirements affecting broad aspects of public K-12 education for all pupils have been attached as a condition for receiving Title I-A grants. These include requirements for assessments of pupil achievement; adequate yearly progress (AYP) standards and determinations for schools, LEAs, and states; consequences for schools and LEAs that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years or more; plus teacher and paraprofessional qualifications. The ESEA was initially adopted in 1965, and was most recently reauthorized and amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), P.L. 107-110. Currently, although the authorization for ESEA Title I-A has expired, appropriations have continued to be provided, and the program continues to be implemented under the policies established by the most recent authorization statute. The 111th Congress is expected to consider proposals to extend and amend the ESEA. For the allocation of funds to states and LEAs, Title I-A has four separate formulas: the Basic, Concentration, Targeted, and Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) formulas. Once these funds reach LEAs, they are no longer treated separately; they are combined and used without distinction for the same program purposes. While there are numerous complications and special features associated with the Title I-A allocation formulas, each has the same underlying structure. For each formula, a maximum grant is calculated by multiplying a “population factor,” consisting primarily of estimated numbers of school-age children in poor families, by an “expenditure factor” based on state average per pupil expenditures for public K-12 education. In some formulas, additional factors are multiplied by the population and expenditure factors, and/or the population factor is modified to direct increased funds to LEAs with concentrations of poverty. Major Title I-A reauthorization issues regarding allocation formulas are likely to include the following: Should annual variations in the poverty estimates used to calculate Title I-A grants be reduced through multi-year averaging or other methods? Has the targeting of Title I-A funds on high poverty LEAs increased since 2001? Should the population weighting factors of the Targeted and Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) formulas be modified to more equally favor LEAs with large numbers of school-age children in poor families and LEAs with high poverty rates? Should the expenditure factors continue to play a major role in the Title I-A formulas? Should there be some consolidation of the four different allocation formulas? Should the authorization level for Title I-A continue to be specified for future years, and if so, at what levels? Should the effort factor in the EFIG formula be modified? Should the equity factor in the EFIG formula be modified? Should the current provisions for intra-LEA allocation be reconsidered? Should the remaining special constraints on grants to Puerto Rico, the cap on aggregate population weights in the Targeted Grant formula, be removed? Should the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) formula factor be eliminated? And finally, should each county portion of New York City and other multi-county LEAs continue to be treated as separate LEAs under the Title I-A allocation formulas? This report will not be updated. Congressional Research Service Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................1 Description of the ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas ...............................................................3 General Overview of the Title I-A Allocation Formulas .........................................................4 Detailed Description of Each of the Title I-A Allocation Formulas.........................................6 Basic Grants....................................................................................................................6 Concentration Grants ......................................................................................................9 Targeted Grants............................................................................................................. 11 Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG) .................................................................. 14 ESEA Title I-A School Improvement Grants.................................................................. 18 Suballocation of LEA Grants to Schools........................................................................ 19 Recent Funding Trends for Title I-A.......................................................................................... 21 FY2008......................................................................................................................... 21 FY2009......................................................................................................................... 22 FY2010......................................................................................................................... 22 FY2008 Allocation Patterns ...................................................................................................... 23 ESEA Reauthorization Issues Related to the Title I-A Allocation Formulas................................ 34 Should Annual Variations in the Poverty Estimates Used to Calculate Title I-A Grants Be Reduced Through Multi-year Averaging or Other Methods?........................................ 34 Annual Shifts in Poverty Estimates ............................................................................... 35 Selected Alternatives to Use of Only the Most Current Poverty Estimates...................... 40 Has the Targeting of Title I-A Funds on High Poverty LEAs Increased Since 2001? ............ 48 Should the Population Weighting Factors of the Targeted and EFIG Formulas Be Modified to More Equally Favor LEAs With Large Numbers of School-Age Children in Poor Families and LEAs With High Poverty Rates? ....................................... 53 Should the Expenditure Factors Continue to Play a Major Role in the Title I-A Formulas? ........................................................................................................................ 61 Rationale for the Current Expenditure Factor................................................................. 63 Alternatives to the Title I-A Expenditure Factor............................................................. 66 Should There Be Some Consolidation of the Four Different Allocation Formulas? .............. 74 Should the Authorization Level for Title I-A Continue to Be Specified for Future Years, and If So, at What Levels? ..................................................................................... 74 Should the Effort Factor in the Education Finance Incentive Grant Formula Be Modified? ........................................................................................................................ 77 Should the Equity Factor in the Education Finance Incentive Grant Formula Be Modified? ........................................................................................................................ 79 Should the Current Provisions for Intra-LEA Allocation Be Reconsidered? ......................... 80 Title I-A Allocation Formula Issues Affecting a Limited Number of States or LEAs .................. 82 Should the Last Remaining Special Constraints on Grants to Puerto Rico Be Removed?........................................................................................................................ 82 Should the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Population Factor Be Eliminated?...................................................................................................................... 83 Should Each County Portion of New York City and Other Multi-County LEAs Continue to Be Treated as Separate LEAs Under the Title I-A Allocation Formulas? ........ 83 Impact on Total Title I-A Grants to the New York City LEA .......................................... 85 Impact on the Allocation of Title I-A Funds Within the New York City LEA ................. 86 Congressional Research Service Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Figures Figure 1. Share of ESEA Title I-A Funds Allocated to LEAs by Poverty Rate Quintile, FY2008.................................................................................................................................. 51 Tables Table 1. Brief Summary of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formula Characteristics ...........................5 Table 2. Weights Applied to Counts of Population Factor Children in the Calculation of ESEA Title I-A Targeted Grants.............................................................................................. 12 Table 3. Weights Applied to Counts of Population Factor Children in the Calculation of LEA Grants Under the ESEA Title I-A Education Finance Incentive Grant Formula ............... 15 Table 4. FY2009-FY2010 Appropriations for ESEA Title I, Part A ............................................ 23 Table 5. ESEA Title I-A Grant Amount Per Child Counted in the Allocation Formulas, FY2008.................................................................................................................................. 24 Table 6. State Shares of Funds Allocated Under Each of the ESEA Title I-A Formulas, FY2008.................................................................................................................................. 27 Table 7. ESEA Title I-A Grant Amount Per Child Counted in the Allocation Formulas for LEAs in Selected Categories, FY2008.................................................................................... 30 Table 8. Distribution of School-Age Population, Title I-A Formula Children, and Title I-A Grants Among LEAs by Locale Type ..................................................................................... 33 Table 9. State Estimated Number of School-Age Children in Poor Families, Income Years 2003-2007.............................................................................................................................. 36 Table 10. Estimated Annual Changes in Estimated Number of School-Age Children in Poor Families, Income Years 2003-2007, Selected States........................................................ 39 Table 11. State Total Grants under Title I-A, ESEA: Actual Grants for FY2007 and FY2008 Compared to Estimated Grants Based on the Average of IY2004 and IY2005 Estimates of School-Age Children in Poor Families ............................................................... 42 Table 12. ESEA Title I, Part A, Actual Grants for FY2007 and FY2008 Compared to Estimated FY2008 Grants Using the Greater of: (i) Poverty Estimates for Income Year 2005 (FY2008) or (ii) the Average of Poverty Estimates for Income Years 2004 (FY2007) and 2005 (FY2008) for Each LEA.......................................................................... 45 Table 13. Share of ESEA Title I-A Funds Allocated to LEAs by LEA Poverty Rate Quintile, FY2008 ................................................................................................................... 50 Table 14. Title I-A: Illustration of the Allocation of Funds to the Nation’s 15 Largest LEAs Compared to Other LEAs in the Same State ................................................................ 54 Table 15. Weighted Formula Child Counts for FY2008.............................................................. 57 Table 16. Illustration of the Effect of the Title I-A Formulas on LEAs with High Numbers but Low Percentages of Formula Children Comparing LEAs in the Same State ...................... 59 Table 17. ESEA Title I-A State Expenditure Factors for FY2008 ............................................... 62 Congressional Research Service Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Table 18. Actual State Total Allocations under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for FY2008 under Current Law and Estimated FY2008 Grants Under an Alternative Formula Under Which the National Average Expenditure Factor Is Used for All States ............................................................................... 67 Table 19. Comparison of State Expenditure Factor and the Comparable Wage Index (CWI) ............................................................................................. 69 Table 20. Comparison of State Expenditure Factor and Education Expenditure Effort Index Based on Total K-12 Education Expenditures Relative to Total Taxable Resources (TTR).................................................................................................................... 72 Table 21. Authorizations and Appropriations for ESEA Title I-A Grants to LEAs, FY2001-FY2009.................................................................................................................... 76 Table 22. Individual and Aggregate Measures of State Effort ..................................................... 78 Table 23. Total ESEA Title I-A Grants to New York City for FY2008 If Treated as Five LEAs vs. One LEA ........................................................................................................ 85 Table 24. Data Regarding Allocation of Title I-A Funds to Public Schools in New York City in the 2008-2009 School Year ......................................................................................... 88 Contacts Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 89 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 89 Congressional Research Service Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Introduction Title I, Part A, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) authorizes federal aid to local educational agencies (LEAs) for the education of disadvantaged children. Title I-A grants provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other pupils attending pre-kindergarten through grade 12 schools with relatively high concentrations of pupils from low-income families. In recent years, they have also become a “vehicle” to which a number of requirements affecting broad aspects of public K-12 education for all pupils have been attached as a condition for receiving Title I-A grants. These include requirements for assessments of pupil achievement; adequate yearly progress (AYP) standards and determinations for schools, LEAs, and states; consequences for schools and LEAs that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years or more; plus teacher and paraprofessional qualifications. Title I-A is the largest federal elementary and secondary education assistance program, with services provided to (1) more than 90% of all LEAs; (2) approximately 52,000 (54% of all) public schools; and (3) approximately 16.5 million (34% of all) pupils, including approximately 188,000 pupils attending private schools. Three-fourths of all pupils served are in prekindergarten through grade 6, while only 8% of pupils served are in grades 10-12. The ESEA was initially adopted in 1965, and was most recently reauthorized and amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), P.L. 107-110. NCLB authorized Title I-A through FY2007, and an automatic extension, through FY2008 was provided under the General Education Provisions Act (Title IV of P.L. 90-247, as amended). Currently, although the authorization for ESEA Title I-A has expired, appropriations have continued to be provided, and the program continues to be implemented under the policies established by the most recent authorization statute. The 111th Congress is expected to consider proposals to extend and amend the ESEA. The focus of this report is on the formulas used to allocate Title I-A funds to states, LEAs, and schools. These formulas are used to allocate funds not only under the largest federal K-12 education program, but also several other ESEA and non-ESEA programs under which grants are made in proportion to ESEA Title I-A allocations. This report will not be updated. Another CRS report (CRS Report RL33731, Education for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by (name redacted) and (name redacted)) discusses issues related to the accountability and other policies of ESEA Title I-A. Those interested in a more concise description of the ESEA Title I-A allocation formulas and review of reauthorization issues related to them than found in this report should refer to the final section of that report (RL33731). Additional CRS reports provide more detailed discussions and analyses of selected major aspects of the Title I-A program, including pupil assessments,1 accountability, 2 and qualifications for teachers and paraprofessionals.3 Also, see CRS Report RL34721, Elementary and Secondary 1 See CRS Report RL31407, Educational Testing: Implementation of ESEA Title I-A Requirements Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by (name redacted). 2 See CRS Report RL32495, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, by (name redacted); CRS Report RL33032, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Growth Models Under the No Child Left Behind Act, by (name redacted); and CRS Report RL31329, Supplemental Educational Services for Children from Low-Income Families Under ESEA Title I-A, by (name redacted). 3 See CRS Report RL33333, A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom: Implementation of the No Child Left (continued...) Congressional Research Service 1 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Education Act: An Analytical Review of the Allocation Formulas, for a description and analysis of all of the ESEA’s allocation formulas, as well as a discussion of general allocation formula concepts and procedures. This report provides: (a) descriptions of the ESEA Title I-A allocation formulas; (b) a review of recent funding trends for Title I-A; and (c) analyses of major issues related to the Title I-A allocation formulas, divided into general categories of broad issues directly affecting all regions of the nation and issues that directly affect only a limited number of states or local educational agencies. In summary, major Title I-A reauthorization issues regarding allocation formulas are likely to include the following: Should annual variations in the poverty estimates used to calculate Title I-A grants be reduced through multi-year averaging or other methods? • Annual variations in estimates of school-age children in poor families have been exceptionally large for a number of states. Several options are available to reduce the more extreme variations, if desired. Has the targeting of Title I-A funds on high poverty LEAs increased since 2001? • Targeting of Title I-A funds on the highest poverty LEAs has increased since adoption of the NCLB, although shifts have been gradual and relatively marginal. Should the population weighting factors of the Targeted and Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) formulas be modified to more equally favor LEAs with large numbers of school-age children in poor families and LEAs with high poverty rates? • In some respects, the formula population weighting factors of the Targeted and EFIG formulas favor LEAs with large numbers of formula children over those with high school-age child poverty rates. Should the expenditure factor continue to play a major role in the Title I-A formulas? • The expenditure factor has a major impact on the distribution of all Title I-A funds, and the rationale for using this factor may be questioned. At best, it is a crude and indirect measure of variations in the costs of providing public K-12 education. Should there be some consolidation of the four different allocation formulas? • The allocation of portions of each year’s Title I-A appropriation under four different allocation formulas is a result of legislative compromise, not design. Should the authorization level for Title I-A continue to be specified for future years, and if so, at what levels? • An authorized appropriation level was specified in the ESEA only through FY2007. (...continued) Behind Act and Reauthorization Issues for the 111th Congress, and CRS Report RS22545, Paraprofessional Quality and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, both by (name redacted). Congressional Research Service 2 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Should the effort factor in the EFIG formula be modified? • The current effort factor has very limited impact and favors states where schoolage children are a relatively small share of the total population. Should the equity factor in the EFIG formula be modified? • The current equity factor might be broadened to consider additional categories of “high cost” pupils. Should the current provisions for intra-LEA allocation be reconsidered? • The participation of middle and, especially, high schools in Title I-A programs is very low, and might be increased through modification of the requirements for allocation of funds within LEAs. Issues Affecting a Limited Number of States or LEAs: Should the remaining special constraints on grants to Puerto Rico, the cap on aggregate population weights in the Targeted Grant formula, be removed? • Title I-A grants to Puerto Rico would be substantially higher if remaining special constraints were removed. Should the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) formula factor be eliminated? • This formula population factor is of little significance, and may remain primarily for historic and symbolic reasons. Should each county portion of New York City and other multi-county LEAs continue to be treated as separate LEAs under the Title I-A allocation formulas? • This provision leads to substantially different treatment of Title I-A schools in different counties within New York City, and has mixed impact on total Title I-A grants to the City overall. Finally, a general introductory note regarding funding levels and allocations: Most references to appropriation levels, and all discussions and analyses of allocation patterns, in this report refer to those for FY2008, the most recent year for which actual allocations were available at the time this report was prepared. Therefore, there will be only marginal reference to FY2009 appropriations or allocations for Title I-A, whether provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5) or regular FY2009 omnibus appropriations legislation (P.L. 111-8). Description of the ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas For the allocation of funds to states and LEAs, ESEA Title I-A has four separate formulas: the Basic, Concentration, Targeted, and Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) formulas. Once these funds reach LEAs, they are no longer treated separately; they are combined and used without distinction for the same program purposes. A primary rationale for using four different formulas to allocate a share of the funds for a single program is that the formulas have distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of localities (e.g., LEAs with high poverty rates, or states with Congressional Research Service 3 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas comparatively equal levels of spending per pupil among their LEAs), as is discussed later in this report. In addition, some of the formulas contain elements—such as the equity and effort factors in the EFIG formula—that are deemed to have important incentive effects or to be significant symbolically in addition to their impact on allocation patterns. There is also a historical explanation: the Targeted and EFIG formulas, in particular, were initially proposed as replacements for the Basic plus Concentration Grant formulas; that is, each of the Targeted and EFIG formulas was originally intended to be the Title I-A formula. But in subsequent deliberations, these formulas were ultimately authorized to supplement, but not replace, the Basic and Concentration Grant formulas, and implicitly to complement each other. The discussion below describes the characteristics of the Title I-A allocation formulas as these have been amended by NCLB. The description immediately below is similar to that in a report on all of the ESEA program allocation formulas, CRS Report RL34721, Elementary and Secondary Education Act: An Analytical Review of the Allocation Formulas, by (name redacted). The formulas are described in three different formats: • • • First, the general characteristics of all four formulas are introduced in very brief, narrative form. Second, selected characteristics of the four formulas are summarized in tabular format in Table 1. Third, each of the four formulas is described individually, and in greater detail, including a mathematical expression of each formula. General Overview of the Title I-A Allocation Formulas While numerous complications and special features are associated with the Title I-A allocation formulas, each of them has the same underlying structure. For each formula, a maximum grant is calculated by multiplying a “population factor,” consisting primarily of estimated numbers of school-age children in poor families, by an “expenditure factor” based on state average per pupil expenditures for public K-12 education. In some formulas, additional factors are multiplied by the population and expenditure factors. Then these maximum grants are reduced to equal the level of available appropriations for each formula, taking into account a variety of state and LEA minimum grant or “hold harmless” provisions. Only LEAs meeting minimum numbers and/or percentages of children counted in the population factor may receive grants. Under Title I-A, funds are allocated to LEAs via state educational agencies (SEAs). Annual appropriations legislation specifies portions of each year’s appropriation to be allocated under four different formulas; once funds reach LEAs, the amounts allocated under the four formulas are combined and used jointly. Under three of the formulas—Basic, Concentration, and Targeted Grants—funds are calculated initially at the LEA level, and state total grants are the total of allocations for LEAs in the state, adjusted to apply state minimum grant provisions. Under the fourth formula, Education Finance Incentive Grants, allocations are first calculated for each state overall, with state totals subsequently suballocated by LEA using a different formula. The discussion below describes the characteristics of the Title I-A allocation formulas as these have been amended by NCLB. These characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Congressional Research Service 4 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Table 1. Brief Summary of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formula Characteristics Formula Characteristic Basic Grants Concentration Grants Targeted Grants Education Finance Incentive Grants Population factor (also referred to as formula children) Children aged 5-17: (a) in poor families; (b) in institutions for neglected or delinquent children or in foster homes; and (c) in families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) payments above the poverty income level for a family of four Same as Basic Grants Same as Basic Grants Same as Basic Grants Population factor eligibility threshold for LEAs 10 or more formula children and a school-age child poverty rate of more than 2% More than 6,500 formula children or a school-age child poverty rate of more than 15% 10 or more formula children and a school-age child poverty rate of 5% or more 10 or more formula children and a school-age child poverty rate of 5% or more Weighting of population factor None None At all stages of the allocation process, poor and other children counted in the formula are assigned weights on the basis of each LEA’s school-age child poverty rate and number of poor school-age children For allocation of funds within states only, poor and other children counted in the formula are assigned weights on the basis of each LEA’s school-age child poverty rate and number of poor school-age children Expenditure factor State average expenditures per pupil for public K-12 education, subject to a minimum of 80% and maximum of 120% of the national average, further multiplied by 0.40 Same as Basic Grants Same as Basic Grants Same as Basic Grants, except that the minimum is 85% and the maximum is 115% of the national average Minimum state grant Up to 0.25% of total state grants, subject to a series of caps Same as Basic Grants Up to 0.35% of total state grants, subject to a series of caps Same as Targeted Grants LEA hold harmless 85%-95% of the previous year grant, depending on the LEA’s school-age child poverty rate, applicable only to LEAs meeting the formula’s eligibility thresholds Same as Basic Grants except that LEAs are eligible for the hold harmless for up to four years after they no longer meet the eligibility threshold Same as Basic Grants Same as Basic Grants Stages in the grant calculation process Grants are calculated at the LEA level, subject to state minimum provisions Same as Basic Grants Same as Basic Grants Grants are first calculated for states overall, then state total grants are allocated to LEAs in a separate process Additional formula factors None None None State effort and equity factors are applied in the calculation of state total grants Source: Table prepared by CRS. CRS-5 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas In the discussion below, each of the four ESEA Title I-A allocation formulas is discussed separately. Detailed Description of Each of the Title I-A Allocation Formulas Basic Grants Basic Grants are the original Title I-A formula, authorized and implemented each year since FY1966. It is also the formula under which the largest proportion of funds is allocated (47% of FY2008 appropriations), and under which the largest proportion of LEAs participate (approximately 94% in FY2008), largely due to its low LEA eligibility threshold (see below). However, since all post-FY2001 increases in Title I-A appropriations have been provided for the Targeted and Education Finance Incentive Grant formulas (see below), the proportion of Title I-A funds allocated under the Basic Grant formula has been declining steadily since FY2001, when it was 84% of FY2001 appropriations. Compared to some of the other Title I-A formulas, the Basic Grant formula is relatively straightforward. Grants are based on each LEA’s share, compared to the national total, of a population factor multiplied by an expenditure factor, subject to available appropriations, an LEA minimum or “hold harmless,” and a state minimum. These formula factors are described below, followed by a mathematical expression of the formula. Population factor—Children aged 5-17: (a) in poor families, according to the latest available estimates for LEAs from the Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program (these constitute approximately 96% of all formula children for FY2008); (b) in institutions for neglected or delinquent children or in foster homes (approximately 3.9% of all formula children for FY2008)4; and (c) in families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) payments above the poverty income level for a family of four (less than 0.1% of all formula children for FY2008). Each element of the population factor is updated annually. Eligibility threshold—In order for an LEA to be eligible for a Basic Grant, the number of children counted in the population factor must constitute 10 or more such children and more than 2% of the total school-age population in the LEA. Expenditure factor—State average per pupil expenditure for public K-12 education, subject to a minimum of 80% and a maximum of 120% of the national average, further multiplied by 0.40. The expenditure factor is the same for all LEAs in the same state. LEA minimum grant or “hold harmless” level—If sufficient funds are appropriated, each LEA is to receive a minimum of 85%, 90%, or 95% of its previous year grant, depending on the LEA’s school-age child poverty rate, assuming that the LEA continues to meet the Basic Grant formula’s eligibility thresholds. 5 4 The portion of funds allocated to states under the Basic Grant and the other three Title I-A allocation formulas that is based on delinquent youth in local programs is set aside and separately allocated to LEAs providing services to such youth. SEAs are to allocate these funds to LEAs with concentrations of youth in local correctional facilities. SEAs may allocate these funds through a state-developed formula or on a discretionary basis. 5 The hold harmless rate is 85% of the previous year grant if the LEA’s school-age child poverty rate (population factor (continued...) Congressional Research Service 6 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Minimum state grant—Each state is to receive a minimum of up to 0.25% of total Basic Grant appropriations if total Basic Grant funding is equal to or less than the FY2001 level (as has been the case each year since FY2001 thus far), and up to 0.35% of total Basic Grant appropriations in excess of the FY2001 amount, if any. A state may not, as a result of the state minimum provision, receive more than the average of: (1) 0.25% of the total FY2001 amount for state grants plus 0.35% of any amount above the FY2001 level, and (2) 150% of the national average grant per formula child, multiplied by the number of formula children in the state. Ratable reduction—After maximum grants are calculated, if appropriations are insufficient to pay the maximum amounts (as has been the case every year beginning with FY1967), these amounts are reduced by the same percentage for all LEAs, subject to LEA hold harmless and state minimum provisions, until they equal the aggregate level of appropriations. Fiscal requirements—There are three Title I-A fiscal accountability requirements, which are applicable to total LEA grants under all four formulas: (1) maintenance of effort: recipient LEAs must provide, from state and local sources, a level of funding (either aggregate or per pupil) in the preceding year that is at least 90% as high as in the second preceding year; (2) Title I-A funds must be used so as to supplement, and not supplant, state and local funds that would otherwise be available for the education of disadvantaged pupils in Title I-A participating schools; (3) comparability: services provided with state and local funds in schools participating in Title I-A must be comparable to those in non-Title I-A schools of the same LEA.6 Treatment of Puerto Rico, Outlying Areas, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs—With one possible exception,7 Puerto Rico is treated the same as a state under the Basic Grant formula. Grants to schools operated or supported by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Outlying Areas of Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as well as a competitive grant to the Outlying Areas plus certain Freely Associated States8 are provided via reservation of 1% of total Title I-A appropriations. Further adjustments by SEAs of LEA grants as calculated by the U.S. Department of Education (ED)—Among ESEA programs, a distinctive aspect of Title I-A is that after calculation of LEA grants by ED, applying the methods discussed herein, SEAs make a number of adjustments before determining the final amounts that LEAs actually receive. These adjustments are made to the total of Title I-A grants to LEAs under all four formulas combined. These adjustments include (1) reservation of 4% of state total allocations to be used for school improvement grants;9 (2) reservation of 1% of state total allocations under all formulas for ESEA (...continued) divided by total school-age population) is less than 15%, 90% if the school-age child poverty rate is between 15% and 30%, and 95% if the school-age child poverty rate is greater than 30%. 6 If all of an LEA’s schools participate in Title I-A, then services funded from state and local revenues must be “substantially comparable” in each school of the LEA. 7 Through FY2007, the minimum expenditure factor applicable to Puerto Rico was lower than that for any state. The NCLB provided for the elimination of this special provision in stages, although scheduled increases in the Puerto Rico expenditure factor are not to be implemented if doing so would result in a decrease in the grant to any state. The final step in this process was not implemented as scheduled in FY2007; however, it was implemented in FY2008. 8 The Freely Associated States include Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. As of March 2009, Palau is the only Freely Associated State that is eligible for this grant competition. 9 In the process of making this deduction, SEAs may not reduce any LEA’s net grant (i.e., its final grant, after making deductions for school improvement and state administration, plus any other adjustments) below its previous year level. (continued...) Congressional Research Service 7 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Title I, Part A, plus Title I, Parts C and D (discussed below), or $400,000, whichever is greater, for state administration;10 (3) optional reservation of up to 5% of any statewide increase in total Part A grants over the previous year for academic achievement awards to participating schools that significantly reduce achievement gaps between disadvantaged and other pupil groups and/or exceed adequate yearly progress standards for two consecutive years or more; (4) adjustment of LEA grants to provide funds to eligible charter schools or to account for recent LEA boundary changes; and (5) optional use by states of alternative methods to reallocate all of the grants as calculated by ED among the state’s small LEAs (defined as those serving an area with a total population of 20,000 or fewer persons). 11 Basic Grant Allocation Formula— Step 1: Grant 1 = ( PF * EF ) or L_HH, whichever is greater In Step 1, the population factor is multiplied by the expenditure factor for each eligible LEA. If this is less than the LEA’s hold harmless level, the latter amount is used. Step 2: Grant 2 = ( ( Grant 1 / ∑ Grant 1 ) * APP ) or L_HH, whichever is greater In Step 2, the amount for each LEA in Step 1 is divided by the total of these amounts for all eligible LEAs in the nation, then multiplied by the available appropriation. Again, if this is less than the LEA’s hold harmless level, the latter amount is used. Step 3: Grant 3 = (Grant 2 * S_MIN_ADJ * L_HH_ADJ) or L_HH, whichever is greater In Step 3, the amount for each LEA in Step 2 is adjusted through application of the state minimum grant provision and by a factor to account for the aggregate costs of raising affected LEAs to their hold harmless level, given a fixed total appropriation level. The state minimum grant adjustment is upward in the smallest states, where total grants are increased through application of the minimum, and downward in all other states, where funds are reduced in order to pay the costs of applying the minimum. The LEA hold harmless adjustment is downward for all LEAs except those at their hold harmless level. Again at this stage, if this is less than the LEA’s hold harmless level, the latter amount is the LEA’s grant. Step 4: Final Grant = Grant 3 * SCH_IMP_ADJ * S_ADMIN_ADJ * AWD_ADJ * OTR_ADJ In the final step of calculating LEA grants under all Title I-A allocation formulas, LEA grants as calculated in Step 3 are further adjusted for the school improvement and state administration (...continued) According to a recent survey by the Government Accountability Office, this limitation has prevented several states from being able to reserve the full 4% in recent years (see “No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Could Improve the Targeting of School Improvement Funds to Schools Most in Need of Assistance,” GAO-08-380, February 2008). In addition, as is discussed later in this report, the school improvement reservation may be supplemented by additional funds separately appropriated for this purpose. 10 If total appropriations for ESEA Title I, Parts A, C, and D exceed $14 billion, then state administration reservations are capped at the level that would pertain if the total appropriations for these programs were $14 billion. This limit was applicable for the first time in FY2008. 11 As of March 2009, this statutory authority is exercised by 7 states: Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Oklahoma. Congressional Research Service 8 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas reservations, possible state reservations for achievement awards, and other possible adjustments (such as for grants to charter schools) discussed above. Where: PF = Population factor EF = Expenditure factor L_HH = LEA minimum or “hold harmless” level APP = Appropriation S_MIN_ADJ = State minimum adjustment (proportional increase (in small states) or decrease (in other states) to apply the statewide minimum grant) L_HH_ADJ = LEA minimum or “hold harmless” adjustment (proportional decrease, in LEAs not benefitting from the LEA “hold harmless,” to apply the LEA minimum grant) SCH_IMP_ADJ = Reservation by SEA for school improvement grants S_ADMIN_ADJ = Reservation by SEA for state administration AWD_ADJ = Possible reservation by SEA for achievement awards OTR_ADJ = Other possible adjustments by the SEA ∑ = Sum (for all eligible LEAs in the nation) Concentration Grants The Concentration Grant formula is essentially the same as that for Basic Grants, with one major exception—it has a much higher LEA eligibility threshold. There are also differences regarding the LEA hold harmless and state minimum grant provisions. While the Title I-A statute has included Concentration Grant formulas (with varying provisions and sometimes under different names) since 1970, the current version dates from 1988 (P.L. 100-297). A relatively small (10% of FY2008 appropriations) and declining (from 14% in FY2001) proportion of Title I-A appropriations is allocated under the Concentration Grant formula. Approximately 50% of LEAs receive Concentration Grants (FY2008). As with Basic Grants, Concentration Grants are based on each eligible LEA’s share, compared to the national total, of a population factor multiplied by an expenditure factor, subject to available appropriations, an LEA minimum or “hold harmless,” and a state minimum. These formula factors are described below, followed by a mathematical expression of the formula. Population factor—Same as Basic Grants (see above). Eligibility threshold—In order for an LEA to be eligible for a Concentration Grant, the number of children counted in the population factor must exceed either 6,500 such children or 15% of the total school-age population in the LEA. Congressional Research Service 9 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Expenditure factor—Same as Basic Grants (see above). LEA minimum grant or “hold harmless” level—The hold harmless rates for Concentration Grants are the same as those for Basic Grants. However, unlike Basic Grants and all of the other Title I-A formulas, the hold harmless applies to all LEAs that received grants for the previous year, even if they do not currently meet one of the Concentration Grant formula’s eligibility thresholds, unless they fail to meet one of the thresholds for 4 consecutive years. That is, an LEA that is eligible to receive a Concentration Grant in one year can continue to receive a Concentration Grant for three succeeding years, even if it does not meet either of the eligibility thresholds in those succeeding years.12 Minimum state grant—The Concentration Grant state minimum is a modified version of the Basic Grant minimum. Each state is to receive a minimum of up to 0.25% of total Concentration Grant appropriations if total Concentration Grant funding is equal to or less than the FY2001 level (as has been the case each year since FY2001 thus far), and up to 0.35% of total Concentration Grant appropriations in excess of the FY2001 amount, if any. A state may not, as a result of the state minimum provision, receive more than the average of: (1) 0.25% of the total FY2001 amount for state grants plus 0.35% of the amount above this, and (2) the greater of (i) 150% of the national average grant per formula child, multiplied by the number of formula children in the state, or (ii) $340,000. Ratable reduction—Same as Basic Grants (see above). Fiscal requirements—Same as Basic Grants (see above). Treatment of Puerto Rico, Outlying Areas, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs—Same as Basic Grants (see above). Further adjustments by SEAs of LEA grants as calculated by ED—With one exception, these are the same as for Basic Grants. The exception is that in states where the state total number of children counted in the population factor constituted less than 0.25% of the national total of such children as of the date of enactment of the NCLB,13 SEAs may allocate Concentration Grants among all LEAs with a number or percentage of children counted in the population factor that is greater than the state average for that year (not just LEAs meeting the 6,500 or 15% thresholds). Concentration Grant Allocation Formula—The mathematical expression of the Concentration Grant formula is the same as that for Basic Grants (above), with one exception. As discussed immediately above, in states where the number of children counted in the population factor constituted less than 0.25% of the national total of such children as of the date of enactment of the NCLB, the state total is to be allocated on the basis of the population factor among the LEAs that are to receive grants. These LEAs may include, at state discretion, either those LEAs in the state meeting the Concentration Grant eligibility criteria described above, or all LEAs in the state with a number or percentage of children counted in the population factor that is greater than the state average. In either case, for states where the number of children counted in the population factor 12 In this scenario, the Concentration Grant for each year would be equal to 85% of the previous year grant. This group of states will be very similar to, but not necessarily the same as, the group of states currently receiving state minimum Concentration Grants. 13 Congressional Research Service 10 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas constituted less than 0.25% of the national total of such children as of the date of enactment of the NCLB only (after state totals have been determined): LEA Grant = ( PF / ∑ PF * ALL ) or L_HH, whichever is greater Where: PF = Population factor ALL = State total allocation L_HH = LEA minimum or “hold harmless” level ∑ = Sum (for all eligible LEAs in the state) Targeted Grants Targeted Grants were initially authorized in 1994,14 but no funds were appropriated for them until FY2002, after the formula was slightly modified by the NCLB. Beginning in FY2002, all increases in Title I-A appropriations have been allocated as either Targeted or Education Finance Incentive Grants (below). Thus, Targeted Grants constitute a substantial (21% of FY2008 appropriations) and growing portion of total Title I-A grants. They are allocated among a large majority of LEAs (87% in FY2008). The allocation formula for Targeted Grants is essentially the same as that for Basic Grants, except for significant differences related to how children in the population factor are counted. For Targeted Grants, the poor and other children counted in the formula are assigned weights on the basis of each LEA’s school-age child poverty rate and number of school-age children in poor families. As a result, LEAs receive higher grants per child counted in the formula, the higher their poverty rate and/or number. There is also a somewhat higher LEA eligibility threshold for Targeted Grants than for Basic Grants. Aside from these two differences, Targeted Grants are, like Basic Grants, based on each eligible LEA’s share, compared to the national total, of a population factor multiplied by an expenditure factor, subject to available appropriations, an LEA minimum or “hold harmless,” and a state minimum. These formula factors are described below, followed by a mathematical expression of the formula. Population factor—The children counted for calculating Targeted Grants are the same as for Basic Grants (see above). However, for Targeted Grants, LEA-specific weights are applied to these child counts to produce a weighted child count that is used in the formula. Children counted in the formula are assigned weights on the basis of each LEA’s number of school-age children in poor families and on the basis of each LEA’s school-age child poverty rate. As a result, an LEA would receive higher grants per child counted in the formula, the higher its poverty rate or number. The weighting factors are applied in the same manner nationwide; formula children in LEAs with the highest poverty rates have a weight of up to four, and those in LEAs with the highest numbers of such children have a weight of up to three, compared to a weight of one for formula children in LEAs with the lowest poverty rate and number of such children (see Table 2, 14 The Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA), P.L. 103-382. Congressional Research Service 11 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas below). The higher of its two weighted child counts (on the basis of numbers and percentages) is actually used in the formula for calculating grants for each LEA. Table 2. Weights Applied to Counts of Population Factor Children in the Calculation of ESEA Title I-A Targeted Grants A. Weights Based on LEA Numbers of Children in the Population Factor Population Factor Count Range Weight Applied to Population Factor Children in This Range 0-691 1.0 692-2,262 1.5 2,263-7,851 2.0 7,852-35,514 2.5 35,515 or more 3.0 B. Weights Based on LEA Population Factor Children as a Percentage of Total School-Age Population Population Factor Percentage Range Weight Applied to Population Factor Children in This Range Less than or equal to 15.58% 1.0 Above 15.58% but less than or equal to 22.11% 1.75 Above 22.11% but less than or equal to 30.16% 2.5 Above 30.16% but less than or equal to 38.24% 3.25 Above 38.24% 4.0 Source: Table prepared by CRS. There are five ranges associated with each of the number and percentage weighting scales. These steps, or quintiles, were based on the actual distribution of Title I-A population factor children among the nation’s LEAs, according to the latest available data in 2001 (at the time that the NCLB was being considered). Based upon those data, one-fifth of the national total of population factor children were in LEAs in each of the five numbers ranges and, separately, each of the five percentage ranges. The Targeted Grant population factor weights are applied in a stepwise manner, rather than the highest relevant weight being applied to all population factor children in the LEA, and the greater of the two weighted child counts for each LEA is the number actually used to calculate the Targeted Grant. For example, assume an LEA has 2,000 population factor children, the total school-age population is 10,000, and therefore the population factor percentage is 20%. The population factor figure used to calculate Targeted Grants would be determined as follows: Numbers Scale: Step 1: 691 * 1.0 = 691 The first 691 population factor children are weighted at 1.0. Step 2: (2,000 - 691) = 1,309 * 1.5 = 1,963.5 Congressional Research Service 12 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas For an LEA with a total number of population factor children falling within the second step of the numbers scale, the number of population factor children above 691 (the maximum for the first step) is weighted at 1.5. Total (Numbers Scale) = 2,654.5 The weighted population factor counts from Steps 1 and 2 are combined. Percentage Scale: Step 1: 15.58% * 10,000 = 1,558 * 1.0 = 1,558 A number of population factor children constituting up to 15.58% of the LEA’s total school-age population is weighted at 1.0. Step 2: (20% - 15.58%) = 4.42% * 10,000 = 442 * 1.75 = 773.5 For an LEA with a population factor percentage falling within the second step of the percentage scale, the number of population factor children above 15.58% of the LEA’s total school-age population (the maximum for the first step) is weighted at 1.75. Total (Percentage Scale) = 2,331.5 The weighted population factor counts from Steps 1 and 2 are combined. Since the numbers scale weighted count of 2,654.5 exceeds the percentage scale weighted count of 2,331.5, the numbers scale count would be used as the population factor for this LEA in the calculation of Targeted Grants. Eligibility threshold—In order for an LEA to be eligible for a Targeted Grant, the number of children counted in the population factor (with no weights applied) must constitute 10 or more such children and 5% or more of the total school-age population. Expenditure factor—Same as Basic Grants (see above). LEA minimum grant or “hold harmless” level—Same as Basic Grants (see above). Minimum state grant—Each state is to receive a minimum of up to 0.35% of all Targeted Grant appropriations. A state may not, as a result of the state minimum provision, receive more than the average of: (1) 0.35% of total state grants, and (2) 150% of the national average grant per formula child, multiplied by the number of formula children in the state. (In the latter calculation, population factor child counts are not weighted.) Ratable reduction—Same as Basic Grants (see above). Fiscal requirements—Same as Basic Grants (see above). Treatment of Puerto Rico, Outlying Areas, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs—Same as Basic Grants (see above), with the additional provision that for Puerto Rico (only), a cap of 1.82 is Congressional Research Service 13 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas placed on the aggregate weight applied to the population factor under the Targeted Grant formula.15 Further adjustments by SEAs of LEA grants as calculated by ED: Same as Basic Grants (see above). Targeted Grant Allocation Formula—Same as Basic Grants (see above), except that the population factor (PF) would be the weighted child count, as described above. Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG) The EFIG formula is in several ways significantly different from the other Title I-A allocation formulas. As with Targeted Grants, EFIG Grants were initially authorized in 1994,16 but no funds were appropriated for them until FY2002, after the formula was (in the case of EFIG) considerably modified by the NCLB. Beginning in FY2002, all increases in Title I-A appropriations have been allocated as either EFIG or Targeted Grants. Thus, as with Targeted Grants, EFIG Grants constitute a substantial (21% of FY2008 appropriations) and growing portion of total Title I-A grants. They are allocated among a large majority of LEAs (87% in FY2008). The distinctive elements of the EFIG formula begin with the fact that the first stage in the process of calculating grants is based on data for states as a whole, not LEAs. LEA grants are determined in a separate, later stage of the allocation process. A second major difference is that the EFIG formula includes not only a population factor and an expenditure factor, but also two unique factors. These are an effort factor, based on average per pupil expenditure for public K-12 education compared to personal income per capita for each state compared to the nation as a whole, and an equity factor, based on variations in average per pupil expenditure among the LEAs in each state. A third distinctive feature of the EFIG formula is that while population factor child counts are not weighted when calculating state total grants, they are weighted in the separate process of suballocating state total grants among LEAs. This intra-state allocation process is based on the same number and percentage scales as used for Targeted Grants, although the weights attached to each point on those scales varies among states, based on the state’s equity factor. A final difference between the EFIG Grant and other Title I-A formulas is that the expenditure factor is modified through application of slightly more narrow floor and ceiling constraints for EFIG Grants. Thus, state total EFIG Grants are based on each state’s share, compared to the national total, of a population factor multiplied by an expenditure factor, an effort factor, and an equity factor, adjusted by a state minimum. Then, each LEA’s share of the state total EFIG Grant is based on a 15 This cap applies to both the numbers and percentages weighting scales, and was intended to provide that the share of Targeted Grants allocated to Puerto Rico would be approximately equal to its share of grants under the Basic and Concentration Grant formulas for FY2001. This cap reduces grants below the level that would obtain if there were no cap at all (i.e., if Puerto Rico were treated in the same manner as the 50 states and the District of Columbia), since Puerto Rico’s high number and percentage of school-age children in poor families would translate into a significantly higher aggregate weighting factor if not capped. 16 The Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA), P.L. 103-382. Congressional Research Service 14 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas weighted population factor count for the LEA, compared to the total for all LEAs in the state, adjusted by an LEA hold harmless provision. These formula factors are described below, followed by a mathematical expression of the formula. Population factor—In the first-stage calculation of state total EFIG Grants, this factor is the same as for Basic Grants (see above). In the second-stage suballocation of state total grants among LEAs, as under all stages of the allocation process for Targeted Grants, weights are applied to child counts before they are actually used in the formula. This process is the same as for Targeted Grants with respect to the number and percentage scales used, and use of the greater of the two weighted child counts to calculate LEA grants. However, for EFIG Grants only, the weights attached to each point on the number and percentage scales differs, depending on the state’s equity factor (described below). This variation is illustrated in Table 3, below. Table 3. Weights Applied to Counts of Population Factor Children in the Calculation of LEA Grants Under the ESEA Title I-A Education Finance Incentive Grant Formula A. Weights Based on LEA Numbers of Children in the Population Factor Weight Applied to Population Factor Children in This Range Population Factor Count Range State Equity Factor of 0.20 or Above State Equity Factor Below 0.10 State Equity Factor Above 0.10 But Below 0.20 0-691 1.0 1.0 1.0 692-2,262 1.5 1.5 2.0 2,263-7,851 2.0 2.25 3.0 7,852-35,514 2.5 3.375 4.5 35,515 or more 3.0 4.5 6.0 B. Weights Based on LEA Population Factor Children as a Percentage of Total School-Age Population Weight Applied to Population Factor Children in This Range Population Factor Percentage Range State Equity Factor of 0.20 or Above State Equity Factor Below 0.10 State Equity Factor Above 0.10 But Below 0.20 Less than or equal to 15.58% 1.0 1.0 1.0 Above 15.58% but less than or equal to 22.11% 1.75 1.5 2.0 Above 22.11% but less than or equal to 30.16% 2.5 3.0 4.0 Above 30.16% but less than or equal to 38.24% 3.25 4.5 6.0 Above 38.24% 4.0 6.0 8.0 Source: Table prepared by CRS. As indicated in Table 3, the weights rise more rapidly as the numbers and percentages of population factor children increase in states with higher equity factors. For states with an equity Congressional Research Service 15 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas factor below 0.10, the weights are the same as for Targeted Grants. For states with equity factors between 0.10 and 0.20, or above 0.20, the maximum weights are 50% higher, and twice as high, respectively, as for Targeted Grants. As is discussed below, states with higher equity factors have relatively high degrees of variation in average per pupil expenditure among the state’s LEAs. Factors Not Found in Other ESEA Program Formulas—As noted above, the EFIG formula has two additional factors not found in any other ESEA program allocation formula. Effort Factor—The effort factor is based on a comparison of state average per pupil expenditure (APPE) for public elementary and secondary education with state personal income per capita (PCI). More specifically, it is the ratio of APPE to PCI for each state divided by the ratio of APPE to PCI for the nation. The resulting index number is greater than 1.0 for states where the ratio of expenditures per pupil for public elementary and secondary education to personal income per capita is greater than average for the nation as a whole, and below 1.0 for states where the ratio is less than average for the nation as a whole. Narrow bounds of 0.95 and 1.05 are placed on the resulting multiplier, so that its influence on state grants is rather limited and its importance is largely symbolic. Equity Factor—The equity factor is based upon a measure of the average disparity in average per pupil expenditure among the LEAs of a state called the coefficient of variation (CV). The CV is expressed as a decimal proportion of the state average per pupil expenditure. In the CV calculations for this formula, an extra weight (1.4 vs. 1.0) is applied to estimated counts of children from poor families. The effect is that grants would be maximized for a state where expenditures per pupil from a poor family are 40% higher than expenditures per pupil from a nonpoor family. 17 Typical state equity factors range from 0.0 (for the single-LEA jurisdictions of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, where by definition there is no variation among LEAs), to approximately 0.25 for a state with high levels of variation in expenditures per pupil among its LEAs; the equity factors for most states fall into the 0.10 - 0.20 range.18 In calculating grants, the equity factor is subtracted from 1.30 to determine a multiplier to be used in calculating state grants. As a result, the lower a state’s expenditure disparities among its LEAs, the lower is its CV and equity factor, the higher is its multiplier and its grant under the EFIG formula. Conversely, the greater a state’s expenditure disparities among its LEAs, the higher is its CV and equity factor, and the lower is its multiplier and its grant under the EFIG formula. Eligibility threshold—Same as Targeted Grants (see above). Expenditure factor—State average per pupil expenditure for public K-12 education, subject to a minimum of 85% (not 80%, as in the other Title I-A formulas) and a maximum of 115% (not 120%, as in the other Title I-A formulas) of the national average, further multiplied by 0.40. The expenditure factor is the same for all LEAs in each state. 17 Limited purpose LEAs, such as those providing only vocational education, are excluded from the calculations, as are small LEAs with enrollment below 200 pupils. 18 There is a special provision for states meeting the expenditure disparity standard established in regulations for the Impact Aid program (ESEA Title VIII), for which the equity factor is capped at a maximum of 0.10. For an explanation of the Impact Aid equalization provision, see CRS Report RL34119, Impact Aid for Public K-12 Education: Reauthorization Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, by (name redacted) and (name redacted), pages 17-18. Congressional Research Service 16 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas LEA minimum grant or “hold harmless” level—Same as Basic Grants (see above), with one exception. The hold harmless is not taken into consideration in the initial calculation of state total grants. Therefore, it is possible (and has occurred in a small number of instances) that state total grants are insufficient to fully pay hold harmless amounts to all LEAs in the state. In that case, each LEA gets a proportional share of its hold harmless amount. Minimum state grant—Same as Targeted Grants (see above). Ratable reduction—Same as Basic Grants (see above). Fiscal requirements—Same as Basic Grants (see above). Treatment of Puerto Rico, Outlying Areas, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs—Same as Basic Grants (see above). Further adjustments by SEAs of LEA grants as calculated by ED—Same as Basic Grants (see above). Education Finance Incentive Grant Allocation Formula— Stage 1: Calculation of State Total EFIG Allocations Step 1: State Grant 1 = PF * EF * EFF * (1.30 - EQ) In Step 1, the population factor is multiplied by the expenditure factor, the effort factor, and 1.30 minus the equity factor for each state. Step 2: State Grant 2 = ( ( State Grant 1 / ∑ State Grant 1 ) * APP * S_MIN_ADJ ) or S_MIN, if greater In Step 2, the amount for each state in Step 1 is divided by the total of these amounts for all eligible states in the nation, then multiplied by the available appropriation, adjusted through application of the state minimum grant provision. The state minimum grant adjustment is upward in the smallest states, where total grants are increased through application of the minimum, and downward in all other states, where funds are reduced in order to pay the costs of applying the minimum. Stage 2: Calculation of LEA EFIG Allocations Step 1: LEA Grant 1 = ( ( PF / ∑ PF ) * S_ALL ) or L_HH, whichever is greater In Step 1, the population factor for each eligible LEA is divided by the total population factor for all eligible LEAs in the state. If this is less than the LEA’s hold harmless level, the latter amount is used. Step 2: LEA Grant 2 = ( LEA Grant 1 * L_HH_ADJ ) or L_HH, whichever is greater In Step 2, the amount for each LEA in Step 1 is adjusted through application of a factor to account for the aggregate costs of raising affected LEAs in the state to their hold harmless level, given a fixed total state allocation level. The LEA hold harmless adjustment is downward for all LEAs except those at the hold harmless level. Congressional Research Service 17 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Step 3: Final LEA Grant = LEA Grant 2 * SCH_IMP_ADJ * S_ADMIN_ADJ * AWD_ADJ * OTR_ADJ In the final step of calculating LEA grants under all Title I-A allocation formulas, LEA grants as calculated in Step 2 are further adjusted for the school improvement and state administration reservations, possible state reservations for achievement awards, and other possible adjustments (such as for grants to charter schools) discussed above. Where: PF = Population factor EF = Expenditure factor EFF = Effort factor EQ = Equity factor APP = Appropriation S_MIN_ADJ = State minimum adjustment (proportional increase (in small states) or decrease (in other states) to apply the statewide minimum grant) S_MIN = State minimum S_ALL = State total allocation L_HH = LEA minimum or “hold harmless” level L_HH_ADJ = LEA minimum or “hold harmless” adjustment (proportional decrease, in LEAs not benefitting from the LEA “hold harmless,” to apply the LEA minimum grant) SCH_IMP_ADJ = Reservation by SEA for school improvement grants S_ADMIN_ADJ = Reservation by SEA for state administration AWD_ADJ = Possible reservation by SEA for achievement awards OTR_ADJ = Other possible adjustments by the SEA ∑ = Sum (for all states in the nation in Stage 1, and for all eligible LEAs in the state in Stage 2) ESEA Title I-A School Improvement Grants Under ESEA Title I-A, two different mechanisms are authorized for the generation of funds for School Improvement activities. Whatever the source, these funds are to be targeted on schools that are identified as being in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring because they have failed to make AYP for two consecutive years or more. 19 First, states are to reserve 4% 19 See CRS Report RL33731, Education for the Disadvantaged: Reauthorization Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under the (continued...) Congressional Research Service 18 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas of their total Title I-A LEA grants, under the four formulas described above, for School Improvement activities.20 Second, the ESEA authorizes a separate appropriation for state School Improvement Grants. These funds are allocated to states in proportion to state total grants under ESEA Title I, Parts A, C (State Agency Migrant Program—see below), and D (State Agency Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk Program—see below). At least 95% of each state’s funds from either source (the reservation or the separate appropriation) is to be allocated to LEAs for schools identified as being in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. The funds are allocated at state discretion—there is no statutory intrastate allocation formula for School Improvement funds, beyond the general direction that they are to be directed to LEAs with schools identified as being in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. Title I grant factor—Funds are allocated to states in proportion to total grants under Title I, Parts A, C, and D. School Improvement Grant Allocation Formula— State Grant = [ ( T1A + T1C + T1D ) / ∑ ( T1A + T1C + T1D ) ] * APP Each state (including Outlying Areas and the Bureau of Indian Affairs) receives a School Improvement Grant equal to its proportional share of total grants under ESEA Title I, Parts A, C, and D. Where: T1A = State total grant under ESEA Title I, Part A T1C = State total grant under ESEA Title I, Part C T1D = State total grant under ESEA Title I, Part D APP = Appropriation (separate) for School Improvement Grants ∑ = Sum (for all states) Suballocation of LEA Grants to Schools Unlike other federal elementary and secondary education programs, most Title I-A funds are allocated to individual schools, although LEAs retain substantial discretion to control the use of a significant share of Title I-A grants at a central district level. 21 While there are several rules (...continued) No Child Left Behind Act, by (name redacted) and (name redacted) for details. 20 In reserving these funds, SEAs may not reduce any LEA’s grant below its previous year level. As a result, in some years, a number of states may be unable to reserve the full 4% of state total LEA grants for this purpose. For details, see Government Accountability Office, “No Child Left Behind Act: Education Actions Could Improve the Targeting of School Improvement Funds to Schools Most in Need of Assistance,” GAO-08-380, February 2008. 21 Detailed guidance regarding the selection of schools to receive Title I-A grants and the allocation of funds among them may be found in the following ED policy guidance document—Local Educational Agency Identification and (continued...) Congressional Research Service 19 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas related to school selection, LEAs must generally rank their public schools by their percentage of pupils from low-income families, and serve them in rank order. All participating schools must generally have a percentage or number of children from low-income families that is higher than the LEA’s average, or 35%, whichever of these two figures is lower, 22 although LEAs have the option of setting school eligibility thresholds higher than the minimum in order to concentrate available funds on a smaller number of schools. 23 Once schools are selected, Title I-A funds are allocated among them (and reserved for services to private school pupils) in proportion to their number of pupils from low-income families. In a large majority of cases, the data used to determine which pupils are from low-income families for the distribution of funds to schools are not the same as those used to identify school-age children in poor families for purposes of calculating allocations to states and LEAs. This is because data are not typically available on the number of school-age children enrolled in a school, or living in a residential school attendance zone, with income below the standard federal poverty threshold. Such “population in poverty” estimates, as used in the standard formulas for allocation of funds to states and LEAs (discussed above), are usually available only for LEAs, counties, and states. Thus, LEAs must use available proxies for low-income status. The Title I-A statute allows LEAs to use the following low-income measures: (a) eligibility for free and reduced-price school lunches; (b) eligibility for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF); or (c) eligibility for Medicaid. 24 At the level of individual schools, the most commonly used criterion for determining whether pupils are from low-income families is eligibility for free and reduced-price school lunches. According to the most recent relevant data, approximately 90% of LEAs receiving Title I-A funds use free/reduced-price school lunch data—sometimes alone, sometimes in combination with other authorized criteria—to select Title I-A schools and allocate funds among them. 25 The income eligibility thresholds for free and reduced-price lunches are higher than the poverty levels used in the allocation formulas to states and LEAs: 130% of poverty for free lunches, 185% for reduced-price lunches. After data have been compiled on the percentage or number of pupils from low-income families who are either enrolled in a LEA’s public schools or residing in the attendance areas served by such schools, available Title I-A funds are allocated among these schools in rank order, beginning with the highest poverty schools, until no further funds are available. LEAs may choose to consider only schools of selected grade levels (e.g., only elementary schools) in determining eligibility for grants, as long as all schools with 75% or more of pupils from low-income families receive grants. Funds are allocated among schools in proportion to their number of pupils from low-income families, although grants to eligible schools per pupil from a low-income family need not be (...continued) Selection of School Attendance Areas and Schools and Allocation of Title I Funds to Those Areas and Schools, 2003. 22 This minimum percentage is reduced from 35% to 25% for schools participating in certain desegregation plans. 23 There is an exemption from all of the Title I-A school selection requirements for small LEAs—defined in this case as those with enrollments of 1,000 or fewer pupils. Such small LEAs do not have to meet any of the school ranking requirements discussed in this report. 24 LEAs may also develop and use a composite of two or more of these measures—for example, school-age children in families receiving TANF or Medicaid benefits. 25 U.S. Department of Education, Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report, 2000, p. 33 Congressional Research Service 20 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas equal for all schools. LEAs may choose to provide higher grants per child from a low-income family to schools with higher percentages of such pupils (e.g., higher grants per child to a school where 70% of pupils are from low-income families than to a school where 40% of pupils are from low-income families). If a LEA provides Title I-A funds to schools with low-income pupil percentages below 35%, then it must provide a minimum amount of funds per child from a lowincome family—equal to at least 125% of the LEA’s Title I-A grant per child from a low-income family—to each participating school. In the 2004-2005 school year, an estimated 56% of all public schools in the nation received Title I-A grants. This included 82% of public schools in the highest quartile with respect to their percentage of pupils in low-income families, declining to 37% of schools in the lowest quartile. Elementary schools (70%) are much more likely than secondary schools (39%) to receive Title IA grants. 26 Similarly, the share of funds to be used by each recipient LEA to serve educationally disadvantaged pupils attending private schools is determined on the basis of the number of children from low-income families living in the residential areas served by public schools selected to receive Title I-A grants. LEAs may use for this purpose either the same source of data used to select and allocate funds among public schools (i.e., usually free/reduced-price school lunch data) or one of a specified range of alternatives.27 Recent Funding Trends for Title I-A Information on the Title I-A appropriations for FY2007-2009, plus the Administration budget request for FY2010 may be found in Table 4, below. The table is preceded by brief descriptions of appropriations for FY2008 and FY2009 plus the FY2010 request. FY2008 The Administration’s budget for FY2008 requested $13,909,900,000 for Title I-A LEA grants, an increase of $1,071,775,000 (8.3%) over the FY2007 appropriation, plus a separate appropriation of $500 million for school improvement grants, a fourfold increase over FY2007. All of the increase in LEA grants would have been devoted to Targeted Grants (along with a $62.5 million reduction in EFIG grants). P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2008, provided a total of $13,898,875,000 for Title I-A grants to LEAs, plus a separate appropriation of $491,265,000 for school improvement grants. As in the recent past, the funding level for 26 Jay G. Chambers, Irene Lamb, and Kanya Mahitivanichcha, et al., State and Local Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume VI—Targeting and Uses of Federal Education Funds, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, A report from the National Longitudinal Study of No Child Left Behind (NLS-NCLB) and the Study of State, Washington, DC, January 2009, p. p. 23, 28, and 50. http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/nclb-targeting/nclb-targeting.pdf. 27 According to the ED policy guidance document, Local Educational Agency Identification and Selection of School Attendance Areas and Schools and Allocation of Title I Funds to Those Areas and Schools (p. 16), “To obtain a count of private school children, an LEA may use: (1) The same poverty data it uses to count public school children. (2) Comparable poverty data from a survey of families of private school students that, to the extent possible, protects the families’ identity. The LEA may extrapolate data from the survey based on a representative sample if complete actual data are not available. (3) Comparable data from a different source, such as scholarship applications, so long as the income level for both sources is generally the same. (4) Proportional data based on the poverty percentage of each public school attendance area applied to the total number of private school children who reside in that area. (5) An equated measure of low income correlated with a measure of low income used to count public school children.” Congressional Research Service 21 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Concentration Grants was the same for FY2008 as for FY2007, and equal amounts were appropriated for the Targeted and EFIG formulas ($2,967,949,000 for each). All of an across-theboard reduction for Title I-A was applied to Basic Grants, reducing funds under that formula to $6,597,946,000. FY2009 For FY2009, regular appropriations are provided under P.L. 111-8, an omnibus appropriations act. Under P.L. 111-8, total regular FY2009 appropriations for grants to LEAs are $14,492,401,000. The FY2009 funding for Basic and Concentration Grants is the same as for FY2008, while Targeted and EFIG grants each receive $3,264,712,000. In addition, $545,633,000 is separately appropriated for School Improvement Grants. In addition to regular FY2009 appropriations legislation for ED, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), P.L. 111-5, provides a total of $13 billion in additional FY2009 appropriations for Title I-A—$10 billion for grants to LEAs and $3 billion for School Improvement Grants. These funds are in addition to amounts provided in regular FY2009 appropriations legislation. Half of the additional grants to LEAs will be allocated under the Targeted Grant formula and half under the Education Finance Incentive Grant formula. FY2010 On May 7, 2009, the Obama Administration released its detailed budget recommendations for FY2010. For ESEA Title I-A, the Administration requested a total of $12,992,401,000 for grants to LEAs, a reduction of $1,500,000,000 (10.4%) from the FY2009 amount. All of this reduction would be applied to Basic Grants, which would decline from $6,597,946,000 for FY2009 to $5,097,946,000 for FY2010. At the same time, for School Improvement Grants under Title I-A, the Administration requested a $1,000,000,000 increase, from $545,633,000 for FY2009 to $1,545,633,000 for FY2010. On July 24, 2009, the House passed H.R. 3293, to provide FY2010 appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies. As passed by the House, H.R. 3293 would provide $14,492,401,000 for Title I-A grants to LEAs, $1,500,000,000 more than the Administration request for Basic Grants but the same as requested for all other formulas, and $545,633,000, the same as the Administration request, for School Improvement Grants. The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported its version of H.R. 3293 on July 30, 2009. As reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 3293 would provide $13,792,401,000 for Title I-A grants to LEAs, $800,000,000 more than the Administration request for Basic Grants but the same as requested for all other formulas, and $545,633,000, the same as the Administration request for School Improvement Grants. Table 4, below, shows total Title I-A appropriations for FY2009-FY2010. Congressional Research Service 22 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Table 4. FY2009-FY2010 Appropriations for ESEA Title I, Part A FY2010 Under H.R. 3293 as Reported by Senate Committee Formula FY2009 Regular Appropriations FY2009 ARRA Additional Appropriations FY2010 Administration Budget Request FY2010 Under H.R. 3293 as Passed by House Basic Grantsa $6,597,946,000 — $5,097,946,000 $6,597,946,000 $5,897,946,000 Concentration Grants 1,365,031,000 — 1,365,031,000 1,365,031,000 1,365,031,000 Targeted Grants 3,264,712,000 $5,000,000,000 3,264,712,000 3,264,712,000 3,264,712,000 Education Finance Incentive Grants 3,264,712,000 5,000,000,000 3,264,712,000 3,264,712,000 3,264,712,000 Total ESEA Title I-A Grants to LEAs 14,492,401,000 10,000,000,000 12,992,401,000 14,492,401,000 13,792,401,000 School Improvement Grants (separate authorization) 545,633,000 3,000,000,000 1,545,633,000 545,633,000 545,633,000 Source: Table prepared by CRS. a. The amounts shown above for Basic Grants include approximately $3.5 million each year for census updates. FY2008 Allocation Patterns FY2008 (school year 2008-2009) grants are the latest available actual allocations under Title I-A. Overall, the FY2008 funding level for Title I-A is 8.3% above the FY2007 level. This contrasts with the period of FY2005-2007, when aggregate funding for Title I-A LEA grants was essentially constant. Due largely to the comparatively large increase in Title I-A funding for FY2008, all states except one (Wisconsin, where grants declined by 1.3%) received higher total grants for FY2008 than for FY2007. At the LEA level, approximately 61% of all LEAs nationwide that received Title I-A grants for both FY2007 and FY2008 received larger grants for FY2008, while 39% received lower grants for FY2007. LEAs receiving lower Title I-A grants for FY2008 than in FY2007 have been experiencing reductions in their estimated number of school-age children in poor families; these include LEAs of all sizes and degrees of poverty concentration, in contrast to the FY2002FY2006 period when a large majority of large or high-poverty LEAs experienced grant increases, while a majority of LEAs overall were losing funds. Tables 5-8 provide a series of analyses of the distribution of Title I-A funds among the states, as well as different types or categories of LEAs. Each table is preceded by a brief description of the information provided in the table. Subsequently, these tables will be referred to in the course of a series of analyses of possible Title I-A formula reauthorization issues. Congressional Research Service 23 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Table 5, below, shows state average FY2008 Title I-A grants per child counted in the Title I-A allocation formulas. Separate amounts are provided for each of the four formulas, plus a Title I-A total. The substantial variation in these amounts reflect a combination of factors, many of which are analyzed in detail in the final section of this report. These factors include: • State minimum grant provisions—Under all formulas, average grants per formula child are much higher for the smallest (in population) states. • Expenditure factor—Under all formulas, but especially with respect to Basic Grants, average grants per formula child are much higher for states with high expenditure factors (e.g., Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, or New York) than for states with low factors (e.g., Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, or Utah). • Targeting on LEAs with large numbers of school-age children in poor families— With the exception of the smallest states (where average grants per formula child are high regardless of poverty rates), average grants per child under the Concentration, Targeted, and Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) formulas are higher for several states containing LEAs with very high numbers of schoolage children in poor families (e.g., Illinois, Michigan, New York, or Pennsylvania) than for other states. In contrast, states with large numbers of LEAs with high poverty rates (e.g., Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, New Mexico) are below the national average, primarily due to low expenditure factors for these states. • Equity factor—Several states with especially favorable equity factors (e.g., the District of Columbia, Hawaii, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) receive relatively high average grants per formula child under the EFIG formula. However, many key formula factors operate in opposite directions, largely cancelling each other out. For example, California has LEAs with very large numbers of school-age children in poor families, but also a relatively low expenditure factor, resulting in an average Targeted Grant per formula child that is approximately the same as the national average. Table 5. ESEA Title I-A Grant Amount Per Child Counted in the Allocation Formulas, FY2008 Title I-A Grant Amount Per Child Counted in the Allocation Formulas, FY2008 Basic Grant Concentration Grant Targeted Grant Education Finance Incentive Grant Total Title I-A Grant United States $684 $142 $308 $308 $1,441 Alabama $566 $134 $241 $269 $1,211 Alaska $979 $132 $518 $515 $2,143 Arizona $624 $135 $264 $264 $1,287 Arkansas $610 $143 $242 $307 $1,301 California $641 $135 $303 $269 $1,347 Colorado $624 $112 $259 $281 $1,275 State Congressional Research Service 24 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Title I-A Grant Amount Per Child Counted in the Allocation Formulas, FY2008 Basic Grant Concentration Grant Targeted Grant Education Finance Incentive Grant Total Title I-A Grant Connecticut $950 $142 $290 $371 $1,754 Delaware $1,002 $123 $521 $521 $2,167 District of Columbia $861 $212 $504 $438 $2,015 Florida $576 $139 $336 $273 $1,324 Georgia $658 $152 $295 $319 $1,424 Hawaii $764 $178 $412 $421 $1,774 Idaho $550 $90 $252 $252 $1,144 Illinois $847 $165 $360 $321 $1,692 Indiana $717 $120 $256 $330 $1,423 Iowa $616 $78 $189 $287 $1,170 Kansas $710 $123 $242 $353 $1,429 Kentucky $642 $150 $272 $318 $1,382 Louisiana $616 $153 $303 $244 $1,315 Maine $822 $138 $337 $393 $1,690 Maryland $872 $180 $419 $369 $1,840 Massachusetts $869 $142 $319 $371 $1,702 Michigan $773 $146 $342 $367 $1,629 Minnesota $713 $80 $238 $305 $1,335 Mississippi $584 $137 $254 $268 $1,243 Missouri $628 $124 $242 $273 $1,266 Montana $673 $148 $368 $368 $1,557 Nebraska $695 $98 $267 $354 $1,414 Nevada $548 $131 $331 $267 $1,277 New Hampshire $939 $99 $481 $503 $2,022 New Jersey $875 $138 $293 $375 $1,682 New Mexico $605 $150 $276 $297 $1,328 New York $917 $202 $481 $376 $1,975 North Carolina $560 $133 $257 $271 $1,221 North Dakota $1,198 $175 $631 $633 $2,636 Ohio $740 $138 $294 $345 $1,518 Oklahoma $559 $120 $225 $264 $1,169 Oregon $650 $132 $246 $325 $1,352 Pennsylvania $844 $155 $361 $372 $1,732 Puerto Rico $548 $141 $269 $290 $1,248 State Congressional Research Service 25 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Title I-A Grant Amount Per Child Counted in the Allocation Formulas, FY2008 Basic Grant Concentration Grant Targeted Grant Education Finance Incentive Grant Total Title I-A Grant Rhode Island $908 $158 $354 $399 $1,818 South Carolina $614 $146 $261 $303 $1,324 South Dakota $807 $151 $467 $465 $1,888 Tennessee $549 $129 $250 $266 $1,193 Texas $593 $136 $290 $269 $1,287 Utah $570 $72 $224 $261 $1,126 Vermont $1,251 $204 $657 $665 $2,778 Virginia $722 $127 $284 $300 $1,434 Washington $631 $98 $225 $284 $1,238 West Virginia $708 $168 $276 $361 $1,512 Wisconsin $849 $125 $308 $379 $1,661 Wyoming $1,345 $180 $716 $713 $2,954 State Source: Table prepared by CRS. Table 6, below, provides each state’s percentage share of the funds allocated under each of the Title I-A formulas, as well as total Title I-A grants, for FY2008. The distinctive feature here is that while these shares are similar under all formulas for most states, some states receive substantially higher or lower shares under some formulas than under the other formulas. Focusing on those states where the highest share of grants under any formula is one-third or more above its lowest share, there are 19 states where the share of funds received under one of the four formulas is substantially different from the others. These include: • • • • • Seven small states where the share under the Targeted and/or EFIG formulas is much greater than under Basic or Concentration Grants, due to the higher state minimum under the former formulas (Alaska, Delaware, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming); Four states with relatively low poverty rates where the share of Basic Grants is substantially higher than under any other formula (Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Wisconsin); Two states with many LEAs with relatively high poverty rates where shares are substantially higher under Concentration Grants than the other formulas (Louisiana and West Virginia); One state where the share of Targeted Grants is substantially higher than under the other formulas, due to the impact of one very large LEA (Nevada); and Five states where the share of EFIG Grants is substantially higher than under the other formulas, due primarily to relatively favorable equity factors (Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, and Washington). Congressional Research Service 26 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Table 6. State Shares of Funds Allocated Under Each of the ESEA Title I-A Formulas, FY2008 ESEA Title I-A Grants to LEAs: State Shares of Grants by Formula Basic Grants Concentration Grants Targeted Grants Education Finance Incentive Grants 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Alabama 1.54% 1.77% 1.46% 1.63% 1.57% Alaska 0.27% 0.18% 0.32% 0.32% 0.28% Arizona 2.04% 2.14% 1.92% 1.92% 2.00% Arkansas 1.04% 1.17% 0.91% 1.16% 1.05% California 12.37% 12.62% 12.98% 11.54% 12.35% Colorado 1.01% 0.88% 0.94% 1.01% 0.98% Connecticut 0.96% 0.69% 0.65% 0.83% 0.84% Delaware 0.27% 0.16% 0.31% 0.31% 0.28% District of Columbia 0.31% 0.37% 0.40% 0.35% 0.34% Florida 4.37% 5.10% 5.66% 4.61% 4.77% Georgia 3.16% 3.52% 3.14% 3.41% 3.24% Hawaii 0.29% 0.33% 0.35% 0.36% 0.32% Idaho 0.34% 0.27% 0.35% 0.35% 0.34% Illinois 4.55% 4.29% 4.30% 3.83% 4.32% Indiana 1.91% 1.54% 1.51% 1.95% 1.80% Iowa 0.59% 0.36% 0.40% 0.61% 0.53% United States Total LEA Grants Kansas 0.73% 0.61% 0.55% 0.80% 0.69% Kentucky 1.48% 1.67% 1.40% 1.63% 1.52% Louisiana 2.11% 2.53% 2.31% 1.86% 2.14% Maine 0.38% 0.31% 0.35% 0.41% 0.37% Maryland 1.40% 1.39% 1.49% 1.31% 1.40% Massachusetts 1.83% 1.45% 1.49% 1.74% 1.70% Michigan 3.83% 3.50% 3.77% 4.04% 3.83% Minnesota 1.04% 0.56% 0.77% 0.99% 0.92% Mississippi 1.35% 1.53% 1.30% 1.37% 1.36% Missouri 1.71% 1.63% 1.46% 1.65% 1.64% Montana 0.29% 0.31% 0.35% 0.35% 0.32% Nebraska 0.45% 0.31% 0.39% 0.51% 0.44% Nevada 0.53% 0.61% 0.71% 0.58% 0.59% New Hampshire 0.27% 0.14% 0.31% 0.32% 0.28% New Jersey 2.29% 1.74% 1.70% 2.18% 2.09% New Mexico 0.79% 0.95% 0.80% 0.86% 0.82% New York 8.72% 9.27% 10.16% 7.96% 8.92% Congressional Research Service 27 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas ESEA Title I-A Grants to LEAs: State Shares of Grants by Formula Basic Grants Concentration Grants Targeted Grants Education Finance Incentive Grants North Carolina 2.52% 2.89% 2.57% 2.71% 2.61% North Dakota 0.23% 0.17% 0.27% 0.28% 0.25% Ohio 3.82% 3.44% 3.38% 3.96% 3.72% Oklahoma 1.09% 1.13% 0.97% 1.14% 1.08% Oregon 1.03% 1.01% 0.87% 1.14% 1.02% Pennsylvania 4.22% 3.74% 4.01% 4.14% 4.11% Total LEA Grants Puerto Rico 3.43% 4.28% 3.75% 4.04% 3.71% Rhode Island 0.41% 0.34% 0.35% 0.40% 0.39% South Carolina 1.46% 1.68% 1.38% 1.60% 1.49% South Dakota 0.27% 0.25% 0.35% 0.35% 0.30% Tennessee 1.69% 1.91% 1.70% 1.81% 1.74% Texas 9.17% 10.14% 9.97% 9.23% 9.45% Utah 0.47% 0.28% 0.41% 0.47% 0.44% Vermont 0.23% 0.18% 0.26% 0.27% 0.24% Virginia 1.74% 1.49% 1.52% 1.61% 1.64% Washington 1.50% 1.13% 1.18% 1.50% 1.39% West Virginia 0.71% 0.82% 0.62% 0.81% 0.72% Wisconsin 1.56% 1.11% 1.26% 1.54% 1.45% Wyoming 0.22% 0.14% 0.26% 0.26% 0.23% Source: Table prepared by CRS. Table 7, below, provides average Title I-A grants per formula child, by formula and total, for LEAs in five illustrative categories. It must be emphasized that these are limited numbers of LEAs in each category, selected to concretely illustrate certain patterns of Title I-A allocations. They are not necessarily representative of all LEAs in each category. (The following Table 8 provides summary data for all LEAs in each of 12 standard categories of localities.) The illustrative categories for Table 7 are: • LEAs with very large numbers of formula children, • LEAs with very high percentages of formula children, • LEAs in minimum grant states, • LEAs with relatively large numbers, but relatively low percentages, of formula children, and • LEAs with low numbers and percentages of formula children. Distinctive allocation patterns illustrated in Table 7, all of which will be discussed further in the issue analyses at the end of this report, include the following: Congressional Research Service 28 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas • Grants per formula child are much higher than average under the Targeted and EFIG grant formulas for the selected LEAs with very large numbers of formula children; • The selected LEAs with very high percentages of formula children receive higher than average grants per formula child under the Targeted and EFIG formulas, but much lower than the LEAs with very large numbers of formula children, partially due to their treatment under these formulas but primarily because they are located in states with low expenditure factors; • The selected LEAs in minimum grant states receive higher grants per formula child than LEAs in any other category under all formulas except possibly Concentration Grants;28 • The selected LEAs with relatively large numbers, but relatively low percentages, of formula children receive Concentration, Targeted, and EFIG grants per formula child that are above the national average, in spite of their low formula child percentages; and • The selected LEAs with low numbers and percentages of formula children receive grants per formula child that are well below average under all formulas except Basic Grants. 28 As discussed earlier in this report, SEAs have a substantial degree of discretion regarding the distribution of Concentration Grants to LEAs in minimum grant states. The amounts shown in Table 6 are those calculated by ED under the national Concentration Grant formula; the Concentration Grant amounts actually received by these LEAs may differ substantially from the amounts shown. Congressional Research Service 29 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Table 7. ESEA Title I-A Grant Amount Per Child Counted in the Allocation Formulas for LEAs in Selected Categories, FY2008 State LEA Code LEA Name Number of Formula Children, FY2008 Formula Child %, FY2008 Basic Grants Concentration Grants Targeted Grants Education Finance Incentive Grants Grant Amount Per Formula Child, FY2008 Category 1: LEAs with very large numbers of formula children CA 622710 Los Angeles 245,840 28.8% $641 $160 $463 $495 GA 1300120 Atlanta 24,617 32.0% $761 $192 $391 $481 IL 1709930 Chicago 138,144 26.6% $910 $230 $551 $581 NY 3682047 Kings County (Brooklyn) 137,262 29.5% $902 $228 $628 $533 PA 4218990 Philadelphia 89,179 33.6% $814 $210 $603 $728 $806 $204 $527 $564 Average for Category 1 LEAs Listed Above Category 2: LEAs with Very High Percentages of Formula Children AZ 401940 Chinle 3,461 61.7% $548 $141 $401 $474 KY 2105970 Wolfe County 626 49.7% $662 $161 $405 $474 MS 2801980 Holmes County 2,432 61.7% $597 $141 $401 $502 TX 4823100 Hidalgo 1,574 63.0% $559 $144 $413 $383 TX 4828290 Los Fresnos 4,494 62.1% $559 $144 $411 $380 $585 $147 $406 $443 Average for Category 2 LEAs Listed Above Category 3: LEAs in Minimum Grant States DE 1000200 Christina 3,376 11.3% $1,002 $0 $635 $660 NH 3304980 Nashua 1,424 9.1% $929 $0 $616 $643 VT 5007050 Rutland City 487 19.0% $1,273 $398 $717 $700 WY 5601980 Laramie County 01 1,465 10.4% $1,341 $0 $815 $808 ND 3819260 Warwick 29 127 42.2% $1,205 $483 $1,136 $1,343 $1,150 $176 $784 $831 Average for Category 3 LEAs Listed Above CRS-30 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas State LEA Code LEA Name Number of Formula Children, FY2008 Formula Child %, FY2008 Grant Amount Per Formula Child, FY2008 Basic Grants Concentration Grants Targeted Grants Education Finance Incentive Grants Category 4: LEAs with Relatively Large Numbers, but Relatively Low Percentages, of Formula Children FL 1200180 Broward County 42,837 13.9% $576 $149 $383 $311 CO 804800 Jefferson County R-1 7,540 8.1% $615 $159 $300 $322 GA 1301290 Cobb County 9,829 8.7% $638 $164 $335 $372 MD 2400480 Montgomery County 9,244 5.6% $1,085 $274 $444 $390 VA 5101260 Fairfax County 10,034 5.5% $712 $184 $377 $436 $725 $186 $368 $366 Average for Category 4 LEAs Listed Above Category 5: LEAs with Low Numbers and Percentages of Formula Children IL 1731920 Pleasant Plains Community 62 4.3% $721 $0 $0 $0 MA 2506900 Lincoln 50 3.7% $822 $0 $0 $0 MN 2718810 Maple Lake 57 5.1% $683 $0 $184 $217 NY 3606990 Chappaqua Central 74 1.8% $0 $0 $0 $0 NY 3629850 Wantagh Union 71 2.1% $822 $0 $0 $0 $609 $0 $37 $43 Average for Category 5 LEAs Listed Above Source: Table prepared by CRS. CRS-31 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas The last of the data tables in this report section, Table 8, displays the distribution of total schoolage population, Title I-A formula children, and Title I-A grants (by formula and total) among LEAs in 12 standard locale categories. (Note that Puerto Rico is excluded from this analysis.) These categories are based on the “urban-centric” locale codes developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).29 The final column (Column J) in Table 8 shows the percentage difference between the share of total Title I-A grants going to LEAs in that category (Column I) and the share of Title I-A formula children (Column D). This figure indicates the aggregate size and direction of variations in the distribution of Title I-A formula children and the distribution of Title I-A grants. For example, if the amount in Column J were large and positive, this would indicate that LEAs in that category receive a substantially higher share of Title I-A funds than their share of the children counted in the Title I-A formulas. Conversely, if the amount in Column J were large and negative, this would indicate that LEAs in that category receive a substantially smaller share of Title I-A funds than their share of the children counted in the Title I-A formulas. As shown in Table 8, applying an arbitrary threshold of +/- 10% or more to indicate substantial differences in shares of grants versus formula children, the following patterns are illustrated: • The urban group as a whole (locale codes 11-13) receives substantially higher shares of grants than their share of formula children (+13.8%) with virtually all of this differential occurring with respect to the large city groups of LEAs (code 11) with a difference of +25.3%. In addition, whether substantial or not, the direction of the difference is negative for all locale code groups except large city (11) and midsize city (12). • The town (codes 31-33) and rural (codes 41-43) LEA groups as a whole receive substantially lower shares of grants than their share of formula children. • The suburban (codes 21-23) LEA group receives lower shares of grants than its share of formula children, although the difference does not exceed the 10% threshold with respect to the large suburban group (code 21) or the suburban codes overall (codes 21-23). 29 For a description of these locale codes, see http://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/commissioner/remarks2006/6_12_2006.asp, visited Oct. 1, 2008. Congressional Research Service 32 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Table 8. Distribution of School-Age Population, Title I-A Formula Children, and Title I-A Grants Among LEAs by Locale Type LEA Percentage Shares of Title I-A Grants and Population by Locale Code, FY2008 A B C D Locale Code Locale Type Total School-Age Population, FY2008 Title I-A Formula Children, FY2008 Basic Grants 11 Large City 16.90% 24.93% 12 Midsize City 7.53% 13 Small City 11-13 Total E F G H I J Concentration Grants Targeted Grants Education Finance Incentive Grants Total Title I-A Grants % Difference (Col. I – Col. D) 26.58% 32.20% 35.62% 36.75% 31.23% 25.3% 9.25% 9.04% 10.13% 9.57% 9.73% 9.41% 1.8% 8.41% 9.11% 9.01% 9.06% 8.17% 8.04% 8.63% -5.2% 32.84% 43.28% 44.63% 51.39% 53.36% 54.52% 49.26% 13.8% 21 Large Suburb 32.32% 22.16% 22.23% 17.83% 19.91% 18.67% 20.55% -7.3% 22 Midsize Suburb 3.38% 2.63% 2.54% 1.81% 2.14% 2.01% 2.27% -13.8% 23 Small Suburb 2.08% 1.63% 1.61% 1.21% 1.23% 1.11% 1.38% -15.1% 37.79% 26.41% 26.37% 20.85% 23.28% 21.79% 24.20% -8.4% 21-23 Total 31 Fringe Town 3.48% 3.04% 3.03% 2.53% 2.20% 2.10% 2.61% -14.3% 32 Distant Town 4.85% 5.50% 5.20% 5.37% 4.13% 4.07% 4.75% -13.7% 33 Remote Town 3.79% 4.70% 4.45% 4.83% 3.87% 4.07% 4.28% -8.9% 12.12% 13.25% 12.68% 12.74% 10.20% 10.24% 11.64% -12.2% 31-33 Total 41 Fringe Rural 7.65% 6.69% 6.29% 5.14% 4.94% 4.99% 5.61% -16.1% 42 Distant Rural 6.47% 6.56% 6.25% 5.80% 4.82% 4.82% 5.60% -14.7% 43 Remote Rural 3.13% 3.81% 3.78% 4.09% 3.40% 3.64% 3.70% -2.9% 41-43 Total 17.25% 17.06% 16.32% 15.03% 13.16% 13.45% 14.91% -12.6% Grand Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.0% Source: Table prepared by CRS based on provisions of ESEA Title I-A. CRS-33 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas ESEA Reauthorization Issues Related to the Title I-A Allocation Formulas The remainder of this report describes and analyzes a number of issues that may arise in the context of efforts to amend and reauthorize the ESEA during the 111th Congress. Should Annual Variations in the Poverty Estimates Used to Calculate Title I-A Grants Be Reduced Through Multi-year Averaging or Other Methods? As noted earlier, all the factors used to calculate Title I-A grants are now updated each year. This includes the primary formula factor, estimated numbers of school-age children in poor families, which constitute approximately 96% of all children counted in the Title I-A allocation formulas. The poverty estimates for Title I-A are from the Census Bureau’s Small Area Income and Population Estimates (SAIPE) program, which provides estimates of poor and total children aged 5-17 for LEAs, counties, and states. Under the provisions of the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) of 1994 (P.L. 103-382), use of SAIPE estimates replaced the previous practice of relying on data from the decennial Census surveys that were updated only once every 10 years.30 As amended by the IASA in 1994, the Title I-A statute provided that beginning in FY1997, the Secretary of Education “shall” use updated population data prepared by the Census Bureau “unless the Secretary [of Education] and the Secretary of Commerce determine that use of the updated population data would be inappropriate or unreliable, taking into consideration the recommendations” of a series of studies of the updating methodology to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).31 In March 1997, a NAS panel32 recommended use of a combination of 1990 census and income year (IY)199333 updated population estimates in allocating FY1997 (1997-1998) grants.34 In a later report, the panel recommended use of a slightly revised set of IY1993 SAIPE estimates as the sole basis for calculating FY1998 grants, and ED followed this recommendation as well. Finally, beginning with FY1999 grants, the NAS panel recommended that ED use the latest available SAIPE estimates of school-age children in poor families and that grants be calculated by ED on the basis of LEA, not county, population data,35 and ED has followed these recommendations. 30 Before initiation of the SAIPE program, the sole exception to the use of decennial Census poverty estimates was the period FY1980-FY1988, when a portion of Title I-A grants (half of the increase over the FY1979 level) was allocated based on state-level estimates, using a different measure of low-income (children in families with income below 50% of the national median income for a family of four), from the one-time (1976) Survey of Income and Education. 31 Section 1124(c)(3) and (4) of the ESEA text as in effect between 1994 and 2001. 32 Panel on Estimates of Poverty for Small Geographic Areas, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council. The most recent of the reports on SAIPE by this Panel is “Small-Area Income and Poverty Estimates: Priorities for 2000 and Beyond,” published in 2000 by the National Academy of Sciences. 33 Estimated numbers of school-age children in poor families, based on income received in calendar year 1993. 34 Specifically, the panel recommended that each county’s school-age child poverty rates based on 1990 census and IY1993 SAIPE estimates should be averaged, and those average poverty rates be multiplied by the IY1993 estimate of total school-age children in the county. The resulting “combined estimate” of school-age children in poor families was used in calculating Title I-A grants for FY1997. 35 From the beginning of the Title I-A program in FY1966 until FY1999, LEA grants were calculated by ED on a county basis, and SEAs suballocated these amounts by LEA in the majority of states where LEA and county boundaries (continued...) Congressional Research Service 34 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas The latest available poverty estimates from SAIPE are used to calculate each year’s Title I-A grants. The SAIPE estimates are updated every year. As of this writing, the latest SAIPE data are for income year 2007; these estimates were initially published in December 2008, and will be used to calculate FY2009 Title I-A allocations. For IY1993 through IY1999 (FY1997-2002 Title I-A grants), these estimates were updated every two years. Since IY1999 (Title I-A grants from FY2003 through the present), they have been updated annually. There is a two-year gap in the income year for SAIPE estimates used to calculate FY2009 Title I-A grants (IY2007) versus FY2008 grants (IY2005) because Census has reduced the time required to develop the SAIPE estimates (previously the gap was three years). SAIPE is not a survey of households separate from other federal surveys conducted by the Census Bureau or other agencies. SAIPE data are indirect estimates, produced through statistical modeling of data from the most recent decennial census, other Census Bureau household surveys, primarily the American Community Survey (ACS),36 and administrative records, such as federal income tax returns, Food Stamp and Supplemental Security Income program participation, and income data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce. The provision for use of population updates was added to Title I-A in an attempt to distribute funds on the basis of the latest available, reliable data on the distribution of school-age children in poor families among states and localities, and to try to minimize the considerable disruption that had occurred previously with the introduction of new population data only once every 10 years. However, somewhat unexpectedly, the updates themselves have caused significant shifts in allocation shares among states and regions. With the publication of each set of SAIPE estimates, shifts in the estimated number of school-age children in poor families have generally been relatively modest for most states, but there have always been a number of states (and LEAs) with quite substantial estimated shifts over a one- or two-year period. Annual Shifts in Poverty Estimates Table 9 provides data from the last four series of SAIPE estimates that have been, or will be, used to calculate Title I-A grants, those for income years 2003 (FY2006), 2004 (FY2007), 2005 (FY2008) and 2007 (FY2009). It provides each state’s estimated number of school-age children in poor families, and the percentage change in this estimated number from the previous year.37 (...continued) are not contiguous. While estimates of school-age children in poor families for LEAs were produced after the 1970, 1980, and 1990 Censuses, such LEA level estimates were considered to be insufficiently reliable to serve as a basis for allocating funds under Title I-A. The FY1999 Title I-A grants were based on the initial set of SAIPE estimates for LEAs, based on income in 1995 (previously, SAIPE published estimates only for states and counties). 36 The ACS is a relatively new annual sample survey intended to provide a wide range of demographic, housing, social and economic data. For further information, see http://www.census.gov/acs/www/SBasics/What/What1.htm. Previous to income year 2005 (the first year of full implementation of the ACS), the SAIPE program relied primarily on data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Census Bureau’s ongoing Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS is an annual survey of a nationally representative sample of households. The CPS household sample is much smaller than the sample surveyed with respect to income and poverty status in either a decennial census or the ACS. 37 The percentage change figures in Table 9 show the percentage change in each state’s estimated number of schoolage children in poor families. During periods when changes in the national aggregate estimate of school-age children in poor families are relatively large, it may be more instructive to consider each state’s percentage share of the national total estimated number of school-age children in poor families, and the percentage change in the percentage share. This is because Title I-A grants are not entitlements, the level of which would adjust directly to changes in the number of formula children, rather they are always subject to an annually set appropriations level. However, over the period IY2003-IY2007, the aggregate change in the estimated number of school-age children in poor families was relatively small, and state changes in percentage share are quite similar to state changes in the number of such children. Congressional Research Service 35 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Table 9. State Estimated Number of School-Age Children in Poor Families, Income Years 2003-2007 Estimated Children Aged 5-17 in Poor Families, IY2003 Estimated Children Aged 5-17 in Poor Families, IY2004 Percentage Change in Estimated Number, IY2004 vs. IY2003 Estimated Children Aged 5-17 in Poor Families, IY2005 Alabama 165,225 160,787 -2.7% 172,197 Alaska 14,396 14,841 3.1% Arizona 214,052 214,962 Arkansas 104,883 California Percentage Change in Estimated Number, IY2005 vs. IY2004 Estimated Children Aged 5-17 in Poor Families, IY2007 Percentage Change in Estimated Number, IY2007 vs. IY2005 7.1% 174,665 1.4% 16,841 13.5% 13,787 -18.1% 0.4% 205,175 -4.6% 209,683 2.2% 95,393 -9.0% 108,273 13.5% 113,370 4.7% 1,292,920 1,225,762 -5.2% 1,197,835 -2.3% 1,062,605 -11.3% Colorado 96,357 94,396 -2.0% 101,811 7.9% 114,762 12.7% Connecticut 55,972 64,564 15.4% 62,095 -3.8% 58,597 -5.6% Delaware 15,986 15,877 -0.7% 17,149 8.0% 18,289 6.6% District of Columbia 21,775 19,536 -10.3% 19,634 0.5% 18,995 -3.3% Florida 510,674 447,172 -12.4% 474,430 6.1% 437,055 -7.9% Georgia 291,342 296,706 1.8% 304,220 2.5% 318,255 4.6% Hawaii 26,812 19,121 -28.7% 23,729 24.1% 18,364 -22.6% Idaho 36,037 33,487 -7.1% 39,106 16.8% 39,046 -0.2% Illinois 333,218 369,244 10.8% 341,763 -7.4% 348,638 2.0% Indiana 129,513 155,506 20.1% 166,214 6.9% 166,365 0.1% Iowa 49,842 53,683 7.7% 57,449 7.0% 58,426 1.7% Kansas 55,425 59,392 7.2% 60,203 1.4% 61,149 1.6% Kentucky 137,877 135,287 -1.9% 146,404 8.2% 149,095 1.8% Louisiana 207,713 201,957 -2.8% 220,555 9.2% 191,094 -13.4% Maine 25,041 23,769 -5.1% 28,864 21.4% 27,487 -4.8% Maryland 100,977 107,072 6.0% 98,407 -8.1% 92,601 -5.9% Massachusetts 112,900 121,129 7.3% 129,183 6.6% 126,588 -2.0% State CRS-36 Education for the Disadvantaged: Analysis of ESEA Title I-A Allocation Formulas Estimated Children Aged 5-17 in Poor Families, IY2003 Estimated Children Aged 5-17 in Poor Families, IY2004 Percentage Change in Estimated Number, IY2004 vs. IY2003 Estimated Children Aged 5-17 in Poor Families, IY2005 Percentage Change in Estimated Number, IY2005 vs. IY2004 Estimated Children Aged 5-17 in Poor Families, IY2007 Percentage Change in Estimated Number, IY2007 vs. IY2005 Michigan 250,954 276,639 10.2% 308,636 11.6% 308,714 0.0% Minnesota 77,036 82,727 7.4% 87,697 6.0% 92,798 5.8% Mississippi 139,285 142,059 2.0% 148,662 4.6% 144,806 -2.6% Missouri 146,376 158,877 8.5% 170,436 7.3% 160,841 -5.6% Montana 25,841 22,842 -11.6% 26,584 16.4% 25,988 -2.2% Nebraska 32,497 32,859 1.1% 38,637 17.6% 39,327 1.8% Nevada 59,385 60,862 2.5% 58,687 -3.6% 62,021 5.7% New Hampshire 13,110 17,353 32.4% 17,856 2.9% 17,188 -3.7% New Jersey 154,881 148,348 -4.2% 165,069 11.3% 154,235 -6.6% New Mexico 85,364 75,513 -11.5% 82,630 9.4% 78,583 -4.9% New York 639,014 638,113 -0.1% 594,230 -6.9% 576,131 -3.0% North Carolina 247,890 252,410 1.8% 287,894 14.1% 275,164 -4.4% North Dakota 11,284 10,712 -5.1% 11,872 10.8% 11,671 -1.7% Ohio 258,469 288,329 11.6% 322,771 11.9% 323,397 0.2% Oklahoma 116,879 103,472 -11.5% 120,814 16.8% 121,880 0.9% Oregon 93,136 88,798 -4.7% 99,462 12.0% 91,925 -7.6% Pennsylvania 274,501 289,566 5.5% 305,450 5.5% 293,616 -3.9% Puerto Rico 400,212 399608 -0.2% 404,549 1.2% 389,831 -3.6% Rhode Island 27,378 28,943 5.7% 28,272 -2.3% 25,763 -8.9% South Carolina 138,184 143,249 3.7% 150,806 5.3% 142,963 -5.2% South Dakota 19,212 20,000 4.1% 20,442 2.2% 20,625 0.9 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR40672. Public record. Not legal advice.