Poverty Vs. Education: 4-6 pg essay

130 j o u r n a l o f e d u c at i o n f i n a n c e | 3 3 : 2 fa l l 2 0 0 7 1 3 0 – 1 4 6

Are America’s Poorest Children Receiving Their Share of Federal Education Funds? School-Level Title I Funding in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago

Carolyn A. Brown

a b s t r a c t

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is the largest incursion of the federal government into education in American history. More than $12 billion is at- tached to unprecedented requirements for all students, poor and nonpoor, to reach a level of academic proficiency. Title I and its NCLB reauthorization explicitly allot funds to individual schools for the needs of their poor students, but few studies have looked at school-level distributions of Title I funds. As schools, especially in urban areas, struggle to meet the standards set by NCLB, researchers need to examine how districts distribute these funds to schools and whether these funds are reaching the poorest children in an equitable manner. Are schools with the highest concentrations of poor children getting the most Title I assistance? This study examined school-level Title I funds distribution in the three largest U.S. districts—New York City Public Schools, Los Angeles Unified School District, and Chicago Public Schools—to determine the equi- tability of funding.

l i t e r at u r e r e v i e w

Early studies of Title I funds distribution were concerned primarily with how well states and districts were complying with federal regulations. Between 1977 and 1986, studies focused on how Title I money was spent at the state and district level and what percentage of the funds was reaching the schools (Goettel, 1977;

Carolyn A. Brown is an assistant professor with the Department of Educational Leadership in the Graduate School of Education and Human Development at the George Washington University. This article was presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, Louisville, Kentucky, March 2005.

JEF 33_2 text.indd 130 11/20/07 8:17:39 AM

Milne, 1977). The largest of these studies, conducted by the National Institute of Education in 1978, determined that funds were being distributed “properly” to schools (Irwin, 1978) but that 60% of eligible schools at that time were not receiving Title I funds (Hennessy et al., 1980). Ascher (1987, 15) went into more detail and found that although “provisions are concordant with those most in need, as defined by poverty and race,” more than half the students who were poor and reading below the 50th percentile were not receiving compensatory education services. In 1990, Congress commissioned a report to inform the 1994 reauthorization. One finding of the study was that all children (poor and nonpoor) achieve at a lower level in schools with high concentration of poverty (Taylor and Piche, 1990). As a result of this study, additional funds were appropriated to schools with concentrations of poor children greater than 75%. Goals for the 1994 reauthorization were to “foster overall school improve- ment by requiring greater coordination between Title I and regular classroom instruction, increased focus on advanced rather than basic skills, greater parent involvement, new rules for school performance accountability, and increased funds and flexibility for Title I, particularly for high-poverty schools” (Puma, 1999, 14). These additional “concentration” grants increased Title I money to schools with more than 75% of students living in poverty and encouraged high- poverty schools to implement schoolwide reform projects. Districts were also allowed to apply for waivers to distribute Title I funds to all schools if the total district poverty concentration exceeded 35%, and additional funds were legislated to states that provided compensatory funds. (This provision was not funded until 2003.) The increased flexibility for districts in funding Title I has resulted in 92% of U.S. schools receiving some Title I money (Education Funding Research Council, 2003). Stullich et al. (1999) found that 27% of schools receiving Title I had poverty concentrations higher than 75% and received 46% of Title I funds. Schools with more than 50% poverty received 73% of Title I funds (Stullich et al., 1999). Ad- ditionally, schools with more than 75% poverty “received much larger allocations per poor student ($492) than did low poverty schools ($63) overall” (Stullich et al., 1999, 13). Stullich and associates’ sampling of schools in 17 districts took an important first step toward assessing how funds were distributed within districts. In 2003 Congress contracted the General Accounting Office (GAO) to look broadly at Title I using a sample of districts—urban, suburban, and rural—to determine how funds were distributed to schools. This study found that the al- location process resulted in differences in actual funding per poor child between

School-Level Title I Funding 131

JEF 33_2 text.indd 131 11/20/07 8:17:39 AM

132 j o u r n a l o f e d u c at i o n f i n a n c e

states, school districts, and schools (General Accounting Office, 2002). The GAO study showed that increased district flexibility as a result of the 1994 reauthori- zation has resulted in variable per-pupil funding at the school level, but specific differences were not included, and the study did not attempt to show equity in these distributions. Beginning in 1971 with the Serrano v. Priest case in California, lawmakers and researchers focused more on equity to ensure that all students in a state received the same amount of money, but consideration of the needs of poor students received little attention. From state to state, standards for equity became more clearly understood but never fully realized. By the mid-1980s much of the discussion in the literature had shifted to the question of adequacy, which was more focused on ensuring that districts received enough money per pupil for all pupils to meet educational goals. Models for adequacy used different methods for determining per-pupil cost of an adequate education; some researchers have calculated an additional per-pupil rate to meet the needs of poor children. A blue ribbon commission in Maryland formulated a recommendation calling for poor students to receive 139% of the base per-pupil funding rate (Maryland Commission on Education Finance, 2002). Another study estimated that “to achieve any given level of educational outcomes costs two and half times as much money [for a poor student]” (Duncombe, 2002, 475). A third study used a composite of student test scores to set a funding weight of 97% that was needed over base funding to bring poor students to the average level of statewide academic performance (Duncombe, 2002). States are taking on a larger share of compensatory funding for poor children. To date, 38 states provide some form of compensatory funding for poor students, ranging from 2% to 100% of base allocation, with most states falling around 25% (Carey, 2002; Odden and Picus, 1992). Federal compensatory funds account for roughly 8% of most school districts’ budgets. Currently, the literature lacks an exploration of how federal Title I funds are distributed to individual schools. Despite legal challenges, research on equity and adequacy, and increased Title I funding for high-poverty schools since 1994, no study has looked closely at how schools in urban districts are receiving (or not receiving) federal funds. Large urban schools serve increasingly greater concentrations of poor children and therefore receive the largest share of Title I funds. The districts explored in this study, New York City, Chicago Public, and Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), constitute 5% of the school children in the United States and 7% of those living in poverty (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). Using the U.S. Department of Agriculture eligibility criteria for the free or reduced-price

JEF 33_2 text.indd 132 11/20/07 8:17:39 AM

lunch (FRPL) program as a measure of poverty,1 74% of students in LAUSD, 85% in Chicago, and 75% in New York City are defined as poor (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). Approximately $16.6 million (11%) of Title I funds were allocated to New York City, LAUSD, and the Chicago Public Schools for the 2003–04 school year. Several factors may exacerbate funding distribution in large urban districts and contribute to less equitable distribution. First, Title I funds have not increased proportionately with the concentration of poverty in urban areas.2 Second, Title I evaluations indicate that greater achievement gains are made by Title I students in lower-poverty schools; therefore, high-stakes testing may influence urban districts to focus Title I funds on students in the least poor neighborhoods in order to have a greater impact on achievement scores. These factors, combined with less federal regulation of how funds must be distributed, point to a need to determine whether the largest share of Title I funds is reaching the neediest students in the large urban centers. If the federal government expects schools to bring poor children up to a stan- dard met by all students, research is needed to explore whether the schools that are most affected by poverty are getting enough funding. The study of school-level fiscal equity must include a close look at federal funding. This study takes a first step toward this understanding by looking at public schools in New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

m e t h o d s

Actual amounts of state, local, and federal allocations for the 2003–04 school year were acquired from the three school districts’ budget directors along with the num- ber of poor students in each school, as determined by eligibility for FRPL. Special education schools (which accounted for less than 2% of schools in each of the districts) were excluded because the per-pupil funding rates were much higher than those of regular schools, and the Title I allocations were not sufficiently disaggregated. Juvenile detention facilities, foster care programs, and preschools were also excluded. Title I administrators in each of the three districts were interviewed in order

1. For free or reduced-price school lunch, the U.S. Department of Agriculture guideline for 2003–04 required that a student be living in a family of four with a gross annual income between $23,920 and $34,040.

2. The U.S. Department of Education has never provided Title I funds to states equal to the amount requested based on the number of children living in poverty in the state (Education Funding Research Council, 2003).

School-Level Title I Funding 133

JEF 33_2 text.indd 133 11/20/07 8:17:40 AM

134 j o u r n a l o f e d u c at i o n f i n a n c e

to elucidate district funding formulas, limitations or additions to Title I funds, and district demographics. Equity was operationalized around four criteria, according to the school finance equity model developed by Berne and Stiefel:

Equity for whom? The individual school was considered as the unit of analysis. What should be distributed equitably? The object to be distributed equitably

was Title I funds. Equity was considered to be a greater per-pupil distribu- tion rate to schools with higher concentrations of poverty.

Which principles should be used to determine whether a distribution is equita- ble? The principle of vertical equity as it measures the unequal treatment of unequals is the basis of this investigation (Berne and Stiefel, 1984). For this study, the expectation was that Title I allocations would increase as poverty concentration increased.

What quantitative measures should be used to assess the degree of equity? Berne and Stiefel have framed measures for vertical equity around three ques- tions: First, what are the legitimate differences between the units of analysis (schools) that define unequal? Legitimate difference between schools was defined as the concentration of poverty at four levels (above 75%, above and below the district set cutoff point, and below 35%). Second, how should the educational objects (funds) vary between groups? Funds should vary between schools to show a higher per-pupil allocation for schools with higher concentrations of poverty. Third, how should the equity of the actual situation in comparison with the desired one be measured? The desired outcome was that schools within districts would show a tight fit along a 45-degree regression line that increased Title I allocation per pupil as the concentration of eligible students increased.

Data were analyzed, first, to examine how schools were funded in the three dis- tricts for intradistrict equity. Per-pupil Title I allocations for all schools were cor- related against the percentage of students eligible for services according to district criteria.3 A correlation coefficient (r) was generated to measure how variable or consistent funding was from school to school. A slope statistic was calculated for a dollar amount increase in per-pupil funding for every 10% increase in poverty level. A second analysis used correlation coefficients and rates of increase based on a uniform measure for poverty (number of students eligible for FRPL) to compare the distribution by school between the districts.4 This interdistrict comparison also used a ratio to measure the difference between funding at the low-poverty

3. This is an important distinction because districts may decide what percentage of students eligible for free and reduced-price school lunch makes a school eligible for Title I funds.

4. In this analysis the districts were compared with one another in terms of the percentage of students who qualified for free and reduced-price lunch in each school, whether or not the school was deemed eligible for funds by district criteria.

JEF 33_2 text.indd 134 11/20/07 8:17:40 AM

(35–75%) and high-poverty (75–100%) schools, which addressed the question of vertical equity: “Do pupils in the special group, who should receive more of the object, actually receive more of the object?” (Berne and Stiefel, 1984).

r e s u lt s

The intradistrict analysis used each district’s stated formula for eligibility for Title I funds. Each of the three districts allocated funds to schools based on a district- determined formula including cutoff points (the percentage of poor students a school must enroll for that school to receive Title I funds).5

Chicago Public Schools

Chicago’s formula for calculating Title I eligibility added 60% of students eli- gible for FRPL with 40% of students from families eligible for Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF)6 and divided the sum by the school enrollment to derive the percentage eligible. This formula essentially weighted poverty (as defined by FRPL) by extreme poverty (as defined by TANF eligibility) because all children on TANF automatically qualify for FRPL. All schools with more than 50% eligible pupils were funded beginning at $395 per pupil and increasing by $20 per pupil for every 1% increase in eligible pupils, to a maximum of $975 per pupil (for schools above 75% eligibility). The analysis showed a correlation coefficient of .88 and a $182 increase for every 10% increase in poverty. Schools above the 50% cutoff point had a correlation coefficient of .9, with an increase of $287 for each 10% increase in poverty (Figure 1). The few anomalies could be attributed to grandfathering or annual adjust- ments.7 Only 14 (2.3%) of schools below the 50% eligibility point received Title I funds. All received less than $395 per pupil. Eighteen schools (2.9%) in the range between 50% and 60% eligible received no funds. Eighty-one percent of Chicago schools received some Title I funding, with a mean per-pupil allocation of $461.32 and a maximum of $1,537.00. The ratio of the two means (schools above and below 50% eligibility) was 19.5, indicating that schools with more than 50% eligibility

5. Federal legislation allows districts to set their own minimum level of eligible pupils needed to receive Title I funds but prohibits funds being distributed to schools with less than 35% eligible pupils. Addition- ally, the legislation requires that districts fund all schools with more than 75% eligible pupils.

6. TANF is commonly called public assistance or welfare, and the criteria for eligibility are roughly aligned with the federal poverty guidelines.

7. Because poverty figures are submitted two years before districts receive Title I funds, funds for the 2003–04 school year were based on poverty figures from the October 2002 count. In Chicago, school al- locations were adjusted in October 2003 to provide additional funds to schools that showed an increase in eligibility. Also, a grandfather clause in the federal legislation allows schools that drop below the cutoff of 50% to continue receiving funds for two years.

School-Level Title I Funding 135

JEF 33_2 text.indd 135 11/20/07 8:17:40 AM

136 j o u r n a l o f e d u c at i o n f i n a n c e

Figure 1. Distribution of Title I Funds per Pupil by Percentage of Pupils Eligible for Schools with 50% or More Eligible Students, Chicago, 2004 (c =.9; rate of increase/10% increase in poverty = $287)

were receiving, on average, 19.5 times more Title I funds per pupil than schools below 50% eligibility. This finding is consistent with a funding model of vertical equity that provides an increasing per-pupil dollar amount as the percentage of Title I eligibility in- creases. In fact, the Chicago schools with the highest concentration of eligible pupils were getting the most funds; however, because of the weighed funding formula, only schools above 80% poverty were being funded. For the 2003–04 school year, 85% of students in the Chicago Public Schools qualified for FRPL, but only 66% were deemed eligible for Title I services.

Los Angeles Unified School District

In contrast to Chicago, LAUSD showed little variation in per-pupil Title I allo- cation. Most schools received a per-pupil allocation close to the mean, and the district showed a bilevel distribution for schools above the district cutoff point of 40%. The distribution for all schools had a correlation coefficient (r) of .61, with a $30 increase in funds for every 10% increase in eligibility.

JEF 33_2 text.indd 136 11/20/07 8:17:40 AM

Schools above 40% eligibility showed less funding consistency, with a correla- tion coefficient (r) of .48 and a lesser rate of increase of $19 for every 10% increase in eligibility (Figure 2). Anomalies for LAUSD did not follow any predictable pattern, and even con- sidering the two-year grandfathering allowance and the district’s policy of not adjusting for annual demographic shifts, the range of per-pupil distribution of a few schools seemed too wide. Twelve schools (1.9%) below 40% eligibility received Title I, with some funds being allocated to schools with as little as 17% eligibility. In fact, the two funded schools with the lowest eligibility received $1,498 (20% eligible) and $1,249 (17% eligible) per pupil. For schools above 40% eligibility, only eight schools (1.2%) were not receiving funds, but they ranged from 67% to 100% eligible. Eighty-six percent of LAUSD schools received some Title I funding, with a mean per-pupil allocation of $245.90 and a maximum of $1,498. When the two aforementioned anomalies were excluded, the maximum allocation dropped to $431. The ratio of the means was 4.3, indicating that schools above 40% eligibil- ity received 4.3 times the per-pupil amount, on average, of schools below 40% eligibility.

Figure 2. Distribution of Title I Funds per Pupil by Percentage of Pupils Eligible for Schools with 40% or More Eligible Students, LAUSD, 2004 (r = .48; rate of increase/10% increase in poverty = $19)

School-Level Title I Funding 137

JEF 33_2 text.indd 137 11/20/07 8:17:41 AM

138 j o u r n a l o f e d u c at i o n f i n a n c e

New York City Schools

New York, like LAUSD, showed a distribution of Title I funds lacking much varia- tion from the highest to lowest poverty levels. In establishing eligibility, New York includes only those eligible for free lunch. When children eligible for reduced-price lunch (a slightly higher income rate) are not counted, only 89% of FRPL eligible children are considered in the funding formula as eligible. In addition, the 60% cutoff point for eligible pupils (except on Staten Island) limits Title I funds to schools with high concentrations of poverty. New York’s Title I policy is for schools to be funded at either the district average (60% for 2003–04) or the borough average, whichever is lower. For the 2003–04 school year, Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan, and Queens were near or exceeded 60%. Staten Island’s average poverty rate was 35.53, so schools above these levels received funds. For all New York schools, the analysis found a correlation coefficient (r) of .74 and a $131 increase in funds for every 10% increase in eligibility; however, for schools with more than 60% eligible, the analysis resulted in a correlation coefficient (r) of .07 that rendered the rate of -$11 (decrease) per 10% increase in poverty invalid (Figure 3). The distribution around the mean was so vast that a rate could not be determined. New York had a large number of anomalies. Fifteen percent (168 schools) below the 60% eligibility cutoff point received funds, ranging from $1 to $1,113 per pupil, with 12% having allocation between $1 and $10 per pupil, and one Staten Island school received $4,864 per pupil. All schools above 60% received some Title I funds. Although New York adheres to a grandfathering provision, and Title I allocations are adjusted annually for demographic shifts. For New York, 89% of all schools received Title I funds, with an average per- pupil allocation of $695.84 and a maximum of $2,864 (if the one anomaly of $4,864 is excluded). The majority of New York schools were funded at $700–1,000 per pupil, but funding did not increase according to eligibility levels. The ratio of the means above and below 60% eligibility was 6.7, indicating that schools above 60% eligibility were funded at a rate 6.7 times higher per pupil, on average, than schools below 60% eligibility. Whereas Chicago appeared to be using a funding formula that provides verti- cal equity, LAUSD and New York City showed a distribution more in line with horizontal equity. In the interdistrict comparison, all students who qualified for FRPL were in- cluded in the correlations and ratio calculations. The expectation was that schools with higher poverty would have greater per-pupil Title I allocations, and all schools

JEF 33_2 text.indd 138 11/20/07 8:17:41 AM

Figure 3. Distribution of Title I Funds per Pupil by Percentage of Students Eligible for Schools with 60% or More Eligible Students, New York, 2004 (r = .07; rate of increase/10% increase in poverty = -$11)

with more than 75% poverty would receive Title I funds as required by federal legislation (Education Funding Research Council, 2003) (see Table 1). In Chicago, 479 schools (79%) had more than 75% poverty and received 99% of Title I funds. The mean allocation was $570 per pupil. Because of Chicago’s eligibility formula, 30 schools (5%) with over 75% poverty received no Title I funds. In LAUSD, 403 schools (64%) with poverty higher than 75% received 80% of the Title I funds. The mean allocation was $288, with four schools higher than 75% receiving no funds. In New York, 716 schools (67%) above 75% poverty received 86% of the Title I funds. The mean per-pupil allocation was $896. Only four schools with greater than 75% poverty did not receive funds. Because the mean per-pupil allocation for the three districts varied so widely even with the definition for poverty made uniform, the decision was made to look more closely at allocations to districts. This examination found that New York received $709.97 per pupil eligible for FRPL. Chicago received $333.71 per pupil, and LAUSD received $317.62 per pupil. Maximum allocations for the three districts reflected the general allocation

School-Level Title I Funding 139

JEF 33_2 text.indd 139 11/20/07 8:17:41 AM

140 j o u r n a l o f e d u c at i o n f i n a n c e

structure of the three districts: New York had the highest maximum, in keep- ing with the highest per-pupil allocations, Chicago’s was lower, and LAUSD was lower still, reflecting the flatter distribution of per-pupil allocations in LAUSD. Ratio measurements examined the difference between the mean per-pupil allocation for schools with more than 75% poverty and for schools with 35–75% poverty. Chicago had by far the largest ratio: On average, the poorer schools were funded 21.4 times higher than the less poor schools. LAUSD funded its high- poverty schools only 1.3 times higher than the less poor schools, and for New York, the ratio was 2.2. The final analysis derived a correlation coefficient (r) to measure consistency in the distribution of funds to schools between 35% and 75% poverty against those with between 75% and 100% poverty to look for vertical equity. For schools between 75% and 100% poverty, Chicago showed a more consistent allocation to schools, with a correlation coefficient of .68 and a more graduated increase in allocation per 10% increase in poverty of $257 per pupil. The correlation coeffi- cients for LAUSD (.003) and New York (.08) were so low that they rendered their respective rates of increase (or decrease) invalid (-$0.18 for LAUSD and -$18 for New York). By contrast, LAUSD (r = .66) and New York (r = .66) showed more consistency at the 35–75% poverty level than did Chicago (r = .26). Rates of increase were also higher for LAUSD ($48) and New York ($256) than for Chicago ($23) at the lower poverty level. This indicates that LAUSD and New York funded more low-poverty schools at a more graduated rate and then leveled out the per-pupil allocations at the highest level. Chicago showed a distribution that was flatter at the lower poverty level, with more increase as the poverty increased. These allocation patterns can be described in terms of their impact on stu-

Table 1. Per-Pupil Allocation by Percentage of Poverty Concentration for All Three Districts

75–100% 35–75%

Los New Los New Chicago Angeles York Chicago Angeles York

Percentage of schools 79% 64% 67% 15% 24% 24% Percentage of Title I funds received 99% 80% 86% 1% 19% 13% Mean allocation $570 $288 $896 $27 $219 $408 Median allocation $558 $296 $891 Maximum allocation $1,537 $322 $4,864 $577 $431 $1,751 Ratio 21.4 1.3 2.2

JEF 33_2 text.indd 140 11/20/07 8:17:42 AM

dents (instead of schools): In Chicago, 58,495 or 16% of poor children attended schools with more than 35% poverty but received no Title I funds for 2003–04. In LAUSD, 14,563 (3%) of those attending schools with more than 35% poverty received no services. In New York, that number was 41,817 (4%). In the three largest districts in the United States, 23% of poor children are not receiving federal Title I funds.

d i s c u s s i o n

Three factors must be considered in any discussion of equity in Title I distribution. First, since the inception of Title I in 1966, it has never been fully funded. Districts request funds biennially, based on census data for the number of children living in poverty,8 then Congress appropriates to each state based on the aggregated data from all districts, and the states pass it through to the districts. Districts use the higher FRPL guideline for distribution partly because FRPL eligibility can be determined annually and therefore is more responsive to demographic shifts. Because the federal government funds fewer than half of districts’ requests, dis- tricts must decide how to distribute limited funds. Second, Title I legislation requires that the majority of funds be distributed to the school level. Beginning in 2002, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) significantly reduced the funds available to schools by requiring district to set aside 20% of total Title I grant for Choice/Supplemental Services (tutoring and transportation for students attending failing schools) in addition to the 5–7% that districts had previously been required to set aside for professional development, after-school and summer school programs, parent involvement, and private schools.9

Third, included in these districts’ total Title I allocation is an additional con- centration grant, which began with the 1994 reauthorization for schools with more than 75% poverty. Chicago Public Schools was the only district in this study with a distribution that could be considered vertically equitable. Chicago’s model funded 81% of schools and concentrated the largest amount of funds at schools above 90% pov- erty. In fact, only schools above 65% poverty (FRPL eligible) received any funds at all. In addition, Chicago’s eligibility formula omitted some schools with greater than 75% FRPL because too few of the poor children were poor enough. Other than minor variations between schools, which can be attributed to grand-

8. In 2003–04 for a family of four this amount was $18,810. 9. State education departments are allowed to take only 1% of the total state allocation as an admin-

istrative fee, so 99% of Title I grants to states passes through to the districts.

School-Level Title I Funding 14 1

JEF 33_2 text.indd 141 11/20/07 8:17:42 AM

142 j o u r n a l o f e d u c at i o n f i n a n c e

fathering and demographic shifts,10 this study found that the district distribution was consistent with stated policy. The poorest schools in Chicago received the maximum district allocation of $975 per poor pupil and $695 per poor pupil compensatory education funds from the State of Illinois, a total of $1,670 per poor pupil. The lowest-funded Title I schools received $375 plus the $695 from the state, for a total of $1,070 per poor pupil. While meeting the definition of vertical equity, Chicago appeared not to meet the intent of the concentration grant provision by not funding all schools with more than 75% poverty; however, their formula explicitly funds schools with more than 50% eligible students, which, arguably, meets the technical requirements because of flexibility allowed for districts in the Title I legislation. LAUSD’s distribution showed no predictable increase in funds to schools as concentrations of poverty increased. In LAUSD, the Title I director was unable to show a written policy but stated that the model for distribution was bilevel and provided $291 per pupil to schools with more than 65% poverty and $195 per pupil to schools with 40–64% poverty. The Title I director’s statement was con- sistent with this analysis, showing $300 for schools with more than 65% poverty and $200 per pupil for schools with 40–60% poverty. All schools with more than 40% poverty were funded. Although 66% of LAUSD schools had more than 75% poverty, the district used a distribution model that spread funds thinly across as many schools as possible while making only the slightest effort to concentrate funds at higher-poverty schools. The two highest-funded schools, at $1,498 and $1,249, had poverty levels of 17% and 20%, respectively. Several schools above 75% (including one school with 100%) poverty were receiving no Title I funds at all. Inquiries to the Title I director and an assistant superintendent went unanswered. New York’s distribution was so widely variable and flat that it was difficult to define it as equitable, either vertically or horizontally. District policy was to fund all schools at or above either the district cutoff of 60% or the individual borough cutoff point, whichever was less.11 The result was that all schools with more than 60% poverty were funded (except schools on Staten Island, which were funded if above 35%). In addition, New York used a funding model that targeted the poor-

10. Title I has a grandfathering clause that allows schools to maintain their funding levels for up to three years after their student populations drop below the cutoff rate for funding, and annual increases in poverty are not fully funded for two years because Title I has a biannual funding cycle.

11. Title I legislation requires that districts encompassing more than one county distribute Title I funds commensurate with census poverty figures for each county. Therefore, each of the five counties included in the New York City Schools has a different cutoff point and per-pupil allocation, in keeping with their individual census poverty data. The cutoff points for 2003–04 were 60% for Bronx and Manhattan, 57.8% for Queens, and 35.5% for Staten Island.

JEF 33_2 text.indd 142 11/20/07 8:17:42 AM

est children by allocating funds only for children eligible for free lunch (under $23,000 for a family of four). In New York, the distribution could not be considered horizontal because the variation in per-pupil funds to schools was so wide. This analysis found that New York funded all schools with more than 60% poverty but showed no rate of increase for schools between 60% and 100% poverty. Per-pupil funding for schools in New York was so widely variable that no pattern was evident. New York district policy for distribution was posted on the city’s Web site and stated that schools above the respective cutoff points would receive $1,012 per pupil in Manhattan, $1,034 in the Bronx, $1,229 in Brooklyn, $1,160 in Queens, and $1,314 on Staten Island. However, this analysis showed that the 89% of New York schools that received Title I funds were funded at an average rate of $247 less than the district’s stated amount; however, all schools with eligible students above county cutoff rates received funds. For schools above 60% poverty, the lowest per- pupil amount was $349. Individual county distributions were completely flat but showed less variation in per-pupil allocation than did the aggregated distribution for the district. The data showed 136 schools (12%) below 60% poverty receiving Title I dis- tributions ranging from $1 to $102 per pupil. The Title I director was unable to explain why these tiny allocations showed on the analysis. New York’s analysis must be considered in the context of the recentralization of the district. In 2003–04, Title I funds were distributed directly to schools. Since 1969, funds had been allocated to 39 community districts, which had parceled out either funds or teachers at their discretion to schools. According to district per- sonnel, when funds were allocated through the community districts, some passed the funds directly to the schools, and others provided only teachers or centralized services. Under the recentralization, local demands and prior arrangements may have influenced the distribution for the 2004 year. To summarize, Chicago distributed 47% of its total Title I grant of $231 million (mean of $335 per poor pupil) to 85% of poor schools, with grants ranging from $375 to $975 per pupil. LAUSD distributed 66% of their total grant of $351 million (mean of $278 per poor pupil) to 100% of their poor schools at $280–300 per poor pupil. New York distributed 65% from their total grant of $832 million (mean of $793 per poor pupil) to 93% of poor schools, with grants averaging $652 per pupil. Comparison of the total Title I allocation from the U.S. Department of Educa- tion for the three districts showed New York City receiving more than twice as much per poor pupil as the other two districts. New York received $1,293, Chicago received $622, and LAUSD received $576. Because district allocations are based on the number of students living below the federal poverty guidelines ($18,300 for a family of four) as per census data and distributed based on FRPL eligibility

School-Level Title I Funding 143

JEF 33_2 text.indd 143 11/20/07 8:17:42 AM

144 j o u r n a l o f e d u c at i o n f i n a n c e

($23,920–34,040 for a family of four), it is possible that the larger allocation for New York represents a larger population of extremely poor children in New York than the other two cities, but this warrants further exploration. To what extent are the poorest children receiving the largest share of Title I funds? Certainly, for 2003–04, Chicago distributed a larger share of its limited Title I funds to schools with the highest poverty, but in New York and LAUSD distributions seemed to be aimed at serving the most students without a focus on providing more funds for the more needy. New York schools’ per-pupil funding rate, nearly twice that of the other two districts, calls into question equity between districts at the federal level. How many children in the poorest schools can be defined as “severely” poor, that is, falling below the federal poverty guidelines? If New York did have a higher percentage of children who were “severely” poor, then that district may have served poorer children at a higher rate than Chicago, which would be another way of considering vertical equity. LAUSD’s low per-pupil rate and its inclusion of all schools with more than 40% poverty based on the FRPL guidelines is less in keeping with the intent of Title I legislation. Why did LAUSD choose to fund in this manner? Why are some schools being funded at vastly variable per-pupil rates in all three districts? The three largest districts in the United States all have more than 70% of their students living in poverty, and Title I funding does not fully fund districts to meet the needs of poor students. These districts are using broad regulatory flexibility to distribute inadequate funds to large populations of poor children. What are the politics operating behind the funding formulas? These questions beg further study in order to understand how the poorest children are being served by Title I in these cities. Variability in funding from school to school within districts shows that even districts with a stated formula for funding are not always consistent in how they distribute to schools. Even when the analysis includes all schools in a district, it is difficult to determine a consistent funding pattern. Research using a random sample of schools for any one district may not accurately represent a district’s school-level distribution, and certainly a random sample across districts could not begin to account for the differences in district allocation formulas or the policies that drive those decisions. More study is needed on school-level funding of Title I across the country and the policies that drive the distributions.

r e c o m m e n dat i o n s

Research since 1966 has shown what the proponents of the Great Society be- lieved to be true: Children living in poverty need additional help to succeed in school. Schools serving large numbers of poor children need additional funds to

JEF 33_2 text.indd 144 11/20/07 8:17:43 AM

meet these children’s needs and bring them to parity with their nonpoor peers. Urban schools in America are especially burdened with huge populations of poor children. To ensure that poor children across the United States are receiving the services they need to reach the achievement levels required by NCLB, schools need to have adequate funds to provide the extra services. Currently, the U.S. Department of Education appropriates Title I funds by multiplying the state average per-pupil expenditure by only 40% of children in each county over five years old living below the federal poverty guidelines. This means that only 40% of extremely poor children in each county are considered for funding, and districts do not receive that entire amount. By choosing to serve children living in families in the $17,650–32,653 range for a family of four, districts are forced to spread these inadequate funds thinly. How much Title I funding is adequate? This study calculated only federal Title I funds and found that these added 5% to the total per-pupil expenditure in LAUSD and Chicago and 10% in New York. Illinois funds in Chicago were distributed at a flat rate of $695 per pupil eligible for FRPL (11% of the average per-pupil base allocation). New York’s rate per FRPL pupil was $363 (6%), and LAUSD’s was $23 (0.3%). None of these rates approaches the amount researchers deem necessary to meet the needs of poor children. Title I directors in all three districts said that their districts had not spent the 20% set aside for Choice/Supplemental Education Services for a variety of reasons. They all expressed concern that this requirement was reducing the amount of money available to schools. Funding for Title I will not be equitable until all schools in every district receive an equitable portion of the funds. More research is needed to assess Title I funding practices at the school level. Ultimately, districts need incentives to distribute Title I funds in greater concentrations to the highest-poverty schools. Child poverty has not decreased since Title I was first passed in 1966: 19% of America’s children are living in poverty. Federal policy in recent years has shown increasingly less com- mitment to eradicating child poverty. Schools are experiencing more and more pressure to meet the needs of poor children in order for them to reach proficiency on standardized tests. More research on federal funds to schools is needed, and a larger federal commitment to serve the needs of poor children is imperative if schools working under the burden of poverty are to reach increasingly stringent achievement goals.

References Ascher, C. 1987. Chapter 1 Programs: New Guides from the Research. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban

Education, Institute of Urban and Minority Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. Berne, R., and L. Stiefel. 1984. The Measurement of Equity in School Finance: Conceptual, Methodological,

and Empirical Dimensions. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

School-Level Title I Funding 145

JEF 33_2 text.indd 145 11/20/07 8:17:43 AM

146 j o u r n a l o f e d u c at i o n f i n a n c e

Carey, K. 2002. Overview of K–12 Education Finance. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Duncombe, W. 2002. Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in New York. Syracuse, NY: Center for Policy Research Working Paper, Syracuse University.

Education Funding Research Council. 2003. Title I Handbook. Washington, DC: Author. General Accounting Office. 2002. Title I Funding: Poor Children Benefit Though Funding per Poor Child

Differs. GAO-02-242. Washington, DC: Author. Goettel, R. J. 1977. A Comparative Analysis of ESEA, Title I Administration in Eight States. Education Re-

source Information Center ED159283. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Hennessy, M., G. Takata, and N. L. Ames. 1980. “Title I Selection Methods and the Coverage of Disad-

vantaged Students.” Evaluation Review 4(1): 43–57. Irwin, P. M. 1978. “An Analysis of “Title I Funds Allocation: The Current Formula.” Education Resource

Information Center ED155281. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Maryland Commission on Education Finance. 2002. Equity and Excellence Report. Annapolis: State of

Maryland. Milne, A. 1977. “Demonstration Studies of Funds Allocation Within Districts: A Report.” ED145548.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. 2002. School Enrollment Statistics. Retrieved April 16, 2002, from

http://www.nces.ed.gov. Odden, A. R., and L. O Picus. 1992. School Finance: A Policy Perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill. Puma, M. J. 1999. The “Prospects” Study of Educational Growth and Opportunity: Implications for Policy

and Practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Reschovsky, A., and J. Imazeki. 1997. The Development of School Finance Formulas to Guarantee the Provision

of Adequate Education to Low-Income Students. Developments in School Finance Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Stullich, S., B. Donly, and S. Stolzbert. 1999. Targeting Schools: Study of Title I Allocations Within School Districts. ED432649. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Taylor, W. L., and D. M. Piche. 1990. A Report on Shortchanging Children: The Impact of Fiscal Inequity on the Education of Students at Risk. Washington, DC: Congress of the U.S., House Committee on Education and Labor.

JEF 33_2 text.indd 146 11/20/07 8:17:43 AM

Copyright of Journal of Education Finance is the property of University of Illinois Press and its content may not

be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.