A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

For Release:
August 11, 2000

Contact:
Melinda Kitchell Malico
(202) 401-1008

FEDERAL K-12 EDUCATION FUNDING TARGETS HIGH-POVERTY DISTRICTS;
PROVIDES TECHNOLOGY, EXTENDS LEARNING TIME

A new study released by the U.S. Department of Education shows that federal funding is significantly helping level the playing field between high- and low-poverty schools, but per pupil spending in high-poverty districts still lags behind more affluent districts by more than 10 percent.

"These numbers underscore the critical need for federal support for education, particularly for disadvantaged children," said U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley. "From teachers to technology, summer school to after-school, critical federal funds are reaching the neediest children and making up for support that often falls short."

The study looked at the degree to which funds were used to help schools improve student achievement through professional development, technology and extended learning, and how federal program funds are targeted at the district and school levels, compared with state and local funds.

The Study of Educational Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report examined federal support for school districts and schools from six federal programs during 1997-98. The programs include Titles I, II, III, IV and VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and Goals 2000, comprising 41 percent of federal K-12 revenues.

The findings show that more high-poverty schools than before are receiving targeted federal funds ? 96 percent of the highest-poverty schools received Title I funds in 1997-98, up from 79 percent in 1993-94.

Federal revenues added $692 per pupil in the highest-poverty districts, 11 percent of total revenue, compared to the 6.1 percent received nationally on average from the federal government.

Other findings include:

• Of the $8 billion spent on Title I, 77 percent of the funding to help disadvantaged children meet high standards was spent on instruction, mainly supporting the hiring of teachers and aides. The remainder was divided between instructional support and local program administration.

• Teachers? aides accounted for more than half of Title I-funded instructional staff and nearly one-quarter of spending on instructional staff. Aides spent 60 percent of their time teaching or helping to teach students. Of the time spent teaching, four in ten aides reported that at least half was without a teacher present.

• Overall, federal education funds were much more targeted to high-poverty districts than were state and local funds. Districts in the highest-poverty quartile, which have 25 percent of the nation?s school-age children and 49 percent of the nation?s poor children, received 43 percent of federal funds but only 23 percent of state and local funds.

• Federal funds paid for one-quarter of the new computers that schools received during 1997-98, and 13 percent were purchased with Title I funds. In the highest-poverty elementary schools, federal funds paid for 58 percent of new computers, with Title I funding one-third of them.

• Nearly two-thirds of schools offered before-school, after-school or weekend instruction, but only 7 percent of all students were served. Extended learning time programs served more children in high-poverty schools (14 percent) than in low-poverty schools (5 percent).

• Summer school was offered in 56 percent of schools. It was more common in the highest-poverty schools and offered more frequently in high schools (66 percent) versus elementary schools (51 percent).

The report and an executive summary will be available by calling 1-877-4ED-PUBS or at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/elem.html.

###