|
|
|
ESEA Title I Analyses -- Using Census 2000 Data in ESEA Title I LEA Funding Allocations -- Resources to Examine Inequities The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is operated by the U.S. Department of Education and distributes in excess of $8 billion annually to local education agencies (LEAs). The ESEA Title I program is designed to improve educational opportunities for low-achieving children in schools and school districts (LEAs) serving areas with high poverty. In the most recent distribution of Federal funds to local education agencies (LEAs) under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the amount of funds distributed was based in part on 1998 population estimates. These data are a significant determinant of how much money each LEA is given. Legislation now under consideration for the distribution of funds under ESEA Title I next year also uses the same 1998 population estimates. State education agencies (SEAs) and LEAs, and related stakeholders, may now examine the implications of using newly available Census 2000 data to evaluate the impact of allocations to LEAs. Use of these data will result in more effective and equitable distributions of ESEA Title I LEA allocations. The information provided below outlines the mechanics and benefits of evaluating use of these new data and the impact usage of these new data could have on funds received by LEAs. Evaluating New Data in Formula. The 1998 population estimates, developed by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Department of Education, are based on an estimation methodology that substantially relies on 1990 Census data. The estimates reflect conditions that are now more than 10 years in the past. Although the methodology is designed to provide updated data, a comparison of the 1998 population estimates with Census 2000 data for individual school districts reflects wide under- and over-estimation differences. The distribution formula is in need of modification whereby the population estimates being used are supplemented/replaced using more current data. Data from Census 2000 are now available which show the total population and the number of persons 5-to-17 years of age by school district. While the subject matter of these data items are not exactly what is estimated by the 1998 estimates (children in families and poverty), the fundamental change in the size of the total population and children 5-17 years of age is so significant that it cannot be ignored. Impact. By not using the most accurate data available results in some districts getting more funding than they should and others getting less. As a result, the basic goal of the ESEA Title I are partly undermined. This is an issue that largely relates to potential inequity within a state. It is not possible to assess the scope of the inequity without examining the specific state and the specific changes that have taken place over time. There are other Federal and state programs that are tied to the number of persons aged 5-17 years. The impact of use of the Census 2000 data in these programs will be addressed in updates provided in this section. Please check back. It is possible to examine the financial impact of the using revised data for areas of interest using models with a variable forumula specifications capacity to evaluate the impact on a specific district or a group of districts in a state. Use of models can enable users to set assumptions and configure formula options in different ways. See additional information below. Answering What If Questions. Data are presented below as an example of using Census 2000 in comparison to the 1998 estimates for selected districts in New York State. The Census 2000 data are derived from the Proximity national scope database that has single year of age data for each school district and enables development of the Census 2000 5-to-17 years of age cohort data. A review of these data shows how useful it is to examine these data in the context of answering alternative "what if" questions - what if the Census 2000 data are used in a formula under assumption set A versus assumption set B. An Example of What the Data Reveal. State-by-state databases that contain the most recent Title I allocations for each school district in the state serve as a starting point. In each state database, all districts are included which were in the most recent distribution of Title I funds. The database contains a record for each school district. To each school district data record, Census 2000 data for the total population and for the population ages 5-to-17 years of age have been added. Analysis of Population Differences by Map - New York Unified School Districts Total Population Differences. The map presented below shows the 1998 population estimates for total population minus the Census 2000 total population for New York unified school districts. Each interval shows an equal number of school districts. 749 unified districts are included based on their existence as of Census 2000. The data value of -604,138 for New York City Unified is omitted so that the legend is not distorted due to this one case. 
Persons 5-to-17 Years of Age Differences. The map presented below shows the 1998 population estimates for
persons 5-to-17 years of age minus the Census 2000 count of persons 5-to-17 years
of age for New York unified school districts.
Each interval shows an equal number of school districts.
749 unified districts are included based on their existence as of Census 2000.
The data value of -123,462 for New York City Unified is omitted so that the
legend is not distorted due to this one case.
Analysis of Sample Tabular Data - Selected New York School Districts
An example of the data in tabular form is shown below. This table shows key data items for each of a few selected New York State school districts. The content of each column is described below.
Column Descriptions 1 District Name 2 Census 2000 persons 5 to 17 years of age 3 1998 estimate of persons 5 to 17 years of age in families 4 Item 2 - Item 3 5 Census 2000 total population 6 1998 estimate of total population 7 Item 5 - Item 6 8 1998 estimate of persons 5 to 17 years of age in families in poverty (no Census 2000 data available) 9 TANF -children aged 5-17 in families above the federal poverty cutoff, but receiving local income supplements 10 Neg - children under 19 living in group homes 11 Corr - children under 19 living in correctional institutions 12 Fos - children living in foster homes 13 Basic Grant $ 14 Concentration grant $ Data from Census 2000 data for children aged 5-17 in families and by poverty status are not yet available. These data will only be available from the Census 2000 school district special tabulation (spring 2003). Data Review for Rochester City School District (RCSD). The above table shows that RCSD has a Census 2000 population of 219,766 as compared to the data used in the formula - the 1998 population estimate of 231,971. There were actually 12,205 fewer persons (based on these data) in RCSD in April 2000, than the population size shown by the 1998 estimate. However, while the total population was smaller using the Census 2000 data, the number of children 5-17 years of age was smaller using the 1998 estimates as compared to the Census 2000 data. It is carefully noted that the 1998 estimate of the number of children ages 5-17 is for children in families. This the difference would actually be larger were we to have the Census 2000 data on the number of children in families (while we can acquire these data from Census 2000, they are not included in the analyses. These data indicate that the total number of children was relatively higher for RCSD, across school districts, than indicated by the 1998 population estimate. These data also suggest that the total number of children in poverty was higher than indicated by the 1998 estimate on an absolute basis and relatively across districts. It cannot be know whether the rate of poverty incidence remained the same, decreased, or increased at this time. This determination will need to await availability of the sample-based data from Census 2000 in the summer of 2002. Much more detailed demographic is available for RCSD, as for any school district in the U.S. An example of the data for RCSD may be accessed at http://proximityone.com/sd/c3624750.pdf. The number of children in poverty in RCSD was likely, all other factors equal, to be much larger than reflected by the formula data used to allocate the LEA grant. Not only was the number children in poverty very likely much larger, but the implied inequity is larger yet because the number of children in poverty in some districts was larger and in other smaller. This discussion is not intended to make a case that RCSD should receive more funds. Another district with opposite population changes would yield similar conclusions re implied inequity - not meeting the goals associated with ESEA Title I. To examine the financial impact on a specific district, a statewide model and database must be used. Additional Information. Data used in the above example are available for all states and school districts. A Title I modeling program is under development that enables a user to analyze the implications of alternative LEA funding distributions under user specified assumptions. Population estimates referred to as "1998 estimates" are population estimates for July 1, 1998. Estimates relating to poverty refer to income year 1997. For more information on school district demographics, see the Web page http://proximityone.com/sd-data.htm Please e-mail us (support@proximityone.com) to request further information. |
|