[Senate Hearing 107-46]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
. S. Hrg. 107-46
TITLE I PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
APRIL 20, 2001--JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-478 WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi TOM HARKIN, Iowa
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas HARRY REID, Nevada
TED STEVENS, Alaska HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio PATTY MURRAY, Washington
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(Ex officio)
Professional Staff
Bettilou Taylor
Mary Dietrich
Jim Sourwine
Ellen Murray (Minority)
Administrative Support
Correy Diviney
Carole Geagley (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening statement of Senator Thad Cochran........................ 1
Statement of Dr. Richard Thompson, State Superintendent of
Education, Mississippi Department of Education................. 2
Statement of Dr. Lynn House, bureau director, Office of
Innovative Support, Mississippi Department of Education........ 4
Statement of Joyce B. McNair, superintendent, Humphreys County
School District................................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Statement of Dr. Therrell Myers, superintendent, Columbus
Municipal School District...................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Statement of Dr. Daniel Watkins, superintendent, Yazoo City
Municipal School District...................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Prepared statement of the Office of Research and Statistics,
Mississippi Department of Education............................ 21
TITLE I PROGRAM
----------
FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 2001
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
Jackson, MS.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in the auditorium of the
Central High School Building, Mississippi Department of
Education, Hon. Thad Cochran presiding.
Present: Senator Cochran.
opening statement of senator thad cochran
Senator Cochran. Good morning. It's a pleasure for me to
convene and welcome you to this hearing of the United States
Senate Committee on Appropriations. The subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies is
chaired by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who has
authorized me to chair this hearing. This is the second hearing
of the subcommittee we've had in Mississippi this week. The
first, in Bay Saint Louis, examined the effectiveness of the
National Writing Project in Mississippi schools, particularly
schools on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
We appreciate very much the assistance of Dr. Richard
Thompson, superintendent of Mississippi Department of
Education, and Dr. Susan Rucker, associate superintendent, and
their staff members in preparation for this hearing and for
allowing us to use this auditorium.
The purpose of today's hearing is to review the Title I
Grants to LEAs (Title I) Program of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. Title I is the largest Federal
education program for elementary and secondary schools. It was
enacted as part of the first comprehensive Federal education
program in 1965. Since then, nearly $133 billion have been made
available to States and school districts to improve
opportunities for a good education of disadvantaged students.
In the first year, Mississippi schools received about $24
million from the Title I program. Last year, our State's share
amounted to about $126 million. Out of the student population
in Mississippi's public schools of about 500,000, about 150,000
are Title I eligible students. Most of the schools in
Mississippi receive Title I funds.
This hearing provides the United States Senate with an
opportunity to learn more about the Title I Program and how it
is working in Mississippi. We're very pleased to have such a
distinguished panel of witnesses today to discuss this with me,
and I'm looking forward to their testimony. Each witness has
provided the subcommittee with written testimony, which we make
a part of the hearing record. We also have written materials
furnished to the committee and presented to me this morning by
the State Department of Education about the Title I Program,
and that will be made a part of the hearing record, as well. I
invite the witnesses to make whatever comments, verbal
testimony available to the committee that you think will assist
us in understanding the issues before us.
[Clerk's note.--The material submitted is being retained in
the Subcommittee files.]
Senator Cochran. Panel 1: Dr. Richard Thompson, State
Superintendent of Education, Mississippi Department of
Education; Dr. Lynn House, Bureau Director, Office of
Innovative Support, Mississippi Department of Education; Ms.
Joyce B. McNair, Superintendent, Humphreys County School
District; Dr. Therrell Myers, Superintendent, Columbus
Municipal School District; Dr. Daniel Watkins, Superintendent,
Yazoo City Municipal School District.
Dr. Richard Thompson is the State superintendent of
education for Mississippi. He earned his Doctorate of Education
and Master's Degree from the University of North Carolina. Dr.
Lynn House is the director of the Office of Innovative Support
of the Mississippi Department of Education and administers the
Title I Program in Mississippi. Dr. House has 26 years of
experience as an educator. She's been a principal, teacher and
a teacher educator. She holds a Ph.D from the University of
Mississippi, a Master's Degree from Firmin University and a
Bachelor's Degree from the University of New Orleans. Ms. Joyce
McNair is the superintendent of the Humphreys County School
District. She attended Humphreys County schools before earning
her Bachelor's Degree at Tulane College and her Master's Degree
from Delta State University. Ms. McNair is currently enrolled
in a doctoral program at Delta State. She has 31 years of
experience as a public educator. Dr. Therrell Myers is
superintendent of the Columbus Municipal School District. He's
been an educator for 27 years. He previously served as
associate superintendent at the Mississippi Department of
Education. He has a Ph.D from Mississippi State University. Dr.
Daniel Watkins is the superintendent of the Yazoo City School
District. He earned his Bachelor's, Master's and Ph.D in
educational specialties at Jackson State University.
I welcome you all to our hearing and invite you to proceed.
Dr. Thompson, we'll start with you. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD THOMPSON, STATE SUPERINTENDENT
OF EDUCATION, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
Dr. Thompson. Senator Cochran, thank you so much for being
here and conducting this hearing, and we really appreciate the
opportunity to present. As you have indicated, I have some
literal information in support of our strong opinion of the
value of Title I in the schools for the children in
Mississippi.
My comments this morning will be not repetitious of the
ones that I had submitted necessarily in writing, but I do want
to try to make significant that since 1985, we believe that
Mississippi has made more progress than any other State in the
Nation in education. And one of the unfortunate things is that
we were so far behind. In fact, a former governor of the State
once said that, in 1954, in the history of our State, only 1 in
4 white children will graduate from high school in Mississippi.
At that same time, in the history of our State, 1 in 40 black
children will graduate from high school.
To have the tremendous improvement we've had has only been
made possible through the additional resources by this title.
We were so pleased just last April 9th, just a few days ago,
when a major press release was released by the name of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress Report, that stated
that Mississippi is one of 4 States in the Nation that had made
the most progress with their bottom children and also their top
children and had improved on more indicators than any other
State, with the exception of Connecticut, Kentucky and North
Carolina. So we felt very good about that.
Well, again, I would point out that it is the infusion of
those dollars, such as Title I, that have allowed us to make
this progress. And we continue to have great need, because, as
you know, 65 percent of the children in Mississippi that are in
public schools are on free or reduced lunch. And we know the
poverty standard that's applied to Title I, and Title I
allocation is different, and it only reflects 27 percent of our
children in poverty. And it is somewhat conflicted, but we know
that that standard does create some problems for us, because we
believe that many of our children are actually in poverty that
may not be reflected by that particular statistic.
There is no question that as we move into our new
accountability system, that Title I funds will be more
important than, perhaps, they have ever been. Our State
struggles with the need to provide quality pre-kindergarten
programs for our youngsters. And at this point, there is not a
single State dollar that goes into that program. The brain
research that's being developed indicates that one of the most
significant things you could do for our children is to provide
a quality program of pre-kindergarten. And the data is
overwhelming. One research has indicated it may be as much as a
16.5 differential, based on that kind of experience. So what is
happening is 61 of our locations have chosen to use Title I
dollars to help with that significant problem, and it is making
a difference.
In addition to that, we, in our new accountability system,
are holding everyone accountable, teachers, principals,
superintendents, school board members and, yes, students for
improvement standards and increasing achievement. One of the
things we know we must do is we must view this, not as a
punitive measure, but a measure of diagnosing the needs of
children early on and providing the kind of resources that help
intervention, if you will, to meet those needs so these
children can achieve and have an opportunity to the quality of
life as any other child in America would have. And many of our
districts have only this pot of money to look to provide that
additional help, perhaps an after-school program, perhaps an
early childhood program, for some of our youngsters at the high
school level, even, the only remediation our districts can
reach is Title I.
Again, Senator, we're so grateful to you for your
leadership and what you're doing for our State, and we stand
ready to assist you and your committee any way that we can.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Dr. Thompson. We'll
now turn to Dr. Lynn House. Welcome. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. LYNN HOUSE, BUREAU DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
INNOVATIVE SUPPORT, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION
Dr. House. Thank you so much, Senator Cochran and thanks to
your staff for helping us get everything organized for today
and special thanks to the superintendents here today who will
also be testifying.
First of all, I would like to emphasize the fact that the
152 school districts in our State all receive Title I funds.
Every one of these districts spend literally months and many
hours in the planning process, so that every single cent of
that money is spent wisely. In fact, they're in the process now
of completing their consolidated application that will be the
fruit to bear from all that planning.
I also would like to say that we have received our
preliminary allocation from the USDE. That preliminary
allocation indicates that we will take a two to three percent
cut in our funding for the coming year. When we reflect on what
that means to our children and our district, this is the kind
of scene that we predict: First of all, we believe that at
least 6,500 students will no longer receive Title I services.
We also believe that a minimum of 75 teachers will no longer be
there to provide the instructional support that those Title I
children need.
You heard Dr. Thompson mention the importance of pre-K
programs. We really have emphasized to our districts how vital
that aspect of Title I is. We believe that we will not only see
districts failing to implement pre-K programs with Title I
dollars, we're really concerned that some of those that are
currently in existence will be cut. We also believe very
strongly that extended days, extended year programs that are
funded through Title I are providing that additional
instructional time that so many youngsters need to be
successful academically. Those programs will also suffer.
Professional development is another area that we believe will
be cut with this funding reduction. Professional development is
the way we help our teachers grow in their profession, so that
they, indeed, can truly meet the needs of these youngsters who
are at risk. Parent centers and parent activities, we believe,
will also be impacted negatively by these cuts. We know the
importance of involving parents in the education of their
children. Those activities are, of course, required by Title I
and will continue in some degree, but we also believe that some
of the innovations will be cut with this funding loss.
And lastly, I'd like to say that from the State
perspective, we do a lot in trying to provide technical
assistance to our districts. We believe we are a service
agency, not just a regulatory agency. So we're in the district
every year helping them with the planning process and doing
some problem solving with them to help them understand how best
to go about meeting the needs of their children through their
Title I funding. We believe that because of the cut, we, too,
will have to cut back on providing those services in some form
or fashion.
I'd like to close by just reading to you what Hilton Miller
said about Title I. You might not know Hilton Miller, but he's
one of our 2000 distinguished graduates for our Title I
recognition program sponsored by the USDE. Hilton Miller said
this: On this ladder that society calls life, I have come to
realize that one step does not lead to another, it is the
individual who decides whether or not to continue to climb, and
if so, which step he or she must conquer. The Title I program
helped me make my climb. Now, Hilton Miller, who was very
recently the vice president of the University of Mississippi
Law School student body is now a practicing attorney. He
credited his success in many ways to the Title I program and
what that program was able to do for him. His story is just one
of thousands.
We know we're impacting our children positively, and with
the loss of funding, we know that impact will be lessened. So
we would certainly request that you do everything you can, as
we know you will, to help Mississippi receive its fair share of
funding so that we, too, can continue to impact students like
Hilton Miller.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Dr. House. Let's now
turn to Ms. Joyce McNair. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF JOYCE B. McNAIR, SUPERINTENDENT, HUMPHREYS
COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Ms. McNair. Good morning. It's an honor to be here, and we
thank you for coming to our State. And I would like to share
with you, I am from Humphreys County, the Mississippi Delta. We
are a rural community. Forty-five percent of the students in my
district live in poverty. Seventy-five percent of those
students come from single parent homes. Our district serves
approximately 2,300 children from pre-K to 12. We were once a
thriving farming community. We have very little industry. Our
farms are disappearing, and our children are suffering because
of the economics in our community. But it has been through the
efforts of our Title I funds that we have been able to provide
services to our children and our families, as well as our staff
in enabling them to reach and teach those children.
We have, in our community, because of the educational
level, 50-something percent of our population that's 25 or
older who do not have high school degrees. Of our community, 12
percent have graduated from college or have higher degrees. So
when our children come into our school districts because of
this environment, they come language delayed, but through the
efforts of Title I, our students are able to achieve and
overcome this barrier because of the programs in our district
that we use our Title I funds for.
Our reading initiative is one that I would like to share
with you that we are doing with our Title I funds. If these are
cut, it will have a devastating effect on our students served
by our reading initiative. It is a statewide reading
initiative, but for us, it is a crucial initiative, because we
know the children cannot read, and they're not going to be
successful. We use those funds in our reading initiative to
diagnose children. We use an analytical reading inventory, and
from this inventory, we are able to do prescriptive
intervention. And this is where our Title I teachers come in.
They actually work with the students on their weaknesses and
strengths. We prescribe and we help each other as teachers in
our district to come up with intervention strategies that will
work for these students. And this happens in our early grades,
because if we do not start early, then they will not be
successful in school. Not only do we use it with our reading
initiative, but it enables us to hire extra teachers to reduce
our class size, enable us to provide a lot of one-on-one
attention that our children need.
Many of our children, to share something else about our
district, our children, the majority of them, we have students
that ride as long as 45 minutes, one way, to school. And these
are kindergartners that may be doing that. So when they arrive
at school, we have to be there to provide them with all the
necessary equipment and resources to enable them to have a good
education.
We also use our Title I funds to offset, to work with our
parents. We have a parent center, and in this parent center, we
have liaisons that go out into our homes and work with our
parents. We have found that, in our community, it is very
difficult to get parents to come to the school. And through
Title I, we're bridging that gap, we're seeing them become more
involved, because we're sending our parent center people out to
the homes, to their workplaces, and they're meeting with them.
Our community businesses have been very good to us about
letting us come into their businesses and meet with our
parents, so we can share progress reports or any other
information that they may need about school. Not only will the
parent center do these things, but that parent center provides
training for our parents, teaching them how to help with their
children, how to be parents, parenting skills, how to help with
homework. And we're also training them to be educators, because
they are their children's first teachers.
We have used those funds over the years to--not only do we
care about our underachieving students, but we do have some
very bright children in our district. And to address those
needs, we've taken our Title I funds to host a Saturday
academy. And we brought in teachers from Mississippi schools of
math and science to work with our students, these are eighth
and ninth graders, also, and train our teachers in mathematics
and science. Our parents were a part of this program, they came
on Saturday also. And believe it or not, we targeted 40
students, and every Saturday, we had 40 students plus parents
there, because there was an educational need.
prepared statement
And lastly but not least, I would like to say that, without
these funds, districts like mine, well, the impact would be
tremendous. And we use our dollars wisely to meet the needs of
all of our children, because our children are our most precious
resource. And in our district, we believe truly that the
children of Humphreys County should be afforded every
educational opportunity as children anywhere in America. Thank
you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joyce B. McNair
I am superintendent of the Humphreys County School District which
serves approximately 2300 students from Pre-K to 12. We are the only
public school in the county which is located in Belzoni, MS (the Heart
of the MS Delta). The majority of our students are bused with many of
them traveling at least 45 minutes one way to school. Our school is
located in a county that is rural, agrarian, with a population of
approximately 11,000. A county that was once a thriving farming
community, but in recent years we have seen many farms disappear,
industry leave, and many of our best and brightest minds leave our
community due to the lack of jobs. Humphreys County has a high
incidence of poverty 96 percent of our students qualify for free and
reduced lunch, 75 percent come from single parent families, and 45
percent of our county live in poverty. The educational level of our
community is low- 53 percent of the population age 25 and above did not
graduate from high school, while approximately 12 percent of the
population have college degrees or higher. From these statistics you
can see that the majority of our students are at-risk educationally,
culturally, and economically.
The data reflects that our children live in an environment that is
educationally and economically deprived. Also from experience in
working with the students and parents as a teacher, school
administrator, and now superintendent, I know that our children face
many economic and educational challenges. Because of their environment
many of our students enter school language delayed, and lack the proper
early literacy skills necessary to be successful in school. The lack of
these skills tend to keep our student behind, and constantly struggling
to catch up and maintain. But with the proper assessment and
interventions in the teaching and learning process due to Title I we
are able to overcome many of these barriers. It is through our Title I
dollars that we provide our staff with high quality, on-going
professional development, purchase supplies/materials and equipment
needed to enhance the learning environment, hire teachers to reduce
teacher/pupil ratio and support staff (Assistant Teachers) to provide
extra intervention/prevention for the students.
However, despite these statistics our school system has grown. Our
students have some of the best and brightest minds of students anywhere
in this state or country. Title I funds have aided the Humphreys County
School District in its quest to provided services for our students and
their parents, and staff. It has been the mainstay of support to help
us improve teaching and learning, and increase literacy among our
parents. We have used Title I funds to provide early literacy training
for our Pre-K program, Headstart and other day care providers; provide
teachers training on intervention/prevention strategies, and learning
styles to increase student achievement; and expose our staff to best
practices and reform models for school improvement; establish parent
centers to provide training for our parents in areas such as parenting
skills, early literacy intervention, and technology. Also funds are
used to hire home-school liaisons to keep parents informed of the
academic progress of their children, attendance, and any other
pertinent information parents need to help their children and stay
informed of school events and activities. We know that parent
involvement is crucial in the education of a child, especially if we
are to see increases in student achievement.
Funds also are used to provide after school tutorial to meet the
needs of students who are low achievers or students who have fallen
through the cracks along the way. This year we encountered a group of
7th graders who could not read. To meet the needs of these children, we
hired an excellent remedial teacher through our Title I funds. Theses
students were placed in a transitional class where instruction was
modified to meet their needs. These students ability to read increased
at least one grade level. Not only do we use Title I funds to meet the
needs of our underachievers but also our average and above average
students as well. To meet the needs of these students we sponsored a
Saturday Academy where students and parents engaged in standards based
math and science activities integrating technology.
To help ease the transition of our pre-schoolers, each year we
sponsor a transitional program with our local Headstart agency during
the extended year program. We will be blending many services with
Headstart and other child care providers to promote early literacy
(i.e. professional development, student shadowing programs, etc.)
Over the years Title I has made a tremendous impact on the quality
of education our children receive. It is because of these funds, we
have produced many products like my colleague and former student, Dr.
Daniel Watkins, Superintendent of Yazoo City Schools.
Having grown up in this community and attended school there, I am
fully aware of its needs, its culture, and its economical conditions. I
know that we must offer our children hope and assure them that they too
can achieve the American dream if they prepare themselves
educationally. I strongly believe that the children of Humphreys
County, MS should be afforded the same educational opportunities as
student in America's most affluent communities. They, too, deserve the
best education possible and we are charged as a state, county,
district, and nation to see that this goal is achieved. For without
Title I funds, we, the Humphreys County School System would not be able
to increase student achievement, motivate students, and instill them
the love of learning and a since of pride.
STATEMENT OF DR. THERRELL MYERS, SUPERINTENDENT,
COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Ms. McNair. Let me
now call on Dr. Therrell Myers.
Dr. Myers. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran. It's
indeed a privilege to be a part of this panel this morning on
behalf of the Columbus School District. Title I provides
assistance to children in high poverty schools and supports
other district, State and Federal programs through its focus on
school wide reform efforts that we have.
As you've already heard, parental involvement, professional
development, standards and assessments are critical. They are
supported through this initiative. The Columbus Municipal
School District is a very progressive school district in
innovating strategies, teaching and learning processes. The
district is guided, we have a very simple vision center to
where commitment and support equals the ultimate learning
experience for our children. With this vision, we very much so
indeed reflect that to providing admission, providing a quality
education for every child.
I'm going to give you a little statistics about our
district and about our children so you can kind of unfold the
parameters of what's happening in the actual communities we
live in. Our rolls are approximately 5,300 students. More and
more of them, or 3,700 or 70 percent of these students live in
poverty, which is based on free and reduced lunch criteria. We
are a high poverty school district.
To illustrate a few of the challenges we face, allow me to
profile a student from a family struggling to make ends meet. I
want you, as a policy maker and other legislators or just
ordinary people, to understand what Title I means to children
who are growing up poor. Children of poverty face special
burdens. Most of these children's parents grew up poorly and
struggled in school themselves. So being in school is not
really very important to them and to encourage their children.
Some children have innate resourcefulness, and others do not.
Some seem to sail through childhood oblivious of the parents'
economic degree, others do not. Obtaining timely and good
medical and dental care has often been a problem for these
families. Some of these children go to bed hungry, particularly
at the end of the month when the money the parents have set
aside for food is diverted to pay high cost utility bills. Some
of the children fall asleep to a parent reading to them, while
others put themselves to bed on the floor, counting the minutes
until their parents return home from a night-shift job. Fear is
a common emotion among many of our students. Some children are
doing well in school, others have failed several grades, or
even on the verge of failing more grades, as we're getting our
data together. Some have great plans for the future, as you've
heard already testified, others have no plans at all for their
future.
As a school leader, I must do everything in my power to
ensure that public policy increases the prospect for all
children in the State of Mississippi. The well-being of our
Nation depends greatly upon our school's ability to provide
meaningful and challenging educational experiences. For more
than 14 million American children who are growing up in poor
families, Title I supports that as an underlying thread.
Research and experience both show that poverty negatively
impacts students' academic achievement. Students living in
poverty are more likely to have lower test scores, more
learning disabilities, increased special education needs and
are at a greater risk of dropping out of school. Now, Title I
focuses on meeting the expected educational needs of children
living in poverty that you so well know. Using Title I district
funds, additional State funds and other Federal funds coupled
together, we provide the direct services to improve academic
achievement. We also lower our student teacher pupil ratio.
We're now 1 to 18 in our K through 6 schools. As you've heard
Dr. Thompson already referenced it, we are using these dollars
to impact early intervention areas. Our student, our Title I
allocation is $1.6 million for this school year, and it is
leveraged with other district, State and Federal funds to meet
the needs of our children in K through 6. The services advance
student achievement, enabling them to meet the State's
challenging academic performance, as you've already heard the
new accountability system. These funds also are lying in our
district to counteract many of them from effects of poverty.
Due to the Title I revenues, this is what happens: Students
receive more direct instruction, extended learning
opportunities and access to enriching instructional materials.
Teachers are participating in professional development funded
through Title I, which is infused with the most current
research phase instructional practices, so that our students do
have the chance, the aids and the desire to be successful.
Now, due to the early interventions made by Title I, our
district's dropout rate and graduation rate has improved. Our
dropout rate in Columbus has decreased to 3.7 percent this
year, on the most recent data, from a previous year of 8.2
percent. Our graduation rate is now 78.35 percent. And we're
not overjoyed with that, we're extremely pleased every student
entering the ninth grade, four years later, 78.35 percent are
successfully completing all the requirements in Mississippi
schools.
In closing, according to the most recent National education
goals report that Dr. Thompson has already referenced about
Mississippi, Mississippi is showing gains in the fourth grade
math and reading scores. In mathematics, Mississippi increased
the top, the average, the bottom fortiles and became 1 of only
8 States to tighten the achievement gap between the top and
bottom fortiles. These academic means are possible, in part,
due to the Title I Program that is allowing us to move the
lower fortile and lessen the number there to enhance the upper
levels for our children in our State.
PREPARED STATEMENT
As we in Columbus continue to strive for excellence in
education, not only through Title I, but through every effort
that is made, we simply cannot lower our achievement goals and
levels. The bench mark has been raised, the bar has been raised
to fully support high academic achievement for every child.
Simply said, failure is not an option for children in
Mississippi.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Therrell Myers
Title I provides assistance to at-risk children in high-poverty
schools and supports other district, state, and Federal programs
through its focus on school-wide reform efforts, parental involvement,
professional development, standards, and assessments. Through Title I
funds, local education agencies are improving basic programs to meet
the needs of students in high poverty schools.
--The Columbus Municipal School District (CMSD) is a progressive
school district committed to innovative strategies for teaching
and learning. The district is guided by the vision, ``Where
Commitment and Support Equals the Ultimate Learning Experience
. . . Level Five by 2005!'' This vision reflects our deep
commitment to becoming the top ranked school district in the
state as well as the Nation. Our mission is ``to provide a
quality education for every child.''
--Our enrollment is approximately 5300 students. More importantly,
over 3,700 or 70 percent of these students live in poverty, so
we are a high poverty school district. To illustrate the
challenges we face, allow me to profile a student from a family
struggling to make ends meet. I want you as policymakers,
legislators, and ordinary people to understand what Title I
means to children in poverty.
--Children, who are growing up poor, face special burdens. Most of
these children's parents grew up poor and struggled in school
themselves, so being in a school is not really comfortable for
them. Some children have an innate resourcefulness and others
do not. Some seem to sail through childhood oblivious to their
parents' economic struggles, but this is seldom the case.
Obtaining timely and good-quality medical and dental care is
often a problem. Some of these children go to bed hungry,
particularly at the end of the month, when the money their
parents have set aside for food is diverted to keep the
electricity on.
--Some of these children fall asleep to a parent reading to them;
while others put themselves to bed on the floor, counting the
minutes until their parent returns home from a night-shift job.
Fear is a common emotion for many low-income children.
--Some children are doing well in school; others have failed several
grades or are on the verge of failing. Some have great plans
for their futures while others have no plans at all.
--As a school leader, I must do everything in my power to ensure that
public policy increases the prospects for all of our children.
The well-being of our Nation depends greatly upon our schools
ability to provide meaningful and challenging educational
experiences for the more than 14 million American children who
are growing up in poor families.
--Research and experience both show that poverty negatively impacts
students' academic achievement. Students living in poverty are
more likely to have low test scores, more learning
disabilities, increased special education needs, and are at a
greater risk of dropping out of school.
--Title I focuses on meeting the expansive educational needs of
children living in poverty. Using Title I, district, state, and
other Federal funds, our district provides direct services to
improve the academic achievement potential of these children
living in poverty. In our K-6 schools, Title I funds allow our
district to reduce class size (Our average class size is now
18). Title I provides supplementary instructional materials and
research-based professional development for our teachers. Title
I allows us to extend the school day and school year to provide
these students a safe haven, filled with enriching educational
experiences.
--The district's annual Title I allocation, $1.6 million in fiscal
year 2000, is leveraged with other district, state, and Federal
funds, to allow Columbus Schools to provide direct services to
students in our low income Kindergarten through 6th grade
schools. The services advance student achievement enabling them
to meet the state's challenging academic performance standards.
--Title I funding is allowing our district to counteract many of the
insurmountable affects of poverty. Due to Title I revenues,
students receive more direct instruction, extended learning
opportunities, and access to enriching instructional materials.
Teachers, participating in professional development funded
through Title I, are infusing research-based instructional
practices into the classroom. The evidence is clear; due to
these direct services our lower quartile students are
performing better on standardized tests and the special
education placements are declining in the district, from 662
last year to 638 this year.
--Due to these early interventions made possible by Title I, our
district's dropout and graduation rates are improving. Our
dropout rate has decreased to 3.7 percent this year from
previous years 8.2 percent and our graduation rate is now 78.35
percent.
--There is no doubt, Title I funding allows our district to better
serve our children living in poverty. With an increase in Title
I funding, our district will continue to offer direct services
to students to decrease class size, offer enriching extended
day and extended year academic based programs, and expand
teacher capacity through research-based professional
development. Our teachers need training in the use of
technology, effective discipline methods, time management, and
crisis intervention. Quality professional development at the
local level is a tremendous need.
--In closing, according to the most recent National Education Goals
Panel Report, Mississippi is showing gains in both 4th grade
math and reading scores. In Mathematics, Mississippi increased
the top, average, and bottom quartile scores and became one of
only eight states to tighten the achievement gap between the
top and bottom quartiles. In Reading, Mississippi also
increased scores, especially in the lower quartile, further
narrowing the gap between top and bottom quartiles. We feel
that these gains are an express result of direct services
provided to our students, services largely in part made
possible through Title I funding.
--As we continue to strive for excellence in education, Columbus
Municipal School District requests not only a continuation of
Title I funding, but an increase in Title I funding, to further
support the district's high achievement expectations for every
student. By increasing Title I funding, all of our students,
including the 3,700 living in poverty, will continue to be
assured a quality education, and the ability, motivation, and
confidence to learn throughout a lifetime.
STATEMENT OF DR. DANIEL WATKINS, SUPERINTENDENT, YAZOO
CITY MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Dr. Myers. And we'll
hear from Dr. Daniel Watkins.
Dr. Watkins. Good morning.
Senator Cochran. Good morning.
Dr. Watkins. I want to start by saying that, in Yazoo City,
many of our parents work outside of Yazoo City, in Madison
County, Hinds County, as well as Warren County. And I want to
go on record as saying that without extended day and extended
year, we would be in a terrible position, but I also have
records and stats to support all of what I'm going to say, but
I want to offer myself as a living testimony to what Title I
has meant to Mississippi, to the Delta and my family.
My name is Daniel Watkins, and I am the superintendent of
the Yazoo City public schools. I am a 1976 graduate of
Humphreys County High School. I began my educational career in
1964 in Louise, my home town. It was 1971 that schools combined
in Humphreys County, and my mother, I mention again, was a
school bus driver. She was also a single parent with 7
children, and we would rise at 4 in the morning, and we would
depart on the school bus at 4:30 to go all over Louise to drive
to Belzoni.
I also wanted to mention that my first 3 years at
elementary school, I had a severe speech impediment that
allowed me to be quiet when I knew answers, but I do remember
Title I funding, a speech pathologist, to bring me out of my
shyness. Again, I grew up in a small delta town called Louise,
with my mother being the mother, the father, a provider and
whatever else she needed to be. Besides school, our work
consisted of working in the cotton fields. My mother drove a
school bus and worked in the school's cafeteria. One of the
happiest days of my mother's life was when she received her
GED. Needless to say, she stressed education daily and yearly
throughout my grade school life. There were many needs in our
school system back then, to the extent that I did not quite
understand, but I have since learned that through the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Federal Government
reduced many of these needs. In my later years, I have seen the
happiness of my mother as she observes her daughter working
with a parenting program in Louisville, Mississippi, and two of
her sons receiving Ph.D's. Without the increasing help of Title
I, none of these could have been achieved in the lives of a
poor Delta family.
I had the opportunity in the mid 1990's to become principal
of the middle school that is in an impoverished area here in
Jackson. It was there that I experienced first hand the
tremendous importance of Title I. This school is known for its
athletics, discipline problems, low attendance and feeble
parent support, not to mention low achievement. I was able to
sit down with students, teachers, parents and community
residents to address the question what can we do. We kept it
very simple. We would use Title I money to tutor mornings and
evenings in the areas of reading and math. In addition, we
would enhance this process by simultaneously computerizing the
whole school and offering computer literacy courses to teachers
and parents. We then would utilize Title I money to address
weaknesses of teachers through innovative professional
development. A parent center was created on campus to aid
parents in any way possible to get students to achieve. In a
period of 4 years, all of the problems before mentioned
decreased significantly. The morale sky-rocketed, and this
school became one of the top achieving schools in Jackson, with
students from disadvantaged areas. Without the increasing help
of Title I, none of these things could have been achieved.
As superintendent of Yazoo City public schools, 15 miles
south of where I grew up and 35 miles north of where I was
principal, I see some disturbing problems. There's very little
formal education from infants to 3 years old. Teen pregnancy is
extremely high. There is an alarming single parent home
percentage. There's very high poverty rates. And all of these
variables sustain low student achievement. Though raising the
achievement of this school system is a challenge, it is not
insoluble. It will take efforts of all who are concerned. We
must have programs early and extended day and extended year. We
must have programs to address the many needs of this community
and others. It is imperative that we continue in a progressive
mode. The community of Yazoo City has not only become
accustomed to certain programs, but has become dependent. The
Title I programs are a continual and integral part in the life
of a Yazoo City student. Without the increasing help of Title
I, few of the previously mentioned variables that diminish
student achievement could be challenged.
In closing, these are personal thoughts from one who has
been educated, is an educator and has observed education for
almost 37 years in Mississippi. This is Mississippi, it does
contain a delta, it is ranked sometimes the number 50 or 49,
depending on the year, in education. Whenever I hear of
reductions in education, my heart goes back to my experiences
as a student, a teacher, principal, as well as superintendent.
In my professional opinion, the forces that depress education
are not giving in. The forces that propel education must be
enhanced.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I ask myself what would I cut, how can I prioritize when
lives hang in the balance. If a program can support 20 to 25,
and 25 shows up, and all of my resources are exhausted, what
criteria can I use. How do I face the 5 to tell them no.
Somehow, through my life, I was always blessed to be between
that number 20 and that number 25. There are a lot of 20 to
25's out there hoping and praying that all who are involved
continue to march forward without a moment of retreat. Without
the increasing help of Title I, we could lose success and
achievement and lives. Thank you, Senator.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel Watkins
My name is Daniel Watkins, and I am the superintendent of the Yazoo
City Public Schools. I am a 1976 graduate of Humphreys County High
School. I grew up in a small delta town called Louise with my mother
being the mother, father, a provider and whatever else she needed to
be. Besides school, our work consisted of working in the cotton fields.
My mother drove a school bus and worked in the school's cafeteria. One
of the happiest days in my mother's life was when she received her GED.
Needless to say, she stressed education daily and yearly throughout my
grade school life. There were many needs in our school system back then
to the extent that I did not quite understand. But I have since learned
that through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the
Federal government reduced many of the needs. In my later years, I have
seen the happiness of my mother as she observes her daughter working
with a parenting program in Louisville, Mississippi, and two of her
sons receiving Ph.D.s. Without the increasing help of Title I, none of
these could have been achieved in the lives of a poor delta family.
I had the opportunity in the mid-nineties to become principal of a
middle school that is in an impoverished area in Jackson, Mississippi.
It was there that I experienced first hand the tremendous importance of
Title I. This school was known for its athletics, discipline problems,
low attendance, and feeble parent support, not to mention low
achievement. I was able to sit down with students, teachers, parents,
and community residents and address the question, ``What can we do?''
We kept it very simple. We would use Title I money to tutor mornings
and evenings in the areas of reading and math. In addition, we would
enhance this process by simultaneously computerizing the whole school
and offering computer literacy courses to teachers and parents. We then
would utilize Title I money to address weaknesses of teachers through
innovative professional development. A parent center was created on
campus to aid parents in any way possible to get students to achieve.
In a period of four years, all of the problems aforementioned decreased
significantly. The morale skyrocketed and this school became one of the
top achieving schools in Jackson with students from disadvantaged
areas. Without the increasing help of Title I, none of these things
could have been achieved.
As superintendent of the Yazoo City Public Schools, fifteen miles
south of where I grew up, and thirty-five miles north of where I was
principal, I see some disturbing problems. There is very little formal
education from infancy to three. Teen pregnancy is extremely high.
There is an alarming single parent home percentage. There is a very
high poverty rate. All of these variables sustain low student
achievement.
Though raising the achievement of this school system is a
challenge, it is not insurmountable. It will take the efforts of all
who are concerned. We must have programs early and extended day. We
must have an extended year. We must have programs to address the many
needs of this community and others. It is imperative that we continue
in a progressive mode. The community of Yazoo City has not only become
accustomed to such programs, but has become dependent. The Title I
programs are a continuing integral part in the life of a Yazoo City
student. Without the increasing help of Title I, few of the previously
mentioned variables that diminish student achievement could be
challenged.
In closing, these are personal thoughts from one who has been
educated, is an educator and has observed education for almost thirty-
seven years in Mississippi. This is Mississippi, it does contain a
delta, it is ranked sometimes number 50 or 49 depending on the year in
education. Whenever I hear of reductions in education, my heart goes
back to my experiences as a student, a teacher, principal as well as
superintendent. In my professional opinion the forces that depress
education are not giving in. The forces that propel education must be
enhanced. I asked myself, what would I cut? How can I prioritize when
lives hang in the balances? If a program can support twenty and twenty-
five shows up and all of my resources are exhausted, what criteria can
I use? How do I face the five to tell them no? Somehow, through my
life, I was always blessed to be between twenty and twenty-five. There
are a lot of twenty to twenty-fives' out there hoping and praying that
all who are involved continues to march forward without a moment of
retreat.
Without the increasing help of Title I, we could lose success in
achievement and lives.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Dr. Watkins. Very
interesting and moving testimony that you've given us this
morning. Your personal experiences are very helpful to us in
understanding the real life consequences of this program and
what it can do to broaden the horizons of a young student.
What was the name of the school? I know you said it,
probably, and I just didn't write it down and remember it. When
you were going to school, was there a Title I program in the
school where you were going and what was the school?
Dr. Watkins. Yes. My first 6 years was Montgomery
Elementary and Louise. My last 6 years was at Humphreys County
in Humphreys County. The school that I was principal of was
Pineville Middle school here in Jackson.
Senator Cochran. In your experience as principal and now as
a superintendent, do you have any suggestions for how the Title
I Program could be improved? I ask that question because my
father was a principal and later became superintendent of a
county school district here in Hinds County, as a matter of
fact, and I recall his saying one time, this was about when I
was running for Congress, he wanted me to do something about
this, that the Federal funds that were coming into schools were
too tightly restricted in how that they could be used, that
they needed to be more broadly available so that local
administrators could have more discretion in the use of the
funds. Have you found that to be of a problem, or is the modern
Title I Program more flexible in how you can use the funds that
are available to you?
Dr. Watkins. In the last two years, it has become more
flexible, but I do want to say that we do need more money in
the way of bringing together the various elements in the
community. Often times, we could do more things at night, we
can do more things with the community leaders, we can do more
things with clergy and single parents, a lot of preventative
measures. One thing I would like to see in Yazoo City, and I'm
sure in other communities, is that we can take Federal money
and offer more programs between the ages of birth to three
years old. A lot of practices occur in some school systems
where there is some retention in K and 1 and 2, but it is
disadvantageous in later years. Some people are adopting the
philosophy that sometimes it takes two years to give a student
one year of a sound educational start. I would like to see more
money, more release of restrictions in the area to better
benefit early childhood.
Senator Cochran. There is some suggestion now being made
about the administration in Washington that we should use the
head start program more aggressively for intervention and
reading instruction or maybe diagnostic activity. What's your
reaction to that?
Dr. Watkins. There, Senator, I agree. In fact, there in
Yazoo City, we have 3,000 students. We have two classrooms, one
each at our K through 2 schools. It is a blended class, with
head start students there, but we need more. Again, in Yazoo
City, from infancy to three, the majority of these students
have no formal education. And even that one or two years in
head start, even those blended classrooms, it is simply just
not enough.
Senator Cochran. Dr. Myers, your experience is similar in
that you have a city school district that you are responsible
for administering. Is your reaction to my question to Dr.
Watkins about the same in terms of the flexibility that you
have for using Title I funds, did you have any suggestions for
how the program could be changed to make it more helpful to you
as an administrator?
Dr. Myers. Senator Cochran, the flexibility as described
already has allowed us the ability to look at our needs through
a comprehensive needs assessment, and it's really working
tremendously better in terms of the opportunity that we can
design for our restricted areas, our local areas in a
restricted process. There is no doubt early intervention is
where it must be focused to be able to head the early problems
off, to be able to correct those.
In our school district, we can give you some sample of
this, we have a $34 million operational budget. We spend
between $8 and $9 million annually trying to help children
catch up. And we simply, in this country, cannot continue, and
in our school districts. We must be able to advance that in
those areas of need and talk about higher level of functioning
versus helping children catch up. So coming to school ready to
learn is very important. The flexibility is there now to allow
us to do that. And as you shared earlier, we have some entering
into agreements with our head start.
Post communications are really functioning now. And to give
you a prime example of how it works, we had 175 child care
providers in our schools this past month that we're going to
train so that they know what is expected for a child to be able
to enter school ready to learn. This flexibility must continue.
We must be able to make the local decisions, the decisions
locally based on our population.
Senator Cochran. You mentioned that you received $1.6
million from the Title I Program in your district this year.
What is that in terms of percentage of the total budget that
you have to work with?
Dr. Myers. Well, I think percentage wise, I mean, I can get
it accurately, I gave you an operational budget of $34 million.
Senator Cochran. $34 million.
Dr. Myers. And that 1.6 is only a small supplement to our
total educational process. And, as prescribed, we use it to
advance and build upon, if I can use those terms. That's where
the continued funding and the enhanced funding is so critical,
because if those dollars reduce, then you can see the impact
that that begins having in our district.
Senator Cochran. You probably heard Dr. House when she was
discussing the reductions that have been passed on from the
Department of Education in Washington. Allocations were less
than they were last year, I guess compared from last year. What
impact has that had in your particular school district?
Dr. Myers. The impact will be fewer people, fewer services,
and then we'll have to re-prioritize our priorities to try to
serve those students in numbers that will remain, and,
ultimately, that amounts to about 80,000, between 58,000 and
80,000, based on that percentage formula. So in terms, there's
fewer teachers, there's fewer diagnostic services made
available, our professional development with our teachers and
research-based practices, how to work with young children will
be lessened. And in the end, we reduce our services to our
customer.
Senator Cochran. Ms. McNair, you mentioned that very
eloquently, all the different programs that you have in your
school district are designed to try to reach out to those who
are disadvantaged and maybe don't have the right kind of
leadership at home or in their community. The 45 percent figure
you gave us, people in poverty in the district, is that the
student population, that's the student population, so that
helps determine the amount of Title I funds that you get. Do
you have a figure for the amount of money that you actually get
in Humphreys County?
Ms. McNair. In Title I?
Senator Cochran. In Title I.
Ms. McNair. $1.3 million.
Senator Cochran. $1.3 million. What is your reaction to the
questions that I've asked to both Dr. Watkins and Dr. Myers,
and that is the flexibility in the way the program is designed,
do you have any suggestions about changes in the program,
except for increases in money? I know we need more money,
generally, we can use it in our State, but are there any
program changes that you would recommend?
Ms. McNair. I think in the recent years, we've had a lot
more flexibility. And like Dr. Myers, we do our needs
assessment and we prioritize on these needs, and we prioritize
based on those needs. So we appreciate that flexibility, but I,
too, would like to see more emphasis on early childhood
education. That if we can bridge that gap in our district, we
can have a transition piece with our head start program. This
past week, well, yesterday, as a matter of fact, we brought in
all of our head start staff, head start staff and early pre-K
providers into a training on what they should be doing with
educating preschool children, but we need a lot more in my
community. Education is not a top priority. We have a lot of
homes where our parents are functionally illiterate. So if we
can intervene in the lives of those children early on from
birth, then that child will enter school ready to learn and
come with those social skills and those other prerequisites
necessary to be successful. So if we could do a lot more with
early childhood, and I also would like to see something done
with literacy within the community, if we can do that in my
community, we can see student achievement.
Senator Cochran. Thank you. Dr. House, what do you consider
to be the most beneficial aspect of the Title I Program, if you
can single out one or two things?
Dr. House. You really already addressed it, again, the
flexibility of the program. Twenty years ago, I was a Title I
teacher. And at that point in time, the program was run like
targeted assistance programs are run now, and that really tied
your hands in doing some things that would benefit children in
schools. The fact that we now have school wide programs, I
believe, is a wonderful benefit. And seeing that comprehensive
change taking place throughout the schools really support what
Title I is intended to do. So if I could say anything that's
beneficial, that would be the number one thing, and I hope all
superintendents and principals would agree with that.
I also think the fact that we, as a State, are working
collaboratively under the umbrella of Title I. It is extremely
beneficial, you've heard mentioned already, about the blending
of services with Title I and pre-K and head start. And the fact
that that's encouraged through Title I office in Washington is
a real benefit. That flexibility with funding of those programs
and allowing those programs to work collaboratively is, indeed,
meeting the needs of our children. So I definitely think that
that is a benefit, as well.
One other benefit, if I may mention, that's really a State
concern, is the waiver system that is in use for Title I. As
you may well know, this State has been working for several
years to design assessment accountability system that we
believe is premier. That does not occur quickly. And the fact
that the USDE was willing to provide us a waiver of time to
allow us to do this the right way has been most beneficial for
us as a State. We're doing all the right steps and not rushing
what the system is going to look like, so that all of the
players have a part, the system is being taken apart and
reviewed in every possible way to make it be appropriate and
really, really top quality. So the waiver system certainly has
been a benefit for our State.
Senator Cochran. Have you sought waivers, and if you have,
have they been approved to help the State meet the goals of
Title I?
Dr. House. Yes, sir, we have, and they have been approved.
And we really appreciate the way the USDE has worked with us.
They've been most helpful.
Senator Cochran. Can you identify any Title I requirements
that are too cumbersome?
Dr. House. Yes, sir. I'm sorry.
Senator Cochran. You have a long list or a short list?
Dr. House. It's about two or three items. This is almost
contradictory, but I don't want it to be. School requirement
used to be a wonderful way to approach Title I services, but
having a 50 percent requirement on free and reduced lunches
leaves out a lot of schools that have 48 percent free and
reduced lunches, 46 percent free and reduced lunch. And I
believe that I read in President Bush's No Child Left Behind
was a consideration of lowering that to 40 percent. And we
certainly believe that that can really dramatically improve the
programs that are being provided in the schools that are
currently operating target assistance programs and allow them
to really get after that comprehensive school reform.
One of the other issues that the staff in my office deals
with on a daily basis is how private schools are included with
the Title I Program. What we would like to suggest, as an
office, is that there would be some consideration of having the
private schools actually be held a little more accountable for
how they utilize their funds. Right now, as you know, the
funding follows the student. The funding is really not given to
the private school, per say, but, rather, is taken from the
public school arena and sent with the student to attend the
private school. Right now, as the regulation stands, the public
schools have been held accountable for every aspect of the
utilization of those funds. We do have all of our public
schools going to the private schools to monitor the use of
those funds, but they cannot be there every day. And sometimes
they are cited for regulatory exceptions that really were the
cause of how the private school utilized the funding. We aren't
proposing that the funds don't follow the students to the
private schools, but we do believe they should have a more
significant role in being held accountable for those funds than
they currently are.
The last thing that I would like to emphasize today is the
importance of early childhood education. And the more we can do
with Title I funds to give our youngsters the program head
start, the stronger our program's going to be for our State.
Senator Cochran. Do you have any suggestions about the way
allocations to our State are made? Should there be changes in
what Dr. Thompson referred to as the standard that is used for
determining allocation? How would you suggest changing that, so
that our State would get our fair share of funding?
Dr. House. Well, I'm certainly not a statistician, so I
cannot get into all the specifics of the statistical formula,
but I would like to say a couple of things about that. One, we
know that there's a huge discrepancy in what the poverty data
indicate and what our free and reduced lunch data indicate, and
we know that there's some differences in how those are
calculated. We do have the fortune of having a wonderful
statistician here on staff, Dr. Steve Hegler, who I believe is
right behind me. And Dr. Hegler has prepared an extensive
report that is provided for you as part of the official record.
He's actually spent the last month doing some very extensive
research on looking at funding formulas through a variety of
different avenues and how those funding formulas could,
perhaps, be reutilized to allowing Mississippi to, indeed, get
a share of the funding that better represents the numbers that
we're seeing on our free and reduced lunch programs, because
there is a tremendous discrepancy right now.
Senator Cochran. That would be very helpful to us as we're
in the process of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. Thank you very much for that.
Dr. Thompson, how does the accountability model used by the
Department of Education measure the adequate yearly progress of
student achievement as required by Title I regulations?
Dr. Thompson. Senator, as you can tell, there's great
people in this building, great people in the State department,
I don't have to do much of that, but we started this concept
two and a half years ago, and what we know is really important
is that there's so many of our children come to school with
great deprivation, as you heard from all of our folks. It was
important for us to develop a model that did two things, that,
one, measured progress over time, same students. That's very
important. Lots of people that have been measuring, you know,
last year's fourth grade versus this year's fourth grade, that
is not the kind of progress we want to monitor. We monitor that
so we have that information, but it's much more important to
measure that child coming at the end of second grade, how much
did they grow from the second grade to third grade. So the very
essence of our accountability system and our assessment system
is based on, number one, what should Mississippi children know.
And we brought in our teachers from all over the State, and
everything we're testing new, that curriculum has been
reviewed, revised and it reflects our high National standard,
we used all of the National standards, National math standards,
english, reading, all of those things, and reflected it in our
curriculum.
And then we've done something else a lot of States haven't
done, we built the support system for that. We didn't just go
out and tell those teachers you're on your own. We developed
training, we have resources that were put into that, and then
we've developed standards, how much of that should students
know. Again, we're using our teachers that are out there every
single day, looking at the National standards, coming in,
helping with the assessment standards. We chose the assessment
system that parallels exactly what that curriculum is. In other
words, there should be no surprises. Children should know. But
what we're doing, we're changing our system so that now we're
not looking at the system as a whole, we're looking at each
individual school. So every school in the State of Mississippi
will be held accountable for two things; one, the amount of
growth. We will give each school a growth expectation, and
based on where the children are when they get here, and that's
fate, because we expect them to learn. Whether they're high
achievement, low achievement, middle achievement, this is where
the children are when you got them, this is how much you are
expected to move them. That reflects a reasonable amount of
growth, basically correlated with one year's worth of
achievement and one year's worth of school wherever they are.
The second thing we're looking at is each school and each
child, so that every child in grades 3 through 8 will have this
kind of information to actually start the first test at the end
of second grade to set the bench mark so we can measure that
growth. The second thing to look at is proficiency levels. I
know you know, when we started this, they were not required in
the Federal legislation. Now since we've been doing this, I
don't think the Federal Government took it from us,
necessarily, but that is a part of what we have to do. We will
be setting proficiency levels for every child, and so we'll be
able to report to you and everyone else, every parent walks in
the door, we can show them how much that child grew during the
year, we can show them at what proficiency level they are
functioning. The four levels that we've chosen are at the
highest level, which is advanced, and then we use the
proficient, and we use the basic, and then the last one is
minimum. So we'll be able to tell the parent where their child
is functioning. We will also be able to tell, in each school,
what percentage of children in that school are performing at
grade level. And so we're measuring it two different ways,
we're measuring the growth of each school and each child, and
we're measuring it by the number of students proficient at that
school. We think that's really the right way to do it.
Senator Cochran. We know that the amount of dollars that
come to Mississippi is very substantial, I think $126 million
is the figure that I mentioned in my opening statement. What
would be the practical result if those funds were substantially
reduced or limited and you weren't getting those funds, what
would be the consequences for the State of Mississippi?
Dr. Thompson. My mind is racing for an appropriate word,
and it's coming up, tragedy doesn't do it. I mean, you could
just think of the most devastating word you can think of,
because so many, these people sitting at this table, I know
what sort of circumstances they work in, I go out and I see,
and they're making incredible progress with limited resources.
And while 1.6 million may not sound like a whole lot when it's
close to 34 million, I know what that means to the total piece,
because all of these administrators are incredible at leverage,
and they're using dollars from every which way. And for them to
have to reduce that is going to reduce direct services to
children. And as we move into this new model of accountability,
they're going to be dependent more on Title I funds than they
ever did, because those are the funds they're going to use to
help these children meet these higher standards that, quite
frankly, are going to change these children's lives. It's going
to give our children the same opportunity that every other
child in America has. It would just be unfortunate, Senator, if
these funds were cut.
Senator Cochran. My staff member, Ann Copland, wrote me a
note a while ago when Dr. House was talking about the fact that
during the current year, there has been some changes by the
Department of Education, and the amount of money we thought we
were going to get. We had written into the Federal law a hold
harmless provision, so that funds wouldn't be reduced, but in
spite of that, this pro rata reduction is being made in all
States, and that has been brought to the attention of our
subcommittee and our Chairman, Senator Arlen Specter, and I'm
advised that we're probably going to request that the
appropriations committee provide a supplemental appropriation
and try to address that problem by restoring those funds.
Whether that will be successful or not, I can't predict right
now, but it does have the attention of our committee and
efforts have already begun.
Let me say that my impression of the information that we've
received this morning through the testimony and statements that
have been provided to the committee, the very helpful
information that's been compiled and provided, which is part of
the record, will be very helpful and persuasive to our
committee as we proceed through the appropriations process this
year and the reauthorization process of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. So I personally appreciate your
willingness to help me, and on behalf of the committee, get a
better understanding of the practical consequences of the
benefits of these programs and your sharing information and
your experiences, personal in many cases, about how important
this program can be. I think this has given us an impressive
and important body of information to help us seek ways to get
continued funding for Title I approved in Washington and
specifically for States like Mississippi, Mississippi included,
that have high percentages of disadvantaged students.
I'm also going to make sure that we keep our hearing record
open so that those who want to submit additional information,
those in the audience who may want to write a letter or make a
statement, can do so in writing and submit it to me, Thad
Cochran, United States Senate, Washington, D.C., I'll get it,
and we'll make it a part of our hearing record. We do
appreciate the attendance of many here in the audience today. I
had a chance to talk, for example, to Ms. Gail Warner from
Tupelo, who's the Title I coordinator in Tupelo, who had
written a letter, which we'll make a part of the record, and
invite her to furnish even more information about how the Title
I Program works in the Tupelo School District. And others who
have experiences of that kind can be helpful to us in compiling
an impressive body of information and facts to support our
articles in behalf of the Title I Program.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Office of Research and Statistics,
Mississippi Department of Education
introduction
This report was prepared to help answer questions concerning the
formulas used by the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) to make
allocations of Title 1 funds to states and individual school districts.
An examination of printed materials related to the Title 1 allocation
process revealed that much work has been done to develop useful methods
for determining the number of school-age children in poverty in
counties and school districts throughout the nation. There are,
however, efforts underway to improve those estimates. In addition to
the review of the literature, several sources of data were collected
and analyses were conducted to examine differences and relationships in
the data used for allocating Title 1 funds to school districts in
Mississippi.
This report is divided into two sections. The first section is a
review of the literature and is comprised, mainly, of text extracted or
adapted from reports of the National Research Council. The reports are
available from the National Academy Press in Washington, D.C. The
second section of the report comprises a presentation of the analysis
of poverty and population data for Mississippi school districts.
section 1: review of the literature
Background
The U.S. Department of Education uses estimates of school-age
children in poverty to allocate Federal funds under Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act for education programs to aid
disadvantaged children. Historically, the allocations have been made by
a two-stage process: the department's role has been to allocate Title I
funds to counties; the states have then distributed these funds to
school districts. Until recently, the department has based the county
allocations on the numbers and proportions of poor school-age children
in each county from the most recent decennial census. States have used
several different data sources, such as the decennial census and the
National School Lunch Program, to distribute the department's county
allocations to districts.
In late 1992, the U.S. Census Bureau organized the Small Area
Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) Program to develop methods for
producing postcensal income and poverty estimates for states and
counties by using multiple data sources and innovative statistical
methods.
The development of accurate county-level estimates of population
and poverty is very challenging. For Title I allocations, there is no
single administrative or survey data source that provides sufficient
information with which to develop reliable direct estimates. The March
Income Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS) can provide
reasonably reliable annual direct estimates of population
characteristics such as the number and proportion of poor children at
the national level and possibly for the largest states. However, the
CPS cannot provide direct estimates for the majority of counties. The
CPS data are used as the basis for creating usable estimates for
counties through the application of statistical estimation techniques.
These estimates are called ``model-based'' or ``indirect'' estimates.
The model-based estimators use data from several areas, time periods,
or data sources, including the previous census, to improve the
precision of estimates for small areas.
In 1994 Congress authorized the Bureau of the Census to provide
updated estimates of poor school-age children every 2 years, to begin
in 1996 with estimates for counties and in 1998 with estimates for
school districts. The Department of Education is to use the school
district estimates to allocate Title I basic and concentration grants
directly to districts for the 1999-2000 and later school years, unless
the Secretaries of Education and Commerce determine that they are
``inappropriate or unreliable'' on the basis of a study by the National
Research Council. That study was carried out by the Committee on
National Statistics' Panel on Estimates of Poverty for Small Geographic
Areas.
Under a direct allocation procedure, there would be no allocations
to counties and, hence, no need for states to distribute them to school
districts. However, a provision in the 1994 legislation permits states
to aggregate the department's allocation amounts for all districts in a
state that have fewer than 20,000 people and to redistribute the
aggregate amount among those districts by using some other method that
the department approves.
School District Estimates
As a result of the lack of data at the school district level, the
Census Bureau has been constrained to use for school districts a very
simple model-based method referred to as synthetic estimation. This
method for producing updated school district estimates of poor school-
age children is a basic synthetic shares approach, in which the
proportions of poor school-age children in school districts within each
county in 1989 (as measured by the 1990 census) are applied to updated
estimates of numbers of poor school-age children from a statistical
model for counties. The Census Bureau decided that the most recent
school district estimates it could produce by the end of 1998 (for the
Title I allocations in spring 1999) were for school-age children in
1996 who were living in and related to a family in poverty in 1995.
Reasons for this decision included the time required to ascertain the
changes in school district boundaries since the 1990 census and the 1-2
year lag in the availability of the data sources used in the county
statistical model.
The synthetic shares method assumes that the shares of poor school-
age children among school districts in each county in 1995 are the same
as they were in 1989. Consequently, the synthetic estimates reflect
only the changes in school-age poverty from 1989 to 1995 that occurred
in each county as a whole. The estimates do not capture any variation
in school-age poverty among the districts within each county that
occurred since the 1990 census.
The synthetic shares method was used because no administrative data
are available for a model for school districts (which would be similar
to the Census Bureau's county model) that could capture changes in
poverty for school districts within counties. There are several reasons
for the lack of data and the difficulties of developing estimates for
school districts: most districts are small in size, many district
boundaries do not coincide with the boundaries for counties or other
governmental units, district boundaries can and often do change, and
some districts do not serve all elementary and secondary grades.
Evaluation of Small-Area Estimates of School-Age Children in Poverty
The National Research Council (NRC) was charged with evaluating the
methods used by the Census Bureau for producing estimates for counties
and school districts. To accomplish this task, the NRC formed the Panel
on Estimates of Poverty for Small Geographic Areas. The panel comprises
members of the NRC Committee on National Statistics.
In assessing the Census Bureau's 1995 school district estimates of
the numbers of poor school-age children for use in Title I allocations
for the 1999-2000 school year, the panel first examined the 1995 county
estimates that were produced by the Census Bureau's statistical model.
Although the Department of Education would not use the county estimates
for Title I allocations if it were to make allocations directly to
school districts, the county estimates are central to the synthetic
shares method for district estimates.
The model that was used to produce the 1995 county estimates is
essentially the same model that was used to produce county estimates of
poor school-age children for 1993. On the basis of internal and
external evaluations that were conducted on alternative 1993 county
models, which resulted in some changes in the Census Bureau's original
1993 county model, the panel supported the use of revised 1993 county
estimates for Title I allocations for the 1998-1999 school year.
Additional evaluations of the 1995 county model, which focused on its
behavior when estimated for several time periods, confirmed that the
county model is performing well. A separate estimation procedure for
Puerto Rico, which is treated as a single county and school district
for Title I allocations, also appears to be reasonable, given the
available data.
Evaluations of the Census Bureau's synthetic procedure for school
districts over the 1980-1990 period revealed large differences for many
districts between the synthetic estimates of poor school-age children
and the comparison estimates from the 1990 census; the large
differences occur mainly for small districts. In contrast, the
estimates for school districts with 40,000 or more people in 1990 are
not markedly worse than the county model estimates. Also, a number of
districts are coterminous with counties, so that their estimates come
from the county model. Together, these two groups of districts comprise
only 13 percent of the districts (as of 1990), but they contain 62
percent of all school-age children.
Although the Census Bureau's 1995 estimates of poor school-age
children have potentially large errors for many school districts, the
panel nonetheless concluded that they are not inappropriate or
unreliable to use for direct Title I allocations to districts as
intended by the 1994 legislation. In reaching this conclusion, the
panel interpreted ``inappropriate and unreliable'' in a relative sense.
Some set of estimates must be used to distribute Title I funds to
school districts. The panel concluded that the Census Bureau's 1995
estimates are generally as good as and, in some instances, better than
estimates that are currently being used. Also, while further research
is needed, a limited evaluation suggested that school lunch data are
not appreciably better than the 1990 census for constructing within-
county school district shares of poor school-age children.
A benefit of using the synthetic shares estimates is that the
department is able to determine eligibility of school districts for
both basic and concentration Title I grants on the basis of a
consistent set of estimates nationwide. Also, use of the synthetic
shares estimates for direct allocation of concentration grants responds
to the intent of the 1994 legislation that eligible districts be able
to receive concentration grants even when they are in counties that
would not be eligible under the two-stage allocation process.
The Census Bureau's updated estimates of poor school-age children
for counties are the only postcensal small-area estimates of poverty
that have been thoroughly evaluated. It is important that they be
considered in the direct allocations to school districts, as is done
when the allocations are based on the synthetic estimates. If a state
chooses to reallocate the amounts for school districts with less than
20,000 population, the county estimates can be reflected in the
allocations by grouping the allocations for small size districts by
county and redistributing the county totals to those districts.
Some Characteristics of Funding Formulas
For purposes of allocating funds or other related program purposes,
it is important that poverty and population estimates be sufficiently
reliable. Even with estimates that exhibit an adequate degree of
reliability, there are generally tradeoffs among competing funding
goals or purposes. For fund allocation, it is important to consider
features of the specific allocation formula, some of which may be
sensitive to the level of accuracy in the estimates.
Studies have shown that, in general, a higher sampling error
together with a threshold, a hold harmless provision, or both, tend to
equalize the funding amount per eligible person (poor child in the
Title I program) across areas. This result is counter to the goal of a
program, such as Title I concentration grants, that is designed to
provide extra funding (beyond the basic grant) to needier areas.
It has been suggested that moving-average estimates could serve the
goal of cushioning budgets against fund decreases without misallocating
funding as much as a hold-harmless provision.
The NRC Committee on National Standards is planning to conduct
additional work on issues regarding the interactions among data
sources, estimation procedures, and allocation formulas.
NRC Recommendations for Small Area Estimates and Title 1 Funding
Any state plan approved by the Department of Education for
redistributing the sum of the department's allocations for school
districts with under 20,000 population should maintain the county total
amounts for such districts to the extent possible.
The Department of Education should undertake a thorough study of
the direct allocation of Title I funds to school districts that was
begun in 1999-2000. The study should examine the allocation methods
used and assess the results.
It is important to continue an active program of research and
development for methods of estimating poverty for school-age children
at the county and school district levels. The county model is
performing well, but, like other models, it can probably be improved.
Work should also be pursued to improve the current synthetic shares
method for school district estimates. Research on ways to produce the
estimates with data that are closer in time to the year for which the
allocations are to be made should also be pursued.
Improving school district estimates so that they reflect within-
county, as well as between-county, changes in school-age poverty over
time will require a substantial research and development effort. It is
particularly important to obtain relevant administrative records data
for districts, such as income tax return data coded to the district
level. Such administrative data, together with data from the 2000
census and the planned American Community Survey, could provide the
means for developing a much improved model-based approach for
estimating school-age poverty at the district level.
For its work in small-area poverty estimation, the Census Bureau
needs to provide adequate staff and other resources on a continuing
basis. Because small-area estimates of poverty support a range of
important public policy needs for Federal, state, and local
governments, the Bureau's program should include not only data and
model development and production, but also thorough evaluation and
detailed documentation of each set of estimates produced.
While it may be possible, in the future, to develop more accurate
and timely income and poverty estimates for small areas by using new
improved sources of data from household surveys and administrative
records, none of the existing or planned surveys or administrative
records can, by itself, provide direct estimates of sufficient
reliability, timeliness, and quality. Therefore, in the near future,
the SAIPE program should continue to use models that combine data from
more than one source to produce indirect estimates.
Looking to the future, as more data become available from such
sources as the American Community Survey and the 2000 census, the use
of time-series and multivariate modeling techniques that make use of
multiple years of data from the same survey, separate surveys, or both,
could be advantageous. Work on such models should proceed, building on
the Census Bureau's previous efforts along these lines.
A process for geo-coding school districts using addresses would
assist in the development of direct income and poverty estimates for
school districts. Currently, IRS, Food Stamp, and other administrative
records can only be associated with a particular county, not with a
particular school district.
Note: Most of the text in the above section was extracted from
Small-Area Estimates of School-Age Children in Poverty--Interim Report
3: Evaluation of 1995 County and School District Estimates for Title I
Allocations, Panel on Estimates of Poverty for Small Geographic Areas,
Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press (1999).
Additional information in this section came from a subsequent
report--Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates: Priorities for 2000
and Beyond, Panel on Estimates of Poverty for Small Geographic Areas,
Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press (2000).
section 2: title i funds allocation in mississippi
For the 2000-2001 school year, Title I Basic Grant and
Concentration Grant allocations were made by USDE for each state and
for individual school districts in each state based on the SAIPE
estimates described in Section 1. Each state had to adjust the
allocations to provide for state administration and school improvement
and to account for eligible school districts that did not receive an
allocation. In order to compare the values used by the USDE for
allocating funds to school districts in Mississippi to other data
related to student population and student poverty, several sets of data
were compiled. The 5-17 population estimates and the estimated poverty
n-counts for Mississippi school districts were extracted from the
allocation spreadsheets from the USDE. These data were matched by
district to K-12 enrollment and free and reduced lunch eligibility
counts from October 1999, and to 1999-2000 school year cumulative free
and reduced lunch participation data. This section of the report
presents findings from analyses conducted on those data.
usde population estimates and district enrollment figures
There are differences between the USDE estimates of the student
population (ages 5-17) and the K-12 enrollment figures reported by
Mississippi school districts. While it would be expected that the
statewide population estimate would be relatively accurate, there is a
difference of approximately 50,000 students between the USDE estimates
and the reported enrollment. The statewide USDE estimate for the 1999-
2000 school year was 551,315 students, while the reported statewide
enrollment for the end of October 1999 was 501,417 students. The
difference of 49,898 students represents approximately 10 percent of
the actual statewide K-12 enrollment.
On a district by district basis, there were varying differences
between the USDE estimate and the K-12 enrollment figure (an average
difference of 19 percent of the actual K-12 enrollment with absolute
differences for individual districts ranging from 0 percent to 143
percent).
For 56 districts (38 percent of the 149 public school districts)
the USDE estimate was within 10 percent of the actual K-12 enrollment.
These differences are comparable to the overall statewide difference of
approximately 10 percent.
For 30 districts (20 percent), the USDE estimate was 10-19 percent
greater than the actual enrollment.
For 37 districts (32 percent) the USDE estimate was greater by at
least 20 percent, with differences exceeding 50 percent for 11
districts (4 percent).
In practically all cases where the USDE estimates disagreed with
the official K-12 enrollment, the USDE values were greater. However,
there were 13 cases (9 percent) where the USDE estimates were lower
than the actual enrollment by 10-19 percent. There were only 3 cases (2
percent) where the USDE estimate was smaller than the actual enrollment
by 20 percent or more.
The USDE estimates are expected to be somewhat greater than the
actual public school enrollment because the USDE value is an estimate
of all students between the ages of 5 and 17 residing within the school
district. The K-12 enrollment includes only public school students--
students attending non-public schools and students being home schooled
are not included. While the 10 percent variance at the state level may
be a reasonable difference due to non-public school attendance, the
population estimate differences from district to district far exceed
that expected due to this factor. Since the Title 1 allocation formula
includes thresholds based on poverty rates, the estimated 5- 17
enrollment (used as a denominator in the poverty rate calculation)
plays a critical role in determining a district's Title 1 allocation
(prior to any adjustment due to the hold harmless provision). If the
population estimates are unreliable, the poverty rates will also be
unreliable.
Free Lunch Eligibility and Participation
The SAIPE small area estimates used by the USDE for making Title 1
allocations do not include information about the National School Lunch
Program (NSLP). The main reason is the lack of usable data. The only
Federal agency that has attempted to obtain school lunch data for
school districts is the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES). NCES collects school lunch counts as part of its Common Core of
Data system in which state educational agencies report a large number
of data items for public school systems. However, the center does not
follow up with states when there is no information provided for a
school district or to evaluate the accuracy of the reports. So, the
quality of the data is not established and they are not complete. The
Department of Agriculture obtains aggregate free and reduced price
lunch counts each October at the state level for purposes of
reimbursing states for meals served, but it does not collect data for
individual school districts.
While accurate data on free lunch eligibility and participation at
the school district level would be a useful measure of student economic
status, it would not be directly comparable to the data used for the
SAIPE estimates. That is because the SAIPE values are estimates of the
number of students in families that are below the poverty level while
free lunch eligibility is based on a threshold set at 130 percent of
the annual poverty threshold. That is, the population of students
eligible for free lunch includes both poor students and those that are
near-poor. Since both the SAIPE poverty counts and the free lunch
participation counts are based on numbers of students reaching a
different eligibility threshold, there is no way to ascertain the
underlying degree of poverty within the free lunch data. For example,
if 100 students were eligible for free lunch under the NSLP, all 100 of
the students could be part of families that are below the poverty
threshold. Or, all 100 students could be part of families with incomes
between the poverty threshold and 130 percent of the poverty
threshold--it would be possible for none of the students to be living
below the poverty level. Given accurate family income values and the
number of family members for each student in the National School Lunch
Program, these data could be used within the Title 1 funding formula.
Although this information is included on the forms completed annually
by families applying for NSLP participation, the results are
transformed into an eligibility status at the school district level and
the raw data are generally not provided to state educational agencies.
While the problems above make NSLP data unusable for establishing
Title 1 allocations nationally, individual states can propose using
these data in formulas for reallocating Title 1 funds, with certain
restrictions, among school districts. Any state desiring to use
alternative data for allocating fund must apply to the USDE for
approval. The state must justify the use of the alternative data and
show that the data are accurate and reliable enough for allocation
purposes.
For purposes of the following analyses, cumulative free lunch
participation data for 1999-2000 were compiled for the 149 public
school districts in Mississippi. The average percentage of daily meals
that were free lunch meals was used as a relative measure of student
poverty within each school district. The reported October K-12
enrollment for each school district was used along with the average
free lunch participation rate to obtain an estimate of the number of
students living in poverty or near-poverty.
In addition to actual free lunch participation rates, the reported
numbers of students who were designated eligible for free lunch in
October 1999 (based on applications submitted during the summer or at
the beginning of the school term) in each school district were
collected. The eligibility numbers included students whose families
later received a request for income verification. Students whose
verification form indicated an income above the NSLP free lunch
eligibility threshold and students whose verification forms were not
returned were dropped from participation in the free lunch component.
So, while the figures for free lunch participation and free lunch
eligibility are similar for each district, they are not usually equal.
One additional source of variance associated with the use of NSLP data
is the fact that some eligible students or their parents do not apply
for participation in the program. Reasons for this include a perceived
stigma associated with participation in the program (especially at the
higher grade levels) and failure of some districts' to reach and inform
eligible families.
USDE Poverty Estimates and District Free Lunch Participation
Using free lunch (FL) as a relative measure of student poverty in
Mississippi, there are only small differences between free lunch
eligibility and average free lunch participation for the 1999-2000
school year. The two values are highly related (r=.98, N=149) and
differ by only 7 percent at the state level.
The reported average rate of free lunch participation statewide was
61 percent (307,237 students within the K-12 total enrollment of
501,417). In contrast the USDE poverty n-count estimate for the state
was 28 percent (155,334 students within the 5-17 population estimate of
551,315 students). Part of the difference between these values is due
to the fact that the USDE poverty estimate is based on the annual
poverty threshold while the FL participation rates are based on
eligibility set at 130 percent of the annual poverty threshold. So, a
direct comparison of these two figures is not meaningful.
However, it is useful to determine the relationship between the
USDE poverty estimates and the free lunch participation values. If the
underlying income distribution of students is somewhat linear from a
point below the poverty threshold to the poverty +30 percent NSLP
criterion, a strong relationship would be expected between the USDE and
FL values. The relationship between the USDE poverty estimates for the
149 school districts in Mississippi and FL participation in those
districts is moderately high (r=.85). Since there is no accurate
external administrative data on which to substantiate the accuracy of
either the USDE poverty estimates or the FL-based poverty rates, there
is no compelling reason, at this time, to select one data source over
the other for purposes of sub-allocating state funds to school
districts within counties.
Analyses were conducted to determine whether the USDE poverty
estimates or the FL participation rates for districts were correlated
with district size. The relationships between the USDE 5-17 population
estimates and the poverty measures (USDE poverty rate estimate and FL
participation rate) were r=-.16 and r=-.18, respectively (both N=149).
This indicates that the poverty rate is not systematically higher or
lower depending on the size of the school district as estimated by the
USDE. The relationships between actual district K-12 enrollment figures
and the poverty measures were slightly greater (r=-.25 for both the
USDE poverty estimates and the FL participation rates). These data
indicate a relatively weak relationship between the poverty rates and
enrollment with higher poverty rates associated with smaller districts.
conclusion
There is already much work underway to improve population, income,
and poverty estimates for small areas and to develop procedures to
allow direct measures of these values for counties and school
districts. It is important for legislators and others who use this kind
of information to stay current on this work and anticipate its impact
on program funding. The agencies involved in this work include the U.S.
Census Bureau and the National Research Council.
Funding formulas with inherent characteristics that produce results
that are counter to those intended should be avoided. The effect of
certain formula characteristics such as thresholds and hold harmless
provisions should be studied carefully before being adopted.
While the data collection for the 2000 census is already completed,
one can hope that the attempts to inform citizens of the importance of
responding accurately was successful and that the data are reliable and
free from the excessive variability that characterized the 1990 census
data.
appendix
Listings of Population N-Counts, Poverty Rates, and Differences by
School District for each of the three sorted lists that follow
(Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C), the following data column
headings are used:
DIST.--The Mississippi school district code number.
District Name.--The name of the school district.
USDE N517.--The SAIPE small area estimate of the population of
children ages 5-17 within the school district.
K-12 Enrol.--The October 1999 enrollment for grades K-12 as
reported by school districts.
Diff as percent of Enrol.--The difference between the SAIPE 5-17
population estimate and the reported K-12 enrollment stated as a
percentage of the K-12 enrollment value.
USDE percent Pov.--The SAIPE small area estimate of the percentage
of the estimated 5-17 population that are in families living below the
annual poverty threshold.
Percent FL Partic.--The average percentage free lunch participation
rate for the district (i.e., the average percentage meals served that
were free lunch meals during 1999-2000).
Diff as percent FL Part.--The difference between the SAIPE
estimated poverty rate and the relative poverty rate based on free
lunch participation stated as a percentage of the free lunch
participation rate. Note: Differences are expected between these values
because of differences in the eligibility thresholds.
Diff as percent USDE Pov.--The difference between the SAIPE
estimated poverty rate and the relative poverty rate based on free
lunch participation stated as a percentage of the SAIPE poverty rate
estimate. Note: Differences are expected between these values because
of differences in the eligibility thresholds.
APPENDIX A.--SORTED BY DISTRICT NAME
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff as USDE/ Diff as Diff as
DIST District name USDE/N517 K-12/ percent percent Percent percent percent
Enrol of enrol pov FL partic USDE pov FL part
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4820 Aberdeen 2,569 2,169 18 33 79 -139 -58
200 Alcorn 3,634 3,800 -4 16 44 -175 -64
300 Amite County 2,845 1,650 72 29 84 -190 -65
4821 Amory 1,803 1,819 -1 17 48 -182 -65
400 Attala County 1,602 1,367 17 30 78 -160 -62
5920 Baldwyn 1,009 1,035 -3 21 52 -148 -60
2320 Bay St. Louis 3,723 2,416 54 25 55 -120 -55
612 Benoit 477 300 59 55 94 -71 -41
500 Benton County 1,739 1,291 35 33 86 -161 -62
2420 Biloxi 7,983 6,096 31 29 58 -100 -50
5921 Booneville 830 1,622 -49 19 46 -142 -59
4320 Brookhaven 3,865 3,218 20 31 59 -90 -47
700 Calhoun County 2,789 2,509 11 24 65 -171 -63
4520 Canton 5,524 3,737 48 39 93 -138 -58
800 Carroll County 2,014 1,270 59 24 76 -217 -68
900 Chickasaw County 537 530 1 15 64 -327 -77
1000 Choctaw County 2,052 1,929 6 29 64 -121 -55
1100 Claiborne County 2,388 2,011 19 36 93 -158 -61
1420 Clarksdale 4,931 4,175 18 41 79 -93 -48
1300 Clay County 661 272 143 30 93 -210 -68
614 Cleveland 4,683 3,979 18 35 74 -111 -53
2521 Clinton 5,198 4,933 5 15 34 -127 -56
1400 Coahoma County 2,648 2,032 30 53 94 -77 -44
8111 Coffeeville 1,095 856 28 37 80 -116 -54
4620 Columbia 2,263 1,849 22 33 63 -91 -48
4420 Columbus 7,206 5,384 34 30 69 -130 -57
1500 Copiah County 3,733 3,225 16 32 70 -119 -54
220 Corinth 2,328 1,722 35 32 58 -81 -45
1600 Covington County 3,778 3,601 5 29 77 -166 -62
1700 DeSoto County 17,611 18,909 -7 11 35 -218 -69
6720 Drew 1,133 924 23 39 86 -121 -55
2620 Durant 670 621 8 51 83 -63 -39
3111 East Jasper 1,767 1,300 36 28 86 -207 -67
6811 East Tallahatchie 1,885 1,643 15 34 77 -126 -56
1211 Enterprise 675 870 -22 14 37 -164 -62
6220 Forest City 1,692 1,814 -7 34 67 -97 -49
1800 Forrest County 2,405 2,546 -6 16 57 -256 -72
1900 Franklin County 1,718 1,733 -1 35 64 -83 -45
2000 George County 4,011 4,084 -2 24 46 -92 -48
2100 Greene County 2,479 1,955 27 28 69 -146 -59
7620 Greenville 9,580 7,811 23 42 85 -102 -51
4220 Greenwood 4,267 3,864 10 44 85 -93 -48
2220 Grenada 4,539 4,583 -1 25 60 -140 -58
2421 Gulfport 7,421 6,778 9 26 61 -135 -57
2300 Hancock County 3,558 4,134 -14 25 57 -128 -56
2400 Harrison County 12,181 12,657 -4 21 50 -138 -58
1820 Hattiesburg 7,846 5,108 54 33 81 -145 -59
1520 Hazlehurst City 2,332 1,818 28 33 86 -161 -62
2500 Hinds County 5,307 5,969 -11 29 55 -90 -47
7611 Hollandale 1,343 1,188 13 50 93 -86 -46
4720 Holly Springs 2,428 1,820 33 33 82 -148 -60
2600 Holmes County 4,616 4,088 13 56 97 -73 -42
920 Houston Separate 2,062 1,941 6 23 61 -165 -62
2700 Humpreys County 2,876 2,334 23 47 95 -102 -51
6721 Indianola 3,284 3,196 3 42 83 -98 -49
2900 Itawamba County 3,676 3,708 -1 13 43 -231 -70
3000 Jackson County 7,140 8,498 -16 13 35 -169 -63
2520 Jackson Public 37,019 31,594 17 31 74 -139 -58
3300 Jeff.Davis Co 2,130 2,414 -12 44 87 -98 -49
3200 Jefferson Co 3,139 1,731 81 38 96 -153 -60
3400 Jones County 8,742 7,918 10 23 50 -117 -54
3500 Kemper County 2,206 1,424 55 29 85 -193 -66
420 Kosciusko 1,981 2,158 -8 31 61 -97 -49
3600 Lafayette Co 2,354 2,073 14 17 50 -194 -66
3700 Lamar County 6,007 6,570 -9 23 31 -35 -26
3800 Lauderdale Co 6,911 6,715 3 19 45 -137 -58
3420 Laurel 3,645 3,338 9 38 79 -108 -52
3900 Lawrence Co 2,822 2,437 16 27 60 -122 -55
4000 Leake County 3,947 3,143 26 30 67 -123 -55
4100 Lee County 5,442 5,945 -8 20 50 -150 -60
4200 Leflore County 4,024 3,047 32 44 92 -109 -52
7612 Leland 2,109 1,471 43 43 86 -100 -50
4300 Lincoln County 2,696 2,786 -3 22 44 -100 -50
2422 Long Beach 3,841 3,616 6 15 36 -140 -58
8020 Louisville 4,123 3,420 21 33 72 -118 -54
4400 Lowndes County 5,074 5,602 -9 25 55 -120 -55
3711 Lumberton 1,116 991 13 37 70 -89 -47
4500 Madison 8,130 8,634 -6 18 40 -122 -55
4600 Marion County 3,571 2,976 20 35 74 -111 -53
4700 Marshall County 4,296 3,364 28 33 78 -136 -58
5720 McComb 3,726 2,992 25 41 80 -95 -49
3820 Meridian 7,990 7,129 12 35 76 -117 -54
4800 Monroe County 2,439 2,653 -8 13 38 -192 -66
4900 Montgomery Co 1,223 693 76 32 80 -150 -60
3020 Moss Point 6,420 5,233 23 24 68 -183 -65
616 Mound Bayou 1,032 882 17 47 93 -98 -49
130 Natchez-Adams 6,997 5,180 35 35 86 -146 -59
5000 Neshoba County 4,113 2,879 43 24 45 -88 -47
4111 Nettleton 1,351 1,392 -3 21 53 -152 -60
7320 New Albany 1,886 2,028 -7 22 48 -118 -54
5130 Newton City 2,168 1,212 79 22 65 -195 -66
5100 Newton County 1,478 1,634 -10 27 46 -70 -41
613 North Bolivar 1,041 1,089 -4 56 97 -73 -42
5411 North Panola 2,807 2,080 35 42 89 -112 -53
5711 North Pike 1,495 1,622 -8 19 50 -163 -62
7011 North Tippah 1,290 1,332 -3 29 50 -72 -42
5200 Noxubee County 2,901 2,354 23 44 89 -102 -51
3021 Ocean Springs 4,354 4,851 -10 14 24 -71 -42
921 Okolona Separate 1,272 940 35 24 85 -254 -72
5300 Oktibbeha Co 2,082 1,420 47 34 81 -138 -58
3620 Oxford 2,725 3,031 -10 18 64 -256 -72
3022 Pascagoula 8,983 7,489 20 25 53 -112 -53
2423 Pass Christian 1,810 1,788 1 23 51 -122 -55
6120 Pearl 4,737 4,144 14 13 38 -192 -66
5500 Pearl River 2,273 2,533 -10 26 51 -96 -49
5600 Perry County 1,801 1,409 28 30 66 -120 -55
1821 Petal 3,248 3,737 -13 16 32 -100 -50
5020 Philadelphia 1,472 1,275 15 33 62 -88 -47
5520 Picayune 4,506 3,920 15 27 61 -126 -56
5820 Pontotoc City 1,928 2,220 -13 19 43 -126 -56
5800 Pontotoc County 2,751 2,920 -6 18 35 -94 -49
5530 Poplarville 2,135 2,114 1 27 53 -96 -49
5900 Prentiss County 2,905 2,453 18 26 49 -88 -47
1212 Quitman 3,027 2,593 17 25 61 -144 -59
6000 Quitman County 2,320 1,748 33 48 89 -85 -46
6100 Rankin County 15,699 15,028 4 13 33 -154 -61
5620 Richton 849 952 -11 30 51 -70 -41
6200 Scott County 3,590 3,913 -8 25 64 -156 -61
6920 Senatobia 1,289 1,708 -25 24 46 -92 -48
615 Shaw 915 847 8 47 93 -98 -49
6400 Simpson County 5,342 4,507 19 27 67 -148 -60
6500 Smith County 3,026 3,146 -4 27 56 -107 -52
6312 South Delta 2,030 1,638 24 52 95 -83 -45
5412 South Panola 4,539 4,577 -1 28 66 -136 -58
5712 South Pike 3,095 2,576 20 41 81 -98 -49
7012 South Tippah 2,671 2,817 -5 19 47 -147 -60
5320 Starkville 4,111 4,108 0 27 64 -137 -58
6600 Stone County 2,528 2,650 -5 34 50 -47 -32
6700 Sunflower County 2,904 2,156 35 49 87 -78 -44
6900 Tate County 3,470 3,278 6 24 62 -158 -61
7100 Tishomingo Co 3,028 3,201 -5 20 46 -130 -57
7200 Tunica County 2,133 1,999 7 44 86 -95 -49
4120 Tupelo 7,625 7,476 2 15 51 -240 -71
5131 Union City 793 814 -3 27 50 -85 -46
7300 Union County 2,475 2,602 -5 14 37 -164 -62
7500 Vicksburg-Warren 10,520 9,207 14 24 61 -154 -61
7400 Walthall Co 3,279 2,777 18 44 74 -68 -41
8113 Water Valley 1,318 1,347 -2 32 56 -75 -43
7700 Wayne County 4,448 4,069 9 35 68 -94 -49
7800 Webster County 2,064 2,017 2 25 50 -100 -50
611 West Bolivar 1,475 1,401 5 53 93 -75 -43
3112 West Jasper 2,125 1,864 14 28 69 -146 -59
1320 West Point 4,115 3,773 9 31 75 -142 -59
6812 West Tallahatchie 1,611 1,447 11 49 92 -88 -47
7613 Western Line 2,763 2,386 16 27 75 -178 -64
7900 Wilkinson Co 1,962 1,726 14 47 89 -89 -47
4920 Winona 1,310 1,481 -12 36 59 -64 -39
8220 Yazoo City 2,825 3,201 -12 51 89 -75 -43
8200 Yazoo County 2,968 1,701 74 38 75 -97 -49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX B.--SORTED BY PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE IN ENROLLMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff as USDE/ Diff as Diff as
DIST District name USDE/N517 K-12/ percent percent Percent percent percent
Enrol of enrol pov FL partic USDE pov FL part
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1300 Clay County 661 272 143 30 93 -210 -6
3200 Jefferson Co 3,139 1,731 81 38 96 -153 -6
5130 Newton City 2,168 1,212 79 22 65 -195 -6
4900 Montgomery Co 1,223 693 76 32 80 -150 -6
8200 Yazoo County 2,968 1,701 74 38 75 -97 -4
300 Amite County 2,845 1,650 72 29 84 -190 -6
612 Benoit 477 300 59 55 94 -71 -4
800 Carroll County 2,014 1,270 59 24 76 -217 -6
3500 Kemper County 2,206 1,424 55 29 85 -193 -6
2320 Bay St. Louis 3,723 2,416 54 25 55 -120 -5
1820 Hattiesburg 7,846 5,108 54 33 81 -145 -5
4520 Canton 5,524 3,737 48 39 93 -138 -5
5300 Oktibbeha Co 2,082 1,420 47 34 81 -138 -5
7612 Leland 2,109 1,471 43 43 86 -100 -5
5000 Neshoba County 4,113 2,879 43 24 45 -88 -4
3111 East Jasper 1,767 1,300 36 28 86 -207 -6
500 Benton County 1,739 1,291 35 33 86 -161 -6
220 Corinth 2,328 1,722 35 32 58 -81 -4
130 Natchez-Adams 6,997 5,180 35 35 86 -146 -5
5411 North Panola 2,807 2,080 35 42 89 -112 -5
921 Okolona Separate 1,272 940 35 24 85 -254 -7
6700 Sunflower County 2,904 2,156 35 49 87 -78 -4
4420 Columbus 7,206 5,384 34 30 69 -130 -5
4720 Holly Springs 2,428 1,820 33 33 82 -148 -6
6000 Quitman County 2,320 1,748 33 48 89 -85 -4
4200 Leflore County 4,024 3,047 32 44 92 -109 -5
2420 Biloxi 7,983 6,096 31 29 58 -100 -5
1400 Coahoma County 2,648 2,032 30 53 94 -77 -4
8111 Coffeeville 1,095 856 28 37 80 -116 -5
1520 Hazlehurst City 2,332 1,818 28 33 86 -161 -6
4700 Marshall County 4,296 3,364 28 33 78 -136 -5
5600 Perry County 1,801 1,409 28 30 66 -120 -5
2100 Greene County 2,479 1,955 27 28 69 -146 -5
4000 Leake County 3,947 3,143 26 30 67 -123 -5
5720 McComb 3,726 2,992 25 41 80 -95 -4
6312 South Delta 2,030 1,638 24 52 95 -83 -4
6720 Drew 1,133 924 23 39 86 -121 -5
7620 Greenville 9,580 7,811 23 42 85 -102 -5
2700 Humpreys County 2,876 2,334 23 47 95 -102 -5
3020 Moss Point 6,420 5,233 23 24 68 -183 -6
5200 Noxubee County 2,901 2,354 23 44 89 -102 -5
4620 Columbia 2,263 1,849 22 33 63 -91 -4
8020 Louisville 4,123 3,420 21 33 72 -118 -5
4320 Brookhaven 3,865 3,218 20 31 59 -90 -4
4600 Marion County 3,571 2,976 20 35 74 -111 -5
3022 Pascagoula 8,983 7,489 20 25 53 -112 -5
5712 South Pike 3,095 2,576 20 41 81 -98 -4
1100 Claiborne County 2,388 2,011 19 36 93 -158 -6
6400 Simpson County 5,342 4,507 19 27 67 -148 -6
4820 Aberdeen 2,569 2,169 18 33 79 -139 -5
1420 Clarksdale 4,931 4,175 18 41 79 -93 -4
614 Cleveland 4,683 3,979 18 35 74 -111 -5
5900 Prentiss County 2,905 2,453 18 26 49 -88 -4
7400 Walthall Co 3,279 2,777 18 44 74 -68 -4
400 Attala County 1,602 1,367 17 30 78 -160 -6
2520 Jackson Public 37,019 31,594 17 31 74 -139 -5
616 Mound Bayou 1,032 882 17 47 93 -98 -4
1212 Quitman 3,027 2,593 17 25 61 -144 -5
1500 Copiah County 3,733 3,225 16 32 70 -119 -5
3900 Lawrence Co 2,822 2,437 16 27 60 -122 -5
7613 Western Line 2,763 2,386 16 27 75 -178 -6
6811 East Tallahatchie 1,885 1,643 15 34 77 -126 -5
5020 Philadelphia 1,472 1,275 15 33 62 -88 -4
5520 Picayune 4,506 3,920 15 27 61 -126 -5
3600 Lafayette Co 2,354 2,073 14 17 50 -194 -6
6120 Pearl 4,737 4,144 14 13 38 -192 -6
7500 Vicksburg-Warren 10,520 9,207 14 24 61 -154 -6
3112 West Jasper 2,125 1,864 14 28 69 -146 -5
7900 Wilkinson Co 1,962 1,726 14 47 89 -89 -4
7611 Hollandale 1,343 1,188 13 50 93 -86 -4
2600 Holmes County 4,616 4,088 13 56 97 -73 -4
3711 Lumberton 1,116 991 13 37 70 -89 -4
3820 Meridian 7,990 7,129 12 35 76 -117 -5
700 Calhoun County 2,789 2,509 11 24 65 -171 -6
6812 West Tallahatchie 1,611 1,447 11 49 92 -88 -4
4220 Greenwood 4,267 3,864 10 44 85 -93 -4
3400 Jones County 8,742 7,918 10 23 50 -117 -5
2421 Gulfport 7,421 6,778 9 26 61 -135 -5
3420 Laurel 3,645 3,338 9 38 79 -108 -5
7700 Wayne County 4,448 4,069 9 35 68 -94 -4
1320 West Point 4,115 3,773 9 31 75 -142 -5
2620 Durant 670 621 8 51 83 -63 -3
615 Shaw 915 847 8 47 93 -98 -49
7200 Tunica County 2,133 1,999 7 44 86 -95 -49
1000 Choctaw County 2,052 1,929 6 29 64 -121 -55
920 Houston Separate 2,062 1,941 6 23 61 -165 -62
2422 Long Beach 3,841 3,616 6 15 36 -140 -58
6900 Tate County 3,470 3,278 6 24 62 -158 -61
2521 Clinton 5,198 4,933 5 15 34 -127 -56
1600 Covington County 3,778 3,601 5 29 77 -166 -62
611 West Bolivar 1,475 1,401 5 53 93 -75 -43
6100 Rankin County 15,699 15,028 4 13 33 -154 -61
6721 Indianola 3,284 3,196 3 42 83 -98 -49
3800 Lauderdale Co 6,911 6,715 3 19 45 -137 -58
4120 Tupelo 7,625 7,476 2 15 51 -240 -71
7800 Webster County 2,064 2,017 2 25 50 -100 -50
900 Chickasaw County 537 530 1 15 64 -327 -77
2423 Pass Christian 1,810 1,788 1 23 51 -122 -55
5530 Poplarville 2,135 2,114 1 27 53 -96 -49
5320 Starkville 4,111 4,108 0 27 64 -137 -58
4821 Amory 1,803 1,819 -1 17 48 -182 -65
1900 Franklin County 1,718 1,733 -1 35 64 -83 -45
2220 Grenada 4,539 4,583 -1 25 60 -140 -58
2900 Itawamba County 3,676 3,708 -1 13 43 -231 -70
5412 South Panola 4,539 4,577 -1 28 66 -136 -58
2000 George County 4,011 4,084 -2 24 46 -92 -48
8113 Water Valley 1,318 1,347 -2 32 56 -75 -43
5920 Baldwyn 1,009 1,035 -3 21 52 -148 -60
4300 Lincoln County 2,696 2,786 -3 22 44 -100 -50
4111 Nettleton 1,351 1,392 -3 21 53 -152 -60
7011 North Tippah 1,290 1,332 -3 29 50 -72 -42
5131 Union City 793 814 -3 27 50 -85 -46
200 Alcorn 3,634 3,800 -4 16 44 -175 -64
2400 Harrison County 12,181 12,657 -4 21 50 -138 -58
613 North Bolivar 1,041 1,089 -4 56 97 -73 -42
6500 Smith County 3,026 3,146 -4 27 56 -107 -52
7012 South Tippah 2,671 2,817 -5 19 47 -147 -60
6600 Stone County 2,528 2,650 -5 34 50 -47 -32
7100 Tishomingo Co 3,028 3,201 -5 20 46 -130 -57
7300 Union County 2,475 2,602 -5 14 37 -164 -62
1800 Forrest County 2,405 2,546 -6 16 57 -256 -72
4500 Madison 8,130 8,634 -6 18 40 -122 -55
5800 Pontotoc County 2,751 2,920 -6 18 35 -94 -49
1700 DeSoto County 17,611 18,909 -7 11 35 -218 -69
6220 Forest City 1,692 1,814 -7 34 67 -97 -49
7320 New Albany 1,886 2,028 -7 22 48 -118 -54
420 Kosciusko 1,981 2,158 -8 31 61 -97 -49
4100 Lee County 5,442 5,945 -8 20 50 -150 -60
4800 Monroe County 2,439 2,653 -8 13 38 -192 -66
5711 North Pike 1,495 1,622 -8 19 50 -163 -62
6200 Scott County 3,590 3,913 -8 25 64 -156 -61
3700 Lamar County 6,007 6,570 -9 23 31 -35 -26
4400 Lowndes County 5,074 5,602 -9 25 55 -120 -55
5100 Newton County 1,478 1,634 -10 27 46 -70 -41
3021 Ocean Springs 4,354 4,851 -10 14 24 -71 -42
3620 Oxford 2,725 3,031 -10 18 64 -256 -72
5500 Pearl River 2,273 2,533 -10 26 51 -96 -49
2500 Hinds County 5,307 5,969 -11 29 55 -90 -47
5620 Richton 849 952 -11 30 51 -70 -41
3300 Jeff.Davis Co 2,130 2,414 -12 44 87 -98 -49
4920 Winona 1,310 1,481 -12 36 59 -64 -39
8220 Yazoo City 2,825 3,201 -12 51 89 -75 -43
1821 Petal 3,248 3,737 -13 16 32 -100 -50
5820 Pontotoc City 1,928 2,220 -13 19 43 -126 -56
2300 Hancock County 3,558 4,134 -14 25 57 -128 -56
3000 Jackson County 7,140 8,498 -16 13 35 -169 -63
1211 Enterprise 675 870 -22 14 37 -164 -62
6920 Senatobia 1,289 1,708 -25 24 46 -92 -48
5921 Booneville 830 1,622 -49 19 46 -142 -59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX C.--SORTED BY PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE IN PROVERTY RATE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diff as USDE/ Diff as Diff as
DIST District name USDE/N517 K-12/ percent percent Percent percent percent
Enrol of enrol pov FL partic USDE pov FL part
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3700 Lamar County 6,007 6,570 -9 23 31 -35 -26
6600 Stone County 2,528 2,650 -5 34 50 -47 -32
2620 Durant 670 621 8 51 83 -63 -39
4920 Winona 1,310 1,481 -12 36 59 -64 -39
612 Benoit 477 300 59 55 94 -71 -41
7400 Walthall Co 3,279 2,777 18 44 74 -68 -41
5100 Newton County 1,478 1,634 -10 27 46 -70 -41
5620 Richton 849 952 -11 30 51 -70 -41
2600 Holmes County 4,616 4,088 13 56 97 -73 -42
7011 North Tippah 1,290 1,332 -3 29 50 -72 -42
613 North Bolivar 1,041 1,089 -4 56 97 -73 -42
3021 Ocean Springs 4,354 4,851 -10 14 24 -71 -42
611 West Bolivar 1,475 1,401 5 53 93 -75 -43
8113 Water Valley 1,318 1,347 -2 32 56 -75 -43
8220 Yazoo City 2,825 3,201 -12 51 89 -75 -43
6700 Sunflower County 2,904 2,156 35 49 87 -78 -44
1400 Coahoma County 2,648 2,032 30 53 94 -77 -44
220 Corinth 2,328 1,722 35 32 58 -81 -45
6312 South Delta 2,030 1,638 24 52 95 -83 -45
1900 Franklin County 1,718 1,733 -1 35 64 -83 -45
6000 Quitman County 2,320 1,748 33 48 89 -85 -46
7611 Hollandale 1,343 1,188 13 50 93 -86 -46
5131 Union City 793 814 -3 27 50 -85 -46
5000 Neshoba County 4,113 2,879 43 24 45 -88 -47
4320 Brookhaven 3,865 3,218 20 31 59 -90 -47
5900 Prentiss County 2,905 2,453 18 26 49 -88 -47
5020 Philadelphia 1,472 1,275 15 33 62 -88 -47
7900 Wilkinson Co 1,962 1,726 14 47 89 -89 -47
3711 Lumberton 1,116 991 13 37 70 -89 -47
6812 West Tallahatchie 1,611 1,447 11 49 92 -88 -47
2500 Hinds County 5,307 5,969 -11 29 55 -90 -47
4620 Columbia 2,263 1,849 22 33 63 -91 -48
1420 Clarksdale 4,931 4,175 18 41 79 -93 -48
4220 Greenwood 4,267 3,864 10 44 85 -93 -48
2000 George County 4,011 4,084 -2 24 46 -92 -48
6920 Senatobia 1,289 1,708 -25 24 46 -92 -48
8200 Yazoo County 2,968 1,701 74 38 75 -97 -49
5720 McComb 3,726 2,992 25 41 80 -95 -49
5712 South Pike 3,095 2,576 20 41 81 -98 -49
616 Mound Bayou 1,032 882 17 47 93 -98 -49
7700 Wayne County 4,448 4,069 9 35 68 -94 -49
615 Shaw 915 847 8 47 93 -98 -49
7200 Tunica County 2,133 1,999 7 44 86 -95 -49
6721 Indianola 3,284 3,196 3 42 83 -98 -49
5530 Poplarville 2,135 2,114 1 27 53 -96 -49
5800 Pontotoc County 2,751 2,920 -6 18 35 -94 -49
6220 Forest City 1,692 1,814 -7 34 67 -97 -49
420 Kosciusko 1,981 2,158 -8 31 61 -97 -49
5500 Pearl River 2,273 2,533 -10 26 51 -96 -49
3300 Jeff.Davis Co 2,130 2,414 -12 44 87 -98 -49
7612 Leland 2,109 1,471 43 43 86 -100 -50
2420 Biloxi 7,983 6,096 31 29 58 -100 -50
7800 Webster County 2,064 2,017 2 25 50 -100 -50
4300 Lincoln County 2,696 2,786 -3 22 44 -100 -50
1821 Petal 3,248 3,737 -13 16 32 -100 -50
7620 Greenville 9,580 7,811 23 42 85 -102 -51
2700 Humpreys County 2,876 2,334 23 47 95 -102 -51
5200 Noxubee County 2,901 2,354 23 44 89 -102 -51
4200 Leflore County 4,024 3,047 32 44 92 -109 -52
3420 Laurel 3,645 3,338 9 38 79 -108 -52
6500 Smith County 3,026 3,146 -4 27 56 -107 -52
5411 North Panola 2,807 2,080 35 42 89 -112 -53
4600 Marion County 3,571 2,976 20 35 74 -111 -53
3022 Pascagoula 8,983 7,489 20 25 53 -112 -53
614 Cleveland 4,683 3,979 18 35 74 -111 -53
8111 Coffeeville 1,095 856 28 37 80 -116 -54
8020 Louisville 4,123 3,420 21 33 72 -118 -54
1500 Copiah County 3,733 3,225 16 32 70 -119 -54
3820 Meridian 7,990 7,129 12 35 76 -117 -54
3400 Jones County 8,742 7,918 10 23 50 -117 -54
7320 New Albany 1,886 2,028 -7 22 48 -118 -54
2320 Bay St. Louis 3,723 2,416 54 25 55 -120 -55
5600 Perry County 1,801 1,409 28 30 66 -120 -55
4000 Leake County 3,947 3,143 26 30 67 -123 -55
6720 Drew 1,133 924 23 39 86 -121 -55
3900 Lawrence Co 2,822 2,437 16 27 60 -122 -55
1000 Choctaw County 2,052 1,929 6 29 64 -121 -55
2423 Pass Christian 1,810 1,788 1 23 51 -122 -55
4500 Madison 8,130 8,634 -6 18 40 -122 -55
4400 Lowndes County 5,074 5,602 -9 25 55 -120 -55
6811 East Tallahatchie 1,885 1,643 15 34 77 -126 -56
5520 Picayune 4,506 3,920 15 27 61 -126 -56
2521 Clinton 5,198 4,933 5 15 34 -127 -56
5820 Pontotoc City 1,928 2,220 -13 19 43 -126 -56
2300 Hancock County 3,558 4,134 -14 25 57 -128 -56
4420 Columbus 7,206 5,384 34 30 69 -130 -57
2421 Gulfport 7,421 6,778 9 26 61 -135 -57
7100 Tishomingo Co 3,028 3,201 -5 20 46 -130 -57
4520 Canton 5,524 3,737 48 39 93 -138 -58
5300 Oktibbeha Co 2,082 1,420 47 34 81 -138 -58
4700 Marshall County 4,296 3,364 28 33 78 -136 -58
4820 Aberdeen 2,569 2,169 18 33 79 -139 -58
2520 Jackson Public 37,019 31,594 17 31 74 -139 -58
2422 Long Beach 3,841 3,616 6 15 36 -140 -58
3800 Lauderdale Co 6,911 6,715 3 19 45 -137 -58
5320 Starkville 4,111 4,108 ......... 27 64 -137 -58
2220 Grenada 4,539 4,583 -1 25 60 -140 -58
5412 South Panola 4,539 4,577 -1 28 66 -136 -58
2400 Harrison County 12,181 12,657 -4 21 50 -138 -58
1820 Hattiesburg 7,846 5,108 54 33 81 -145 -59
130 Natchez-Adams 6,997 5,180 35 35 86 -146 -59
2100 Greene County 2,479 1,955 27 28 69 -146 -59
1212 Quitman 3,027 2,593 17 25 61 -144 -59
3112 West Jasper 2,125 1,864 14 28 69 -146 -59
1320 West Point 4,115 3,773 9 31 75 -142 -59
5921 Booneville 830 1,622 -49 19 46 -142 -59
3200 Jefferson Co 3,139 1,731 81 38 96 -153 -60
4900 Montgomery Co 1,223 693 76 32 80 -150 -60
4720 Holly Springs 2,428 1,820 33 33 82 -148 -60
6400 Simpson County 5,342 4,507 19 27 67 -148 -60
5920 Baldwyn 1,009 1,035 -3 21 52 -148 -60
4111 Nettleton 1,351 1,392 -3 21 53 -152 -60
7012 South Tippah 2,671 2,817 -5 19 47 -147 -60
4100 Lee County 5,442 5,945 -8 20 50 -150 -60
1100 Claiborne County 2,388 2,011 19 36 93 -158 -61
7500 Vicksburg-Warren 10,520 9,207 14 24 61 -154 -61
6900 Tate County 3,470 3,278 6 24 62 -158 -61
6100 Rankin County 15,699 15,028 4 13 33 -154 -61
6200 Scott County 3,590 3,913 -8 25 64 -156 -61
500 Benton County 1,739 1,291 35 33 86 -161 -62
1520 Hazlehurst City 2,332 1,818 28 33 86 -161 -62
400 Attala County 1,602 1,367 17 30 78 -160 -62
920 Houston Separate 2,062 1,941 6 23 61 -165 -62
1600 Covington County 3,778 3,601 5 29 77 -166 -62
7300 Union County 2,475 2,602 -5 14 37 -164 -62
5711 North Pike 1,495 1,622 -8 19 50 -163 -62
1211 Enterprise 675 870 -22 14 37 -164 -62
700 Calhoun County 2,789 2,509 11 24 65 -171 -63
3000 Jackson County 7,140 8,498 -16 13 35 -169 -63
7613 Western Line 2,763 2,386 16 27 75 -178 -64
200 Alcorn 3,634 3,800 -4 16 44 -175 -64
300 Amite County 2,845 1,650 72 29 84 -190 -65
3020 Moss Point 6,420 5,233 23 24 68 -183 -65
4821 Amory 1,803 1,819 -1 17 48 -182 -65
5130 Newton City 2,168 1,212 79 22 65 -195 -66
3500 Kemper County 2,206 1,424 55 29 85 -193 -66
3600 Lafayette Co 2,354 2,073 14 17 50 -194 -66
6120 Pearl 4,737 4,144 14 13 38 -192 -66
4800 Monroe County 2,439 2,653 -8 13 38 -192 -66
3111 East Jasper 1,767 1,300 36 28 86 -207 -67
1300 Clay County 661 272 143 30 93 -210 -68
800 Carroll County 2,014 1,270 59 24 76 -217 -68
1700 DeSoto County 17,611 18,909 -7 11 35 -218 -69
2900 Itawamba County 3,676 3,708 -1 13 43 -231 -70
4120 Tupelo 7,625 7,476 2 15 51 -240 -71
921 Okolona Separate 1,272 940 35 24 85 -254 -72
1800 Forrest County 2,405 2,546 -6 16 57 -256 -72
3620 Oxford 2,725 3,031 -10 18 64 -256 -72
900 Chickasaw County 537 530 1 15 64 -327 -77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Clerk's Note.--Additional material submitted is being retained in
the subcommittee files.]
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Cochran. Let me say, again, thank you to all of you
and to my staff, Ann Copland and others, Win Ellington, who's
here, Rachel Spence, and Mark Laisch is the staff member of the
subcommittee who works directly for Senator Specter, who's
chairman of the subcommittee, who's here and has been helpful
to us, as well. Thank you all for attending.
Thank you all very much for being here, that concludes our
hearing. The subcommittee will stand in recess subject to the
call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 11:03 a.m., Friday, April 20, the hearing
was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
-